he didn't bring the law in the country you're dealing with why rest in the major cybersecurity challenge is the sovereignty of laws that cyberspace is no borders new. so grantee, we ended up with, for example, the national health service in the u. k. that a chess was completely wiped out from a ransomware attack. if you were coming in to a clinic, because you had a test or you had an operation, they can't find your records. they had to go back to pen and paper. ah ah hello and welcome to redact. it's night b, p. i'm naomi care of bonnie julian assange is a waiting extradition to the united states which journalists and civil rights

advocates. c, as a death sentence for journalism, accountability for you as war crimes, basic civil liberties, and not to mention julian assange, the u. s. says astonishes on trial for endangering lives. pretty sure that the u. s. or the guys with the missiles and the wiki leeks guy had a website. well, we still got to find out how he did it. was it square space? to go deeper into the unprecedented case against assange? i'll talk to journalist mohammed l mossey mohammed l mozy is the founder and editor of the new site. the interregnum has by lines in the canary, jacobin the grey zone and the real news. then we'll go to corresponding anders lee with some mind blowing old news about how sweet an almost me to turn towards real socialist economic policy in the 1980s, but was stopped by a very popular musical group. first, here's my interview with mohammed o mazda. hello,

and welcome mohammed. it's so great to have you on to talk about this. so before we get into the charges, let's go through a short history of sanchez captivity. can you help us go through it? first he was at the orient embassy, then he was at bell marsh prison and now he faces the extradition to united states . and what are the conditions that he experienced in the u. k? yes, so from 2012 to 20. 19 april. if i recall correctly, he was in the embassy. and since then, he's been taken out and he's in bel marsh prison, which is if you like a maximum security prison as one of britain's more notorious presence during the what the guantanamo bay of the best to the guantanamo bay britons guantanamo bay. that's correct. as some people know as and that's where also people convicted or suspected of murder or terrorism,

serious terrorism charges of also been held there and continued to be held there. and during this period, the one working group on arbitrary detention passed its opinion that julian saunders being arbitrarily detained on the basis that there were multiple forces that essentially compelled him to go there and prevented him from leaving. can you talk to us a little bit about how the u. k. authorities were cooperating with american officials to prosecute assange and were they doing it enthusiastically? were they under pressure it seems that they were from what we know quite enthusiastically, assisting the u. s. government, for example, when, according to various freedom of information releases, we've seen e mails from the u. k, from british prosecutors to switch to prosecutors telling them as early as what

20122011 not to come to the u. k. to interview julian us on. so they were actively discouraging them, which is something that they have done previous cases. and julian had said that he was willing to be interviewed in the u. k. that his only concern of going back to sweden was that he was led to believe that there was a secret indictment against him, that he would ultimately be rendered from sweden to the u. s. that, that the swedish investigation had nothing to do with anything. they alleged to be investigating that, that was focused on getting him secretly to the u. s. where he end up in, in the sort of federal, a isolation or, or for many years. we've also seen that britain played a key role in pressuring the ecuadorian government of lenin moreno to allow the metropolitan police to withdraw julian from the embassy. so they had invited a, there's a, an excellent article from a declassified

u. k. which discusses not only a what was in sir alan duncan's diaries, he's a, a former, is a british politician, former government minister with the foreign office of a conservative party member. and he, he says in his autobiography that, that, that he pushed the prime minister to sweeten the ecuadorian presidents. they. the article also discusses a high ranking members of the ecuadorian governments being invited to britain, their, their travel expenses being paid by the british states. and this was all in the lead up to julian ultimately being pulled out from there, pulled up from the embassy. so it's means that they've been quite happy to go along and to assist the u. s. throughout this process, including up to now. yeah, the u. k. they want to show how good of a vassal state they are to the us. and so what a good little brother they are. but let's get into those 17 charges which songs

faces and he faces 175 years in prison. can you give us like an overview of those charges? okay, so 17 out of 18 of those charges all relate to julian and wiki leaks is obtaining and publishing of documents which are primarily known as the afghanistan war diaries, the iraq war logs, the diplomatic cables and the guantanamo bay detainee files. and we've seen documents which discuss the killings of civilians which were sort of covered up also the the practice of, of the use of child prostitutes preview besson children as well. so we're talking about pedophilia, which was sanctioned or, or turned a blind eye to by occupation forces nato forces us forces which was

engaged in by u. s. allies in a gamma stand. ironically, heat. the taliban had had put an end at least formally, legally, to certain practices which sort of researched after the occupation that's known as so called dancing boy tradition, where young children are, boys would then dance in front of various ban and then they get purchased thereafter. and of course treatment of prisoners in guantanamo bay. so that's the kind of thing that we're looking at. yeah, i imagine these things were published. go ahead. yeah, i just wanted to mention, i think it's interesting that the indictment focuses on a lot of things that have not withstood the test of time. and you know, the, it's hard to be sympathetic to the u. s. when they're talking about the detainee videos and interrogation videos, when all of those methods have been discredited. after wiki leaks,

release the documents, you know, all major news sites and newspapers were running stories about how bad the warn afghanistan is. so it's interesting that the indictment mentions all this, but i, it's hard to be sympathetic with that case. will the way there angle is that a, some of these documents contains the identities of sources of u. s. government sources. and this put them in harm's way. and they say also that some of them they couldn't get into contact with them and they don't know, although they can't establish if they harm came to them as a result of the documents being published. that's what they allege. of course they hads and was a year and advanced knowledge that these documents would be published because wikileaks informed them and they were going through redactions. i think it's also important for people to know that crypt tom, which is a us based site, had published originally published the full on redacted diplomatic cables of which

extensively contained the names of certain sources. but they have never been prosecuted. which is interesting because they're based on the united states. so it doesn't seem to really be about that, even though that's what they allege. and if they wanted to, they could have excluded all the documents. that list the kinds of things that i described, but they haven't, right, the, it's about the whole trove of all these documents, they obtaining them and the publishing them as you say, new york times the guardian watch in to post also reported on these documents. yeah . and one prizes for them, of course. ah, yeah, i wanted to talk specifically about the, the charge to commit intrusion into a computer and the conspiracy to commit computer intrusions. what, what, what exactly does that mean when they say that in the indictment? so one of the charges, one of the 18 charges

a 17 or under the 1917 espionage act law that was passed a 1917 which is targeted. a people who opposed entry to the 1st world war as well as potential spies. although it seems to be primarily have used against people who, who spoke out against u. s. involvement in the 1st world war. i'm at one of the charges under the computer fraud and abuse act. if i recall correctly, if that's the correct act, that's the come conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. basically, they alleged that julian engaged a that chelsea manning who leaked the documents in question to juliana to wiki lakes. i had asked julian for help, assisting her to crack a password hash and they discussed this. and then eventually julian or whoever it is that chelsea manning was speaking to that the u. s. government alleges was julian, but somebody at wiki leaks had said, sorry, we can help you with this. basically, we've looked at it,

we can help you. and the government said, okay, well this discussion is a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. the fact that they couldn't do it, or they came back and said, no, it's not possible that's irrelevant or, or that's something that has to be decided by jury in the us. and that's the key part of that is the so called hacking charge. after key evidence expert testimony, a was presented that said, look, this was just about helping chelsea manning gain access to a video gaming and entertainment site that was blocked to us soldiers and that chelsea manning was known for her by her colleagues for getting at gaining access to such things, and they actually had a u. s. military expert, 15 years near the armed forces investigator who, who knew the computer system, produced a, a report saying that that the defense is argument or position was consistent with the facts and the u. s. government wasn't,

they then expanded the computer intrusion charge to include them. julian, i'm going to certain the hacking conventions and saying to people, hey, if you've got something, you know, pass it on, we're interested in and serious documents that have ethical concern. basically, we have to go to a quick break, but stay right there and we'll be back with some more show. ah ah, i

o is your media a reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, whole community. are you going the right way, or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true was is great. in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah. so join us in the depths all remained in the shallows. join me every thursday on the alex salmon show and i'll be speaking to guess on the

world. the politic sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then in the welcome back. i'm name care vonnie and this is for adapted tonight v i p. now let's go to the rest of my interview with mohammed kazi, how is this you sorted, this application of the espionage act unique. using it against assange, we've seen whistleblowers being charged under the espionage act, of course, like chelsea manning. and recently, daniel hell was charged with violating this 1917 law. so can you talk a little bit about that? so the charges filed in the eastern district of virginia. same with those against edward snowden and jeffrey sterling, former c, i, intelligence officer and, and john kerry, aku former c i officer, and i think bill benny and,

and thomas drake as well. and that's because it has, i think, a 100 percent, conviction rate and 99.999 percent conviction rates on the jury comes from the local community, which is the national security apparatus. the department of defense, the cia, the f, b i a various weapons contractors. so the jury will be either active serving members, retired members or their family members of the national security state, which makes it quite unusual because they could, they could fall indictment in any in any jurisdiction. they choose to fall under the espionage act in that jurisdiction for that precise reason. or if he is indeed prosecuted if this prosecution continues and he's expedited to the united states, he will be the 1st ever publisher prosecuted under the espionage act. so bear in mind, this is not somebody who is a us citizen, he was not present in the u. s. when he he obtained or published the documents. he

never took an oath of office or a pledge of allegiance to any us agency, nor did he ever sign any confidentiality agreements. he indeed has no obligation to the u. s. government, and yet they are seeking to apply the u. s. a spinach act against a journalist and publisher who is located outside of united states for actions he took outside of the united states, which would normally be covered under the 1st amendment. so it's yeah, very disconcerting for. yeah, but yeah, there's a number of unprecedented things going on here. you have that. it's a, a foreign journalist and you have the fact that they're targeting his, his publishing. so let's, let's talk about how independent reporters and news organizations should be really concerned about this. what should they be alarmed by? well, it's the extra territorial application of u. s. law. normally something people associated with imperialism, right?

so for example, if a u. s. citizen, or anybody else killed somebody outside of your jurisdiction. normally you can't be tried rights for actions that have occurred externally thus in a separate legal jurisdiction. but yet, for some reason, with the espionage act, we're saying that he can be, i'm, and well imagine if the situation was reversed. if it was china, let's say i had or you had published documents, exposing waste, fraud, abuse, criminality, and other internal machinations of the chinese national security. o. amberin. ha ha . and you were published, you did so in the united states and then when you were visiting i don't know you're in the philippines say. and then the chinese issue an arrest warrant for you between you and the it towards the filipino government to get you expedited to china. and now you're facing what a 100 years or a 170 years, which is what he faces new s on since only 5 of for having obtained and published

chinese national defense documents or other top secret. in his case, it wasn't even top secret as like secrets. yes. like low level classification. yeah . that's the argument was one thing that struck me was the rules of engagement, which is not a very secret document. right. well, apparently it is to them also because one of the things with the rules of engagement is what it shows is what the us soldiers were allowed to get away with. right? because this is their rules of engagement. so when you're saying, ah, did these people. ready of violates the policy that they're being told. first of all, what policy they're being told that helps for you to understand as a journalist or observer, whether or not a the rules of engagement comport with the laws of war. now it's known as international humanitarian law for the same thing and, and whether or not the soldiers or even adhering to those rules of engagement. and that's among the documents like your rights that they're, they're charging him for, revealing, or for publishing. he didn't reveal anything,

it was chelsea manning the at least the documents as we can leeks, which publish them. so there are boulders or what kind of move over to a little bit of speculation. what do you think this trial is going to look like? you mentioned earlier that the charges really surround this accusation, that he, he endanger the lives of afghani civilians who were giving information to the u. s . military. would that be the strongest evidence that the government would have against them? well 1st let me say that there's all kinds of appeals or so be lodged both against the u. s. government victory at the high court recently, but also in terms of other aspects that they lost at, at the magistrates court, such as a politically motivated trial, that he wouldn't get a fair trial in the states, et cetera, et cetera. so the, so we're looking at a couple more years potentially, of appeals including up to the european court of human rights. but were he to be expedited to the united states? now the united states does the u. s. government won't have to say anything about

anybody being injured or disappeared. they don't have proof that anybody's been injured. yeah, and number one, number 2 is that if they did have that, we'd be heard about and we're going with yeah, yeah, the is all just a new window, an allegation that just gets republished by certain outlets. they don't have no, there it is actually not a criminal offense to, to publish the identity of a source. i mean, also like what am i, as a non us citizen obligated to protect the source of the cia like that would be weird? or what could the russian government than say, the same thing if i real real, the source of the f s b, or, or, you know, or the iranian until intelligence service, et cetera, et cetera. so that's what there is no, that law a, such a law was debated in congress and it failed to pass. right. so in fact, the prosecutor could stand up and say in court before the jury, if julian's expedited, we accept that nobody was injured by anything published by weekly acts. we 100 percent accept that. and it would not matter because these are strict liability

offences, motive and intentions don't matter. in fact, of julian says, yes i did publish x, but the reason i published it is because it reveals the prosecutor could stand up and say, objection. his motive is irrelevant and what the documents revealed or relevant. all that matters is did he publish ex wines a document? they don't even need to go into the details where to send documents and that's it. and from past practice, including the case of a daniel ellsberg, when he was being prosecuted, the espionage act, the judge will say, objection, sustained. your motives don't matter what was inside the documents, doesn't matter, doesn't matter, even it revealed criminality. and that's how the espionage act is worded, of course. and daniel ellsberg case, he was a whistleblower who had signed confidentiality agreements business the lesson whistleblower to san jose. isn't the whistleblower? he doesn't work with us government, his journalist, but he would be subject to the same procedures. so that is another very disturbing

aspect of this case is that your intentions don't matter. there's no public interest defense. you can, there is no public interest exception in the law and you'll get a national security jury with 100 percent conviction rate and the eastern district of virginia. so that's what you would face and that's what he faces. well, thank you so much mohammed for coming out today and, and getting into the trial it's, it's really an interesting case and a very unprecedented case and thank you so much for coming out and explaining it to us. thank you for inviting me. next step. it's time for some mind blowing all news . our residents scandinavian correspondent andrew lee brings us a story about how the nation of sweden almost turn socialists, the 19 eighties and what it had to do with the pop band abba to find out. here's anders way. the this is a story about a monumental clash between socialism and one of its greatest enemies disco in 1982

. after a 6 year respite from governing sweden, the social democratic party was swept back into power. led by prime minister olaf pulled the scene here with his smoking body. fidel castro, i can't help that question. palmer's taste, being around hundreds of cuban cigars and still going with cigarettes. now after world war 2, sweden had seen a steep increase in their standard of living thanks to their role in rebuilding europe and a militant labor movement, which by the eighty's, had gotten to nearly 80 percent unionization swedes were content. they had their funnel cakes, their meat balls, and their pickled fish too. but despite the relative prosperity, sweden's private wealth was concentrated, the vast majority of it, in the hands of just 15 families. to address this, the socialist economist rudolph minor, introduce the minor play. a very bold move when you consider how skin navient are so humble that many of our homeland it's illegal to name things after yourself. the

restaurant there are all named after the food. you can't name kids after yourself, so they just make names up. where do you think helga came from? the original plan was a strident attempt to socialize sweden's economy. it would have mandated that large companies put 20 percent of their annual profits into 13 wage earner funds run by and for workers from 13 different industrial shockers. those funds would then be divided between reinvesting and companies. further increasing the share owned by workers in financing, research, expertise, education and training for workers to assist them in the running of their companies . over time, this would have let unions and workers take over corporate boards and eventually own and operate the companies themselves. my dear understood that it's not enough to regulate and tinker with capitalism or ad patting to the worker, crushing machine. if you want to truly democratic society, you need a truly democratic economy. as one mainstream economist warmed at the time. within

5 years, the funds would control most of swedish industry. the market economy would cease to exist as anyone who's been watching succession knows rich, people hate themselves, but they do love their wealth, which is why in sweden they weren't exactly thrilled about giving it up. the minor play became part of the social democratic parties platform just as they were voted out of office in 1976. by the time they were ready to return to power in 1082, sweden's ruling class was prepared. they launched a counter offensive to protect sweden's most profitable companies, several of which were owned by the infamously, cruel and powerful capitalist cabal. abba, yes, the band abba, whose song dancing queen. you've definitely heard if you watched a movie about the 70s or better to carry a key bar around anyone who's drunk in over 50. and i'm sorry if my mentioning that song gets stuck in your head for the next year or so. abba had balked swedish

cultural norms by becoming a flashy em oddest international pop sensation, which was probably for the best. it shouldn't be controversial say that i scanned it. adrian's could stand to lighten up a bit. but then they had to go and violate the good parts of scanner, navy and culture by becoming hard core entrepreneurial libertarians. classic disco story. as the bands manager stig anderson said at the time, the funds are just a device so that the union can get power. they would be disastrous for the country . it is ridiculous to think that they could take care of the money better than aust professionals. if that action isn't perfect, it's because i'm actually norwegian. abil threatened to leave sweden if the minor plan was passed and held a series of anti socialist concerts, leading up to the 1982 election. i guess an anti socialist music festival is just like a regular music customer, except instead of everyone sharing their drugs in food, they're hoarding and ripping each other off for it. now,

in spite of the free market, jim fast, the social democrats once, but the political will, wasn't there to see miners plan through. while the government did introduce wage earner funds and $984.00, they were extremely watered down rudolph minor and self described. the final product, as a pathetic, correct, with most of the key principles of economic democracy, all sale, redistribution of capital ownership and solidarity wage policy having been abandoned or substantially undermine. the funds were privatized after $992.00. by a right when government, when i think of a pathetic rat and i will think of abba, oddly enough, the term pathetic read could be easily song to the tune, advancing quite the minor plan may have ultimately been a failure. but it stands up as an important model for social transition and has even influenced worker ownership proposals in the united states. it also provides a valuable political lesson for socialists that capitalist stop at nothing to

prevent us from winning a truly democratic society. even if those capitalists are pop star from sweden. i manners lee with redacted, vast michelle. but don't forget to check out that free exclusive content online are portable dot tv. just scroll down to the redacted night playlist. also check out more content on youtube dot com slash redact tonight until next time. keep fighting . ah ah ah, ah ah, ah, ah, a

ah with ah, working room or shed in the back. she popped in. she said, well, i'm getting ready to go. shopping for christmas. and when we say go, there was a girl to buy another, shooting another safe part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're silent on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there. i was walking one of the dogs, which is why you where again when you scale, it doesn't take it off of i think the people need to take responsibility into their

own hands and be prepared if those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings. we certainly wouldn't have the number address with ah, with

.