15 ms·

UN special rapporteur on torture on his investigation into the case of Assange

258 points by rendall 7y ago

Synaesthesia 7y ago
Sad day when torture by the west of a journalist goes uncondemned. This guy is a hero, he has committed no crime other than honest reporting.
- DavidVoid 7y ago
  >This guy is a hero, he has committed no crime other than honest reporting. Just because you like his reporting doesn't mean he's innocent of any crimes he's been accused of, especially not when those crimes are unrelated to his reporting. That's like saying Kobe Bryant was innocent of sexual assault just because he was a great basketball player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_cas...
  - nsajko 7y ago
    In fact I think that hero worship and "protection"[0] that fans try to give to their favorite celebrity or politician contributes to "heros" feeling above social norms and other persons, and thus, eg., sexual assault or fraud or theft happen. [0] I am referring to the attacks on accusers in such cases.
    - rendall 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying, here. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture reports on actual subversion of democracy and principles, and random people keep FUDding about. It's not about fanboys, basketball players, nor even sexual assault.
  - thiagoharry 7y ago
    Wow. Was the basketball player also suffering persecution by CIA or FBI because he offered some kind of menace to geopolitical interests of a great power and these accusations also happened in very strange timings and circunstances?
  - cassianoleal 7y ago
    The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's been accused of. He also makes it quite clear that he didn't think of himself to be above the law, having tried to submit himself to the justice system on several occasions.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      > The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's been accused of. Then if he's not guilty, let it be shown so at trial, and not at the say of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
      - tremon 7y ago
        That's not how it works. Do we need to establish a trial before we can show your innocence in this case too? If he is guilty, then let it be shown so at trial. In absence of such a trial, he is not guilty. But such a trial will not happen, and was probably never intended to happen. Yet it shows how effective the media campaign against him has been: The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - xrd 7y ago
        You should read what Snowden has to say about a fair trial in his case. I think the same thing might apply here.
      - eindiran 7y ago
        There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you have to act like they're not guilty: also known as the presumption of innocence. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat" (Latin for "the burden of proof is for the one who makes the claim, not the one who denies it"). See the links below, making special note of the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard applies in both countries relevant to this case, the UK and the US (with the caveat that judges in the UK don't use the phrase anymore post-2008): [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
  - mr_woozy 7y ago
    there's a standard procedure for prosecution of sexual crimes in Sweden. The police did not follow it, nor any of the other relevant procedures that are used for all other cases in Sweden. There are numerous emails implicitly showing international pressure to hold the case open for years without allowing Assange to testify or resolve the case legally. How you think that is somehow similar to Kobe Bryant is beyond me. Did you read the article before commenting? Or do you like making vacuous statements with the intention of informing everyone here what a knee-jerk uninformed response looks like?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Consider that kobe was never found guilty in a court of law. So I'm not sure how you know he is a sexual assaulter.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  Dumping documents doesn't make you a journalist. The only people who claim to be journalists who would support him as one are those who have a reputational and financial interest in being associated whim.
hendi_ 7y ago
German version: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...
yesenadam 7y ago
"...if investigative journalism is classified as espionage and can be incriminated around the world, then censorship and tyranny will follow. A murderous system is being created before our very eyes. War crimes and torture are not being prosecuted. YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is investigating it. At the same time, a person who exposes such things is being threatened with 175 years in prison. For an entire decade, he has been inundated with accusations that cannot be proven and are breaking him. And nobody is being held accountable. Nobody is taking responsibility. It marks an erosion of the social contract. We give countries power and delegate it to governments – but in return, they must be held accountable for how they exercise that power. If we don’t demand that they be held accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or later. Humans are not democratic by their nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored. Corruption is the result if we do not insist that power be monitored."
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  > Humans are not democratic by their nature. How sad. How still very much true.
- nonbirithm 7y ago
  > YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Is there a citation for this? All I could find was allegations of sexual assault in the US military (which is also completely horrendous), but no videos on YouTube.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Of course there isn't a citation, because it is most likely pure bullshit. Show me the video and I will change my mind.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    There are many, just a Google search away from "Iraq rape us military". Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
nsajko 7y ago
Some older articles: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_assange https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a... I am sad that US is trying prosecute Assange for espionage, but the attacks from other sides on the Swedish prosecutors who tried to prosecute Assange seem just as bad. Assange is not above the law, or common decency, just because of founding Wikileaks. The implications of that for justice and prosecutors worldwide are scary. Also, I think that it really would have been better for him and Wikileaks to just submit to Swedish investigation, especially if he is really innocent regarding sexual offences and after he already got publicity on that front.
- tremon 7y ago
  No, the attacks on the Swedish prosecutors are fully warranted. He submitted to Swedish investigation multiple times. From the article: In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. We have to stop believing that there was really an interest in leading an investigation into a sexual offense Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later [..] Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. [..] At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. [..] But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name. That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. [..] Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. Assange’s lawyers petitioned Sweden’s highest court to force public prosecutors to either finally press charges or suspend the case. When the Swedes told the UK that they may be forced to abandon the case, the British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare get cold feet!!» Keep in mind, this is the UN's special rapporteur on torture, not some random opinion. Further on in the article: When a country like Sweden declines to answer questions submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the government is aware of the illegality of its behavior and wants to take no responsibility for its behavior
rendall 7y ago
I can't really understand how someone could read the article and not be moved and chilled. Can someone who persecutes Assange please really just, here, anonymously if you must, please make a case for doing this. You think it's ok to do this... why? What is the end goal? No one can report governmental crimes? That's the world you want, for you and your family?
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  This is the world we live in now. If you're going to disclose government secrets of wrong doing, you're going to want to ensure your OpSec is tight, that the information can't be traced to you. At this stage, you'd have be a little bit mentally unhinged to want to go up against a state-level actor directly.
  - rendall 7y ago
    I guess? Especially if the state-level actors are torturing people publicly and indiscriminately; and breaking laws and their own guidelines to do so. But doesn't that obligate us to support the mentally unhinged who manage to expose their crimes. But, again, it doesn't really explain what the motives are, here. Do the people who comprise these state-level actors really want a world where the crimes of their colleagues and bosses go completely unexposed. I can't see how that would lead to good things for themselves and their families.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      I've definitely seen at least some people more entertained by intrigue, drama, getting away with all sorts of crime, even sometimes getting caugh, and generally being tempted by "evil", than leading a virtuous life. Motives are surely many and varied. For some it's as simple as saving face and a job, others are way more driven to turned a blind eye, help, or mastermind the bad. Where does it begin? Well, some schools of developmental psychology claim that even the time spent in the womb predisposes us to certain adult-life outcomes.
  - L_226 7y ago
tremon 7y ago
Four democratic countries joined forces – the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to leverage their power to portray one man as a monster so that he could later be burned at the stake without any outcry. The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.
ogre_codes 7y ago
It is really hard at this point to come away from reading anything about Assange or Snowden at this point and not feel you are being manipulated in some way or another. None of the agencies which are involved are beyond suspect, nor are Assange or Snowden without major faults/ issues. About the only really clear winner in this whole disaster is Russia. Regardless of how this all plays out and what people believe, the US looks like shit here (to a large extent rightfully) and they walked away with piled of top secret and confidential US information. This is perhaps the greatest espionage victory since WWII and it was largely self-inflicted.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Or, you know, we could have just not murdered lots of innocent people...
simion314 7y ago
A short summary for the people that won't read and just want to comment, UN is not demanding freedom for Assange, they want the human rights to be respected and all the illegalities committed so far by authorities are exposed. I see some people debating if Assange is guilty of X or Y but the main point is that he did not had and will not have a fair trial.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Well, I'm not sure exactly what you would count as a trial, but Assange has in fact had his voice head (by way of his lawyers) in very many courts. Is it one of these court procedures you claim was unfair?
  - ASalazarMX 7y ago
    Read the article, it's explained there. Once you become a prisoner, legal loopholes can allow the state to keep you there forever. Us regular citizens are of no particular interest to the state, hence we can expect a fair trial. If you had, say, the key to a 88 GB insurance file, you would find it much harder to fight the legal system.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Read the article, he was ot allowed to defend himself remotely like similar people, his humans rights were abused...there are all the details in the article, I understand it is long buit make soem time this weekend at least and read it, it is not about guilty or not but about human rights and authorities abuse.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      What you are talking about is the question of the interrogation. But it is a matter of public record that Assange has stood in several court cases where he's questioned various aspects of the legality of the EAW, and I'm simply asking if those also are to be counted as unfair trials?
Traster 7y ago
>Assange who is being persecuted. Second, he himself has been ill-treated to the point that he is now exhibiting symptoms of psychological torture. And then >In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself This is one of the reasons I don't trust this rapporteur, because he seems to make those claims interchangeably when they very clearly aren't the same thing. Can you show signs of psychological torture without someone actually torturing you? Yes. So either make the real claim - that someone has been torturing him and explain why. Or make the PR claim - that he has shown symptoms of psychological torture. But don't swing back and forth between two very different things. The guy literally repeats thoroughly debunked tropes from Assange's defence. >Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed? Because the person they were investigating left the country and then put up one of the most extensive appeals against extradition in history and then fled to an embassy. If Assange had complied with the extradition those charges would have been filed when he returned to Sweden within months of the investigation being opened. You know, you can't have it both ways, you can't claim it's terrible it's been going on so long for a process that was deliberately dragged out.
- rendall 7y ago
  Not clear what your issue with the rapporteur is? He makes which claims interchangeably? Assange uncovered torture and is tortured? Those are mutually exclusive? What do you say to the other claims regarding the misbehavior of the Swedish police and prosecutor? You seem to be saying that despite these irregularities, Assange had nothing to worry about if he were innocent, and just should have submitted to extradition? That's a remarkable assertion.
  - Traster 7y ago
    I literally quoted the two claims he makes interchangeably. He makes two very different claims and then seems to imply they're the same thing and then provides no evidence for the actual serious claim. They're not mutually exclusive, one is a much more serious claim than the other and yet he's not provided any evidence for it. As for the other claims by the Swedish police, I can go through every single point that he makes, but I think we'd all agree that's probably over the top for a HN comment. One of the highlights is his assertion that it constitutes misbehaviour for the police to act on a report of a crime simply and should have deferred to the witness's interpretation of the law. The woman reported that Assange had sex with her under false pretences, now I'm not an expert on Swedish law, but I'm fairly certain its not down to the woman reporting that to decide whether that constitutes a crime or not. That's what the rapporteur is claiming, which seems a rather bizarre and ridiculous claim to make for someone who is meant to be a respected voice at the UN.
nsajko 7y ago
This Melzer guy is doing journalism no favor by spinning narratives of malicious prosecution by Sweden by taking things out of context and without any evidence. Also, he seems to be wrong about "manipulation of evidence" by Swedish police: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121
- usdgknsdg 7y ago
  > Also, he seems to be wrong about "manipulation of evidence" by Swedish police: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 If you trust claims of a more or less random person writing a comment on this site.
korethr 7y ago
Let's assume that the general impugning of Assange's character over the past years is true. Let us further assume that the statement made by one of the comments below, that the completely unredacted nature of Wikileaks' releases is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts others in danger. Even with all that, the events described in this article make me deeply uncomfortable. I don't have to like Assange to think that this kind of thing sets a dangerous precedent. When criminal prosecution is a thing for "the little people" and a tool twisted to dispose of those inconvenient to those in power, that is the kind of injustice which fuels riots and revolutions. I really don't want it to have to come to violence to stop corruption; that will just as likely end badly for all involved.
lolc 7y ago
Shameful. A damning verdict on the state of due process! If you work in the exposed institutions, please help restore legitimacy by aiding discovery in any way you can. Thank you Nils Melzer for investigating the persecution of Julian Assange, a messenger being murdered. We owe our freedom to people who dare speak truth in the face of torture.
- contingencies 7y ago
  Well put.
at_a_remove 7y ago
You know, every time I read something on Assange, I see all of these hot takes based on incorrect information and part of me is starting to think that one should have to take some kind of quiz on the actual facts of the case and receive a passing grade before commenting. The other part of me is kind of impressed on the hatchet job done on his reputation that has led to such conveniently incorrect "knowledge" of the situation.
- nsajko 7y ago
  I think you have to give an example now.
  - theobeers 7y ago
    One clear example is the idea that Assange tried to evade the Swedish justice system in the rape case. This is taken for granted by many people. But it turns out to be totally false—unless Melzer is lying about the documentation that he’s seen.
shadowgovt 7y ago
It's weird that the UN special rapporteur considers the process in a large, high-visibility, international legal case to be torture. His explanation of the torture Assange has suffered basically sems to sum up to massive anxiety brought about by the uncertainty of the process. That makes sense (the process is ill-defined and where the law draws lines here is up for debate), but by that definition isn't every prisoner awaiting their day in court on serious charges being "tortured?"
- SalientBlue 7y ago
  >On top of that come the surveillance measures, the insults, the indignities and the attacks by politicians from these countries, up to and including death threats. This constant abuse of state power has triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange and has resulted in measurable cognitive and neurological harm. >Why is a man who is neither dangerous nor violent held in solitary confinement for several months when UN standards legally prohibit solitary confinement for periods extending beyond 15 days? It is much more than 'uncertainty of the process'. Every prisoner awaiting their day in court is not held in solitary confinement for months.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The death threats from politicians are individual American Congesspeople, who have no more power to act on that threat than the average American citizen. It's a threat that's worth taking about as seriously as any random online post.
nsajko 7y ago
It is really absurd how quickly rational comments on this thread that do not support the "Assange and everybody who supports him is an infallible saint and all the world's judicial systems, governments and press are in league to get them" narrative get downvoted to the bottom. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204566 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 , for example.
- rendall 7y ago
  nsajko, I do see you're getting downvoted pretty bad. I'm sorry to see it. I think that it may be because your posts don't address the specific points made in the article, and in fact repeat insinuations that the Rapporteur specifically addresses and debunks. For instance, you say ... Assange is not above the law, or common decency, just because of founding Wikileaks... Literally no one said that, and no one reasonable believes that. That's not what this is about. The article makes the case that Assange is not guilty of anything under Swedish law. If you were to say, rather, "Despite what the Rapporteur says, Assange is likely guilty because..." and then lay out an excellent case why he is indeed, you would get up-voted, not downvoted. But instead, your posts come off like you just have an ax to grind against Assange and people who support him. It comes off like you're dismissing the entire concern as invalid "because Assange is not above the law". The people here are smart, engineer-types. They're going to look at evidence and make up their own minds. My 2¢ Good luck.
shadowgovt 7y ago
It's still hilarious to me that people believed electing Trump instead of Clinton would get him bailed out of this situation.
TruthPilot 7y ago
Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accesory to war crimes.Simple really
TruthPilot 7y ago
Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accessory to war crimes.Simple really
TruthPilot 7y ago
Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accessory to war crimes.Simple really
TruthPilot 7y ago
Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accessory to war crimes.Simple really. Besides your diatribe amounts to nitpicking in the context of USA wars that it creates for its relentless search of powrr over other states assisted by British aligned invasions. All based on deliberate and malicious lies to main stream media

258 points by rendall 7y ago

Sad day when torture by the west of a journalist goes uncondemned. This guy is a hero, he has committed no crime other than honest reporting.

DavidVoid 7y ago
>This guy is a hero, he has committed no crime other than honest reporting. Just because you like his reporting doesn't mean he's innocent of any crimes he's been accused of, especially not when those crimes are unrelated to his reporting. That's like saying Kobe Bryant was innocent of sexual assault just because he was a great basketball player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_cas...
- nsajko 7y ago
  In fact I think that hero worship and "protection"[0] that fans try to give to their favorite celebrity or politician contributes to "heros" feeling above social norms and other persons, and thus, eg., sexual assault or fraud or theft happen. [0] I am referring to the attacks on accusers in such cases.
  - rendall 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're saying, here. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture reports on actual subversion of democracy and principles, and random people keep FUDding about. It's not about fanboys, basketball players, nor even sexual assault.
- thiagoharry 7y ago
  Wow. Was the basketball player also suffering persecution by CIA or FBI because he offered some kind of menace to geopolitical interests of a great power and these accusations also happened in very strange timings and circunstances?
- cassianoleal 7y ago
  The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's been accused of. He also makes it quite clear that he didn't think of himself to be above the law, having tried to submit himself to the justice system on several occasions.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    > The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interviewed for the article makes a pretty convincing picture that Assange was unlikely guilty of any of the crimes he's been accused of. Then if he's not guilty, let it be shown so at trial, and not at the say of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
    - tremon 7y ago
      That's not how it works. Do we need to establish a trial before we can show your innocence in this case too? If he is guilty, then let it be shown so at trial. In absence of such a trial, he is not guilty. But such a trial will not happen, and was probably never intended to happen. Yet it shows how effective the media campaign against him has been: The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - xrd 7y ago
      You should read what Snowden has to say about a fair trial in his case. I think the same thing might apply here.
    - eindiran 7y ago
      There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you have to act like they're not guilty: also known as the presumption of innocence. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat" (Latin for "the burden of proof is for the one who makes the claim, not the one who denies it"). See the links below, making special note of the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard applies in both countries relevant to this case, the UK and the US (with the caveat that judges in the UK don't use the phrase anymore post-2008): [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- mr_woozy 7y ago
  there's a standard procedure for prosecution of sexual crimes in Sweden. The police did not follow it, nor any of the other relevant procedures that are used for all other cases in Sweden. There are numerous emails implicitly showing international pressure to hold the case open for years without allowing Assange to testify or resolve the case legally. How you think that is somehow similar to Kobe Bryant is beyond me. Did you read the article before commenting? Or do you like making vacuous statements with the intention of informing everyone here what a knee-jerk uninformed response looks like?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Consider that kobe was never found guilty in a court of law. So I'm not sure how you know he is a sexual assaulter.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
MisterBastahrd 7y ago
Dumping documents doesn't make you a journalist. The only people who claim to be journalists who would support him as one are those who have a reputational and financial interest in being associated whim.

hendi_ 7y ago

German version: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...

yesenadam 7y ago

"...if investigative journalism is classified as espionage and can be incriminated around the world, then censorship and tyranny will follow. A murderous system is being created before our very eyes. War crimes and torture are not being prosecuted. YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is investigating it. At the same time, a person who exposes such things is being threatened with 175 years in prison. For an entire decade, he has been inundated with accusations that cannot be proven and are breaking him. And nobody is being held accountable. Nobody is taking responsibility. It marks an erosion of the social contract. We give countries power and delegate it to governments – but in return, they must be held accountable for how they exercise that power. If we don’t demand that they be held accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or later. Humans are not democratic by their nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored. Corruption is the result if we do not insist that power be monitored."

saiya-jin 7y ago
> Humans are not democratic by their nature. How sad. How still very much true.
nonbirithm 7y ago
> YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Is there a citation for this? All I could find was allegations of sexual assault in the US military (which is also completely horrendous), but no videos on YouTube.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Of course there isn't a citation, because it is most likely pure bullshit. Show me the video and I will change my mind.
- tyingq 7y ago
  There are many, just a Google search away from "Iraq rape us military". Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings

nsajko 7y ago

Some older articles: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_assange https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a... I am sad that US is trying prosecute Assange for espionage, but the attacks from other sides on the Swedish prosecutors who tried to prosecute Assange seem just as bad. Assange is not above the law, or common decency, just because of founding Wikileaks. The implications of that for justice and prosecutors worldwide are scary. Also, I think that it really would have been better for him and Wikileaks to just submit to Swedish investigation, especially if he is really innocent regarding sexual offences and after he already got publicity on that front.

tremon 7y ago
No, the attacks on the Swedish prosecutors are fully warranted. He submitted to Swedish investigation multiple times. From the article: In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. We have to stop believing that there was really an interest in leading an investigation into a sexual offense Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later [..] Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. [..] At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. [..] But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name. That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. [..] Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. Assange’s lawyers petitioned Sweden’s highest court to force public prosecutors to either finally press charges or suspend the case. When the Swedes told the UK that they may be forced to abandon the case, the British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare get cold feet!!» Keep in mind, this is the UN's special rapporteur on torture, not some random opinion. Further on in the article: When a country like Sweden declines to answer questions submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the government is aware of the illegality of its behavior and wants to take no responsibility for its behavior

rendall 7y ago

I can't really understand how someone could read the article and not be moved and chilled. Can someone who persecutes Assange please really just, here, anonymously if you must, please make a case for doing this. You think it's ok to do this... why? What is the end goal? No one can report governmental crimes? That's the world you want, for you and your family?

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
This is the world we live in now. If you're going to disclose government secrets of wrong doing, you're going to want to ensure your OpSec is tight, that the information can't be traced to you. At this stage, you'd have be a little bit mentally unhinged to want to go up against a state-level actor directly.
- rendall 7y ago
  I guess? Especially if the state-level actors are torturing people publicly and indiscriminately; and breaking laws and their own guidelines to do so. But doesn't that obligate us to support the mentally unhinged who manage to expose their crimes. But, again, it doesn't really explain what the motives are, here. Do the people who comprise these state-level actors really want a world where the crimes of their colleagues and bosses go completely unexposed. I can't see how that would lead to good things for themselves and their families.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    I've definitely seen at least some people more entertained by intrigue, drama, getting away with all sorts of crime, even sometimes getting caugh, and generally being tempted by "evil", than leading a virtuous life. Motives are surely many and varied. For some it's as simple as saving face and a job, others are way more driven to turned a blind eye, help, or mastermind the bad. Where does it begin? Well, some schools of developmental psychology claim that even the time spent in the womb predisposes us to certain adult-life outcomes.
- L_226 7y ago

tremon 7y ago

Four democratic countries joined forces – the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to leverage their power to portray one man as a monster so that he could later be burned at the stake without any outcry. The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.

ogre_codes 7y ago

It is really hard at this point to come away from reading anything about Assange or Snowden at this point and not feel you are being manipulated in some way or another. None of the agencies which are involved are beyond suspect, nor are Assange or Snowden without major faults/ issues. About the only really clear winner in this whole disaster is Russia. Regardless of how this all plays out and what people believe, the US looks like shit here (to a large extent rightfully) and they walked away with piled of top secret and confidential US information. This is perhaps the greatest espionage victory since WWII and it was largely self-inflicted.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 7y ago
Or, you know, we could have just not murdered lots of innocent people...

simion314 7y ago

A short summary for the people that won't read and just want to comment, UN is not demanding freedom for Assange, they want the human rights to be respected and all the illegalities committed so far by authorities are exposed. I see some people debating if Assange is guilty of X or Y but the main point is that he did not had and will not have a fair trial.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you would count as a trial, but Assange has in fact had his voice head (by way of his lawyers) in very many courts. Is it one of these court procedures you claim was unfair?
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  Read the article, it's explained there. Once you become a prisoner, legal loopholes can allow the state to keep you there forever. Us regular citizens are of no particular interest to the state, hence we can expect a fair trial. If you had, say, the key to a 88 GB insurance file, you would find it much harder to fight the legal system.
- simion314 7y ago
  Read the article, he was ot allowed to defend himself remotely like similar people, his humans rights were abused...there are all the details in the article, I understand it is long buit make soem time this weekend at least and read it, it is not about guilty or not but about human rights and authorities abuse.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    What you are talking about is the question of the interrogation. But it is a matter of public record that Assange has stood in several court cases where he's questioned various aspects of the legality of the EAW, and I'm simply asking if those also are to be counted as unfair trials?

Traster 7y ago

>Assange who is being persecuted. Second, he himself has been ill-treated to the point that he is now exhibiting symptoms of psychological torture. And then >In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself This is one of the reasons I don't trust this rapporteur, because he seems to make those claims interchangeably when they very clearly aren't the same thing. Can you show signs of psychological torture without someone actually torturing you? Yes. So either make the real claim - that someone has been torturing him and explain why. Or make the PR claim - that he has shown symptoms of psychological torture. But don't swing back and forth between two very different things. The guy literally repeats thoroughly debunked tropes from Assange's defence. >Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed? Because the person they were investigating left the country and then put up one of the most extensive appeals against extradition in history and then fled to an embassy. If Assange had complied with the extradition those charges would have been filed when he returned to Sweden within months of the investigation being opened. You know, you can't have it both ways, you can't claim it's terrible it's been going on so long for a process that was deliberately dragged out.

rendall 7y ago
Not clear what your issue with the rapporteur is? He makes which claims interchangeably? Assange uncovered torture and is tortured? Those are mutually exclusive? What do you say to the other claims regarding the misbehavior of the Swedish police and prosecutor? You seem to be saying that despite these irregularities, Assange had nothing to worry about if he were innocent, and just should have submitted to extradition? That's a remarkable assertion.
- Traster 7y ago
  I literally quoted the two claims he makes interchangeably. He makes two very different claims and then seems to imply they're the same thing and then provides no evidence for the actual serious claim. They're not mutually exclusive, one is a much more serious claim than the other and yet he's not provided any evidence for it. As for the other claims by the Swedish police, I can go through every single point that he makes, but I think we'd all agree that's probably over the top for a HN comment. One of the highlights is his assertion that it constitutes misbehaviour for the police to act on a report of a crime simply and should have deferred to the witness's interpretation of the law. The woman reported that Assange had sex with her under false pretences, now I'm not an expert on Swedish law, but I'm fairly certain its not down to the woman reporting that to decide whether that constitutes a crime or not. That's what the rapporteur is claiming, which seems a rather bizarre and ridiculous claim to make for someone who is meant to be a respected voice at the UN.

nsajko 7y ago

This Melzer guy is doing journalism no favor by spinning narratives of malicious prosecution by Sweden by taking things out of context and without any evidence. Also, he seems to be wrong about "manipulation of evidence" by Swedish police: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121

usdgknsdg 7y ago
> Also, he seems to be wrong about "manipulation of evidence" by Swedish police: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 If you trust claims of a more or less random person writing a comment on this site.

korethr 7y ago

Let's assume that the general impugning of Assange's character over the past years is true. Let us further assume that the statement made by one of the comments below, that the completely unredacted nature of Wikileaks' releases is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts others in danger. Even with all that, the events described in this article make me deeply uncomfortable. I don't have to like Assange to think that this kind of thing sets a dangerous precedent. When criminal prosecution is a thing for "the little people" and a tool twisted to dispose of those inconvenient to those in power, that is the kind of injustice which fuels riots and revolutions. I really don't want it to have to come to violence to stop corruption; that will just as likely end badly for all involved.

lolc 7y ago

Shameful. A damning verdict on the state of due process! If you work in the exposed institutions, please help restore legitimacy by aiding discovery in any way you can. Thank you Nils Melzer for investigating the persecution of Julian Assange, a messenger being murdered. We owe our freedom to people who dare speak truth in the face of torture.

contingencies 7y ago
Well put.

at_a_remove 7y ago

You know, every time I read something on Assange, I see all of these hot takes based on incorrect information and part of me is starting to think that one should have to take some kind of quiz on the actual facts of the case and receive a passing grade before commenting. The other part of me is kind of impressed on the hatchet job done on his reputation that has led to such conveniently incorrect "knowledge" of the situation.

nsajko 7y ago
I think you have to give an example now.
- theobeers 7y ago
  One clear example is the idea that Assange tried to evade the Swedish justice system in the rape case. This is taken for granted by many people. But it turns out to be totally false—unless Melzer is lying about the documentation that he’s seen.

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's weird that the UN special rapporteur considers the process in a large, high-visibility, international legal case to be torture. His explanation of the torture Assange has suffered basically sems to sum up to massive anxiety brought about by the uncertainty of the process. That makes sense (the process is ill-defined and where the law draws lines here is up for debate), but by that definition isn't every prisoner awaiting their day in court on serious charges being "tortured?"

SalientBlue 7y ago
>On top of that come the surveillance measures, the insults, the indignities and the attacks by politicians from these countries, up to and including death threats. This constant abuse of state power has triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange and has resulted in measurable cognitive and neurological harm. >Why is a man who is neither dangerous nor violent held in solitary confinement for several months when UN standards legally prohibit solitary confinement for periods extending beyond 15 days? It is much more than 'uncertainty of the process'. Every prisoner awaiting their day in court is not held in solitary confinement for months.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The death threats from politicians are individual American Congesspeople, who have no more power to act on that threat than the average American citizen. It's a threat that's worth taking about as seriously as any random online post.

nsajko 7y ago

It is really absurd how quickly rational comments on this thread that do not support the "Assange and everybody who supports him is an infallible saint and all the world's judicial systems, governments and press are in league to get them" narrative get downvoted to the bottom. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204566 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 , for example.

rendall 7y ago
nsajko, I do see you're getting downvoted pretty bad. I'm sorry to see it. I think that it may be because your posts don't address the specific points made in the article, and in fact repeat insinuations that the Rapporteur specifically addresses and debunks. For instance, you say ... Assange is not above the law, or common decency, just because of founding Wikileaks... Literally no one said that, and no one reasonable believes that. That's not what this is about. The article makes the case that Assange is not guilty of anything under Swedish law. If you were to say, rather, "Despite what the Rapporteur says, Assange is likely guilty because..." and then lay out an excellent case why he is indeed, you would get up-voted, not downvoted. But instead, your posts come off like you just have an ax to grind against Assange and people who support him. It comes off like you're dismissing the entire concern as invalid "because Assange is not above the law". The people here are smart, engineer-types. They're going to look at evidence and make up their own minds. My 2¢ Good luck.

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's still hilarious to me that people believed electing Trump instead of Clinton would get him bailed out of this situation.

TruthPilot 7y ago

Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accesory to war crimes.Simple really

TruthPilot 7y ago

Truth is more important than how it obtained. If you support US war crimes where no one has been prosecuted every thing you say is morally indefensible or you become accessory to war crimes.Simple really. Besides your diatribe amounts to nitpicking in the context of USA wars that it creates for its relentless search of powrr over other states assisted by British aligned invasions. All based on deliberate and malicious lies to main stream media