Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/09 11:56] – editor42 | nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 17:26] (current) – iris | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The [[https:// | The [[https:// | ||
- | Below is a transcription of the English translation, | + | Below is the English translation, |
---- | ---- | ||
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
- | **Prof. Nils Melzer**: The UN was not created as a “tiger with teeth”. Of course, the UN member states have always been keen to maintain the upperhand. This is an organisation that was founded by states for states. And the most powerful states in the world are of course the permanent members of the [UN] Security Council, and they make sure that they retain a certain amount of control. | + | **Prof. Nils Melzer**: The UN was not created as a “tiger with teeth”. Of course, the UN member states have always been keen to maintain the upper hand. This is an organisation that was founded by states for states. And the most powerful states in the world are of course the permanent members of the [UN] Security Council, and they make sure that they retain a certain amount of control. |
- | **AJC**:// So helping people in matters concerning human rights is no longer necessary, no longer the [organisation’s] aim, so to speak?// | + | \\ |
+ | **AJC: So helping people in matters concerning human rights is no longer necessary, no longer the [organisation’s] aim, so to speak?** | ||
- | **Prof. Melzer**: The UN Charter pillars of human rights | + | **Prof. Melzer**: The UN Charter pillars of human rights, peace, international security and development are, of course, the ideals we aspire to – and the entire world population would agree on that. But the reality is that powerful states can still assert their interests and do so brazenly in some cases. If that is the case, then of course the UN is not more powerful than these states – realpolitik still prevails. |
- | **AJC**: //Now we have touched on the topic of realpolitik and are dealing with three actual states, namely Great Britain, Sweden and Australia. All three states are said to be “constitutional states”, where law and justice are [considered] | + | \\ |
+ | **AJC: Now we have touched on the topic of realpolitik and are dealing with three actual states, namely Great Britain, Sweden and Australia. All three states are said to be “constitutional states”, where law and justice are fundamental principles. Has an exception been made in the Assange case, or are these states no longer operating under the rule of law?** | ||
**Prof. Melzer**: A state under the rule of law is a state where law is above political power and political power must bow to the law. Unfortunately, | **Prof. Melzer**: A state under the rule of law is a state where law is above political power and political power must bow to the law. Unfortunately, | ||
Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
- | **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?// | + | \\ |
+ | **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. | + | |
+ | {{ : | ||
The US is demanding Assange’s extradition on the grounds of so-called espionage. Espionage is a classic political offence. So even if it were espionage, which of course it is not – it is pure publishing and journalistic work – even then, it would be a political offence; a motive for which the extradition treaty between the UK and the US explicitly prohibits extradition. That is the first reason why he should not be extradited. The second reason is that he has committed no crime. The publication of secret documents that were voluntarily handed over to him by a whistleblower; | The US is demanding Assange’s extradition on the grounds of so-called espionage. Espionage is a classic political offence. So even if it were espionage, which of course it is not – it is pure publishing and journalistic work – even then, it would be a political offence; a motive for which the extradition treaty between the UK and the US explicitly prohibits extradition. That is the first reason why he should not be extradited. The second reason is that he has committed no crime. The publication of secret documents that were voluntarily handed over to him by a whistleblower; | ||
Line 37: | Line 41: | ||
There are other reasons too: Assange was under constant surveillance in the Ecuadorian embassy. Conversations with his lawyers were recorded by a intelligence service and leaked to the USA – this is a serious violation of the attorney-client privilege – which makes the process irrevocably arbitrary. This gives us a fourth reason why he cannot be extradited. | There are other reasons too: Assange was under constant surveillance in the Ecuadorian embassy. Conversations with his lawyers were recorded by a intelligence service and leaked to the USA – this is a serious violation of the attorney-client privilege – which makes the process irrevocably arbitrary. This gives us a fourth reason why he cannot be extradited. | ||
- | < | + | < |
- | **AJC**:// Why did the [UK] 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, 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 53: | ||
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; | ||
- | At first glance, this looks like a victory for Julian | + | It means Assange |
- | It means Assange won’t appeal – he doesn’t want to be extradited – so his lawyers won’t appeal | + | Then the Court of Appeal can say: in that case the reason why you can’t extradite him ceases |
- | 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. | ||
- | **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?** | ||
- | **Prof. Melzer**: I personally have not intervened with Australia because I am the Special Rapporteur on Torture. I can only intervene with the states that I consider responsible for its abuses and I wouldn’t say that about Australia now. But they certainly have a moral obligation to protect their own citizens and there you can see that Australia is just the “Great Absentee” – literally. | + | {{ : |
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, | + | **AJC: We had a resolution in Austria at the end of February 2020, which the Parliament adopted unanimously, |
**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 75: | ||
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, | 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, | ||
- | Such solutions are of course conceivable, | + | Such solutions are of course conceivable, |
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, | 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, | ||
- | **AJC**: //It’s probably going to be a game between the intelligence services – the five big ones that you mentioned that work together and are interested in making sure that this doesn’t happen again – and the political administrations. So, if you consider the more liberal Biden administration now – is this going to be a fight between the Biden administration and the intelligence services?// | + | **AJC: It’s probably going to be a game between the intelligence services – the five big ones that you mentioned that work together and are interested in making sure that this doesn’t happen again – and the political administrations. So, if you consider the more liberal Biden administration now – is this going to be a fight between the Biden administration and the intelligence services?** |
- | **Prof. Melzer:** I can well imagine that discussions are currently being held. One should have no illusions; President Obama was not a good president in terms of freedom of information either. No president has prosecuted as many whistleblowers as Obama – and as harshly. He had zero tolerance for these leaks. At the same time, people that committed these most serious war crimes [under his tenure] were not convicted; none of the CIA torturers have been prosecuted, the “Collateral Murder” perpetrators have not been prosecuted – the Obama administration has already left a problematic trail here. I think it is precisely the [enduring] impunity of violent crimes such as these that is perhaps partly responsible for inhumane scenarios such as we saw with George Floyd, whom the police shamelessly strangled in public without somehow batting an eyelid … | + | {{ : |
I think that the Americans have received a wake-up call. They now have to make sure that such crimes are prosecuted and should actually be grateful to the whistleblowers for bringing these dirty secrets out into the open so that they can be dealt with. And of course they should be grateful to a man like Assange for his work. | I think that the Americans have received a wake-up call. They now have to make sure that such crimes are prosecuted and should actually be grateful to the whistleblowers for bringing these dirty secrets out into the open so that they can be dealt with. And of course they should be grateful to a man like Assange for his work. |