Assange/Snowden leadership snubs French whistleblower
On September 20th, an article was published on Medium, hereinafter “the article”, that lays claim to pursue scientific journalism. It was notified to the Assange/Snowden leadership; they ignored it. It is argued that this snub is indicative of a movement that is complacent, in a way that reinforces misconceptions on the rule of law under the auspices of the European Court of Human Rights.
Background
The author of the article, hereinafter “the whislteblower”, has a notable story, and has been a committed supporter of Assange. The article exposes a neglected facet of the oligarchy, the court system behind widespread impunity. It is argued with reference to authoritative sources on high profile cases, and it checks the criterion of falsifiability on an ongoing case. It singles out a VIP that personifies the Euro intelligentsia, hereinafter “the VIP”, for her rhetoric on corruption fitting the alleged blind-spot.
The facts
On 09/20, the article was published; on the 23rd it was posted on Twitter by the whistleblower, CC notable Assange/Snowden sympathizers (here, here, and here); In the following weeks, the article was shared by email with people selected for their relevance to the topic, and in particular an activist connected to Snowden, hereinafter “the activist”, who “has testified before the European Parliament & the Council of Europe” (the Euro intelligentsia). On 10/16, Julian Assange’s spokesperson was sent a reminder and asked “what gives?” (0). In all, zero interaction.
Motives
Ego. The article’s closing statement: “Thus the aim of my activism, exposing the law of silence using a concept championed by Julian Assange, scientific journalism, albeit focused on pedagogy rather than technology”. This recent mea culpa by an academic studying the French elite, paraphrased as follows, provides a possible subtext: “I used to think leaks would bring change, but I was wrong, impunity remains widespread.” (1)
Public relations. In 2020, the VIP told the newspaper of record: “If Assange is extradited, it’s the end of the rule of law in the West.” Further, The activist raised awareness on whistleblower protection with the Euro intelligentsia. Acknowledging the article would have risked a backlash with the latter.
Indoctrination. Acknowledging an outsider’s controversy would have hit a wrong note with a following hooked on soundbites (“Journalism is not a crime”).
Discussion
If one agrees with the article, widespread impunity (2) ain’t going away by adding layers, in the case in point whistleblower protection, to the byzantine edifice (3) under which it has thrived (in the case of France, with roots in the collaborationist regime). The people that pull the strings (4) probably joke among themselves these are feelgood laws. The article provides anecdotal evidence, and France’s iconic jurist has argued just that for French penal legislation over a decade ago. To no avail, that’s glaring. A similar reasoning applies to the ECHR. “Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth”, famously wrote Albert Camus. If they can order member states that hosted CIA black sites to pay damages to ascertained al Qaeda operatives, who would be twisted enough to think the truth lies in the 90% of cases it dismisses without justification, and the unreported that are bogged down “exhausting all national remedies”? The whistleblower’s story offers a clue: “My lawyer failed to submit critical documents to the court (5), in line with well documented, yet little publicized, mores.”
End notes
(0) Body of the message: “I’ve shared with you an article, by a longtime and committed French supporter of Assange. That article purports to carry on his legacy, scientific journalism, with a focus on France. A movement thrives on seeking every opportunity to weaken the enemy and consistently rewarding its friends. This is the second time you’re getting buzzed about this article, the first time was through twitter. It would have been OK to express disagreement, if applicable, but instead it has been flagrantly ignored. So, what gives?” (1) At odds with the U.S. Department of State. (2) Former French counsel of Assange, in a tweet dated April 5th, 2022: “over 3000 disciplinary complaints were filed by citizens against judges since this means exist[, i.e. 2008]; 7 were instructed; 0 sanctions.” (3) According to the VIP, and a Swiss observer of the French elite, the author of this assessment is top-notch, and a hypocrite (which would not preclude saying some truth towards the end of one’s career), respectively. (4) Said a celebrity lawyer about his stint as deputy minister of justice during the Mitterrand era: “The state apparatus is a gigantic machine run by two or three people, the others assume stewardship.” (5) Verifiable from the judgment itself.
