It was a month ago I contacted Julian Assange, through one of its employees. Immediately  He agreed to an exchange of e-mails and messages for safety.

In the middle there was urgency created by tension because it was getting near the moment that London decides to extradite him to Sweden. Here is the result of an exchange of mails for a month.

There is no charge against me in any country in the world until today. The Swedish prosecutor has requested my extradition for questioning and based on an invalid warrant extradition. What exists so far in Sweden opened a preliminary investigation.

Even though I offered to Mrs. Swedish prosecutor handling the case that questioned me for a letter rogatory, video or simple telephone conversation, she has refused, without an explanation to justify its refusal to conduct,   if the questioning doesn´t develop on Swedish territory. It is standard procedure in these cases to European researchers who wish to collect information and verify facts, using the telephone or travel to countries. Nothing would prevent it. They admitted to the Supreme Court of the United

Kingdom that nothing is stopping you and refuse to explain to everyone, including the courts, why they would not talk with me, restricting my freedom and for over a year.

Sweden was a progressive country, but no more so since the murder of Olof Palme. Sweden enjoys a progressive reputation no longer deserved. In fact, is the country with the highest per capita manufacturing weapons in the world, even over Israel. Most of his progressive policies that marked the welfare state model of th.

In the decade of 2000, Sweden broke with two centuries of neutrality when they delegated their own soldiers to U.S. in order to control  Afghanistan. I have no faith Sweden would protect me, as it has left behind his ideals to become an ally of the United States, even behind their own people.

We know from the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables published by the United States has established numerous informal arrangements to avoid scrutiny of the Swedish parliament. For example, we got to light that the Swedish government allows U.S. access to private data and communications from the Swedish population, although this decision was even posed in Parliament.

The cables reveal that even within the Swedish government does not know the extent of Swedish collaboration with the U.S., and to open the matter to Parliament would risk informal arrangements to share existing information, and result in criticism of the Swedish government, by their citizens.

Sweden secretly collaborated with the CIA to authorize extraordinary rendition flights from its country. In 2001 colaborated in extrajudicial kidnapping of two people who had political asylum in Sweden. Those two people were transported to Egypt where they were tortured.

The Committee against Torture of the UN, among others, has described as illegal the conduct of Sweden. As to the  matter of extradition, Sweden has agreed to extradite all those who have been requested by U.S. since 2000. Sweden was one of the few countries that voted against the inclusion of Palestine to UNESCO, without abstain.

Wikileaks revealed the practices that violate human rights in the U.S. featuring wars and has fully exposed the secrets of American diplomacy around the world. From this country there are voices that have suggested that you are treated as a war criminal. Why this country then has also requested his extradition?

It is true that Ive been accused of terrorist Mossad spy, spy for the CIA, everything except a journalist, because they know that if I am appointed for that,  I am protected by the First Amendment.

But in fact we know that the U.S. has the express intention of extraditing me from their country. WikiLeaks has published one of the leaders of the company Stratfor, a private intelligence firm based in Austin, Texas, had information of a sealed indictment in January 2011.

We also know through interviews with State Department advisers, interviews with ambassadors from the United States of America, Australia and the United Kingdom, the United States is negotiating and lobbying for these countries to access my extradition once it has cleared the Swedish case. We also know that the United States and Sweden have held informal meetings about my extradition as early as December 8, 2010, they reported the British newspaper The Independent.

What was the position of your native Australia, against WikiLeaks and Julian Asange? Do you feel that you would be more protected if you decide to settle there?

The political situation in Australia is very fragile and troubling right now.Just a few weeks ago there arose a great power struggle between the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. The dispute ended with the resignation of the last, who held the post of chancellor. But the seriousness of this situation was that the scandal hid an amendment to the law of extradition. This law provides extradition for political offenses.

The  U.S. Ambassador in Australia said in an interview that Australia should review its extradition laws regarding my extradition to U.S.

It seems that the government has followed the dictates of the superpower, and they intend to sacrifice me and WikiLeaks to the altar of the U.S. alliance. I believe that Australia no longer protect me, unless the current government and Prime Minister Gillard. Gillard has accused me of acting illegally, disrespecting the principle of presumption of innocence.

Then she had to admit that I had not violated the Australian law reluctantly. Still, the Australian government has amended a law, the amendment WikiLeaks, which extends the powers of the Australian intelligence services so they can monitor an Australian NGOs such as WikiLeaks, even thought it  hasn´t been accused of anything.

However, I must say also that I have received many expressions of support from the Australian population. A few months ago we won the Walkley award, whichs is the equivalent to American Pulitzer Prize famous in Australia for the outstanding contribution to journalism. "In 2011 I was awarded by Sydney Peace Prize for my work with WikiLeaks. I share this honor with people who I admire, like Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

What happened with this award, however, caused me sadness and wonder. Despite the importance of the prize, an international award that gives my country of great prestige, the Australian Embassy in the United Kingdom refused to host the awards ceremony. The embassy suggested that the Foundation of the Sydney Peace rent a bar somewhere for the gala awards.
That disconnection is precisely what alarms me in my country: on the one hand the support of the population, journalists and human rights lawyers, and even the last Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and the other the governments hostile attitude and most politicians, who do not take a strong position to protect its citizens from the wrath of the military-industrial America. It is for this gap, for that disconnection, I announced my intention nomination of candidate to the Senate of my country in 2013.

You have created the idea of ​​WikiLeaks seeks  to confront the Pentagon. Is that really the reason for WikiLeaks?

This is one of the attacks that are unfounded. The material that WikiLeaks has published since 2006 concerns every country in the world. They are diplomatic cables and there is no country that has not been affected by this revelation. Since 2006 we have published papers in the UK, Germany, China, Cuba, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Iran, Somalia, Kenya and many other countries.

The charge that WikiLeaks is an organization antagonistic to the Pentagon is a tactic. Neither Amnesty International nor WikiLeaks, to mention another organization that pursues the same objectives of fairness and transparency, consider that the Pentagon is exempt from  the population. Is accountable to its own population and those populations is leading a war.

Through the great revelations of the Iraq documents, we know that the U.S. military was counting the deaths of civilians, but said publicly that he did not know the numbers: more than 100,000.

If revealing war crimes and deaths of innocent civilians on this scale is in the eyes of the Pentagon an affront, it means that the democratic mechanisms in the country have stopped working.

I will use the same question as an example. Although you mention that there are some actors who say WikiLeaks journalism actually does not mention who they are. This is a distraction used by many journalists. Thats bad journalism, do not to name those who say something, either because the claim is less important when you mention or because often no one said what you said.

In the case of WikiLeaks, who verbally attacked the organization are either government officials or well and, surprisingly, media rivals. Why do they  see Wikileaks as competition? Because we do journalism better than theirs.
Journalists who take a camera to film in war are real journalists, journalism is not scribbles opinion, is to find, is located, is removed, it is verified, is selected and presented in an appropriate format, with full analysis, the facts about the world, facts that can change the world. WikiLeaks does all that.

The question is not whether the media can control governments or vice versa, there may be no difference between them. The question is how people can control them.

When the media do their job, they tell people how corporations and governments behave, without hiding uncomfortable truths. When a medium is corrupt, abuses his position of influence and hides information to people, or use people as a personal army in a fight for their own interest not revealed to the public.

Almost all major media organizations are suffering from  distortion, institutional corruption because once they grow and have enough power, attracts powerful groups who are able to control people, then make deals under the table to protect certain interests and to target certain groups.

That is why it is extremely important to prevent the media from growing too, and that is why the Internet has been a tremendous boom to the truth. Not because everything that is published on the Internet is true, but for increasing the barrier to entry for anyone to publish, so that thousands of people to publish.

If it is very difficult for an organization, including a State, withhold information from the public, is it too risky to proceed with a plan, perpetrating an injustice. If it brings out the plans for doing something dirty or wrong, many of these plans can be avoided. Because justice, once exposed is the opposite and therefore is unlikely to be carried out or much more difficult to perform.

If governments can not make plans unjust, then governments can only be a tool for social justice. Similarly corporations, it is easier to make a fair plan an unjust, most plans will be fair.

Does the material given to the media, the information provided, also did not reveal the precariousness of the media versus what hidden power, or some media complicity with certain powers?

Yes, I found a lot of that you mention. For example, in our publication of diplomatic cables, known as Cablegate, The New York Times warned the White House diplomatic cables will post about two weeks before they came to light in the mainstream media.

What is even worse was that this newspaper gave full editorial control by the government, the State Department informing them each day before publishing what specific cable going out.

As a result of such action is suppressed and never published a story about the U.S. government and a squad of hit men in the Army, although the story had been written by one of its reporters.

Like this, there are many other cases, not only was The New York Times, El Pais wrote parts of the cables not to protect sources,

but for political reasons. Der Spiegel in Germany criticized at least one cable on Merkel and the war in Afghanistan for political reasons; The Guardian condemned hundreds of cables, for example, that the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko, hid her fortune in London and the Italian corporation ENI was corrupt.

Le Monde decided to not only write but also delete entire paragraphs of diplomatic cables on sub-Saharan Africa. It is also surprising that a newspaper like The New York Times published only 190 diplomatic cables, less than 0.08 of the material revealed.

Is it possible to regulate the media without affecting freedom of expression? In Ecuador, for example, has not yet been possible to agree a media regulatory law, it is argued that regulation is equivalent to censorship. Is this necessarily true?

Markets must be regulated to remain free, otherwise large companies become monopolies or duopolies. This happens also with the media. When media companies have grown too much power in the marketplace of ideas and also have the ability to abuse that power and distort information, information on which people base their decisions, in which people trust.

It is true that if you do not have the means to control these powerful actors, tomorrow we can see a beverage corporation paying the largest local newspaper, for example El Comercio or El Universo, it published a note saying that your competitors product contains cyanide.

However, even with regulation, if a mass media is big and powerful and it has the ability to place themselves above the law, through their connections and contacts, or rather abuse of legislation to affect competition.

I think the right approach to the subject is having little or no regulation of the means for individuals and small publishers, and also break the media monopolies and that they can not abuse their dominant market position.
If it is not politically  possible  to break these monopolies, then your behavior must be regulated in a carefuly.

The idea behind the Modern Media Initiative submitted to the Icelandic Parliament is to promote Internet industry and diversity of media and therefore of democracy at an international level, providing protections and safeguards for publications such as WikiLeaks.

This is done in different ways, making it easier to register a foreign media organization, with the legal requirement that journalists protect their sources, providing legislation to protect and prevent the destruction of material that has already been published and historica files, and giving an annual prize for freedom of expression.

It is designed to protect the actual investigative journalism, as opposed to capitalist journalism. It is designed to protect journalism like WikiLeaks of abuse of the legal system that companies use to stop the investigative journalists.

The biggest attack on Wikileaks so far has not directly perpetrated by the government, but by banks and corporations more than one hundred legal attacks for now. These are mostly financial institutions. Many journalists have left the United States to prevent attacks from corporations to their jobs, for example in other countries also involves journalists to go into exile or to post what they have published.

 
Before that Ecuadors decision to expel the diplomats were expelled U.S. Ambassador in Mexico and Libya. From the evidence in diplomatic cables seems that these officials said one thing local contacts or with the people who were having lunch and quite another when they sent their reports to Washington. Therefore, it is no surprise that the government of Ecuador lost confidence in

the Ambassador, in such circumstances.

Personally, I disagree with the decision to expel her because I think it would have been a better strategy to keep "the devil you know".

I have observed the growing strength in terms of cohesion and South - South cooperation, democratization, and Latin American leadership is now recognized on the international stage. About Ecuador is a country that is implementing measures to reduce poverty and inequality and thats positive.

Yes, Im filming a program that explores the world where its going in the future utopias, technical developments ... To do this I interviewed the brightest or most impact people around the world. Among the people I interviewed are from thinkers like Noam Chomsky to the president of Tunisia, to name a some.

We live in the world where  our senses perceive. Our limits are the limits of our perceptions. This generation knows more than any other generation ever. Their actions will eclipse all previous generations. To change the world in which we live, observe, think and act. To observe, we open our eyes.

To think, we open our minds. To act, we open our hearts to courage, bravery. Our eyes have never been so open. Our minds have never been as rapid as today. And our courage, our courage, is spreading like a virus.