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
nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 17:10] – irisnils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 17:26] (current) – iris
Line 10: Line 10:
 ---- ----
  
-{{ :de:melzer_ojc.jpg?nolink&400|}}**AJC**: //**Mr Melzer, you are the Special Rapporteur on Torture at the United Nations and have been in charge of the Assange case for several years now. How has the United Nations become a “toothless tiger” such that you are not able to help Assange?**//+{{ :de:melzer_ojc.jpg?nolink&400|}}**AJC: Mr Melzer, you are the Special Rapporteur on Torture at the United Nations and have been in charge of the Assange case for several years now. How has the United Nations become a “toothless tiger” such that you are not able to help Assange?**
  
-**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, 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. **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 fundamental principles. Has an exception been made in the Assange case, or are these states no longer operating under the rule of law?//+\\ 
 +**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, it is the case that even states that are democratic in everyday legal dealings – in normal conclusion of contracts and in the political process – when seeing their national security interests and basic economic interests threatened, will cease to abide by the rule of law. We should have no illusions about this. This is not a question of Sweden, Great Britain, the USA or Australia or any other state. **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, it is the case that even states that are democratic in everyday legal dealings – in normal conclusion of contracts and in the political process – when seeing their national security interests and basic economic interests threatened, will cease to abide by the rule of law. We should have no illusions about this. This is not a question of Sweden, Great Britain, the USA or Australia or any other state.
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?**
  
  
Line 41: Line 44:
  
  
-**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”**. 

  
 {{ :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. {{ :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.
Line 57: Line 61:
 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. 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?**// 
  
-{{ :street_art:eba09330be32b7a8_sticker_berlin.jpeg?250|}}**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.+\\ 
 +**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?** 
 + 
 +{{ :street_art:eba09330be32b7a8_sticker_berlin.jpeg?200|}}**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, 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?//+**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 73: Line 79:
 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.
  
-{{ :street_art:collateral_crucifixion-captain_borderlinemedia_berlin.jpeg?300|}}**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 …+{{ :street_art:collateral_crucifixion-captain_borderlinemedia_berlin.jpeg?300|}}**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.
  • nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226.1618161006.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2021/04/11 17:10
  • by iris