07/09/14 07/09/14 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is democracy now! the same as daniel ellsberg has said, it is not possible for national security whistleblower now in the united states to have a fair trial. >> in the second part of our democracy now! tv radio broadcast exclusive, we go inside the ecuadorian embassy in london to interview wikileaks founder and publisher julian assange. he has just entered his third year inside the embassy were his

political asylum as he faces investigations in both sweden and the united states. what is he wanted for here in the u.s.? among other things, julian assange says -- ,> the release of cablekate u.s. to palmetto cables released all around the world -- the u.s. cables released around the world. largest that is ever been released. >> julian assange also response to former secretary of state hillary clinton's recent comment that nsa whistleblower edward snowden should return to the united states to face a trial. all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the palestinian death toll has surged as israel intensifies its bombing campaign of the gaza strip. palestinians say at least 27 people have been killed and over

150 wanted since israel launched major strikes on sunday. at least 18 civilians, including around seven children, have died over the past day. israel carried out nearly 300 strikes on tuesday with more overnight, sending thousands of palestinians into the streets to avoid attacks on their buildings. one strike killed a leader of the group islamic jihad, along with two children and two women who are in his home. israel says it is responding to the latest round of palestinian rocket fire that began after the mass israeli raids that followed the kidnapping of three israeli teens last month. palestinian militants in gaza have fired over 100 rockets in a 24-hour span, targeting several towns including jerusalem and tel aviv. missile defense system intercepted rockets heading for tel aviv, where a state of emergency was declared. thousands of israelis have fled to shelters in southern towns near gaza. two israelis have been reported

injured from the rockets so far. the israeli cabinet has approved the option of calling up nearly 40,000 army reservists for potential ground invasion of gaza. minister said israel is preparing for a lengthy battle. >> we are now in a situation in provoked andas launched rockets against israeli civilians. so by one way or another, we're going to stop hamas. either by charging them a heavy price or by launching any kind of offensive measures by air, background, or whatever in order to stop them. >> palestinians have argued israel sparked the escalation with last month's raids and other deadly attacks on the occupied territories throughout the year. according to the website

electronic intifada, israel had killed 31 palestinians before the latest violent flareup in gaza, bringing the year's overall toll to around 60. on tuesday, palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas made an appeal for international protection of the post in the people. >> what is happening in the gaza strip, the west bank, in east jerusalem is not a war between two armies. arepalestinian people unarmed people. people who lived on the occupation. it is time for the international community and especially the quartet in the security council to take the responsibility to guarantee the international protection of our people. as the palestinian authority pleaded for international protection, the obama

administration support for israel's military operation in gaza. the white house press secretary spoke on tuesday. >> let me start by saying we strongly condemn the continuing rocket fire into israel and the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorist organizations in gaza. no country can except rocket fire aimed at civilians, and we support israel's right to defend itself against these vicious attacks. >> today's is the 10th anniversary of the international court of a justice advisory ruling that said israel's separation wall and settlements in the occupied west bank are illegal. you can go to democracynow.org for our coverage of the crisis in israel and the occupied territories from tuesday's broadcast. president obama has asked congress for 3.7 billion dollars to address the migrant crisis in the mexico border. more than 52,000 unaccompanied children fleeing violence and poverty in central america have been seized since october. obama wants the increased funding to pay for detention centers, aerial surveillance, immigration judges, and border agents. the close to $4 billion figure is nearly twice what had been

expected. the obama administration says half the money would go toward improving children's care in u.s. custody. house, press secretary josh earnest said most children will ultimately face to partition. >> by addressing the backlog, we can ensure that those individuals have prompt access to the due process to which they are entitled. it also means as the cases are resolved and as we expect the majority of those cases, there will not be a basis for those individuals to remain in the country and be granted humanitarian relief. we expect homeland security secretary will be able to exercise additional discretion that would allow him to repatriate those individuals officially. >> as the white house vows to speed up the deportation of migrant children, united nations officials are calling for most of them to be accepted into the u.s. as refugees. a report by the u.s. high commissioner for refugees in march found 58% of unaccompanied children to tame by the u.s. could be entitled to refugee

protections under international law. the u.n. renewed the call ahead of a meeting thursday between u.s., mexico, and central american countries in nicaragua. the agenda includes updating a 30 year old declaration on state obligations to aid refugees. the u.s. andys -- " mexico should recognize this is a refugee situation, which implies that children should not be automatically sent to their home countries but rather receive international protection." president obama is in texas today meeting with republican governor rick terry on the border crisis. in indonesia, jakarta governor joko widodo is coming victory over rival presidential candidate former army general prabowo subianto. officials will not be known until after july 20. the american journalist allan nairn reported this week indonesian forces tied to prabowo have waged a campaign to

rig the election in his favor, including ballot tampering chemistry violence, and threats against rivals. prabowo, trained by the united states, has been accused of masculine 20 headed the indonesian special forces in the 1990's. he was dismissed from the army in 1998 following accusations of complicity in the abduction and torture of activists. allan nairn's reporting became a major issue in the presidential campaign. prabowo has filed, will charges against him including inciting hatred against the indonesian military. will mark the it first transfer power from one elected leader to another. a newly disclosed leaks from edward snowden have identified five innocent americans who were spied on by the nsa. the news website the intercept reports all five were muslim americans. executive director on the council on american islamic relations, the nation's largest muslim civil rights group. a longtime republican party

operative. two professors of rutgers university and california state university. as well is a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terror related cases. the five were among thousands of names in a database listing e-mail accounts monitored between 2002 and 2008. none of the five have been charged with any crime. all appear to have been targeted for their muslim backgrounds and ties to various muslim causes or individual cases involving muslims. cairvideo statement, expressed outrage. >> i was not aware of was under surveillance except until recently. i am outraged is an american citizen, i government after decades of civil rights struggle , still the government spies on political activists and civil rights activists and leaders. it is outrageous and i am really

angry that despite all the work we've been doing in our communities to serve the nation, to serve our communities, we are treated with suspicion. >> tune in on thursday when will stick with the lead reporter on the story, glenn greenwald of the intercept. those are some of the headlines. as we turn to the second part of our democracy now! tv/radio broadcast exclusive, we went inside ecuador embassy in london last weekend to interview wikileaks founder and publisher julian assange. he has just entered his third year inside the embassy where he has political asylum. he faces investigations in both sweden and the u.s. here in the u.s., secret grand jury is investigating wikileaks for its role in publishing a trove of leaked documents about the iraq and afghanistan wars as well as state department cables. in sweden, he's wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual misconduct, though no charges have been filed. let's go to that interview. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman.

we are in the ecuadorian embassy in london where julian assange has actually lived for more than two years. he has political asylum in ecuador, but cannot make it there because he is concerned if he steps outside to get on a plane to ecuador, the british government will arrest him and extradite him to sweden. he is concern in sweden, he would be extradited to the united states to face charges around his organization wikileaks, which he publishes. julian assange, i would like you to respond to hillary clinton, former secretary of state and can be running for president, her comments on edward snowden. she was interviewed by "the guardian," which first released the revelations based on the documents of edward snowden. if you could just hit the first comment. >> i would say first of all edward snowden broke our laws

and that cannot be ignored or brushed aside. >> julian assange, that first point of hillary clinton? >> it is always interesting when someone complains -- complaints to be a master of what is and is not within the law. we have seen it in the case of her clinton and general alexander talking about what is and what is not the law. and the united states, it is the supreme court who determines what the law is and isn't. part of what goes into the supreme court is the was constitution and the first amendment obligations. act, where itge is constitutional, is very interesting. it is not been tested before. the u.s. government has been quite careful to not go to a proper appeal in relation to conviction under the espionage act. in order to keep the threat

there. i think there is a question as to whether edward snowden through his activities broke the law, but you can go, ok, if he did, was it the correct thing to do. >> let's go to hillary clinton's next point. >> i believe if his primary concern was stirring a debate in our country over the tension and security,y the were other ways of doing it. instead of stealing an enormous amount of affirmation that had nothing to do with the u.s. or american citizens. >> as a journalist, i've been working at various times of documents of what the national security agency has been doing its massive burgeoning a surveillance practice for more than 20 years. also beennalists have trying to expose national security agencies. whistleblowers have come forward. thomas drake and william binney,

for example. but what was the problem? what we could point to they're doing today, look at at this that, look subpoena record or technology, look at the number of employees or the dod budget as a whole. that is a very complex picture. that is not a picture that can generate political reform in a debate. what edward snowden did, by bringing out the classified documents, official documents -- even some of them just last year -- he was able to show even to the people who didn't understand the complexity, of what was exactly going on. we have rick people did try to start a debate -- we have roof. people did try to start a debate.

>> hillary clinton again. >> i would say certainly, there are many people in our history who have raised serious questions about government behavior. they have done it either with or without whistleblower protection. and they have stood and faced whatever the reaction was to make their case in public. >> julian assange? is alluding to, without mentioning the name, as daniel ellsberg, the famous pentagon papers from the 1970's. there's a reason she doesn't mention is them is because daniel ellsberg has come forward again and again this year and said, in fact, he could not do what he did in 1970 today. that the situation has changed as far as the courts use of state secrets privilege, how things are being held up in alexandria, virginia where there

pool. a neutral jury that he could not do that. the reality is, that is the case for all national security whistleblowers with classified documents. you can't fight a normal case. your swept into a very aggressive system that is set against you from the first instance. >> hillary clinton again. >> mr. snowden took all this material and fled to hong kong. he spent time with the russians in the consulate. then he went to moscow, seeking the production of vladimir putin, which is the height of ironies given the surveillance state that russia is. if he wishes to return home knowing that he would be held accountable, but also be able to present a defense, that is his decision to make will stop but i know our intelligence forces are doing what they can to

understand exactly what was taken. >> julian assange? >> this is sadly, typical, of hillary clinton. not even the national security agency accuses him of working with the russians. the national security agency has said they don't think he was working with the russians, at least not before he left the agency. hillary clinton, however, tries to reshape the chronology in order to smear edward snowden with being a russian spy. the actual chronology is that edward snowden went to hong kong, then so the situation was very difficult and reached out to us for help. we were intimately involved from that point on. so i know precisely myself and our staff know what happened. we submitted 20 asylum applications on behalf of edward snowden to a range of different countries. it was edward snowden's intent

to go to an israeli, nicaragua, ecuador was also looking favorable, and bolivia 47. on the way to latin america, the u.s. state department canceled his passport, leaving him marooned in russia, and able to catch his next flight -- which of them book from the very beginning. his whole path of been booked while he was in hong kong. >> but she does that you're to the russian embassy in hong kong. >> hillary says he went to the russian consulate in hong kong. i don't know about that. i'm sure perhaps was looking for all different kinds of some options, and that would have made perfect sense for anyone to do that in such a severe situation. it is not a matter of irony that edward snowden was marine by the u.s. state department in russia. asylum is a serious business. it is something of concern the country's arrest in europe, for example, that he asks for asylum in france, germany, spain did

not in fact come to the table. they were too scared about the geopolitical relationships. something of a concern that edward snowden as an american citizen felt he could not speak freely in the united states, and he is right. despite all of our lawyers -- it is the advice of all of our lawyers, he should not return to the united states. >> let's go back to hillary clinton who goes on to talk about the debate in the united states. >> the debate about how to better balance security and onerty was already going before he fled. the president had a ready given a speech. members of the senate were already talking about it. i don't give him credit for the debate. the debate had artie begun. >> the civil liberties community have beenivate world following with the national security agency has been doing for a long time. we've been trying very hard to

correct a debate. -- erect a debate. there were small debates that did not really proceeding were. they were trying to get somewhere and it went nowhere because they did not have the evidence. snowden revealed was documentary evidence. it was that primary source evidence -- everyone knows the difference -- most people can't even are member hearing about the national security agency prior to last year. now everyone knows about it. that is almost entirely as a result of these disclosures. >> hillary clinton makes other critical points. >> i don't know what he is been charged with because those are sealed indictment. i'm not sure he knows what he is been charged with. it even in any case that i'm aware of as a former lawyer, he has a right to mount a defense. he certainly has the right to mount both a legal defense and a public defense, which of course can affect the legal defense. >> julian assange, your

response? >> as daniel ellsberg has said, it is not possible for national security whistleblower now in the united states to have a fair trial. it is not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in alexandria, virginia, where the jury pool is comprised in the highest density of military and government employees in all of the united states. it is not possible to have a fair trial because the was government as the president applying state secrets privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. it is not possible to have a fair trial because as a defendant, the national security case, your held under special administrative provisions which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case , to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. it is sadly not a fair system. and even if you do win by the

time you get up to the supreme court come you spent seven years or something in a very serious condition try to defend yourself. edwards happened with snowden as result of his asylum, we can talk about the issues, not talking about whether he's guilty or not, and edward snowden himself and tell the world, look, this is what happened, this is what is going on. >> let's go back to hillary clinton. >> the the other issue that has never been satisfactorily answered to me is if his main concern what was happening inside the united dates, then why did he take so much about what was happening with russia, with china, with iran, with al qaeda? >> that is hillary clinton and her "guardian" interview. her last point? >> it is no surprise to me that hillary clinton thanks that human beings that are not formal your citizens don't have any rights. not everyone thinks like that.

other people in other countries have rights. if we look at the practicality of edward snowden acquiring documents what he was a contractor for booz allen hamilton holding for the the national security agency and part of that, the contractor -- and prior to that, a contractor, there's a mass surveillance program, strategic surveillance program. the same technology, the same protocols i used -- they used to surveil people inside and outside the united dates. trying to collect information to .expose it is the same process that occurs whether you're in england or whether you're in germany or whether you're in the united states. >> julian assange responding to "the guardian" interview with heather clinton. you can see the full interview at theguardian.com.

back to my conversation with julian assange in a moment. ♪ [music break] >> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman.

we return to our interview with wikileaks founder and publisher julian assange from inside ecuador's embassy in london where he has political asylum and has been living for more than two years. in a nutshell, julian, can you summarize the releases of documents since the collateral murder video was released in the spring of 2010? for people who aren't keeping up on things and even if you are an avid viewer of them media or reader of the media, especially whohe u.s., they may know julian assange is, the publisher of wikileaks, but actually, what it is you released in these documents? could you go through them? wikileaks has been publishing since 2007. we have published an honest every country in the world and about every country in the world. we're now up to just over 80 million individual documents that we have released during

that timeframe. the heat in the debate with the and of the states rose in 2010. we have had heated debates with others, court cases in u.s. and so on. in 2010, the number of documents and publications we were releasing, each one after another, and it up erecting a grand jury by the doj. we entered into major media conflict with the u.s. government. , collateraler murder, a documentary we produce from an apache helicopter going down 12 to 18 people in baghdad, including two reuters journalists. and clearly engaged in the murder. the murder was an unarmed man wounded, calling in the gutter

and good samaritans came to rescue him. and all of them were killed. two children come away with serious injuries. in the afghanistan -- this came at an important moment in 2010, the war logs, when michael hastings a just-released report. these publications came along after that with practices the "rolling stones" journalist that died in a car crash. >> yes. it shifted the debate about afghanistan. early in 2010, it was, what can we do to win in afghanistan? after the hastings article in the wikileaks warlocks, the result was, there's no longer a debate about can we win in afghanistan, it is how are we going to get out of afghanistan? it was quite an important shift. and with the iraq war logs published in october 2010, which in some ways has been one of our , we workytical works

just mediath not organizations, but statistical organizations to work out with picture count was for iraq. we ended up with more than 100,000 civilian casualties. in fact, 15,000 new, completely undocumented civilian kills and documenting u.s. involvement and approval of iraqi torture centers within the police and many killings of civilians at checkpoints and some political issues and so forth. produced a number of inquiries and has fed into cases that have been taken by iraqis that has now ended up with an icc filing, international criminal court filing against

the british military. if we then move on in december of that year, we started the release of cable date. or than 251,000 u.s. diplomatic cables from all around the world from 1966 to 2010. and that is the largest compendium of diplomacy that has ever been released. about 3000 lines of material. as a sort of history of how the modern world behaves in practice , it is extremely important and it fed into the tunisian revolution quite directly. s propaganda minister after the government fell said the wikileaks release about tunisia is what broke the back of the system. talks because? >> because it exposed the

corruption that many tunisians do about, but in a much more flagrant form of what money had gone where and so on. but also, there was the debate about it. within the united states and some others. and when push came to shove, the was probably backed the military and not ben ali. it was undeniable. it wasn't just the tunisia activists alleging this, it was a u.s. ambassador writing back to washington, for several years can't documenting what had gone on. that then made its way into your and affected the french support for ben ali and the tunisians became -- activists again confident and two weeks or 20 setting himself on

fire, became symbolized for the problems. the propaganda minister and others [indiscernible] really quiteare important. literally, dozens of court cases that release people from prison. people have been released from prison holding these cables above their head as the reason that been released from prison. ri case.as kidnapped a german citizen unlawfully, rendition him, and kept him in a cia black sites for four months. it was a case of mistaken identity. he wasn't even an alleged terrorist, you just happen to have the same name. they dumped him in eastern europe. along the side of the road. did try and take cases in the

united states. this is something relevant of what would happen to edward snowden. he was not able to get anywhere because the us government activated state secrets privilege is at all the things the cia had done to him were secret and they would not be revealing anything at all. a complete dead-end. as a result of the release of the diplomatic cables, which spoke about what the united states had done with macedonia where he was taken from, when you try to enter macedonia, he was able to take a case against macedonia within europe, to the european court of human rights and eventually one. six cable cited in the judgment for showing it actually happened. and an cases in spain important precedent was set materials usedf

in court cases, specifically cables. there is an island group in the indian ocean owned by the british, very important strategically because it is on the way between. the british handed over rent-free one of these islands to the united states military. >> chagos. >> yes. to the united states military. and it has now been turned into a base in rendition flight to go through their. but there was original inhabitants. at the time it was handed over to the u.s., the original inhabitants were pushed off and were pushed off to madagascar are and have been trying to fight the court case to come back. some cables revealed that in fact the british government has told the u.s. it was setting up a secret plan to make it very

difficult for them to come back. it is going to suck in the little left. here's how they're going to do it. marine park. what was the economy of the island? fishing. they were going to prevent the chagos on from having any ability -- that way these [indiscernible] litigation innew the british courts by the chagos islands. ultimately, the lower courts found the cables were inadmissible because they had embassies. the same thing protecting the here and the vienna convention, protects the correspondence. there's a higher court of appeals -- it is not true,

actually, diplomatic cables are notd by wikileaks protected by the geneva convention. there are the public. so that is quite an important presidents. it means these cables can be used. face forarge that the the unredacted articles? >> it is completely false. it is u.s. government itself. and then bradley manning case under oath -- under oath, the head of the person responsible for investigating whether anyone had come to physical harm said under oath they could not find a single person who had been killed or specifically harmed as a result. talks are talking about robert carr. he had a kind of war room dealing with the release of the wikileaks documents.

is that right? back to 2010. >> that's right. robert carr in the pentagon started up what they called a wikileaks war room, which had more than 150 people in it. defense intelligence agency and fbi and others involving trying to understand what we were going to publish, what we had, and what the effects were. wast of money weas -- spent. as a result of that expenditure in the understanding and the attempt to build up the prosecution and announce publishing efforts, which we had revealed the was military document in the deaths of more than 100,000 people in iraq and zeronistan, they found people have been physically harmed by the publications. >> julian assange, you recently had a twitter battle with glenn greenwald. the whole intercept, the new

online publication releasing information based on edward snowden's documents around the nsa spying on whole countries. you felt they should name the countries, not withhold any names. explain what that was about. >> i have a lot of respect for glenn. glenn has defended wikileaks in the attack by the was grand jury for a long time. use been very brave -- he has been very brave. quite forthright. he left "the guardian" because they were censoring the material he was trying to publish. unfortunately, first look is the big power, money, organization comes from [indiscernible] the founder of ebay and owns house and us to the white

several times each year, has extensive connections and can be broadly be described as an extreme liberal centrist. he is quite a different view about what journalism entails. for example, he is said this from if someone gave him a leak from a commercial organization, not the government, he would feel the need to tell the police. that is a very different type of journalism standard that comes from him. ,nfortunately, some of that perhaps a significant amount has gone into personal constraints there. it was the most disturbingly when first look moved from the edward snowden documents that

all of afghanistan was having its telephone calls recorded. the national security agency has corruptly installed mass surveillance inside afghan telcos, saying to the afghan government they were doing monitoring just going after drug dealers. mass surveillance, target -- inllance of afghans fact, they were recording the phone calls with every single afghan. that is as great a missile to sovereignty as you can imagine other than completely militarily occupying a country. to record the intimate phone calls of every single afghan. afghanistan, as a country and its people, have the right to choose their own destiny come in knowing what is actually happening. the factk decided

afghanistan was having on the telephone calls with mike they theyay they feared accepted the argument of yours government that people could die as result of revealing what was happening or would be threatened as a result of what happened or is happening in afghanistan. they just said, we are not revealing it. the reason we're not revealing it is credible reports that it could lead to an increase of violence. so structured as a political statement, if the afghanistan that maybe they would ride. afghanis find out, maybe they would riot. it is up to the afghan people, just like in relation to the arab spring. if knowing their environment and knowing what is happening to

their environment, they want to expel people or elect a new government, that is a matter of their culture, how the country chooses to manage itself. it is not a matter for other people to prevent the country for managing itself. year thatknown for a snowden has said that material. they have known specifically in relation to the country was afghanistan, there've known that for several weeks because first look in fact had contacted the us government. concernsare specific were there is plenty of time to have them removed. and we also gave 72 hours warning we would be publishing it. but that is wikileaks founder and editor julian assange. we will be back to the

conversation in a moment. ♪ [music break] >> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman.

as we return to our interview inside ecuador's embassy in london with wikileaks founder julian assange where he has political asylum and has been living for more than two years. i still want to get back to the that you, whot is are wanted by the most powerful country on earth, the united states, are able inside this embassy under total global the otherce to help most hunted person in the world, edward snowden, to get beyond the grasp of the united states. >> it is a bit absurd. if we pull back and try to look at it injectable he -- objectively, where were all these other legal organizations, human rights groups, where were they -- even refugee organizations -- and is difficult situation that had to be done in hong kong?

meaning organizations certainly well funded, the guardian newspaper in the washington post were meant to be helping snowden as a source and obligated to do that, yet all of them failed for one reason or another, -- felt for one reason or another, they could not do it. positionorced into the we had to do it. do have somewe specific experience. we have said pacific -- specific experience in dealing with adverse situations. i think it is an important lesson that actually, an organization that specializes in defeating surveillance for national security cases was the organization that was able to do this. yes, we had diplomatic contacts and certainly had the will and

the desire to not see another chelsea manning, but i think -- we could not have done that if we had specialized and secure communications techniques. how could we possibly court made as an organization when the other organizations, the opposing organization, was a national security agency without 1000 times more employees and a budget 10,000 times the size? i think it is because we had specialized in communicating in a secure manner. >> so how do you get -- >> that tells you about, what about all those people, which is nearly everyone, who don't specialize in committee getting in a secure manner? they can't do that. withnice to the problem

surveillance and all sorts of things i can't begun anymore because of -- can't be done anymore because a mass surveillance. >> so how do people protect themselves? >> you can't become a specialist unless you want to do that full-time and spend years and years doing it. that is the reality we are in right now. fortunately, the national security agency story has produced an understanding of people that they are being surveilled and that has created a demand and as a result of that demand, various nonprofit organizations and commercial organizations are starting up to create technology that people can communicate with. it is still very hard to understand these technologies. so who is actually behind the company, what jurisdiction is it, can they be bribed? the national security agency spends millions of dollars a year bribing manufacturers of photography or otherwise, arising through direct

interaction. i think it is quite difficult and in some ways, new technologies is more developed like tor and telegram messenger perhaps. but until it is more developed and better understood, and the people need to go back to the old ways. i joke that suddenly, human intelligence, which a lot of aople intelligence industry considered stuck in the 1960's and had not made great strides, suddenly, it is a great thing. how is the people survive even though you this mass surveillance? well, because they are stuck in the old ways of writing things on paper and so on. but we also do that. these collection of very old techniques that are completely nonelectronic as well as this sophisticated from modern techniques.

the reality is, a lot of the electronic communication -- electronic communication is in so many elements. the people who manufacture the chips or the radiation being given off by the computers, the therity programs installed, operating systems -- so many different elements. you only need to improvise one. in order to communicate security -- securely for an organization like wikileaks, one needs to have many different systems that are independent and will fail if another fails. the question, not for individuals but for society, is not about can i as an individual protect myself if the national security agency is after me and wants to spend a serious amount of money, the question is, how to stop society from being dominated by a faction that already has very significant power and its allies?

that is the question for society including the national society -- international society. the answer to that is, one simply has to increase the cost of each surveilling person. at the moment, the something -- it is under $.20 per person per day at the moment. to surveilled each person. surely, that is a lot of money if you added billions of people. yes, it is a lot of money. in fact, a lot of money is spent , $50 million, 60 many dollars here is been doing that. there's about 1.6 million people have access to the internet -- 1.6 billion people who have access to the internet. national security agency thinks -- if you're able to introduce standards, and nations can do this, brazil could

mandate altering occasions with forany are mandated, jesus has to take a specific route, brazil could mandate there must be securing of those cables and those communications. if we could increase the cost of mass surveillance to be where it is something like $3000 per person, you can only go after individuals and not entire continents, then we will be back to a more healthier situation will stop something like we're in maybe in the 1970's in terms of mass surveillance. as your hold up here in the ecuadorian embassy, i was thinking as we heard a siren outside on the are you concerned about your own personal safety here? i mean, you have been here for two years. of your personal is all safety

and or mental health being holed up here? >> it is a difficult physical environment. the standard for prisoners is one hour outside outside of work for exercise per day. there is no outside in asylum. it is a difficult physical environment. on the other hand, i do have good friends and good staff and the staff at the embassy. on. continue there is a question, i suppose, how long can one do this sort of thing. i think the answer is, well, you can do it for quite a long time, just means you've got to be more diligent about what you're going through. let's not forget, bradley a worse-- he was in situation for time in quantico, virginia. he managed to get through it.

i will also managed to get through this. >> do you think you'll ever get out of here? >> i think so. if we look at the u.k. were they realized extradition without charge is a dangerous thing to expose the population to, and change the law in the united states, we see a call by 54 different groups: for the was pending prosecution to be dropped -- calling for the u.s. pending prosecution to be dropped, and groups complaining to the u.n. no formal way about sweden's involvement in this saying, you know, requesting what is going on, i'm quite confident are some strange war somewhere that clinical progress is positive and even inevitable. the u.k. government now at 6.7

million pounds just on the police encirclement alone for over two years. people in the u.k. are also looking at that going, how can this be? this is completely, utterly strange and disproportionate to spend that amount of money on someone who hasn't even been charged. >> that is the case in sweden. even if that inquiry goes away, if sweden decides to in their investigation of you, you have the u.s. government with its ongoing investigation. if you are charged there, even if you leave here, the possibility that you will never know freedom again. >> the particular legal circumstances is that the u.s. government can issue concealed extradition request which the british government won't necessarily know when that happens or if it has happened. they can also phone in a pulmonary extradition demand -- preliminary exhibition demand.

it is necessary to deal with the u.s. case before i can link the embassy and also -- i can leave the embassy. there's quite a lot of different think to deal with, but i we have to remember in the end, all of these cases are political. there are geopolitical forces pushing them to continue and inflaming them and bringing proceed into the equation. politicalause the situation is changing in a favorable manner, i think the legal situation in terms of the actual law will start to crystallize in a way that is favorable. >> julian assange, emagin the toll this has taken on your family. what has been the cost to your family, to her parents, tear children? situation hasy

been difficult for my family. dealing with difficult security situations, but my family is not. various groups in the united states made threats toward my family, including one thread publicly calling for the killing of some of my children in order to get at me. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't want to say precisely because -- my children had to move, and one case, change their names but they were using, the same as the mother, etc. that is the result of the security situation. and there is an issue as to whether i can be pressured in certain ways as a result of my family. so that produces a situation

where it is quite difficult to see your family if they're trying to be undercover and surveillance around the industry -- embassy. >> you enter the embassy when you are 40. on july 3, just a few days ago, you celebrated your 43rd birthday -- or third birthday inside the embassy. where will you be for your next birthday? >> that is a good question. i could still be here. i think the developments are such that if you look at the direction of how the politics is going, the u.s. primaries will start in about a year's time. the obama administration starting to consider what it's like to see is going to be in the legal democrat area of things. there is an election next year in the united kingdom. there is an election in september in sweden, which will take their country from

center-right to centerleft. it may not improve things much the way -- well, going from democrat to democrat, if hillary gets in. it may not change things very much. this political trajectory i think is creating situation where we can more effectively use the law. there's not so much pressure on system.ts i think it is going to stage with able to act and one neutral manner. >> if the swedish government guaranteed you would not be extradited to the united states, would you agree to go to sweden for questioning? >> that is what we have been asking for four years now. it is not just me asking for it, the ecuadorian government as a state has obligations to protect

someone formally granted asylum has asked the u.k., can you berantee will not [indiscernible] not a blanket can't he, but in relation to our publications. both countries have said no. >> julian assange, thank you for agreeing to this interview. >> you're most welcome, amy. >> wikileaks founder and editor and associate. i interviewed him inside ecuador and embassy in london for the first hour, go to democracynow.org. i will be speaking in hartford, connecticut. check democracynow.org for details. a fond farewell to our treasured fellows. we wish you the very best for your oh, so promising futures.

democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013.

>> in august of 1953, iran had a democratic government. it's parliament and prime minister, the popular muhamed mossadegh, had nationalized the oil industry -- mohammad mossadegh, had nationalized the oil industry. and the cia had me.