About the torture of Julian Assange

The author of the original article is Professor Nils Melzer , special. UN Rapporteur on Torture .

I understand that at first glance this seems nonsense. How can life at the embassy with a cat and a skateboard be torture? That is exactly what I thought when Assange first came to my office for protection. Like most people then, I was poisoned by a non-stop slanderous campaign that took place over the years. Therefore, it took a lot of effort to finally attract my reluctant attention. But studying the facts, I gradually became more and more filled with disgust and bewilderment at what was happening.

Of course, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But he discovered that he had never been charged with a sexual offense. However, shortly after the United States called on the Allies to find reasons for prosecuting Assange, the Swedish prosecutor told the tabloids that he was suspected of raping two women. However, oddly enough, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped and did not intend to file a criminal offense. Suddenly, huh? Moreover, the forensic examination of the condom presented as evidence, allegedly used and torn during sexual intercourse with Assange, did not reveal any DNA - neither him, nor her, nor anyone else's. This is rarely talked about, right? One of the women said that she just wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but the police, in her words, "sought to get him." This information is also not well known, right? But since then, both Sweden and the UK have done everything possible to prevent Assange from defending himself against these charges, without risking being extradited to the United States and, thus, after a show trial, will end up in prison for a completely different reason. His last refuge was the Embassy of Ecuador.

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

Professor Niels Meltzer

Well, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy who interfered in the elections in the USA and, inadvertently, caused the death of people! But all I could find was that he consistently published truthful information of public interest, without violating someone else'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 with a lot of reliable information, but isn’t that how democracy works? Yes, there are still unresolved ethical dilemmas regarding unedited publications.

But, of course, I convinced myself, then Assange should probably be a narcissistic egoist riding a skateboard through the Embassy of Ecuador and spreading feces on the walls? That's all I heard from the embassy staff is that all problems have always been successfully resolved with mutual respect and understanding. And this only changed after the election of President Moreno, when the officers were suddenly instructed to find an excuse against Assange's stay at the embassy, ​​and those who refused were replaced. The president even took the honorable role of bringing the gossip to the world and personally depriving Assange of his 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 distract attention from the crimes he had exposed. As soon as he was dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, like the witches who were once burned at the stake, it became easy, without causing public outrage, to deprive Assange of his most basic rights. Thus, a precedent is being created, which in the future can and will be just as successfully applied to 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 another - one step. What may look from the outside simply “pouring mud” when used against defenseless people quickly becomes a baiting , and after that persecution as soon as the state is connected. And now just add the specific goal here - to make suffering, and you will receive full psychological torture.

Yes, living at the embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a resort if you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reasons for the hatred you have to deal with; when no one just wants to hear the truth; when neither the courts nor the media hold the powers that be held accountable; then all your shelter is just a rubber boat in the pool with sharks, 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 more severely tortured around the world? Because it is not only about protecting Assange, but also about preventing a precedent that could decide the fate of Western democracy. Speaking the truth will be a crime while the powers that be 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, Financial Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian, Canberra Times, Telegraph, New York Times, Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek newspapers.

None of them began to publish it.