About torture of Julian Assange

The author of the original article is Professor Nils Melzer (Nils Melzer), spec. UN rapporteur on torture .

I understand that at first glance it seems to be nonsense. How can life at the embassy with a cat and a skateboard be torture? That's exactly what I thought when Assange first came to my office for protection. Like most people then, I was poisoned by a non-stop smear campaign that had been going on for many years. Therefore, it took a lot of effort to finally get my reluctant attention. But as I studied the facts, I gradually became increasingly filled with disgust and bewilderment in relation to what was happening.

Of course, I thought, Assange should be a rapist! But he discovered that he had never been charged with a sexual offense. However, soon after the United States called on the Allies to find reasons for prosecuting Assange, the Swedish prosecutor’s office told the tabloids that he was suspected of having raped two women. However, strangely enough, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, and did not intend to file a criminal complaint. Suddenly, yes? Moreover, a forensic examination of the condom presented as evidence, allegedly used and torn during intercourse with Assange, did not reveal any DNA - neither it, nor it, nor anyone else. This is not often talked about, right? One of the women reported that she just wanted Assange to be tested for HIV, but the police, according to her, "were trying to get him." This information is also unheard of, right? But since then, both Sweden and the United Kingdom have done everything possible to prevent Assange from defending themselves against these charges, without risking to be extradited to the United States and, thus, after a demonstration trial, to end up in prison for a completely different reason. His last refuge was the embassy of Ecuador.

Well, I thought then, but after all, Assange is a hacker! But I discovered that all the revelations came to him from third-party sources, and no one ever accused him of breaking something. In fact, the only significant accusation against him is related to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help pick up a password, which, if successful, would help his source cover his tracks. In short, this is a speculation about a chain of events with no consequences; something like trying to blame a driver who tried unsuccessfully to exceed the speed but failed because his car was not powerful enough.

Professor Nils Meltzer

Well, I thought, at least, we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy who intervened in the elections in the USA, and even by negligence he caused people to die! But all I could find was only the fact that he consistently published true information of public interest, without violating someone’s trust, commitment or loyalty to his country. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let's not confuse national security with government impunity. Yes, the facts that he revealed allowed US voters to make decisions, possessing a large amount of reliable information, but isn't it exactly how democracy works? Yes, there are still unresolved ethical dilemmas regarding unedited publications. But if the real damage was really caused, why did neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever face relevant criminal charges or civil suits?

But, of course, I convinced myself, then Assange, probably, should be a selfish narcissist, skating through the Ecuadorian embassy and spreading feces on the walls? But all I heard from the embassy staff was that all problems were always successfully resolved with mutual respect and understanding. And this changed only after the election of President Moreno, when employees were suddenly ordered to find a pretext against Assange’s stay at the embassy, ​​and those who refused were replaced. The president even took upon himself the honorable role of bringing the mentioned gossip to the world and personally depriving Assange of asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.

In the end, I realized that I was blinded by propaganda, and that a systematic slanderous campaign was conducted against Assange in order to divert attention from the crimes he had exposed. As soon as he was dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, like witches who were once burned at the stake, it was not difficult, without causing mass public outrage, to deprive Assange of his most basic rights. Thus, a precedent is being created, which in the future can and will also be successfully applied to the journalists of the Guardian, The New York Times and ABC News.

Well, you say, but what does slander have to do with torture? From one to the other - one step. What may look from the side of simply “pouring mud” when used against the defenseless quickly becomes harassment , and afterwards, and pursuit , as soon as the state is connected. And now just add here a specific goal - to make you suffer, and you will get a full-fledged psychological torture.

Yes, life at the embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a resort if you believe the rest of the lie. But when no one remembers the reasons for the hatred with which you have to deal; when no one just wants to hear the truth; when neither the courts nor the media prosecute those in power; then all your shelter is just a rubber boat in a shark pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.

You may ask, why spend so much time on Assange when other people are subjected to more serious torture around the world? Because we are talking not only about protecting Assange, but also about preventing a precedent that can decide the fate of Western democracy. Speaking the truth will become a crime, while the powerful of this world enjoy impunity, it will be too late to change course. We will give our word to censorship, and our fate to unbridled tyranny.

This article has been proposed for publication by the Guardian, The Times, The Financial Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Canberra Times, The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.

None of them began to publish it.