Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts.These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
Four Corners -

View in ParlView

This Program is Captioned Live.

Good evening. Virginia Haussegger with an ABC news update. The with an ABC news update. The
nation's political leaders are working to lower expectations of a quick turnaround in the health
system. Julia Julia Gillard, the Premiers and the Julia Gillar

Fhe Premiers and the

Julia Gillard, the Premiers and the chief ministers are all claiming their national agreement on
health funding will help, but won't deliver a miracle cure. The deal will a miracle cure. The deal
will deliver a $260 million funding boost to the ACT. Canberra's latest police shooting has set off
a new debate about stun guns. Nathan Doherty was killed by police in Wanniassa yesterday, the
second time he'd been shot by officers. Today police were hinting that taser guns may have averted
hintg that taser guns may have hinting that taser guns may have averted the tragedy. Qantas pilots
say they're still considering strike action, as pay negotiations with their their bosses continue
to sour. their bosses continue to sour. Qantas and Jetstar pilots say they have no job security,
because Qantas is hiring cheaper pilots off-shore. Hundreds of couples have taken advantage of
valentine's day to say advantage of valentine's day to say I do, in weddings across the country.
But for gays, it's still a case of I campaign is now stepping can't get married in Australia. A new
campaign is now stepping up the campaign is now stepping up the fight to legalise same-sex
marriage. To Canberra's weather - a shower or two. 12 degrees overnight, 12 degrees overnight, with
a high 12 degrees overnight, with a high of 23. Sydney - 25. Melbourne - 31. Adela 23. Sydne- 25.
Melbourne - 31. 23. Sydney - 25. Melbourne - 31. Adelaide - 31 More news in an hour. ? Theme music
So, are you a revolutionary?

Well, we'll see if we end up with a decent revolution.

This guy's a traitor, a treasonous... He's broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to
be... And I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty, I wouldn't want to do
it - illegally shoot the son of a (Bleep)!

Julian Assange - hero to untold millions. Public Enemy No.1 to the most powerful government in the
world. Welcome to Four Corners. The WikiLeaks story is both monumental and complex, but while all
eyes are on Julian Assange and the very visible battle over Sweden's attempt to extradite him from
Britain, to face charges apparently unrelated to WikiLeaks, there is another crucial side to this
saga being played out behind the walls of an American military prison and in the power centres of
Washington - one that's received little attention in this country. As Julian Assange waits in an
English country manor for the British courts to determine his immediate fate, the young US army
private who allegedly masterminded the biggest intelligence breach in history is languishing in
solitary confinement in America, facing jail for life. Private Bradley Manning, who blew the
whistle in such spectacular fashion, from a humble military desk in Iraq, is the key to US efforts
to force Julian Assange back to America for prosecution. What follows is a story that reveals the
personalities at play in WikiLeaks and the cyber world, and America's fierce determination from the
depths of its embarrassment to make an example of Julian Assange. Here's Quentin McDermott's
report. On April 5 last year, the most shocking vision to come out of the war in Iraq was published
by WikiLeaks. The US Army video, filmed in 2007, showed a group of men, almost all unarmed, being
gunned down in a Baghdad street by an American Apache helicopter, and recorded the voices of the
soldiers carrying out the attack. One man had reportedly been carrying an RPG, a rocket-propelled
grenade, but two of the unarmed men who died were Reuters news staff and two young children in a
van were seriously wounded in the onslaught. (Gunfire) The title given to the video, Collateral
Murder, marked the launch of a new, highly politicised agenda for WikiLeaks, driven by the
website's founder, Julian Assange.

Of course the title is absolutely correct. It speaks about very specific incidents. If you go to you will see the exact incident it's talking about when a man is crawling in
the street completely unarmed, wounded, and he is killed by a 30mm cannon from the air very
intentionally, and his rescuers.

I watched the Apache helicopter attack in the video with the eyes of a former marine infantry
officer. I was a platoon leader and company commander and I was also a battalion training officer,
who had trained troops on Nuremberg and the laws of war. It was very clear to me that what I was
looking at was a war crime, was murder.

The video's credits paid tribute to 'Our Courageous Source', and advertised WikiLeaks' unbroken
record in protecting confidential sources. But just seven weeks later, Private Bradley Manning, an
Army intelligence analyst, based in Baghdad, was arrested and charged with leaking the video. It
was a shattering blow, as a former spokesman for WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, recalled when he
spoke to Four Corners in Berlin last month.

When that happened and when it was black and white that an alleged source of ours was arrested, and
it was in connection to these high-profile... to this high-profile video, and it was by the US
Military, and he was detained in a prison in Kuwait, that was really devastating. And I can't even
put words on how I felt. This was like falling into a pit that had no end.

Private Manning's arrest wasn't triggered by a lapse in security from WikiLeaks, a tip-off from a
fellow soldier, or security checks in Iraq. Instead - and bizarrely - it was instigated by this
man, a former hacker from California called Adrian Lamo. Mr Lamo spoke to Four Corners on Skype. He
says Bradley Manning approached him online after learning of their shared interest in WikiLeaks,
and that their conversations ranged over several days. The words Private Manning is alleged to have
used in their chats are voiced here by an actor.

Mr Manning introduced himself factually as an intelligence analyst stationed at Forward Operating
Base Hammer in Iraq. His initial communication was unremarkable. There was nothing that would lead
a casual reader to believe that there was anything out of the ordinary about it. However, he soon
began to drop hints about his access to classified information.

Adrian Lamo says Bradley Manning sensationally confessed that he had passed vast amounts of
classified material to WikiLeaks, including a war log from Iraq, containing 400,000 events.
According to the records of these chats, Private Manning saw his own connection with WikiLeaks as
significant. Adrian Lamo says a moment came when he decided he had to act.

For me, the precise moment at which I felt that what Bradley Manning was doing was a danger to
national security and to the lives of others was when he characterised one of his leaks as being in
excess of a quarter of a million State Department documents. I knew for a fact, beyond a shadow of
a doubt, that he could not possibly have vetted all of these documents himself for safety. It was
simply being released in bulk to an unauthorised third party - a third party that had an unknown
agenda and this was of course a conduct that he was going to continue to engage in, unless

Adrian Lamo says he kept a record of the alleged confessions made by the 22-year-old soldier in
Iraq. And when he tipped off military intelligence, it was like a scene from a spy thriller.

As any good crime movie will tell you, I met them at a diner. The meetings were ultimately
multi-jurisdictional and at points involving individuals from the FBI, Army Counter Intelligence,
the Army Criminal Investigation Division, the National Security Agency and other entities. I did
not expect them to immediately arrest Mr Manning but they determined that was the best course of
action and that is what happened.

So the magazine's actually been around since the early 1990s, before there even was a web.

In an equally sensational move, Adrian Lamo then offered his story and the alleged chat logs to
Kevin Poulsen at Wired magazine in San Francisco. The two men met at this coffee shop near

I finally met up with Adrian in Sacramento at the Starbucks. He finally got his laptop working, he
finally got the logs on his screen, and I was able to start skimming through what he had there. It
kind of started to dawn on me - maybe this is real, maybe this actually turned in... turned in
WikiLeaks' most important whistleblower.

Adrian Lamo says he gave the story to Kevin Poulsen as insurance in case something happened to him.

I discussed with Kevin my interaction with government agents up to that point. I provided him with
a copy of the logs for safekeeping and at that point I went on to meet with government agents. I
myself did not know if I was necessarily going to be coming back from that meeting or if they would
want to hold on to me for some unknown reason based on the information that I already had in my

It was on the drive back from Sacramento where I found myself wondering if I was gonna be stopped
on the Bay Bridge by the Feds saying, 'Hey, you have something of ours.' I mean, that... I began to
think yeah, this was actually a big story.

In the weeks following Private Bradley Manning's arrest, an even bigger story was building. Julian
Assange by now was a wanted man, as he circled the globe with a treasure trove of documents he had
allegedly received from Private Manning. In conditions of great secrecy, Assange did a deal with
two of the world's major newspapers, the New York Times and The Guardian.

There was a lot of cloak and dagger about it because he was, I think, probably the most hunted man
on Earth at that point because of what he had. And it sounded extraordinary. And when he first came
back with his sort of password and we opened up the website and this was just the first tranche so
this was just the first set of war logs, you could immediately see that this was of tremendous
significance and was going to make an awful lot of people in governments really unhappy.

What Assange had given The Guardian was the Afghan War Logs a vast compilation of army reports from
the war, stretching back to 2004. More revelations would follow.

This disclosure is about the truth.

In late October, the Iraqi War Logs were published, detailing allegations of torture by the Iraqi
Federal Police, and complicity in that torture by the US Armed Forces in Iraq.

And this is a list of reports with key words and contacts.

The logs revealed the military's own inside story of the wars, and for the journalists charged with
sifting through the documents, it was a God-given gift.

We always thought about the issues of what do we have in these documents that could jeopardise
lives, so we had this serious... the moments of seriousness and we realised the gravity of it, but
we were also like kids in a candy store. I mean, we had... The greatest story, to my mind, of this
era for a journalist is the way - at least in the West, at least for the US - is the way September
11th has transformed American foreign policy. Not only in the ways that are very noticeable - the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - but in other ways too. And suddenly we as journalists who have had
to rely on third-hand, fourth-hand, you know, late-night interviews with people who knew pieces of
this... We had the whole... So we were elated, of course we were.

The publication of the Afghan and Iraqi war logs made Julian Assange a global celebrity. But
Private Bradley Manning was largely forgotten. The soldier, on his arrest, had been charged with
leaking more than 50 diplomatic cables to a person outside the Army. But the authorities, who had
Adrian Lamo's version of the chat logs, believed he had passed on 260,000 cables. Just how
seriously they viewed this leak became clear when Dean Baquet and his colleagues approached the
White House, to discuss redacting the cables before their publication last November, to ensure no
lives were endangered.

We walked in with some cables just to show them what we had and we walked in expecting maybe two or
three people from the Government and it was a packed conference room of people from the Defence
Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the White House, and it was a tense discussion - it was
very tense. Initially, they were making the argument that these are not things that should be made
public. There were people in the room who said this would have a devastating impact on foreign
policy. And we made the argument back for why we felt obliged to publish.

What has not been revealed until now is that within WikiLeaks itself, there was also a fierce
debate about whether it was in Bradley Manning's best interests to publish the cables.

If the cables had not been published, there would have been no proof that anyone had given the
material to a different entity. So, from my perspective, whatever would have, should have happened
with these cables, for the sake of Bradley Manning, would have been to just keep them back as long
as possible, until you find out what is happening with him, before you publish them. Because, I
mean, that's just feeding allegations of spreading material to other entities, and that might mean
new charges that have not come up at this point in time.

Did Julian Assange agree with you?

Obviously not.

Was there a discussion within WikiLeaks as to whether or not the cables should be published in the
light of the charges that were laid against Bradley Manning?

Yes. We were concerned as to how that would possibly play into his case and we saw that his charges
only included some 50 cables and so we were not sure whether that is related to the material that
we've released but we could see that extra accusations would probably be made against him given
that that he was the only name being floated around by the US Military.

There's been this US intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, arrested, and it's alleged that he
confessed in a chat room that he leaked this video to you, along with 280,000 classified US Embassy
cables. I mean, did he?

Well, we have denied receiving those cables. He has been charged about five days ago with obtaining
150,000 cables and releasing 50.

I mean, if you did receive thousands of US Embassy diplomatic cables -

We would have released them.

You would? Yeah.

Because we don't know who our sources are, we cannot be in a position where... Upcoming
publications can be affected by taking hostages. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

But doesn't that mean that those hostages, those potential sources themselves become - if you'll
forgive me - collateral damage?

Well, I mean, if a particular government wants to engage in abusive action, it engages in abusive
action. But we have a promise to our sources that we will publish.

Julian Assange has asserted that the technology used by WikiLeaks prevents the organisation knowing
the identity of its sources.

I had never heard the name Bradley Manning before I saw media reports about this, but given that
this is a man who is now wrapped up in our publishing operations, whether he was a source or not,
whether he was peripherally involved or directly involved, he is now in a position where he is in a
prison cell, awaiting trial.

If Adrian Lamo's chat logs are genuine, Bradley Manning knew the man he was talking to was Assange.
But according to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, it's quite plausible that Julian Assange didn't know the
soldier's identity.

They could have talked without exchanging their names, or Bradley Manning wouldn't have necessarily
told Julian his name. I'm not aware of what has been discussed or if anything at all had been
discussed, so I can't really comment on that.

The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts
people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with
other countries to solve shared problems.

What has angered the United States Government more than anything, is the wholesale leaking of the
State Department's diplomatic cables. Opinions differ as to how much damage this has done.

The Government overall is horrified. This is sort of the worst crisis in release of leaks of
government documents, I think, in history and, for the State Department, it's really almost
apocalyptic to have 250,000 cables lost. It affects our relations with every country in the world
and puts sources of information - not only government sources but human rights activists and
dissidents and others - at great risk.

I think the interesting thing is that nobody at the end of it can really point to any danger. I
mean, everyone was saying that the sky was going to fall in, that people would be killed, that
States would never be able to speak, but none of that happened and now, in fact, the State
Department is tacitly admitting that they actually can't point to any harm.

Ironically, this gigantic leak of diplomatic cables was only made possible by the US Government's
decision post 9/11, to bring in a policy of greater information sharing, in the wake of the
intelligence failures that allowed Al-Qaeda's attacks to occur. The new strategy meant that a lowly
private stationed in Iraq was able to access enormous databases of secret and classified material.
That policy was called Net-Centric Diplomacy.

Net-Centric Diplomacy put the bulk of US State Department cables on the military's private
intranet, its classified network called SIPRNet, where it could be accessed by hundreds of
thousands of people in the US and at foreign bases and posts. And that is what Manning apparently
took advantage of.

Given this unparalleled access, Private Manning is believed to have breached security on the
SIPRNet computer with almost farcical ease. Lady Gaga played a starring role, according to the chat
logs, as Manning downloaded a quarter of a million diplomatic cables. Private Manning's brief army
career had been a troubled one. He'd been disciplined more than once, and appears to have been
suffering great emotional stress. But he says the turning point for him came when he watched a
group of detainees he'd been told to investigate, being taken by the Iraqi Federal Police, almost
certainly to be tortured.

What we've heard from the people he unburdened himself to, Adrian Lamo, in the chat logs, was that
his motives sound exactly like mine. He said - 'I was actively participating in something I was
totally against.' Why is the Obama administration so particularly sensitive about these releases?

Daniel Ellsberg is Bradley Manning's most prominent American supporter and America's most famous
whistleblower. Forty years ago, he leaked the Pentagon Papers revealing the duplicity with which
successive American Presidents had waged the war in Vietnam. But by leaking them, like Bradley
Manning, Daniel Ellsberg risked being sent to jail for life.

In my case, it was when I finally came to see - late in the game, in 1969 - when I looked at the
origins of the war in the Pentagon Papers and realised that it had never been legitimate, that it
had never been a legitimate basis for our killing Vietnamese, that I began to see all that killing
as murder. And murder it seemed to me was something that had to be stopped, even if it put me in
prison to do it. I would say that Bradley Manning has shown a willingness to give his life, his
freedom, a life of freedom, for his country. And we can't be more patriotic than that.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg has fallen out with Julian Assange and left WikiLeaks. He believes that
taking on the US was always Julian Assange's priority.

I think he was aiming at taking up the biggest fight possible, and that fight was by taking up a
fight against the United States maybe in that case, as the biggest political player in the sphere.
And that he has some megalomaniac tendencies.

Is that your ultimate aim now - to radically change the behaviour of the world's superpowers?

Yes, that's correct. We are all too well aware of the abuses by not just superpowers, but other
powers and by companies.

So are you a revolutionary?

Well, we'll see if we end up with a decent revolution, then perhaps others can make that judgement.

Stephen Yates is a former advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney. He wants the United States to hit
back hard against Private Manning and Julian Assange.

I consider it to be an act of political warfare. The acts appear to have been done by some US
citizens, including a member of the US Military who is subject to all the penalties attached to
that office, but others have been foreign nationals and when foreign nationals gather illegal,
classified information and disclose it to try to influence US policy, that is espionage.

The US Government's challenge in this case will be to show that what Mr Assange was doing was not
classic journalism and press but in fact really theft of government property in a way that's not
protected by the First Amendment.

To date, there is no evidence that Julian Assange directly helped Bradley Manning extract the
files. Adrian Lamo says Bradley Manning did receive help but he isn't saying from whom.

A third party with whom I had interaction subsequent to my interactions with indicated that they
gave Bradley Manning assistance in setting up encryption software but that in and of itself is not
a criminal act.

Who is that third party?

Well, they're a private citizen and I would hesitate to draw undue attention onto them because in
this case the good of the one does outweigh the good of the many.

Lots of people were coming and asking how they could upload material to us. That's... You could
tell them how to safely use a computer and maybe how to encrypt information, so that certainly was
done. But I think that is pretty much valid. That's the same thing as a journalist would tell you,
that you shouldn't write your sender's address on a brown envelope or something like this.

Adrian Lamo's word appears to have been accepted by the military investigators who arrested Private
Manning. But within the hacker community he hails from, he is treated with far greater scepticism.

In the early 2000s he hacked large corporations and a couple of media outlets, including the New
York Times. And unlike most computer criminals, he was very public about it.

Adrian is a a kind of guy that loves attention and he loves to read about himself in newspaper
articles and magazines and online blogs and it seems that he goes out of his way and even
subjecting himself to Federal prosecution by... He used to do this, you know, break into computer
systems and go to the press and tell them about it so they could write about it and it would be
available on the internet.

Kevin Mitnick is himself a former computer felon. He is also a friend of Kevin Poulsen and Adrian

I call into question the authenticity of those chat logs because I know this personality, then I
call into question, well, if he is the sole person that had access to these chat logs - could he
have modified them so he'd have a great story to tell, so he would get attention? I don't know.
It's, you know, really hard to come up with the answer because I simply do not know.

But you think it's possible?

Oh, absolutely possible.

Did you modify the chat logs in any way?

Absolutely not. The chat logs were vouched for in a sworn deposition which I gave under penalty of
perjury and every line remains as it was spoken.

Doubt has also been cast on Adrian Lamo's state of mind when he says he was chatting with Bradley
Manning. Shortly before, he'd been admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

He'd been picked up by the police for behaving oddly, and he spent some days in a mental... you
know, in a hospital, where they diagnosed him as having Asperger's Syndrome.

So, here we're dealing with somebody that may have been mentally unbalanced at the time of these
chats with the... alleged chats with the soldier, so it's all very murky, you know, it's... You
know, who do you trust?

Mr Lamo is a convicted felon, who just three weeks before making these statements was in a
psychiatric hospital. Wired Magazine worked with that individual to bring out that story. I have no
idea as to how credible that story is but certainly it comes from a source which has no credibility
at all.

Mr Assange is certainly entitled to his opinions. I make no denials about the fact that I am a
convicted felon or that I have spent time in a psychiatric institution for Asperger's syndrome - a
syndrome, which I should add, does not affect the ability of its sufferers to recall facts. I
should note that Mr Assange is also a convicted computer criminal, so we have that in common.
Perhaps one day we can get together over beer and discuss it.

While the claims and counterclaims continue to rage over the chat logs' legitimacy, and Julian
Assange's involvement, Bradley Manning remains locked up inside this US Marine Corps Base outside
Washington. When he joined the military, Private Bradley Manning took an oath of allegiance to his
country, which his accusers say he betrayed. Following his arrest in Iraq, he was moved here to
Quantico where he remains a maximum custody detainee in a cell measuring 6ft by 12. Bradley
Manning's supporters want to know why he's been locked away in solitary confinement for 23 hours a
day, without a trial taking place. They argue that his incarceration here is tantamount to torture.

From meeting with Bradley, from getting to know him and from watching his state degrade over time
the only conclusion I can reach is that this is torture.

David House is a computer researcher at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He first
met Bradley Manning last May at a hacker space he'd founded in Boston. He's now the only friend
allowed to visit Bradley Manning regularly, and travels to see him at Quantico twice a month.

Bradley Manning - you hear him coming from a long way away. He has to come from the other side of
the brig and you hear the chains. He's unable to exercise, he's kept in his cell for 23 hours a day
and the only exercise he gets is walking around an empty room in chains. I went and saw him again
in December, this last December, and it was completely alarming this transition that had happened
to him. He was ashen-faced, had huge bags under his eyes and he had trouble keeping up with topics
of conversation, something that had never been a problem for him. So it's this confinement, this
solitary confinement, has really taken a huge toll on him, definitely.

Since his arrest, Bradley Manning has been held in conditions which his supporters argue are
designed to break him and lead him to cooperate with the agencies who are investigating Julian
Assange and his part in the leaks.

If the allegations against Bradley Manning are true, he is the United States' foremost political
prisoner. The increase in the severity of his treatment, according to my legal advice, is an
attempt to pressure him into trying to embroil us in some sort of espionage-related charge.

I was held in solitary confinement back in 1988, 1989 by the Federal government as a national
security threat because a Federal Prosecutor had told a judge that I could whistle into a telephone
and launch a nuclear weapon.

Kevin Mitnick is another former hacker who fell foul of the law. He is under no illusions as to why
he was held in solitary confinement and what effect it had on his case.

What the Government did is they stuck me in solitary confinement to, one, punish me and, two, get
get me to co-operate so they wouldn't have to really try the case and it was extremely effective
and after 8.5 months of sitting in a room for 23 out of 24 hours a day, I just signed the deal.

So they want him to do a deal? They want him to turn the tables on Julian Assange?

I think that's completely correct. It's like a sledge hammer trying to crack a very small nut. The
US Government is just trying to put immense pressure on him in order to get him to crack open.

The pressure now being applied by US intelligence agencies, not just to Bradley Manning, but to
supporters like David House, is intense.

I think the US Government is trying to take down the WikiLeaks organisation at all costs and they
are willing to embroil any individuals who get in their way, legitimate legal advocates or not, in
order to do so.

Last June, Federal agents came knocking on David House's front door.

At one point in this conversation one of the gentleman said flatly whilst staring me directly in
the eyes, 'If you can keep your ear to the ground on this thing, there might be a very large cash
reward in it for you.' It's very alarming to me. I mean, I didn't think the US Government offered
bribes to people.

(Dial tone)

MESSAGE: Hi, you've reached Brad Manning at my deployment phone number.

This is the only known recording of Bradley Manning's voice, taped when on deployment to Baghdad.

Please leave a message or call me back later. Thank you.

It's the voice of a man who, following his arrest, has now been silenced by the American military.

(Chanting) Free Bradley Manning!

Bradley Manning's fate is now extremely uncertain. If the charges against him are upheld in a court
martial, he could face up to 52 years in prison. But David House is confident this will not happen.

I think that Bradley has a very large base of support in the US and internationally. Many Americans
believe he's a very principled young man and if the alleged leaks from him did happen many
Americans are willing to stand up and say this was something that was done with our best interests
in mind. This was a move towards transparency, a move towards open government. and we respect this
young man. I think with all these voices joining in unison for his defence and support, there's no
way he's going to be in prison the rest of his life.

On America's Fox TV, the right-wing commentators don't hold back in discussing Julian Assange's

This guy's a traitor, a treasonous... and he has broken every law of the United States. The guy
ought to be... I'm not for the death penalty. So if I'm not for the death penalty there's only one
way to do it - illegally shoot the son of a (Bleep).

This little punk... Now I stand up for Obama. Obama, if you're listening today, you should take
this guy out - have the CIA take him out.

Even within the more politically considered circles of Washington, there is a strong commitment to
nail Julian Assange.

We may need to detain Mr Assange if he will not cease and desist from further disclosures. That's
his choice. If he will not cease, then I think that we may have to consider extrajudicial measures
in order to detain him and stop him from proceeding.

He would not be sent to Guantanamo, he would not be treated as an enemy combatant. If he were
charged he would be charged under Federal criminal statutes, prosecuted in Federal Court and if he
were ultimately convicted, would be held in a Federal penitentiary.

This courthouse in Washington is where a sealed indictment will be drawn up by a Grand Jury sitting
in secret, if the United States government decides it has built a sufficiently strong case against
Julian Assange, to warrant his extradition to America. But after falling out with the New York
Times, he won't be able to count on their support.

It's been an uncomfortable, tense, sometimes toxic relationship. He doesn't like us, we cover him
aggressively. We think he's one thing, we think he's a source - a public source not an anonymous
source. He thinks he's a journalist. So, no, it's been a tough relationship.

Julian Assange argues that he is a journalist, entitled to the same protection under the First
Amendment as any other publication. And he says he isn't finished yet.

I am a publisher and we're a publishing organisation. I invented and created a structure to do not
just a Pentagon Papers but to do the Pentagon Papers - we hope - for every country in the world,
every year.

Julian Assange now lives under a curfew imposed by the courts, in a country house in the Norfolk
village of Ellingham, north-east of London. Every afternoon he is driven to a nearby village, to
sign on at the local police station. He has signed a deal worth $1.5 million to write his memoirs -
money he says he needs to pay for his fight to avoid extradition to Sweden. The world's attention
is on Julian Assange and not on Bradley Manning.

All the fame and all this hype about WikiLeaks and Julian and Julian's problems in Sweden... I
mean, what are these problems in Sweden compared to the trouble that this private is in? I mean,
this person, who potentially is, I think, one of the biggest heroes for freedom of information in
our time. So, how does that relate? There's not... No relation in between these two things anymore.
So that's what I don't get. Everyone should be talking about Manning and not about Julian's trouble
in Sweden or in Great Britain or wherever.

One thing is for sure. Julian Assange's fate is inextricably linked with Bradley Manning's. And the
two men, whether they ever communicated or not, share a common idealism.

That truth provides an historical scaffold, a true scaffold, on which a real state can be built, on
which societies can be built.

If he could speak from his cell to the rest of the world, what would he say now?

Pay attention.

Well, there's no doubt WikiLeaks is going to continue to demand our attention for a long time to
come. Incidentally, we asked the US Government to participate in this program. It declined. Next
week on Four Corners - the looming range war in Australia between miners on the one hand, and
farmers and environmentalists on the other, over the world's biggest new energy source. Until then,

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: And to hear more from Julian Assange, Adrian Lamo and the other key players in
the program, go to the Four Corners website -

Closed Captions by CSI

This Program is Captioned Live.

(THEME MUSIC) Welcome to Media Watch. I'm Jonathan Holmes. A huge week in the Middle East, but in
Australia, What Tony Abbott said in Afghanistan, and what he didn't say in Canberra.

You're not saying anything, Tony.

I've given you the response you deserve.

Like just about everyone else in the news business, we've been bombarded with emails and messages
about Channel Seven's story. And among Media Watch viewers, there's been precious little
disagreement. And Seven News admitted on Wednesday night that -

We've had mainly negative emails and twitter messages, like:

So what do I think? Well, much the same thing. Mind you, some allegations against Seven's Political
Editor Mark Riley aren't sustainable, for example.

It really was, I thought, a most despicable ambush.

No, it wasn't. Tony Abbott may have looked as if he were ambushed,

I briefed his press secretary 2.5 hours before the interview, going through all the detail,
including Mr Abbott's comment that 'shit happens' and it was the press secretary who briefed Mr
Abbott and arranged the interview.

Tony Abbott hasn't complained that he was ambushed. But he did clearly claim this -

Look yeah, you've taken this out of context, you weren't there, I would never seek to make light of
the death of an Australian soldier.

I'm not suggesting that.