Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision		 Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 16:03] – miumiunils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 16:49] – iris
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 The [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE53iK6-gPQ|original interview]], which first aired on February 26th 2021, is in German. The [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE53iK6-gPQ|original interview]], which first aired on February 26th 2021, is in German.
-Below is a transcription of the English translation, documented here with the kind permission of the Austrian Journalists Club.+Below is the English translation, transcribed and documented here with the kind permission of the Austrian Journalists Club.
  
 ---- ----
Line 27: Line 27:
  
  
-**AJC**:// There is an extradition treaty between the USA and Great Britain, can you explain to us what is contractually stipulated in it. Should there be no extradition at all in the Assange case?//+ 
 +{{ :hunger_strike-hungryforfreedom.jpg?nolink&300|}}**AJC**:// There is an extradition treaty between the USA and Great Britain, can you explain to us what is contractually stipulated in it. Should there be no extradition at all in the Assange case?//
  
 **Prof. Melzer**: Julian Assange is currently in custody in Great Britain, pending a possible extradition. There are 18 charges against him in the USA, 17 of which relate to so-called espionage. What is being called espionage here, however, is simply the publication of secret US government documents, and publishing is what investigative journalists do professionally on a daily basis. Assange did not steal the documents, he got them from whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who at the time had access to these documents, but who herself violated her duty of secrecy by releasing the material to WikiLeaks. **Prof. Melzer**: Julian Assange is currently in custody in Great Britain, pending a possible extradition. There are 18 charges against him in the USA, 17 of which relate to so-called espionage. What is being called espionage here, however, is simply the publication of secret US government documents, and publishing is what investigative journalists do professionally on a daily basis. Assange did not steal the documents, he got them from whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who at the time had access to these documents, but who herself violated her duty of secrecy by releasing the material to WikiLeaks.
Line 42: Line 43:
 **AJC**:// Why did the judge pass these sentences? She found him virtually “guilty on all counts”. 
// **AJC**:// Why did the judge pass these sentences? She found him virtually “guilty on all counts”. 
//
  
-**Prof. Melzer**: In these hearings [in London], it was a question of determining whether there were grounds for extradition. The question of guilt would then be put before an American court.+{{ :memes:this_is_fine.jpg?500|}}**Prof. Melzer**: In these hearings [in London], it was a question of determining whether there were grounds for extradition. The question of guilt would then be put before an American court.
  
 The American logic – inherently criminalising investigative journalism as espionage – was now substantiated by the judge in London. She even went on to explain that this would be equally punishable in the UK under the so-called “Official Secrets Act”. The judge also ruled out the argument of political offence. This is completely unrealistic – it is absolutely clear that political motivation is involved here. She even said that the prohibition of extradition for political offences was not applicable. That is a legally untenable argument. The American logic – inherently criminalising investigative journalism as espionage – was now substantiated by the judge in London. She even went on to explain that this would be equally punishable in the UK under the so-called “Official Secrets Act”. The judge also ruled out the argument of political offence. This is completely unrealistic – it is absolutely clear that political motivation is involved here. She even said that the prohibition of extradition for political offences was not applicable. That is a legally untenable argument.
Line 48: Line 49:
 There is the so-called “Extradition Act” – a British law – and this Act does not exclude extradition for political offences. The judge performed legal acrobatics stating that the law is binding on the national court and the international treaty is only binding at the international level. This was an improper argument to circumvent a very clear ban on extradition for political offences. She went through the whole logic, corroborating every [US argument] and established a precedent that in principle allows anyone who publishes US classified information to be extradited for espionage. There is the so-called “Extradition Act” – a British law – and this Act does not exclude extradition for political offences. The judge performed legal acrobatics stating that the law is binding on the national court and the international treaty is only binding at the international level. This was an improper argument to circumvent a very clear ban on extradition for political offences. She went through the whole logic, corroborating every [US argument] and established a precedent that in principle allows anyone who publishes US classified information to be extradited for espionage.
  
-In the end, she denied extradition – for none of the legal reasons I explained earlier, but purely on medical grounds. To put it simply: Julian Assange is mentally ill, that’s why he has suicidal ideation, and the risk that he would commit suicide under the US prison conditions is very high. However, she did not state that there was anything “flawed” about the prison conditions, but that this was down to Assange’s illness, which pathologised him. That is the only reason that the extradition was opposed.+In the end, she denied extradition – for none of the legal reasons I explained earlier, but purely on medical grounds. To put it simply: Julian Assange is mentally ill, that’s why he has suicidal ideation, and the risk that he would commit suicide under the US prison conditions is very high. However, she did not imply that there was anything “flawed” about the prison conditions, but that this was down to Assange’s illness, which pathologised him. That is the only reason that the extradition was opposed.
  
 At first glance, this looks like a victory for Julian Assange and freedom of the press, but it is not at all – on the contrary. It is an extremely dangerous ruling because it establishes the whole precedent and says that legally he would be extraditable. Essentially saying;  it is all punishable, it is all espionage and he cannot defend himself on the basis of public interest or political motivation. It’s all set in stone and Britain is not extraditing him now precisely because he’s sick. This is a trap, of course! At first glance, this looks like a victory for Julian Assange and freedom of the press, but it is not at all – on the contrary. It is an extremely dangerous ruling because it establishes the whole precedent and says that legally he would be extraditable. Essentially saying;  it is all punishable, it is all espionage and he cannot defend himself on the basis of public interest or political motivation. It’s all set in stone and Britain is not extraditing him now precisely because he’s sick. This is a trap, of course!
  
-It means Assange won’t appeal – he doesn’t want to be extradited – so his lawyers won’t appeal the verdict, only the Americans will. And if the Americans appeal, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, will only have to deal with what the Americans criticise. And they, of course, only criticise the argument that he is not extraditable on medical grounds. And they can then say: yes, we will adjust the conditions of his detention, we will give guarantees that he will have access to medical specialists, that he will not be in solitary confinement and so on.+It means Assange might not appeal – he doesn’t want to be extradited – so his lawyers wouldn't appeal the verdict, only the Americans would. And if the Americans appeal, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, will only have to deal with what the Americans criticise. And they, of course, would only criticise the argument that he is not extraditable on medical grounds. And they can then say: yes, we will adjust the conditions of his detention, we will give guarantees that he will have access to medical specialists, that he will not be held in solitary confinement and so on.
  
-Then the Court of Appeal can say: in that case the reason why you can’t extradite him ceases to be valid and we can now extradite anyway. They don’t have to judge any of the other issues anymore and I think that was the goal. That’s why now that the Americans have appealed, it’s important that Assange’s lawyers are far-sighted enough to cross-appeal. So not questioning the final decision, but questioning the reasoning; that they say there are still several reasons why he cannot be extradited, which then also have to be questioned by the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, this temporary victory could very quickly turn into a crushing defeat.+Then the Court of Appeal can say: in that case the reason why you can’t extradite him ceases to be valid and we can now extradite anyway. They don’t no longer have to judge any of the other issues, and I think that was the goal. That’s why now that the Americans have appealed, it’s important that Assange’s lawyers are far-sighted enough to cross-appeal. So not questioning the final decision, but questioning the reasoning; affirming there are still several reasons why he cannot be extradited, which then also have to be questioned by the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, this temporary victory could very quickly turn into a crushing defeat.
  
 **AJC**://One of the tasks of a state is to protect its citizens – in principle. Australia is not doing that at all [for Assange], is it?// **AJC**://One of the tasks of a state is to protect its citizens – in principle. Australia is not doing that at all [for Assange], is it?//
Line 62: Line 63:
 Three seats were reserved in the courtroom for the Australian Embassy (the Australian High Commission) in London, but they remained empty. The Australians never attended the hearings, were obviously not interested. Australia is closely allied with the US and the UK, they are also part of the intelligence alliance “Five Eyes” along with Canada, US, UK and New Zealand. They work very closely together and are very critical of WikiLeaks. Actually, they would be very happy if Assange was removed from circulation. Three seats were reserved in the courtroom for the Australian Embassy (the Australian High Commission) in London, but they remained empty. The Australians never attended the hearings, were obviously not interested. Australia is closely allied with the US and the UK, they are also part of the intelligence alliance “Five Eyes” along with Canada, US, UK and New Zealand. They work very closely together and are very critical of WikiLeaks. Actually, they would be very happy if Assange was removed from circulation.
  
-**AJC**: //We had a resolution in Austria at the end of February 2020, which the Parliament adopted unanimously, to stand up for Julian Assange. It was a follow-up to the Council of Europe resolution. The ÖJC repeated the demand [For what?] several times and approached the Austrian federal government with it. Does it make any sense at all for other European states to get involved in this case now – for example by offering a humanitarian visa?//+**AJC**: //We had a resolution in Austria at the end of February 2020, which the Parliament adopted unanimously, to stand up for Julian Assange. It was a follow-up to the Council of Europe resolution. The AJC repeated the demand [For what?] several times and approached the Austrian federal government with it. Does it make any sense at all for other European states to get involved in this case now – for example by offering a humanitarian visa?//
  
 **Prof. Melzer**: We have here two of the most powerful states in the world that are pursuing Assange and want to “shut him down”. You have to be realistic about how much states that might not have that kind of influence can achieve . I think that the willingness of governments to become openly confrontational and directly confront the UK or the US with these violations of international law will always be very limited. But of course there are also these face-saving solutions like the humanitarian visa, which was initiated by Switzerland last year in February by the canton of Geneva. It wanted to grant Assange a humanitarian visa and had also applied for it to the Swiss Federal Government and the Federal Council in Bern. **Prof. Melzer**: We have here two of the most powerful states in the world that are pursuing Assange and want to “shut him down”. You have to be realistic about how much states that might not have that kind of influence can achieve . I think that the willingness of governments to become openly confrontational and directly confront the UK or the US with these violations of international law will always be very limited. But of course there are also these face-saving solutions like the humanitarian visa, which was initiated by Switzerland last year in February by the canton of Geneva. It wanted to grant Assange a humanitarian visa and had also applied for it to the Swiss Federal Government and the Federal Council in Bern.
Line 68: Line 69:
 I can well imagine that the Swiss government would be prepared to grant this visa if Great Britain and the USA with the new President Biden were now interested in a face-saving solution. They could say: we don’t have to judge the legal case, we don’t have to acquit him, but we don’t have to find him guilty either, we can simply release him on humanitarian grounds because his health is so bad and he has been in captivity for far too long. We could find an arrangement to bring him – without judging guilt or innocence – to a recognised neutral country, such as Switzerland, which has this long tradition [of granting humanitarian visas]. The canton of Geneva would then rehabilitate his health with a stay at the university hospital in Geneva, and from there he could return to his home country at some point, when the dust had settled. I can well imagine that the Swiss government would be prepared to grant this visa if Great Britain and the USA with the new President Biden were now interested in a face-saving solution. They could say: we don’t have to judge the legal case, we don’t have to acquit him, but we don’t have to find him guilty either, we can simply release him on humanitarian grounds because his health is so bad and he has been in captivity for far too long. We could find an arrangement to bring him – without judging guilt or innocence – to a recognised neutral country, such as Switzerland, which has this long tradition [of granting humanitarian visas]. The canton of Geneva would then rehabilitate his health with a stay at the university hospital in Geneva, and from there he could return to his home country at some point, when the dust had settled.
  
-Such solutions are of course conceivable, but then above all the new American government would have to acommodate. It is not impossible that this could happen and that is where I see the great potential of the other governments – that they do not pursue this in an openly confrontational manner, but behind the scenes, with their diplomatic contacts, convince these governments that now is the time to find a solution.+Such solutions are of course conceivable, but then above all the new American government would have to accommodate. It is not impossible that this could happen and that is where I see the great potential of the other governments – that they do not pursue this in an openly confrontational manner, but behind the scenes, with their diplomatic contacts, convince these governments that now is the time to find a solution.
  
 The prosecution of Assange was clearly a mistake initiated by the Trump administration. With Biden, a representative of the “old school” is coming back to the White House, which actually did not want to prosecute Assange – precisely because of freedom of the press. That was the credo of the Obama administration. If Biden remains true to this and perhaps also sees that he now has a chance to withdraw the appeal and drop the criminal proceedings, so that a gentleman’s agreement is reached with Assange behind the scenes, a solution such as a humanitarian visa could pave the way forward. The prosecution of Assange was clearly a mistake initiated by the Trump administration. With Biden, a representative of the “old school” is coming back to the White House, which actually did not want to prosecute Assange – precisely because of freedom of the press. That was the credo of the Obama administration. If Biden remains true to this and perhaps also sees that he now has a chance to withdraw the appeal and drop the criminal proceedings, so that a gentleman’s agreement is reached with Assange behind the scenes, a solution such as a humanitarian visa could pave the way forward.
  • nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226.txt
  • Last modified: 2021/04/11 17:26
  • by iris