The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
This Is Why America Is Persecuting Julian Assange
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I was in Kabul a decade ago when Wikileaks released a massive tranche of US government documents about the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. On the day of the release, I was arranging by phone to meet an American official for an unattributable briefing. I told him in the course of our conversation what I had just learned from the news wires.

He was intensely interested and asked me what was known about the degree of classification of the files. When I told him, he said in a relieved tone: “no real secrets then.”

When we met later in my hotel I asked him why he was so dismissive of the revelations that were causing such uproar in the world?

He explained that the US government was not so naive that it did not realise that making these documents available to such a wide range of civilian and military officials meant that they were likely to leak. Any information really damaging to US security had been weeded out.

In any case, he said: “We are not going to learn the biggest secrets from WikiLeaks because these have already been leaked by the White House, Pentagon or State Department.”

I found his argument persuasive and later wrote a piece saying that the Wikileaks secrets were not all that secret.

However, it was the friendly US official and I who were being naive, forgetting that the real purpose of state secrecy is to enable governments to establish their own self-interested and often mendacious version of the truth by the careful selection of “facts” to be passed on to the public. They feel enraged by any revelation of what they really know, or by any alternative source of information. Such threats to their control of the news agenda must be suppressed where possible and, where not, those responsible must be pursued and punished.

We have had two good examples of the lengths to which a government – in this case that of the US – will go to protect its own tainted version of events. The first is the charging of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for leaking 750,000 confidential military and diplomatic documents in 2010.

The second example has happened in the last few days. The international media may not have always covered itself in glory in the war in Yemen, but there are brave journalists and news organisations who have done just that. One of them is Yemeni reporter Maad al-Zikry who, along with Maggie Michael and Nariman El-Mofty, is part of an Associated Press (AP) team that won the international reporting Pulitzer prize this year for superb on the ground coverage of the war in Yemen. Their stories included revelations about the US drone strikes in Yemen and about the prisons maintained there by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The US government clearly did not like this type of critical journalism. When the Pulitzer was awarded last Tuesday in New York Zikry was not there because he had been denied a visa to enter the US. There is no longer a US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, but two months ago he made his way to the US embassy in Cairo where his visa application, though fully supported by AP and many other prestigious institutions, was rejected.

After AP had exerted further pressure, Zikry made a second application for a visa and this time he was seen by a Counsellor at the embassy. He reports himself as asking: “Does the US embassy think that a Yemeni investigative journalist doing reporting for AP is a terrorist? Are you saying I am a terrorist?”

The Counsellor said that they would “work” on his visa or, in other words, ask the powers-that-be in Washington what to do. “So, I waited and waited – and waited,” he says. “And, until now I heard nothing from them.”

Of course, Washington is fully capable of waiving any prohibition on the granting of a visa to a Yemeni in a case like this, but it chose not to.

Can what Assange and Wikileaks did in 2010 be compared with what Zikry and AP did in 2019? Some commentators, to their shame, claim that the pursuit of Assange, and his current imprisonment pending possible extradition to the US or Sweden, has nothing to with freedom of expression.

In fact, he was doing what every journalist ought to do and doing it very successfully.

Take Yemen as an example of this. It is a story of great current significance because in recent days senior US officials have denounced Iran for allegedly directing and arming the Houthi rebels who are fighting Saudi and UAE-backed forces. Action by these supposed Iranian proxies could be a casus belli in the confrontation between the US and Iran.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that Iran has provided the Houthis “with the missile system, the hardware, the military capability” that they have acquired.

National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday that Iran risked a “very strong response” from the US for, among other things, drone attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia for which he holds the Iranians responsible.

These accusations by the US, Saudi Arabia and whoever is their Yemeni ally of the day that the Houthis are stooges of Iran armed with Iranian-supplied weapons has a long history. But what do we know about what Washington really thinks of these allegations which have not changed much over the years?

This where Wikileaks comes to the rescue.


The US embassy in Sanaa may be closed today, but it was open on 9 December 2009 when the US ambassador Stephen Seche sent a detailed report to the State Department titled: “Who are the Houthis? How are they fighting?” Citing numerous sources, it saying that the Houthis “obtain their weapons from the Yemeni black market” and by corrupt deals with government military commanders. A senior Yemeni intelligence officer is quoted as saying: “The Iranians are not arming the Houthis. The weapons they use are Yemeni.” Another senior official says that the anti-Houthi military “covers up its failures by saying that the weapons [of the Houthis] come from Iran.”

Yemeni experts on the conflict say that Houthi arms acquisition today has likewise little to do with Iran. Yemen has always had a flourishing arms black market in which weapons, large and small, can be obtained in almost any quantity if the money is right. Anti-Houthi forces, copiously supplied by Saudi Arabia and UAE, are happy to profit by selling on weapons to the Houthis or anybody else.

In an earlier period, the embassy study cites “sensitive reporting” – presumably the CIA or another intelligence organisation – as saying that extremists from Somalia, who wanted Katyusha rockets, had simply crossed the Red Sea and bought them in the Yemeni black market.

Revealing important information about the Yemen war – in which at least 70,000 people have been killed – is the reason why the US government is persecuting both Assange and Zikry.

The defiant Yemeni journalist says that “one of the key reasons why this land is so impoverished in that tragic condition it has reached today is the US administration’s mass punishment of Yemen.” This is demonstrably true, but doubtless somebody in Washington considers it a secret.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Anglo/Zionist Empire is in the service of evil. It is it’s nature to destroy truth tellers.

    • Agree: Republic
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Eileen Kuch
  2. @WorkingClass

    It’s the Rothschild Empire, and has been for centuries.

  3. Lot says:

    Does ADX Florence allow pet kitties?

  4. Anonymous [AKA "Diasassociated Press"] says:

    Why woud anyone consider the AP a “prestigious” institution? I guess Pravda is then, too?

  5. Sean says:

    Robert Fisk has never been accused of sexually assaulting women. Nor has Patrick Cockburn.

    • Replies: @Fred Flintston
  6. Julian Hawkins is small fish.

    In the 1990s the then CIA head James Woolsey told the Senate that Israelis were selling advanced U.S. military secrets to the Chinese.

  7. Just imagine if people started seeing these all over the country

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  8. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Craig Nelsen

    If only….

    You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant.

    Sadly, never happened, never will

    The pain has to get much worse, but it is so easy to provide bread and circuses that, that will never happen.

  9. Kirt says:

    Assange is a noble and tragic figure. His mistake was being naive enough to believe that once Americans found out that their government was wantonly murdering assorted foreigners in their name, they would be outraged and demand that it stop. In reality the majority of Americans are ignorant and apathetic, they don’t know and they don’t care. What’s more they resent anyone who, like Assange, seeks to remedy their ignorance and apathy. A substantial minority of Americans think it is a really good idea to murder foreigners and are so much in favor of the US ruling the world that they call Assange a traitor for daring to go against the US government. It matter not to them that he is not even an American citizen; he dared oppose the US government. The tiny minority which considers killing foreigners a bad idea, especially when it is the entire basis of US foreign policy, is powerless to do anything about it. If they try, they’ll end up like Assange.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  10. RobinG says:

    Great post, but your last sentences stopped me from hitting AGREE. [The tiny minority which considers killing foreigners a bad idea, especially when it is the entire basis of US foreign policy, is powerless to do anything about it. If they try, they’ll end up like Assange.]

    If that (the “tiny” part) is true, then all the religious types (I’m mostly familiar with Christians) who decry the slaughter and appeal for ‘human rights’ are really hypocrites who, in their heart of hearts, couldn’t care less? Or, as I’ve mused, it’s not their hearts, it’s their lizard brains that are so callous: eat you before you eat me.

    Also objectionable is the resignation to powerlessness. Such defeatist mindset precludes any action. Are we so hopeless? Must I agree? Sad.

    • Replies: @Kirt
  11. Kirt says:

    Thank you, Robin. I’m Christian myself, but most of the anti-war Christians I know are within my extended family. There is no large scale anti-war movement within Christian churches, indeed no detectable anti-war movement at all. So the tiny part is true. As far as the powerlessness is concerned, the highest ranking anti-war person I am aware of in the US government is Representative and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. No one gives her the least chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomination and she is despised by the Democratic political establishment and the mainstream media, as was the case with Republican anti-war Representative Ron Paul several years ago. I don’t think this necessarily precludes any action. Political campaigning can be a chance to spread the truth on a small scale and truth is important. And there are certainly many charities which exist to aid the victims of US policy; this can make an important difference in the lives of individuals even if the policy is not changed. But barring a miracle (and as a Christian, I can never rule that out) I think the only thing that can change US policy is a catastrophic military defeat and the economic and political fall-out from that.

  12. @WorkingClass

    I couldn’t agree more, WorkingClass. You certainly nailed it right on the head.

  13. @Sean

    The same playbook was used on Daniel Ellsberg when he had the Pentagon Papers published. He was accused of sexual assault/rape to destroy his credibility.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr