Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange
By Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
I
know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a
cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I
thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection.
Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the
relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years.
So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But
once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with
repulsion and disbelief.
Surely,
I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has
never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United
States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange,
Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of
having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never
claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal
offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom
submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with
Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody
else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted
Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting
their hands on him”. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and
Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these
allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US
extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His
last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Alright,
I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is
that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one
accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only
arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks.
In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of
events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully
attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was
too weak.
Well
then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian
spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s
deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true
information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust,
duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse,
but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes,
the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed
decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical
discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted
disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither
Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil
lawsuits for just compensation?
But
surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist,
skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the
walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable
inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with
mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election
of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears
against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The
President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip,
and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without
any due process of law.
In
the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda,
and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention
from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through
isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at
the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights
without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent
is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the
future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The
Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.
Very
well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well,
this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in
public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the
defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just
add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is
full-fledged psychological torture.
Yes,
living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet
deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers
the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the
truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to
account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool,
and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.
Even
so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless
others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting
Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of
Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while
the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course.
We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to
unrestrained tyranny.
This
Op-Ed has been offered for publication to 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, Thomson
Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.
None responded positively.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ
