|
The Trump Administration's Cruel Use of Children for Leverage |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27423"><span class="small">Editorial Board, The Washington Post</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 30 December 2019 13:49 |
|
Excerpt: "Keeping children in detention has the effect of traumatizing them - a form of abuse that interferes with brain development and leaves lasting mental and emotional scars."
A migrant child looks out the window of a bus carrying migrant children out of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detention Center on June 23, 2018, in McAllen, Tex. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
The Trump Administration's Cruel Use of Children for Leverage
By Editorial Board, The Washington Post
30 December 19
 eeping children in detention has the effect of traumatizing them — a form of abuse that interferes with brain development and leaves lasting mental and emotional scars. That scientific consensus is irrelevant to the Trump administration, which, characteristically contemptuous of science and determined to deter illegal immigration at any cost, has formulated a plan to use detained migrant children as bait to entrap, surveil and deport their parents and relatives.
Among the plan’s likely and predictable effects is that it will dissuade potential sponsors — those parents and relatives — from coming forward, thereby lengthening by weeks or months the time many migrant children spend in U.S. government detention. The harm that results to children is undisputed. Perversely, high-ranking Trump administration officials who defend the policy, none of them experts in child psychology and development, insist it will safeguard children’s welfare.
Their logic, if you can call it that, is that it will dissuade unaccompanied young migrants from entering the country, often in the company of smugglers, thereby protecting them. The flaw in that thinking is that it discounts the factors driving Central American children and their relatives to immigrate illegally in the first place: pervasive violence, instability and poverty in their home countries, along with a job market in the United States that welcomes, and needs, low-wage labor.
The administration’s gambit, as described by The Post’s Nick Miroff, is the brainchild of Stephen Miller, a senior White House official on a crusade to slash legal and illegal immigration by any means possible. Mr. Miller, having failed to embed immigration enforcement officials in the U.S. agency that cares for unaccompanied migrant children, is now trying something different — forcing the agency to give deportation agents biometric information including fingerprints and other data gathered from parents and relatives who come forward to claim the children from detention. In cases where those relatives are rejected as potential sponsors — for reasons that might or might not be valid — the information would then be used to track and target them for deportation.
The Trump administration’s use of children as instruments of leverage is grounded in the explicit hope that their suffering might deter other migrants from making the trek northward. Last year’s episode of systematically dividing families was driven by the same morally despicable rationale. So are the administration’s efforts in federal court to overturn a 22-year-old judicial settlement that sets strict time limits on family detention on the grounds that it is likely to harm children.
Mr. Miller’s current plan runs afoul of legislation expressly intended to prohibit sharing information gathered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which cares for migrant children while seeking potential sponsors, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation agents. The administration reasons it can skirt that requirement because family members deemed ineligible to become a child’s guardians — perhaps because they committed a minor infraction — are no longer “potential sponsors.”
That’s a little too clever, since the plan is designed to do precisely what Congress hoped to avoid: intimidate and deter migrant parents who would reclaim their children from detention.
 |
|
Why America Loves - and Hates - Outspoken Young Women |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47307"><span class="small">Anna North, Vox</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 30 December 2019 13:49 |
|
North writes: "Women like Greta Thunberg and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were leaders in the 2010s. And they were vilified for it."
Greta Thunberg attends the Fridays For Future Strike on December 13, 2019, in Turin, Italy. (photo: Giorgio Perottino/Getty Images)
Why America Loves - and Hates - Outspoken Young Women
By Anna North, Vox
30 December 19
Women like Greta Thunberg and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were leaders in the 2010s. And they were vilified for it.
 hen Greta Thunberg was chosen as Time’s Person of the Year earlier this month, the accolades quickly rolled in.
The hashtag #CongratulationsGreta went viral as everyone from celebrities to newscasters to ordinary people around the world offered their praise for the 16-year-old and her outspoken climate activism.
President Donald Trump, however, was unhappy with the choice, tweeting that Thunberg should “work on her Anger Management problem” and “go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend”:
It was part of a bigger pattern. While Thunberg has become a hero to many (perhaps more than she wants), she’s also become a perennial target for attacks by Trump and others on the right. And she’s not alone. In recent years, other girls and young women, from gymnast Gabby Douglas to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have found themselves in similar positions in American culture: held up as subjects of adulation by some, even as they’re torn down and vilified by others.
It’s a symptom of the position of young women in the 2010s: still so underrepresented in many spheres that when one rises to prominence, it’s an exciting event. And, by the same token, their relative isolation makes them a focal point for the collective anger of everyone who would prefer young women be seen and not heard.
Thunberg and other young women have been both lifted up and torn down
When Thunberg started her climate strike in August 2018, skipping school to stand outside the Swedish Parliament with a sign reading “School Strike for Climate,” she likely had no idea what was to come. But soon, others began to join her and she became one of the most widely recognized faces of a youth climate movement that’s inspired millions of people to strike around the world.
Thunberg was far from the first to sound the alarm on climate change and environmental degradation; indigenous activists of all ages, like those who protested the building of the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock reservation in 2016, have been doing so for generations. But she became a celebrity, with TV interviews, merchandise bearing her face, and then, in December, the cover of Time.
As much as Thunberg has won adulation from liberals, she’s also been attacked by Trump and other Republicans. Before his December tweet, the president had mockingly commented that “she seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.” Meanwhile, others called her a “vulnerable young drama queen” or said she is “mentally ill.” (Thunberg has been open about having Asperger’s syndrome, which is not a mental illness.)
The treatment — high praise combined with intense vitriol — was likely familiar to many women who came to prominence in America in their teens or 20s. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress in 2018 at the age of 29, certainly experienced it.
The New York Democrat has always made clear that she represents not just herself but a larger group of Americans with progressive priorities and values, as Prachi Gupta reports in a recent biography of the member of Congress. When asked in a primary debate if she’d support her opponent should he win the nomination, she replied, “I represent not just my campaign but a movement. I would be happy to take that question to our movement for a vote.”
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez — or AOC, as she’s come to be known — has become perhaps the best-known face of that progressive movement. With 6 million followers on Twitter and 4 million on Instagram, she’s a social-media sensation. And like Thunberg, her image has been used to adorn T-shirts and other products. Look no further than this memorable mug that displays her riding on a unicorn, with the message, “I believe in AOC.”
She’s also been a target of ridicule and mockery since her election, with critics focusing on everything from her clothing to her haircut to her dancing. Trump has led the charge several times, as when he launched a series of racist tweets at “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen” — presumably meaning Ocasio-Cortez and her political allies Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley — telling them to “go back” to their countries. All four Representatives are US citizens; Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx, not far from Trump’s own birthplace in Queens.
Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez haven’t been the only girls and young people who’ve found themselves the subject of combined fascination and fury. Activist Emma González rose to prominence after she survived the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She began giving speeches and helping to organize marches for gun safety, alongside other young activists, many of them young women. While many followed in her footsteps in calling for stricter gun laws, others lobbed homophobic attacks, with one Republican candidate for state office calling her a “skinhead lesbian.” (González, who is bisexual, responded: “Skinheads are bad and lesbians are good.”)
And such hatred hasn’t been reserved for young people who became famous through political action. Gabby Douglas became a worldwide sensation in 2012 when she became the first black American woman to become an Olympic all-around champion in gymnastics. Then, in 2016, she faced racist and sexist attacks, with critics going after her for failing to put her hand on her heart during the national anthem and other perceived slights. The experiences helped inspire Douglas to become an anti-bullying advocate.
Tennis superstar Serena Williams has faced similar treatment throughout her career, as Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos pointed out in 2016. Ever since she rose to fame as a teenager, she’s been subject to racist caricatures, attacks on her body, and an endless onslaught of criticisms that white male athletes simply don’t have to deal with.
All told, the 2010s were a decade when girls and young women could look around and see themselves represented in public life perhaps more than ever before — but that representation came at the price of hatred, sometimes from the most powerful men in the country.
It’s a sign of how American culture views young women
Overall, the 2010s have seen a hunger for female role models. The election of President Trump and the rise of the Me Too movement have inspired many women to activism and political action, and made many Americans think about the disproportionate power men still hold.
And yet, men still dominate. As one example, Trump remains president, despite reports by more than 20 women that he sexually assaulted, harassed, or otherwise violated them.
Meanwhile, women still face the social expectation that they be quiet, agreeable, and certainly never aggressive — even when they’re running for president. Those expectations are even more intense for girls and younger women (though older women face their own set of biases). And prominent young women of color face not just sexism and ageism but racism as well. As Vox’s Nisha Chittal writes, the attacks on Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow progressive congresswomen “feel all too familiar to many women of color; they’re part of a long, established pattern of attempts to silence those who step out of the roles society has ascribed to them.”
All this combined to make the 2010s a time when young women were widely celebrated for their achievements — in some cases made into celebrities even against their will — while simultaneously being vilified for breaking with the conventions that held previous generations back.
As a result, girls growing up today have more prominent women to look up to than perhaps ever before, some of them only a few years younger than they are. But they also see those women being treated with hatred and cruelty, time and time again. That constant barrage might well be discouraging for some would-be activists and politicians. Why run for office, give a public speech, or stand up for what you believe in when the result might be a hate tweet from the president of the United States?
On the other hand, Thunberg and others of her generation have shown how well they hold their own when attacked by those in power. When Trump tweeted about her in September, she changed her Twitter bio to make fun of him. When he accused her of having “Anger Management” issues in December, she did it again, changing her bio to read that she was “a teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”
The 2010s have been, in many ways, a punishing time to be a high-profile young woman in America. But Thunberg and others are persevering in the face of criticism, offering a model of grace, strength, and humor to the generations that follow — and even to the generations that have preceded them.
|
|
|
Chile Needs a Political Revolution |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52769"><span class="small">Denis Rogatyuk, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 30 December 2019 13:49 |
|
Excerpt: "After weeks of popular protests, Chilean authorities have promised to rewrite the constitution inherited from the Augusto Pinochet regime. But the millions-strong mobilization behind the protests wants to totally undo the country's neoliberal order."
Chilean people protest against the government of President Sebastián Piñera on December 20, 2019 in Santiago, Chile. (photo: Marcelo Hernandez/Getty Images)
Chile Needs a Political Revolution
By Denis Rogatyuk, Jacobin
30 December 19
After weeks of popular protests, Chilean authorities have promised to rewrite the constitution inherited from the Augusto Pinochet regime. But the millions-strong mobilization behind the protests wants to totally undo the country’s neoliberal order.
 he protests that broke out in Chile this October have seen the biggest wave of social struggle since the end of Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship — and a revolt against the political and social order bequeathed by his regime. While a thirty-peso increase in Santiago metro fares was the initial trigger for the protests, the issues driving the rebellion were much wider — as one slogan had it, “It’s Not About Thirty Pesos, It’s About Thirty Years.” Demands have ranged from the resignation of right-wing president Sebastián Piñera to action over the soaring cost of living.
Yet even three decades since the end of Pinochet’s regime, the protests have not only highlighted young people’s economic ills and the destruction of the pension system, but also a yawning democratic deficit. Piñera has unleashed terrifying state repression against the demonstrators, with thousands of arrests and at least twenty-six protesters killed. Conversely, Chilean citizens have built impressive mobilizations from below, with thousands of local initiatives contributing to marches involving over one million people.
On November 15, as a concession to the movement, the government promised a rewriting of the constitution inherited from the Pinochet era, allowing a firmer break with the legacy of the dictatorship. Yet while most parties in Congress back the idea of a new constitution, to be ratified via referendum, many on the Left have sharply criticized the plan, casting it as an elite stitch-up while noting that none of the forces involved in the protest movement are to be consulted on the new document.
One such critic is Hugo Gutiérrez, a lawyer and an MP for the Communist Party of Chile (PCC). He spoke to Denis Rogatyuk about the democratic demands raised by the protest movement, the constitutional reform plan, and the prospect of Piñera being tried for crimes against humanity.
DR: What is your stance regarding the agreement between Piñera’s government and other Chilean political forces on the writing of a new constitution? What are the biggest problems with it?
HG: This is an agreement of and within the political elite. Citizens are rising up against these elites because of how they’ve run the country these last thirty years — and these same elites met in a room on the morning of November 15 to fix a way forward that would secure their own control of the process toward a new constitution. So the existing constitution will determine how the new one is written.
Faced with this whole process, President Piñera has maintained his silence, obviously because at the most crucial point of social conflict this deal served as an institutional life jacket. But this is not a real constituent process. It has established a road map that does not include compulsory voting throughout the whole process, but only in the final ratifying referendum. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not allowed to participate, even though they were the forerunners and main supporters of October’s movement.
The reform plan has been formulated by a technocratic commission which only includes representatives of the political parties which signed the deal. The constitutional reform process, moreover, maintains the two-thirds quorum for the approval of the constitutional text — something which ultimately hands the minority a veto.
The worst thing is that the absolute protection of our current form of state is taken for given, in one little paragraph. That is, the current form of the republic and its democratic system — the unitary national, presidentialist state — is fixed in place ex ante. And it will be up to the Supreme Court to resolve any disputes. To put the icing on the cake, it’s stipulated that the constitutional convention will cease its functions once the writing of the constitutional text is complete, and if citizens don’t approve this specific text then Pinochet’s constitution will stay in place. So where is the constituent power, here? Its power, its freedom, is totally strangled by the established authorities.
DR: The writing of a new constitution is a historic process — for the first time, it provides the possibility of getting rid of Pinochet’s constitution. So why is your party critical of this process?
HG: The historic thing, here, is the awakening of the consciousness of millions of Chileans, who have piled pressure on the political elite and forced the government to propose a way out of the crisis.
History will look kindly on these thousands of kids who have been in the front line, defending their compatriots from repression. We shouldn’t forget that more than thirty people have been killed, more than three hundred young people have lost an eye, and protesters have been tortured and sexually abused.
The security forces have continued to serve as a repressive machine for the elites, against the great majority of citizens. And history will look kindly on these millions of young people — not to the miserable elites who propose a pseudo-democratic, pseudo-constituent plan serving only their own needs and their own privileges.
The Communist Party of Chile’s critique of this process mainly centers on the fact that it is an attempt to bypass and restrict the people’s own leading role. It leaves out the millions of citizens, since the people’s sovereignty will again be limited to the simple act of voting.
The mobilized people met in action — holding thousands of neighborhood meetings, creating residents’ committees, discussing and setting the bases of a new constitution, making the constituent process a material reality. Yet this deal, agreed among elites, arose as an alternative to all this. Sovereignty was taken back off the people. The elites did not invite the participation of the leaders of Unidad Social or Bloque Sindical, who had already gathered and processed the conclusions of thousands of neighborhood meetings across Chile. All this simply wasn’t taken into account.
Still today there has been no dialogue or agreement between the social movements and the political elite, to take forward this process. In short, this is nothing but a top-down constitutional reform which will merely be ratified by a referendum. It has very little to do with a really democratic constituent process.
DR: How would you assess the results of the failed impeachment attempt against President Piñera? What is your understanding of why the center-left MPs voted against his impeachment, joining together with the Right?
HG: The result of the impeachment attempt shows that the elite will always ultimately defend its interests and the reserved powers that allow it to maintain its institutional control. Sadly, some claimed that this [accusation against Piñera] was a sort of “coup d’état” or that “democracy was at risk” — which was just nonsense. After all, the impeachment mechanism is stipulated in the constitution, and almost all countries rely on this democratic mechanism as a way of holding their authorities to account for their actions. The funniest thing was that many accused the impeachment attempt of being a political judgment .?.?. what else could it have been? The Congress is a political arena, by its very nature.
As for the fact that some center-left MPs lined up with the Right to defend Piñera, all that can be said is that they took fright at the sharpening contradictions and feared the macroeconomic effects, the risks of a deepening crisis, and the role that the armed forces might play. I believe there was a mix of accommodation and cowardice.
DR: Piñera is under a court investigation for crimes against humanity. Do you believe that the Chilean justice system will convict him? Is there a proper, ethical justice system in Chile?
HG: The latest we know is that the justice system has admitted the complaints for processing. Now we have to see what role the Public Ministry and the judicial authorities will play during this process. The evidence and testimony from the president’s own subordinates, as well as from the victims, will be important, here.
I don’t think this will be a quick trial, but history will remember that Sebastián Piñera was tried for human rights violations. Whatever the result, this would remain an important precedent for justice systems internationally. Justice is justice, and it is based on fundamental legal norms; what is proper or ethical will be judged by history, by the collective consciousness. In our case, history doesn’t typically look kindly on those who violated human rights.
DR: Do you believe that the United States has designed a plan to impose institutional dictatorships in Chile, Ecuador, and Bolivia — that is, are we dealing with a new Condor Plan?
HG: There is no doubt that the United States will always be a force behind events in Latin America. For the United States, we are its “backyard.” So, it always has Condor Plans up its sleeve, to resolve social conflicts somewhere on the continent or to push things back toward the right if the people give their electoral backing to the Left.
Indeed, we have seen a sophisticated set of operations at work, to take back control of the continent. Much of this is a matter of ideology and conservative religiosity — posing the question of political control as a crusade waged by God’s people. Media manipulation and political patronage have set up a religious populism that has penetrated the political class and the armed forces. I’ve no doubt that this was thought up in some Pentagon or CIA meeting room.
This is a new type of dictatorship — one where political responsibility lies more with the political class than with the armed forces, which operate only as institutional enforcers for these fundamentalist elements. We have seen this in Brazil, in Ecuador, and Bolivia — a neoconservative restoration on the terrain of morality, in order to appropriate the national wealth through the total liberalization of the markets. Doubtless, there is coordination and a plan, whose main beneficiary is the United States.
DR: You are an active internationalist — we’ve seen you defending both Ecuador’s former vice president Jorge Glas and ousted Bolivian president Evo Morales. You even visited Glas in prison. What is your diagnosis of what is going on in Bolivia and in Ecuador?
HG: In both countries there were mistakes, or a lack of audacity, in resolving the question of how to renew their leaderships and ensure the continuity of the change process. In Ecuador trust was put in a vacillating traitor [a reference to Rafael Correa’s successor as president, Lenín Moreno, who has pushed deeply unpopular IMF-backed “reforms”], and in Bolivia they kept on with a leadership arrangement which already had over twelve years behind it.
A bolder approach was needed in terms of resolving the historic leadership vacuum on the Left. And this isn’t just a problem for these two countries. So, it is key not to overlook the importance of consciousness-raising, political education, and popular organizing as fundamental tools for giving the change processes the secure foundations they need. Only if the people play the leading role can the defense of popular interests be secured.
In both Bolivia and Ecuador, the empire and the Right saw a crack they could enter through, and things have turned out moderately well for them. I say moderately, because in each country there has been popular resistance. I am confident that both Ecuador and Bolivia are going to be put right again. But all this has brought a hefty cost. It is a significant retreat, because it doesn’t just affect these countries but the morale of the entire continent.
We have to be careful and have more trust in our people. For example, only now has MAS [Movement for Socialism, Morales’s party] opened up to the prospect of David Choquehuanca being its candidate, even though a while ago he could likely have been a presidential candidate who could have ensured the continuity of the change process. It is important to learn these lessons.
|
|
FOCUS: The Stitching-Up of Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52767"><span class="small">Keith Davis, The Australian Independent Media Network</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 30 December 2019 12:39 |
|
Davis writes: "While we sit on our arses and fiddle with our fingers a brave son of Australia is about to be thrown to the wolves."
Julian Assange. (photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
The Stitching-Up of Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg
By Keith Davis, The Australian Independent Media Network
30 December 19
So while we sit on our arses and fiddle with our fingers a brave son of Australia is about to be thrown to the wolves.
 t would pay us well to read, and reflect upon, the following transcript between the President of the United States, his National Security Adviser, and his Attorney General.
The background to the transcript is that a journalist had just published an article in The New York Times. The article was the first installment of seven thousand pages of highly classified documents that exposed the decision-making process that had led the United States into an interminably long and destructive war.
Earlier, on the same day that the transcript was recorded, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the First Amendment, ruled 6-3 that the Times had the right to publish the stolen documents.
The journalist who published the article stated that “It was just an exquisite moment of vindication for the freedom of the press in this country and how important it is.”
The President, on that very same day ordered his Attorney General to discredit the source of the documents, a man who had just been indicted by a federal grand jury under the questionable strictures of the Espionage Act of 1917. Sound familiar?
The redactions in the transcript are mine.
President: Don’t you agree that we have to pursue the … (redacted) case?
Attorney General: No question about it. No question about it. This is the one sanction we have, is to get at the individuals …
President: Let’s get the son of a bitch into jail.
National Security Advisor: We’ve got to get him, we’ve got to get him …
President: Don’t worry about his trial. Just get everything out. Try him in the press. Try him in the press. Everything, … (redacted), that there is on the investigation, get it out, leak it out. We want to destroy him in the press. Is that clear?
Attorney General: Yes.
So even though the highest Court in America ruled that the release of the documents was both lawful, and in the public interest, the President and his administration sought to go after, jail, and demolish those who were involved in the leaking of the documents.
And so Julian Assange sits rotting in a British jail while a case is concocted against him. And so our Australian Government sits on its arse and does not have the fortitude to confront Trump and his administration, and so the majority of our Quiet Australians (those perennial supplicants at the altar of the Big Lie) sit on their arses, while a brave son of Australia is thrown to the wolves.
There are some here in Australia who have had the courage to speak up, but far too many more of either political persuasion have not had the moral courage to speak up.
I don’t know what books Julian Assange has access to in his jail cell, but if he has access to the one I have just read, I don’t doubt that he would be reflecting upon the depth of betrayal, and the rankness of the betrayal, that has been sent his way by his own people, his own Australian people. Let alone what his thoughts also might be about the Americans at the highest level of power who are going for his jugular.
We all like to think that the ability of those in power to suppress truth and to threaten the journalists who publish that truth is diminished by a long societal memory of previously exposed scandals, and by the very vigilance of an informed and concerned populace. Well, that is simply not so. We live in an era where truth is far more strongly suppressed than it ever was, where the populace is apathetic and supportive of political populism, and where the journalists who expose that suppression of truth are pursued with the full force of the State.
Those of you with a knowledge of history might well ask what parallel is there between the cases of Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, between the release of The Pentagon Papers and the Wikileaks Documents? For that is the question that I have unfolded above for you to think about. The transcript quoted above was recorded in 1971 and Daniel Ellsberg was the target. The transcripts concerning Julian Assange are being recorded right now.
I think you are intelligent enough to work out the multiple parallels between both cases for yourselves.
The transcript participants (recorded on June 30, 1971): President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, John Mitchell.
The transcript and other relevant information quoted from the book: The Vietnam War – An Intimate History, by Geoffrey C. Ward & Ken Burns, 2018.
The documents: The Pentagon Papers.
One source/author of the documents (target of the transcript): Daniel Ellsberg.
Here in Australia some of our journalists and others are currently being pursued by the full force of a middle-ranking state because of the disclosure of secrets that our government wished to keep quiet about – think East Timor and Afghanistan. Internationally, one of our journalists, for that is what he is, is being pursued by the full force of the American State because he published material, damning material, that the American State wished to keep quiet.
The stitch-up of Julian Assange is well underway. But it will be many decades before the transcript of the tapes of White House manoeuvring to indict him are released for public reading.
We, the people of Australia, need to step in right now and stop the tapes. We need to bring Julian Assange home to freedom.
|
|
