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

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

by rendall • 6 years ago

258 126 6 years 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• 6 years 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_cas...

nsajko12• 6 years 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.

thiagoharry• 6 years 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• 6 years 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.

mr_woozy• 6 years 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?

oh_sigh• 6 years 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.

MisterBastahrd• 6 years 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_• 6 years ago

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

yesenadam• 6 years 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• 6 years ago

Humans are not democratic by their nature.

How sad. How still very much true.

nonbirithm• 6 years 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.

tyingq• 6 years 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

pjc50• 6 years ago

It's not just that it's not investigated, one of the people convicted of shooting civilians at random in Iraq was pardoned. That can only serve to make the point that it's deliberate. And popular with the voters.

nsajko12• 6 years ago

Some older articles: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

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.

tremon4• 6 years 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

nsajko12• 6 years ago

So the prosecutor's and the police opinion are just "some random opinions"?

Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it.

Imagine someone else was sought by Sweden for multiple counts of sexual offence on different women, and then he (and his team of lawyers) used the extradition process to wait for the statute of limitations to pass so he would dodge even an investigation of the accusations.

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.

This "smells" bad, but really even that (without elaboration) does not excuse the attacks on the Swedish justice system. I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. I think there very well could be a reason for video-linked questioning to be appropriate in 44 cases, but not in Assange's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...

EDIT: Replying to children: The interview makes a narrative by presenting things out of context, but what they are doing is actually quite inappropriate in the case of the sexual assault allegations. Some examples:

* They present the potential victims as unwilling regarding charging Assange with rape. The first problem with this is that it implies that rape is a civil matter, when (as is well known) it is in fact a crime. Thus the potential victims are only relevant as witnesses, they would not be parties to the case except as witnesses (and maybe they could get some damages). The second problem is that the two women were in fact quite interested in getting Assange prosecuted: they got legal representation, and prevented the prosecutors from dropping the investigation.

* I do not think that it is necessarily suspicious that no DNA could be recovered from the condom. Especially in the context of the allegation, with Assange allegedly breaking the condom on purpose.

rendall11• 6 years 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?

TheSpiceIsLife2• 6 years 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.

rendall11• 6 years 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.

L_226• 6 years ago

Is it mentally unhinged to accept an adverse fate rather than live in silence?

93po• 6 years ago

The common anti-assange sentiment is that he did it on an illegal way (he didn't) and deserves jail time for that. Or that he's a Trump/Russian/Martian asset and isn't a journalist, just an operative to influence US elections and therefore shouldn't be provided the freedom of speech journalists get.

rendall11• 6 years ago

Yes... I kind of think of it as maybe an extreme tribal reaction. "Bad man hurt us!" without more thought than that? A lot of these people don't seem to actually care whether what he did was legal or not, nor whether his treatment is legal or even proportionate. They just don't like him so... fair game for any kind of torture.

But, is it that turtle all the way down? I mean, the cops who broke the law to "get their hands on him" - why? The diplomatic backroom dealing - why? The politicians who should know better - what do they gain?

openasocket3• 6 years ago

I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically. It's one thing to release classified documents describing corruption or illegal/immoral behavior by the government, it's another to blindly release any classified documents you can get your hands on without any concern for others. In one dump of classified documents on the War in Afghanistan, it included the identities of many civilians assisting the US military. Those named have since been targeted by the Taliban. And this is a consistent pattern. Their leaks routinely include social security numbers, credit card numbers, private medical information, the list goes on. That information is not in the public interest and has caused great harm to innocent people. And I'm hardly alone in saying this. Edward Snowden, the Sunlight Foundation, and Amnesty International have criticized this practice.

EDIT: Quoting from Assange's indictment:

"After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world. These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes. According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention."

simion3146• 6 years ago

I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically.

The issue is that laws not ethics matter now. So IMO the rape accusations have nothing to do with the ethics of his job.

What is the difference between Russia where journalists are killed and "the west" where journalists are tortured and pushed into suicide.

xkcd-sucks• 6 years ago

On the other hand, a perfectly anonymized dump is impossible to distinguish from fiction, because there's nothing verifiable to connect it to. In a sense, every person/organization that says they're endangered by the leak confirms its validity and exposes them as a source for further investigation/leaks. And everyone agrees a bit of "collateral damage" is ethically defensible in service of the greater good.

chrismeller• 6 years ago

Sooo... the guys he was leaking evidence of war crimes against claim that he endangered people he leaked information about.

While that may actually be true, I’m curious why you would trust that statement from the US Government (the “indictment”) while ignoring the other (that’s “classified”).

If you trust that there’s doubt as to why things were classified and that they may have been hiding things, why would you also trust that they claim people have been endangered? Again, not saying it’s not true, just that blindly taking the word of US prosecutors seems short sighted.

jessaustin6• 6 years ago

...many civilians assisting the US military. Those named have since been targeted by the Taliban.

Can you point us to any evidence of this, other than e.g. a general or politician making vague claims with no specifics?

I'm not saying that no one in the various nations that USA has invaded haven't been hurt by those invasions, but can any of that be directly attributed to leaks?

plandis2• 6 years ago

(I’m not a prosecutor) From the US perspective Assange is being charged with crimes that he willfully assisted and encouraged Manning by providing her with guidance on how to cover her tracks, etc. — basically charges related to abetting of a criminal act. Publishing that information is then not an act of journalist but that of a criminal who illegally aided in the gathering that information and then recklessly and illegal published the names of classified personnel.

So basically the charges seem to be pretty much predicated on the idea that Assange was a participant in the illegal obtaining of this information.

From the indictment statement [1]:

The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.
The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.

Additionally, the claim that he would not get a for trial in the US is utterly farcical. The claim that you would wind up with a rigged jury is provided without any evidence whatsoever.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assa...

chishaku4• 6 years ago

utterly farcical.

He's being tortured but at least he'll get a fair trial.

rasz• 6 years ago

"You cant handle the truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

barney54• 6 years ago

From what I read I’m not chilled because I don’t trust the special rapporteur on basic facts. For example, he says, “ He will not receive a trial consistent with the rule of law. That’s another reason why his extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria, Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where the U.S. tries all national security cases. The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community – at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department.”

Do some people who live in Alexandria, Virginia work for the national security community? Clearly, but 85% is tin foil hat territory.

I’d like to understand more about the Assange situation, because this guy is not trustworthy.

rendall11• 6 years ago

This is a great point. I'm not sure why that slipped by me. That really is misstatement of fact, whether mistaken or intentional, and does cast some shade on every other assertion he makes.

tremon4• 6 years 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• 6 years 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.

jessaustin6• 6 years ago

Or, you know, we could have just not murdered lots of innocent people...

simion3146• 6 years 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.

SiempreViernes7• 6 years 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• 6 years 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.

simion3146• 6 years 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.

nsajko12• 6 years ago

UN is not demanding freedom for Assange, they want

This is just a UN employee.

I see some people debating if Assange is guilty of X or Y

That is not what we are debating on. Rather I am talking about the claims that the Swedish prosecution and investigation are malicious.

he did not had and will not have a fair trial.

Why do you think his trial could not be fair?

simion3146• 6 years ago

This is just a UN employee.

Read again, is not a car driver for UN , this is his job and duty to investigate.

Why do you think his trial could not be fair?

The article says that and I believe it, do a search for "fair trial" you should find it, let me know if you need a summary because you are too busy to read but honestly read the entire article not skim it.

That is not what we are debating on. Rather I am talking about the claims that the Swedish prosecution and investigation are malicious.

I am not sure what comment you are refering but maybe this time the Sweeds will respond to the 50 issues that were raised instead of citizens trying to denfend the authorities illegal activities.

vkou2• 6 years ago

Of course he hasn't had a fair trial, he's been hiding in an embassy for the past decade.

simion3146• 6 years ago

There was no trail for the fabricated rape accusations, read the article, the authorities had the chance to get his statement before he left to UK and there are also procedures for when people are trialed remote that were not flowed, the UN person asked for clarifications for 50 issues found with the investigation and instead of a response the entire thing was dropped a few days over, maybe you skiped this part

clSTophEjUdRanu3• 6 years ago

Can someone explain how Assange's trial is unfair when it hasn't taken place yet?

abdullahkhalids• 6 years ago

He will not receive a trial consistent with the rule of law. That’s another reason why his extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria, Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where the U.S. tries all national security cases. The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community – at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department. When people are tried for harming national security in front of a jury like that, the verdict is clear from the very beginning. The cases are always tried in front of the same judge behind closed doors and on the strength of classified evidence. Nobody has ever been acquitted there in a case like that. The result being that most defendants reach a settlement, in which they admit to partial guilt so as to receive a milder sentence.

simion3146• 6 years ago

Nothing was fair or legal so far, abuses everywhere but you expect that the special US court (see article who is part of that)will be fair in a secret trial. Btw the article mentiones that after the UN person asked clarification on some illegalities on the rape related procedures the investigation was dropped and no response was provided. Also is mentioned that UK is using solitary confinement without any reason, nobody that escaped bail is treated like this but Assange seems not to have human rights in UK.

Traster4• 6 years 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.

rendall11• 6 years 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.

Traster4• 6 years 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.

roblabla• 6 years ago

Did you read the article? Because it looks like you didn't.

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.

No, he didn't. He asked not to be extradited to a foreign country where there is a risk his human rights will not be respected - which is standard international practice. He gave several dates where we would be available for questioning. He turned himself up to the police for questioning. All of those were denied to him.

Traster4• 6 years ago

Firstly, you're literally talking about the contention of his legal appeal that I mentioned. Secondly, most extradition appeals don't go to the High court, let alone the supreme court - which is why I mentioned that he literally had one of the most extensive appeals in history.

I also find it hilariously comical to see the absurd level of legal recourse Assange was afforded whilst people claimed that he is having his human rights violated. Somehow we're now in a world where someone shouldn't be extradited to Sweden from the UK because they're going to have their human rights violated. I'd love to hear the exact details of how exactly his rights would be violated, but frankly I think it's going to be more Gish galloping.

nsajko12• 6 years 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

usdgknsdg3• 6 years ago

Also, he seems to be wrong about "manipulation of evidence" by Swedish police: 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• 6 years 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• 6 years 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• 6 years ago

Well put.

at_a_remove• 6 years 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.

nsajko12• 6 years ago

I think you have to give an example now.

theobeers• 6 years 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.

shadowgovt2• 6 years 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• 6 years 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.

shadowgovt2• 6 years 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.

nsajko12• 6 years 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 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204121 , for example.

rendall11• 6 years 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.

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

Related Stories