Transcript of WikiLeaks Press Conference on Edward Snowden’s Exit From Hong Kong

7/28/2019 Transcript of WikiLeaks Press Conference on Edward Snowden’s Exit From Hong Kong

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transcript-of-wikileaks-press-conference-on-edward-snowdens-exit-from-hong 1/30

WIKILEAKS PRESS CONFERENCE06/24/13

10:00 am ET

WIKILEAKS PRESS CONFERENCEON EDWARD SNOWDEN'S EXIT FROM HONG KONG

06/24/13

10:00 am ET

Operator: Welcome to today’s program. At this time, all participants are in a listen-

only mode. You may register to ask a question by pressing * and 1 on your

touchtone phone. We’ll take questions in turn during our Q&A session.

Please note today’s call is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to

introduce Trevor Fitzgibbon. Please begin.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Hey, thanks everybody for joining the call. Sorry, we’re getting started a

little late. There were some journalists getting on. I just want to briefly let

you know who is going to be speaking today. First of all, we’re going to

have Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights as well as

the U.S. attorney for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, will be our first

speaker. Second speaker will be Julian Assange, the founder of

WikiLeaks. The third speaker is going to be either Jen Robinson, who is a

human rights attorney as well as a legal adviser to WikiLeaks, as well as

Kristinn Hrafnsson who is the WikiLeaks press spokesperson. After each

person’s speech – and they’re going to speak fairly quickly just to provide

enough data and make some key points – we will immediately open it up

to Q&A and the operator will prompt you to be able to ask a question.

Without further ado, I would like to hand it over to Michael Ratner, who is

the President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as the U.S.

attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Michael?

Michael Ratner: Thank you and it’s good to be with you. I just wanted to discuss a few of

the legal issues before we hear from Julian and others. The first is the

issue of the application that has apparently been made by Edward

Snowden for asylum from Ecuador. Minister Patino has talked about that

in the recent press conferences, as well as mentioned it, but the Center for

Constitutional Rights actually did some work on the initial application for




10:00 am ET

asylum by Julian Assange when he was applying to Ecuador, and

something that I think most people don’t realize is that under the Refugee

Convention, whistleblowers is an activity – or rather, are people who are

protected by the Refugee Convention under the idea that they’re being

persecuted for political opinion. The Refugee Convention protects people

who are being persecuted for political opinion. Whistleblower activities

come within that. The United States itself has recognized that. It has

protected people from China, from other countries in Africa, who are

whistleblowers on their own government’s criminality, on their own

government’s corruption. So it’s surprising to me now – although maybenot surprising in this case – to see the United States really ignoring that

and trying to interfere with an application for asylum by a person who has

been a, who is a clear whistleblower with regard to the activities of the

U.S. government and other governments in the world. I want to make that

strong point that people should understand, that whistleblowing and the

protection under the Refugee Convention also trumps any efforts to

extradite Edward Snowden. If it’s for the same crime, their alleged crime

that they’re trying to extradite him for, it’s the very act that he is protected

for under the laws of the Refugee Convention and asylum.

A second part of that is that there’s supposed to be a non-interference with

efforts to gain political asylum. The U.S. is doing everything to interfere

with that effort. They’re bullying countries all over the world, even though

they have no basis for doing so, bullying them to try and essentially get Ed

Snowden rendered to the United States where he can be prosecuted for the

alleged crimes that they’re trying to prosecute him for.

There’s no basis for that. There’s no international legal arrest warrant that

we know of. The crimes are classic political crimes under any extradition

treaty, and so that effort is really an effort by a big country to bully other

countries ‒ the biggest country to say, “Send him here,” ‒ when there’s




10:00 am ET

actually no legal basis for it. He’s not a fugitive in any sense of the word.

As I said, there’s no arrest warrant. A third point, which I just will

reiterate, is that asylum trumps extradition, and a fourth point is that what

we should be discussing ‒ unlike what seems to be the attention primarily

right now, is that where is Ed Snowden? What country is he going to? ‒ is

the massive surveillance system that is being carried out by the United

States, the UK, and perhaps other countries all over the world, and the

violation of rights of people all over the world, the narrow rights or the

rights of – first, they’re hacking into everybody’s computers all over the

world and the internet, etcetera, all over the world. There are violations ofthat, violations of all of our rights to privacy, violations in my view on this

massive scale of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States, violations of all kinds of statutes. So we’re seeing a discussion ‒

rather than of the violations of law of the massive invasion of all of our

privacy ‒ what we’re seeing is looking at the person who is the

whistleblower rather than really discussing what we should be discussing

‒ a massive worldwide surveillance system. So thank you. I just wanted to

make sure you understand that there’s a significant and important legal

basis for Ed Snowden’s application for asylum.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thanks very much, Michael. With that, we’ll turn it over to Julian

Assange. Julian?

Julian Assange: Thank you. Edward Snowden left Hong Kong on the 23rd of June, bound

for Ecuador via a safe path through Russia and other states. Mr. Snowden

has submitted an asylum application to Ecuador and possibly to other

countries. The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Patino has said that the

asylum application is being carefully considered. Mr. Snowden requested

that WikiLeaks use its legal expertise and experience to secure his safety.

The current status of Mr. Snowden and Ms. Harrison ‒ both are healthy

and safe. Both are healthy and safe and they are in contact with their legal




10:00 am ET

team. I cannot give further information as to their whereabouts or present

circumstances, other than to say that the matter is in hand.

Today, we have seen a range of extreme bellicose statements from the

U.S. Administration attempting to bully Russia and other nations from

facilitating Mr. Snowden’s asylum. Every person has the right to seek and

receive political asylum. Those rights are enshrined in United Nations’

agreements of which the United States is a party. It is counter-productive

and unacceptable for the Obama Administration to try to interfere with

those rights. It reflects poorly on the U.S. Administration, and no self-

respecting country would submit to such interference or such bullying by

the U.S. in this manner. This morning, the U.S. Secretary of State called

Edward Snowden a traitor. Edward Snowden is not a traitor. He is not a

spy. He is a whistleblower who has told the public an important truth. The

U.S. Secretary of State is wrong in law. A traitor must adhere to U.S.

enemies and there’s also a requirement that the conduct is in

Congressionally-approved wartime, neither of these feature here.

The Obama Administration was not given a mandate by the people of the

United States to hack and spy upon the entire world, to breach the U.S.

Constitution and the laws of other nations in the manner that it has. To

now attempt to violate international asylum law by calling for the

rendition of Edward Snowden, further demonstrates the breakdown in the

rule of law by the Obama Administration, which has sadly become

familiar to so many. Let us not forget that today, while Edward Snowden

is seeking asylum, the young soldier Bradley Manning is on trial for

telling us the truth. Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, unfortunately,

are not anomalies. Their prosecution is part of a pattern of misconduct, a

part of the Obama Administration's war on whistleblowers.

The use of the 1917 Espionage Act against journalistic sources by the

Obama Administration must be condemned. The Obama Administration




10:00 am ET

has now pursued eight journalistic sources using the Espionage Act ‒ that

is more than twice of all previous presidents combined, stemming back to

1917. The Obama Administration hopes to erect a new interpretation of

law, which defines journalistic sources as spies, and that is not acceptable.

If such a precedent is permitted, it will result in the complete destruction

of national security journalism within the United States, and already

serious national security journalists are speaking about how their

government sources are too scared to reveal government misconduct in a

national security sphere. That’s an extremely serious matter at the same

time as the national security sector of the United States is increasing itsshare of the U.S. tax burden and at the same time where unprecedented

levels of criminality and abuse are being uncovered. It seeks to weaken the

press, which is the only effective mechanism of bringing it to account.

In the Obama Administration’s attempt to crush these young

whistleblowers with espionage charges, the U.S. government is taking on

a young generation of people who find the mass violation of the rights of

privacy and open process unacceptable. In taking on a generation, the

Obama Administration can only lose. Pursuing Edward Snowden and

pursuing Bradley Manning is not the way to fix the weaknesses of law and

process in the United States. The only way to fix these are to change the

policies, to stop spying on the world, to eradicate secret law, to cease

indefinite detention without trial, to stop the Obama Administration’s

assassination program, to stop invading other countries and sending young

Americans off to kill and be killed. It is these problems which is

stimulating national security whistleblowers to come forward. The Obama

Administration doesn’t want government sources to speak to the press. It

should stop engaging in conduct which is so outrageous as to cause them

to come forward. The charging of Edward Snowden is not a matter of

justice, it is an attempt to intimidate any country that might be considering

standing up for his rights to tell us all the truth. Such behavior must not be




10:00 am ET

tolerated and will not be tolerated by any self-respecting nation or by the

press at large. Everyone should tell their governments to step forward and

assist Mr. Snowden in his asylum, and the press also has an obligation to

do so. That’s it from me.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay. Thanks so much, Julian. Did Kristinn make it on the call? If not…

Kristinn Hrafnsson: Yes, I’m here.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay. Kristinn, I’d like to turn it to you. Kristinn Hrafnsson – and the

spelling of your last name is H-R-A-F-N-S-S-O-N – and he is WikiLeaks

official press spokesperson. Kristinn, I’d like to turn it over to you, and

then we’re going to hear from Jen Robinson afterwards and then we’ll

open it up for questions. Kristinn?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: Thank you. My addition will be a brief one. Obviously, it’s fairly well

known, I think, today what WikiLeaks did with regard to Mr. Snowden is

to connect the legal teams together and assist in his process in seeking for

an asylum and secondly, I think, as a go-between carrying the requests andmessages to officials in government. It’s already public, of course, that I

as a journalist did approach the Icelandic government with a formal

request from Mr. Snowden for political asylum in Iceland, and similar

processes were carried out elsewhere. I just want to echo what Michael

Ratner said in the beginning that he hoped that journalists will not lose the

focus on the real important story here, which is of course the incredibly

important revelations that Mr. Snowden has offered to the world. It is of

such a scale that it is, of course, shocking the world, and it calls for a deep

analysis and a demand for answers and accountability on behalf of the

government. It is, of course, outrageous that a person that exposes mass

spying on not just U.S. individuals but the population of the world should

be charged with espionage and called a spy. That is Kafkaesque in nature.

That is all for me at the moment.




10:00 am ET

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Excellent. Thank you so much. Finally, I’d like to turn it over to Jen

Robinson, who is a human rights attorney and a legal adviser to

WikiLeaks who is based in London. Jen?

Jen Robinson: Thanks, Trevor. I’ll also be brief but in the context of Snowden’s asylum

application, we want to emphasize the importance of Bradley Manning’s

case, whose court martial continues in Fort Meade this week. Snowden

himself, in choosing to leave the United States in order to blow the whistle

on NSA’s mass surveillance program, cited the treatment of Bradley

Manning and his assessment that he would not receive a fair hearing

before U.S. justice. It’s also important to note, too, that the treatment of

Bradley Manning was key in the asylum application made by Julian

Assange to the Ecuadorian government that was successful. We should

remember that Bradley Manning spent more than 1,000 days in pretrial

confinement in conditions that the UN Special Rapporteur Juan Mendez

found amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, and possibly torture.

He is currently facing court martial for a range of charges, the most

serious of which is aiding the enemy, which of course attracts the death

penalty, and he is facing life in prison.

It is clear from the legal strategy and the case theory being put forward by

the United States prosecutors that they are attempting to make the case

that Assange conspired with Manning to publish ‒ a theory that threatens,

has frightening consequences to, the First Amendment and a theory that

can be applied to all the press and all of those who published the

WikiLeaks material.

As we’ve said from the outset since Eric Holder announced the criminal

investigation into WikiLeaks, an investigation that is the most serious,

large and complicated investigation into journalists, publishers and their

sources in history, that this would have ramifications for all of the press

and, as the U.S. prosecutors confirmed in the Bradley Manning




10:00 am ET

proceedings, it makes no difference whether this was WikiLeaks or the

New York Times.

As James Goodale, the Pentagon Papers counsel for the New York Times,

himself pointed out just last week, Obama and his Administration are

attempting to make news gathering organizations and reporters criminally

liable for what they do in gathering the news. We have seen the

implications of the criminal investigation into WikiLeaks in the treatment

now of journalists with the mainstream media, including Rosen with Fox

News and most recently with the line of questioning adopted by David

Gregory towards Glenn Greenwald in relation to the Snowden matter,

asking him why shouldn’t he be charged with the crime for simply

receiving and reporting those materials. These have grave implications for

all of the press and it’s important that we remember the implications of

Bradley Manning.

Thanks, Trevor.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay. Operator, we’d like to turn it over for some questions from

journalists. Thank you.

Operator: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, you can do so by pressing * and 1.

We have several questions in queue. We can go first to the line of Mark

Hosenball from Reuters. Your line is open.

Mark Hosenball: Hello. How are you doing? The question I have is to what extent has

WikiLeaks either acquired or is it seeking to acquire any of the materials

that Mr. Snowden has acquired and made available to The Guardian and

the Washington Post, and to what extent would WikiLeaks do anything

with such materials? For Julian Assange.

Julian Assange: Hi, Mark. That’s a sourcing matter, so as a matter of policy…




10:00 am ET

Mark Hosenball: Sorry?

Julian Assange: That is a sourcing matter so as a matter of policy, I can’t speak about it. Inrelation to publishing such material, of course, WikiLeaks is in the

business of publishing documents that are suppressed by governments.

Mark Hosenball: Is WikiLeaks in the position technically to be able to put out stuff because

you have some technical difficulties?

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks has no problem publishing material. We’ve published over a

million documents in the last 12 months.

Mark Hosenball: Okay.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thank you. Next question?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Andrea Mitchell with NBC News. Your line is

open.

Andrea Mitchell: Thank you very much. Mr. Assange, can you tell us whether you believe

that as a whistleblower, as you define him, that Snowden could have opted

to go to Congress or to the Inspector General? Why did he go to Hong

Kong, in particular, and now presumably he is still in Moscow?

Julian Assange: It is clear that Mr. Snowden is a whistleblower by all his actions. The

content both of his actions, communicating immediately with the press

about matters of serious criminality; in fact, affecting all of us. Contrary to

the less-informed opinions that appeared early on saying that Mr.

Snowden was a spy for China, clearly we see that is not the case. If it was,

he would’ve stayed in Hong Kong. Yes.

Andrea Mitchell: Do you think he could still come forward and make his case in the United

States or elsewhere as a whistleblower, as you’ve defined him?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: Sorry. The internal factors. Mr. Snowden has spoken about Thomas Drake

- another National Security Agency whistleblower who used every

conceivable internal mechanism only to be prosecuted for espionage.

Similarly, an NSA whistleblower, William Binney, has spoken about how

internal mechanisms simply serve to identify a whistleblower within an

organization and marginalize or prosecute them before they are effective.

Andrea Mitchell: Thank you.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Andrea, this is Trevor. I would also say that you may want to connect with

Jesselyn Radack on that because she has a really good take on that, how

many whistleblowers have gone through the process. Well, actually, the

government ends up using it against them. So she’d be a good person for

you to get in touch with, and I can help you do that after the call, if you

like.

Andrea Mitchell: Thanks, Trevor. Yes.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Next question?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Michael Isikoff with NBC News. Your line is

open.

Michael Isikoff: Yes. First of all, questions to all of you. Can any of you shed any light on

where Mr. Snowden actually is as we speak? Then secondly, for Mr.

Ratner, I think you indicated that you have helped with his asylum

applications. How many applications and are you also assisting with his

legal defense into the Justice Department charges? First, where Mr.

Snowden actually is at the moment?

Julian Assange: I can respond to that. We are aware of where Mr. Snowden is. He is in a

safe place and his spirits are high. Due to the bellicose threats coming




10:00 am ET

from the U.S. Administration, we cannot go into further details at this

time.

Michael Ratner: This is Michael Ratner. Can you hear?

Michael Isikoff: Can you say what country he’s in? Or just follow up. Can you tell us what

country he’s in right now?

Julian Assange: Unfortunately, we cannot reveal what country he is in at this time.

Michael Isikoff: Mr. Ratner?

Michael Ratner: Okay. Michael, I’m sorry. I have a bad connection so I probably wasn’t

heard well. As they’ve said, the Center for Constitutional Rights and

myself represent Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the U.S. We don’t

represent Edward Snowden. What I was referring to is the work we did

when Julian Assange applied for asylum with Ecuador is we looked at the

Refugee Convention and found that whistleblowers do have protection for

whistleblowing under the Refugee Convention as a form of political

opinion. Countries around the world recognize that. [sound breaks up] is

that that principle applies [sound breaks up].

Michael Isikoff: You’re breaking up, Michael. Yes.

Michael Ratner: That principle applies four-square to Edward Snowden’s application

[unintelligible]…

Michael Isikoff: And maybe I misunderstood your earlier remarks, but did you assist with

Edward Snowden’s asylum applications?

Julian Assange: Perhaps I can answer that. The WikiLeaks legal team did assist with Mr.

Snowden’s application and its drafting as we have significant experience

in drafting such an application, having gone through the process already

for me.




10:00 am ET

Michael Isikoff: That includes the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael's group?

Michael Ratner: No, I can answer that. It did not.

Michael Isikoff: Oh, it did not? Okay.

Michael Ratner: No.

Michael Isikoff: I’m sorry.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Ok, next question.

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Scott Shane with New York Times. Your line

is open.

Scott Shane: Hi. My question is I guess directed at Julian Assange and Michael Ratner.

Just to clarify, what aspects of the NSA surveillance do you object to?

Much of the criticism is focused on the phone metadata collection in the

United States and the false statement of the Director of National

Intelligence about that, and the question of invading Americans’ privacy.

Do you, either of you, separately object to the idea that a country, whether

it’s the United States or Russia or China or any other country, uses these

systems to spy on other countries - in other words, intercept foreign

communications, whether it is terrorist groups or foreign diplomats or any

other kind of foreign target because, of course, traditionally for decades

now, all the countries that are capable of doing that kind of spying do it.

So, that’s just to clarify. I’m asking you whether you object only to

violations of Americans’ privacy by the NSA, or do you object to the

whole concept that any country should go and spy on other countries?

Julian Assange: Michael?

Michael Ratner: Julian, why don’t you start with that?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: Okay. There are not multiple types of human beings, American human

beings and other human beings. There’s only one type of human being in

this world, and that’s why we speak about human rights. The UN

Conventions, which United States is a party to, protect human rights but if

we ‒ and the National Security Agency has been violating them en masse

‒ which is not a matter of the U.S. targeting terrorist groups ‒ everyone,

of course, would find that to be acceptable. It is conducting at least 1.7

billion interceptions per day and it is doing so en masse. It is hacking into

the civilian infrastructure of countries with which it is not at war, and in

that, it is violating the rights of organizations, governments andindividuals.

To my way of thinking, there is a larger, more significant political

problem, which is when an organization like the National Security Agency

has intercepted nearly the entire world’s communications at such scale and

is storing it, indexing it, processing it, it leads to a concentration of power

which is so dangerous that it must not be tolerated. The National Security

Agency whistleblower William Binney has referred to this as “turnkey

totalitarianism” where the infrastructure for an undreamt-of totalitarian

state has been built and it only requires a small shift in the political nature

of the U.S. Administration for that infrastructure to be so badly abused

that even more serious results can come about, both to people of the

United States and to the people of the rest of the world.

Now, one may argue that we are already seeing that. It’s not that we just

have worldwide mass surveillance being conducted by the National

Security Agency but in the process of doing so, the National Security

Agency is violating United Nations agreements, American Law and the

laws of other countries and is doing so in secret. It seems in order to

protect the people involved in that spying from criminal prosecution, the

Obama Administration has further gone on to corrupt the oversight




10:00 am ET

process. While Bush engaged in a much smaller scale abuse of executive

power to encourage some of the telcos like Verizon to submit calling

records en masse to the National Security Agency, Obama has engaged in

a more systematic abuse: corrupting the FISA court into approving orders

which were in law only intended for a limited number of people instead to

apply to the entire population; corrupting the DOJ assessment process of

the law to create secret interpretations of the Patriot Act to provide legal

cover for this mass surveillance process; and corrupting the Senate

Oversight Committees.

So, we have secret courts, the FISA court. We have secret legal

interpretations conducted by the DOJ. We have secret oversight

committees and we have secret action. Everyone knows that any function

of government which is conducted in complete secrecy, including its

oversight committees over a long period of time, inevitably becomes

abusive. That is an inevitable reality and it’s true for every government

that has ever existed.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thank you so much, and Michael, I don’t know if you have anything to

add to that.

Michael Ratner: No. I think we should go on. That’s fine.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Yes. I just want to point out we have about 30 questions in the queue right

now, so I would encourage everybody to try to keep questions and

answers short. Unfortunately, we’re not going to be able to do follow-up

questions so everyone will be able to get one question so we can move

through these as quickly as possible in order to meet all the journalists’

needs. Next question?

Operator: We’ll go next to the site of Raphael Satter with Associated Press. Your

line is open.




10:00 am ET

Raphael Satter: Hi, Julian. Hi, Jen, Kristinn and Mike. Two questions. One is, are you in a

position to name the other countries that Edward has applied for asylum

in? The second question was that there was a report published this

morning in Izvestiya suggesting that Edward was being debriefed by the

GRU and FSB officers from the Russian Intelligence Services. I don’t

know if you’re in a position to talk about that because it speaks to the

credibility of Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, and if he’s in contact

with Russian Intelligence, that ‒ I think that that might be seized upon by

some as evidence that he’s not. So if you could answer those questions, I’d

be grateful.

Julian Assange: In relation to the second question, Mr. Snowden – the report is false.

Raphael Satter: Thanks.

Julian Assange: Can someone else take the first?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: With regard to the first question, it is only reported, of course, that there

was an application for asylum in Iceland and now we know that Ecuadorwas approached, but I think we would refrain from at this point to discuss

other applications or approaches that were made.

Raphael Satter: Okay, so just to be sure that I understood, you said Ecuador and Iceland

but the others you can’t speak about?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: Correct.

Raphael Satter: Okay. Thanks, Kristinn.


Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Anthony Faiola with Washington Post. Your

line is open.




10:00 am ET

Anthony Faiola: Yes, thank you. For Mr. Assange or anyone there. When Snowden left

Hong Kong, can you describe whether he was traveling on a U.S. passport

or some issuance from the Ecuadorian government, and if his passport has

been revoked, how will he travel now?

Julian Assange: The rights of citizenship should not be revocable under the UN

Conventions to which the United States is a party. Citizens must be

permitted to have free movement to enter and to leave their country. No

one wants, when traveling overseas under difficult conditions, to have – to

effectively have their citizenship being revoked by removing its mostimportant instrument: a passport. That unilateral action without any due

process against Mr. Snowden is another example of a secret process

[sound breaks up] the United States [sound breaks up]. In relation to Hong

Kong, Mr. Snowden was supplied with a refugee document of passage by

the Ecuadorian government.

Anthony Faiola: And is that a precursor to approval, or a sign that they would positively

weigh his application for asylum?

Julian Assange: That is, the refugee process has a number of steps and if we look in terms

of rights – that’s UN rights where people have the right to apply, to seek

asylum ‒ and so it’s part of the, an action of the right to seek asylum. It

does not have a legal bearing on whether asylum will be received.

Anthony Faiola: Thank you.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: That’s great. Next question.

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Paul Adams of the BBC. Your line is open.




10:00 am ET

Paul Adams: Yes. Good morning. Thank you very much for this. I wonder, Mr.

Assange, what you make of the obvious irony of seeking the cooperation

of the Chinese and Russian authorities in securing Mr. Snowden’s

freedom given their somewhat problematic relationship with the sorts of

values of privacy and freedom of speech that you hold dear. And if

Edward Snowden ends up in Ecuador, doesn’t the same irony pertain? I

wonder, are you simply involving those countries because they’re happy

to stick one in the eye to the United States rather than upholding those

values that you represent?

Julian Assange: I simply do not see the irony. Mr. Snowden has revealed information

about mass unlawful spying, which has affected every single one of us.

The U.S. Administration has issued a series of bellicose unilateral threats

against him and against others who are attempting to support his rights.

That is a very serious situation, and any country wishing to assist in

upholding his rights must be applauded for doing so.

Paul Adams: Even when they don’t uphold those rights for their own citizens?

Julian Assange: That’s another matter. In these cases, we do not criticize people for

seeking refugee status in the United States despite its use of torture, drone

strikes, secret court processes, executive kill lists, and so on. No one is

suggesting that countries like Ecuador are engaged in those types of abuse.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay, thank you very much. Next question?

Operator: Moving next to the line of Jonathan Tirone with Bloomberg News. Your

line is open.




10:00 am ET

Jonathan Tirone: Thanks. Mr. Assange, would it at least not be desirable for more specific

details of the NSA activities to come out specifically that pertains to

network architecture and actually figuring out whether the NSA would

even be in a position to purge their databases of private information and

therefore to prevent abuses, and, I guess, do you expect that more details

will eventually come out?

Julian Assange: We would like to see much greater detail of the NSA programs. What has

come out so far is the ‒ largely the bird’s-eye view, and that is the most

important way to see what is going on, that it is a global problem; thestatistics of the number of interceptions in March for each country running

into the billions; the mass violations of law that is occurring in London,

with its fiberoptic cable intercepts of the traffic of many different

countries. But I think it is now necessary to move into looking at particular

– specific violations from individual organizations and parliaments and

individuals and also to reveal precisely what other companies have been

coerced or bribed into participating in the National Security Agency

interception program. I believe such information is likely to appear.

Jonathan Tirone: Thank you.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Ok, next question please.

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Carrie Rabin with CBS News. Your line is

open.

Carrie Rabin: Yes, hi. Can you tell us a little bit about the travel out of Hong Kong? Was

this a normal drive to an airport? Was there any cloak and dagger

involved? Also, I know you can’t tell us where Mr. Snowden is, but can




10:00 am ET

you tell us if his travel plans have changed? When you mentioned the

bellicose threats to other nations, has that changed his travel plans?

Julian Assange: In relation to the travel out of Hong Kong, that is a fascinating story that

I’m sure will one day would be told, but today is not the day. The Ecuador

– sorry, the Hong Kong government has released a statement saying that

the exit from Hong Kong was legal, and that is in accordance to what we

know. For the security situation, as a result of the U.S. threats, I cannot

speak further about that.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Next question…

Carrie Rabin: You can’t speak further about his travel plans being changed either?

Julian Assange: No.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thanks so much. Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the site of Catherine Herridge with Fox News. Your line

is open.

Catherine Herridge: Thanks for taking my question. First of all, was there any kind of

debriefing or questioning by the Chinese authorities before the exit from

Hong Kong? And can you just speak more broadly as to what other

documents Mr. Snowden has with him and they plan to release? Thank

you.

Julian Assange: In relation to that other question, I cannot speak to that. In relation to the

alleged interaction with the Chinese, as far as I am aware, that is false.




10:00 am ET


Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Kevin Johnson with USA Today. Your line is

open.

Kevin Johnson: Good morning. A couple of questions. One, in trying to guarantee Mr.

Snowden’s safe passage through Russia, what advanced communications

did you all have with Russian officials there to indicate that he was on his

way? And can you tell us who they were? Also, is it Mr. Snowden’s desire

never to come back to the US? I mean, is he essentially gone for good?Thank you.

Julian Assange: [Pause] [Laughter] Yeah, I can’t speak to what Mr. Snowden’s desires are

other than to repeat what he has said; that he is an American and a patriot.

His actions really come about as a result of a concern for the people of the

United States. He has family in the United States, so I'm ‒ I think he

would like very much to return, but that seems unlikely under the present

administration.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: That’s great. Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Matthew Mosk with ABC News. Your line is

open.

Matthew Mosk: Yes, hi. For Mr. Assange, we’ve heard that Mr. Snowden has a great deal

of material in his possession. We’ve heard about four laptops. Have you

offered any advice about how to maintain custody of that material? Are

you concerned about the material he is carrying falling into the hands of

governments whose motives might be different than yours or Mr.

Snowden’s?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: Mr. Snowden’s material has been secured by the relevant journalistic

organizations prior to travel.

Matthew Mosk: Can you elaborate on that at all?

Julian Assange: I’m afraid I cannot.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Miranda Green with The Daily Beast. Your

line is open.

Miranda Green: Yes, thank you. My question is did WikiLeaks pay for Edward Snowden’s

plane ticket, lodging and legal counsel, and if not, who did?

Julian Assange: You broke a couple a little bit during the asking of the question. Can you

repeat?

Miranda Green: Sure, yes. The question I have is, is WikiLeaks responsible for paying for

Edward Snowden’s plane ticket, lodging and legal counsel? To what

extent did you help with that, and if not, who was responsible for helping

him pay for that?

Julian Assange: It is correct. We paid for those arrangements. No government or other

organization assisted.

Miranda Green: And was that from the beginning, when he first arrived in Hong Kong, that

you have been assisting him with that?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: In relation to his lodging in Hong Kong, that is a matter for Mr. Snowden.

But as far as we are aware, the lodging was paid for by Mr. Snowden.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thank you so much. Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Jeanne Whalen from Wall Street Journal. Your

line is open.

Jeanne Whalen: Hi. I just wanted to repeat the question that another fellow asked earlier

that I think Julian didn’t quite answer, which is what advancedcommunications did you have with Russian officials to ensure Snowden

could land there? Can you tell us who they are and how you actually got

contact with them in the first place?

Julian Assange: In relation to Mr. Snowden’s safe passage to asylum, there was no

advanced communication with Russian officials prior to its departure from

Hong Kong.

Jeanne Whalen: So he just landed there without the Russians knowing that he was coming?

Julian Assange: I’ve already answered the question.

Jeanne Whalen: So your answer to that was yes?

Julian Assange: My answer was what it was.


Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Heba Kanso with CBS News. Your line is

open.




10:00 am ET

Heba Kanso: Hi there. This is actually toward Michael Ratner. As an attorney, what do

you see as other possible countries for Assange [sic] to seek asylum in? In

relation to that, too, it could be also Mr. Assange asking or answering this

as well, what are your hopes for Snowden’s future?

Michael Ratner: Right. I actually spoke to this a while ago. Countries that he could apply–

other than Ecuador. This has to be [sound breaks up] in a country that’s

strong enough to stand up against the United States. So it has to be either a

big country that can do it, and the obvious big countries that are out ofChina, Russia. Apparently, those aren’t going to be the countries. The

other countries are those in South America who have been willing to take

an independent stand from the United States: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia,

Argentina, Cuba. That doesn’t mean anything about what he’s done, I just

want to be clear. That’s just speaking directly as to what I’ve seen over the

last few years of countries being willing to stand up to the United States

and not be intimidated by political, military, economic means, which the

United States has tremendous power in those areas.


Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Jane Mayer with New Yorker magazine. Your

line is open.

Jane Mayer: Hi. You’ve used the – referenced the term “rendered” or “renditioned” for

what the United States is trying to do to Snowden.

Julian Assange: That’s correct.




10:00 am ET

Jane Mayer: I wondered, many of us think of that as a particular process. Is there any

evidence that the CIA [crosstalk]…?

Julian Assange: Right. It’s a particular non-process.

Jane Mayer: Non-process, okay. [Laughter] Is there any evidence that the CIA or

special forces or other parts of the United States government have tried to

or are trying to snatch him in some way?

Julian Assange: My comments were in relation to the statements made earlier today by theU.S. Administration calling on, in strong language, on Russia to expel Mr.

Snowden to the United States. In terms of law, that means extradition

without process, which is rendering.

Jane Mayer: Okay.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thanks, Jane. Next question?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Atika Shubert with CNN. Your line is open.

Atika Shubert: Hi. I just wanted to know a little bit more about how WikiLeaks became

involved in this. If you could give us a few more details, I know you said

that Snowden asked for WikiLeaks’ expertise. I’m wondering if we could

ask some more details of how that happened and when it happened

specifically.

Julian Assange: As a result of the security situation, we cannot talk about communications

methods or times.

Atika Shubert: Do we have a – is there any details you can give on when this happened?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: We can’t go into detail with that, either. [Pause] It should be that, you

know, if we lived in a better world, we would be able to go into those

details. Unfortunately, we live in a world as revealed by Mr. Snowden,

where most people's communications are intercepted by the National

Security Agency unlawfully. We also live in a world where – when a

security agency in the United States like the National Security Agency is

exposed and engaging in unlawful conduct, it pulls in other parts of the

U.S. Administration, like the State Department, to enact revenge on those

people who’ve done the public a favor.


Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Courtney Kube with NBC News. Your line is

open.

Courtney Kube: Thank you very much. My question has actually been answered already,

but Mr. Assange, I’m just curious, I know you’ve been reticent on the

conference call here today to talk about any personal communications

between you and Mr. Snowden, but I’m wondering if either to you or to

anyone on your team, has he expressed any regret in coming forward with

his identity before he got to some final location ‒ to you or any of your

colleagues?

Julian Assange: No, he has not. And he has expressed no regret in his decision to reveal

this important information to the public, at any time.

Courtney Kube: I just asked because you, and I think Mr. Ratner, mentioned that since he’s

come forward, that there has been so much attention on where he is, where

he’s going and whatnot. As you said, it’s taken the attention off of what he




10:00 am ET

was attempting to expose here. So I mean in that context, he hasn’t

expressed any kind of regret that the narrative of the story right now is

changed from what he was trying to put into the public’s attention?

Julian Assange: It is not from Mr. Snowden, but I was in a very similar situation just three

years ago where the – where we had unpublished, we had 251,000 U.S.

diplomatic cables that were yet to be published and the various U.S.

intelligence agencies knew that, as did the FBI. In these situations where

there is a perception that – let me rephrase in terms of Snowden so it will

be easier to reprint. In a situation where Mr. Snowden was perceived – Sorry. In a situation where the U.S. government perceived, wrongly or

rightly, that eliminating Mr. Snowden would eliminate the exposure of its

worldwide spying program, the kidnapping or incapacitating of Mr.

Snowden must have been considered. So I believe Mr. Snowden was well-

advised to go public at the time that he did in order to protect his personal

safety and the safety of the journalists involved.

Courtney Kube: Thank you.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Thank you so much. Next question, please? Folks, it’s 11:09 now. We’re

going to go for about five more minutes until 11:15. Next question.

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Carol Cratty with CNN. Your line is open.

Operator: [pause] Again, your line is open. Checking the function, please?

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay, next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to Oren Dorell with USA Today. Your line is open.




10:00 am ET

Oren Dorell: Hi. Thanks for taking this – my call. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Assange,

what is your situation right now? What are your prospects for – I believe

you’re – are you still at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? What are

your prospects for – of getting out of there?

Julian Assange: I have been at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for just over one year;

protected in this embassy by the commitment of the Ecuadorian people, to

which I am grateful. I formally applied for asylum on entry to the embassy

on the 19th of June, 2012 and received political asylum on the 16th of

August, 2012. In relation to the ongoing standoff, it is the Ecuadoriangovernment’s legal analysis ‒ and our legal analysis had the same result ‒

the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations to the UNHCR by

surrounding the embassy with police and refusing my safe passage. The

UK government has admitted publicly that it has spent $10 million on the

surveillance program of me in the embassy in the past one year. Their

figure is £6 million.

Oren Dorell: Okay. So are you expecting to get out of there [crosstalk]…?

Trevor Fitzgibbon: I’m sorry. We have too many questions right now. We need to move on to

the next question. I apologize.

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Danny Kemp with AFP. Your line is open.

Danny Kemp: Hi. This is a question for Mr. Assange. You mentioned earlier about the

fact that the [unintelligible] on the part of the NSA to, and the U.S.

Administration to enact revenge on people who have gone counter to it.

Do you, in helping Mr. Snowden, do you get any sense, any feeling of

satisfaction or feeling of vengeance against the United States given that’s

– given what you believe they’ve done to you over the least three years?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: I have personal sympathy with Mr. Snowden, having lived through a very

similar experience, but the WikiLeaks organization more broadly exists to

defend the practical rights of whistleblowers to bring their information to

the public.

Danny Kemp: Thanks.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay, thank you so much. Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Matthew Sledge with Huffington Post. Your

line is open.

Matthew Sledge: Yes. This question is for Mr. Assange. Is it in Mr. Snowden’s best interest

to kind of bind himself to the WikiLeaks organization in the way that he

seems to be doing?

Julian Assange: Kristinn, do you want to answer that?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: Yes, hello. I don’t think that Mr. Snowden [sound breaks up] and

WikiLeaks [sound breaks up]…

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Kristinn, we can’t hear you.

Kristinn Hrafnsson: Can you hear me now?

Julian Assange: No. No, not really. I’ll answer the question. Mr. Snowden found himself in

a grave situation. He should not have been placed into that situation by the

United States government. He should have felt that the U.S. legal system

would protect his rights. However, his assessment is that it would not,




10:00 am ET

based on the treatment of Bradley Manning, is as far as we are concerned

correct. WikiLeaks has over six years of experience of dealing with threats

to publishing and to whistleblowers, and specifically we have three years

of experience in dealing with precisely an analogous situation to what Mr.

Snowden found himself in.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: That’s great. Next question, please?

Operator: We’ll go next to the line of Larry Abramson with National Public Radio.

Your line is open.

Larry Abramson: Hi. Did you have any contact with Mr. Snowden before he left the U.S.

and were you part of the decision that he made to go to Hong Kong first?

Julian Assange: The question is to Mr. Assange. Is that correct?

Larry Abramson: Yes, please. Thank you.

Julian Assange: I instructed the organization to assist Mr. Snowden, and I cannot go into

further details at this stage.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: One final question, please?

Operator: We’ll go to the line of Jay Newton-Small with TIME magazine. Your line

is open.

Jay Newton-Small: Hi. Two questions. First, what do you say, Mr. Assange, to American

officials who claim that these programs have saved U.S. lives by

preventing terrorism, is it worth it? And, secondly, have you personally

spoken with Mr. Snowden, and if so, how many times?




10:00 am ET

Julian Assange: I just answered the last question. In relation to the first one, the comments

presented to date by the U.S. Administration in its attempt to justify this

worldwide flagrant violation of individual rights and sovereign rights have

been pitiful, and the U.S. press has exposed that many of those attempted

justifications were false, but in the end there remains a question that it is

the governments – in the end, we must understand that it is a basic

principle of – in the end, we must understand that as a basic principle

governments do not have rights. It is their duty to uphold the rights of

citizens. And that includes their rights to privacy, their rights to life, theirrights to be secure in their effects ‒ those rights which are listed under the

US Bill of Rights. In choosing to preference one of those rights above all

others as justification for the U.S. intelligence apparatus's enormous

budgets of power and secrecy, the U.S. Administration is abridging those

other rights, which it is constitutionally mandated to uphold.

Trevor Fitzgibbon: Okay, thanks everybody for joining us on the call. I really appreciate it. I

know we couldn’t get to all the questions, but we tried to get to as many as

possible. Thank you again very much and talk to you soon.

END

Transcript of WikiLeaks Press Conference on Edward Snowden’s Exit From Hong Kong

Documents

Transcript of Transcript of WikiLeaks Press Conference on Edward Snowden’s Exit From Hong Kong