Twenty years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the Afghanistan & Iraq wars has been held accountable, yet a publisher who exposed such crimes could face a lifetime in jail
Sent from ProtonMail for iOS Açık Çar, Eki 27, 2021 14:42, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydo...@protonmail.com> yazdı: > https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/the-us-diplomatic-assurances-are-inherently-unreliable-julian-assange-must-be-released/ > > The US diplomatic assurances are inherently unreliable. Julian Assange must > be released > > This month, the Biden Administration offered diplomatic assurances to the > British authorities that if they allow the extradition of Julian Assange to > the United States, the Administration will not imprison him in the most > extreme American prison, ADX Florence, and will not subject him to the harsh > regime known as “Special Administrative Measures” (SAMs). > > Il Fatto Quotidiano’s Stefania Maurizi asked Julia Hall for an analysis of > these assurances and for comment on the Pegasus scandal, which Amnesty > International has greatly contributed to exposing. > > The investigation on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was opened by the Obama > Administration, but it was Trump who charged him and we now have president > Biden. Amnesty International is asking for the charges against Assange to be > dropped. Do you believe it is likely that the Biden Administration will drop > them? > > We had some hope early on, when the Biden Administration first took office in > January, and we really thought that potentially there could be a review of > the case. Biden was the vice president in the Obama Administration, and the > Obama Administration clearly chose not to pursue Assange, and so there was > some hope at the beginning. Then we saw the appeal. It was really quite > disappointing, because we did think that possibly there was an opening there, > and for reasons that the Administration has not articulated well so far, they > have made the decision to pursue. > >> The strategy is to keep Assange detained as long as possible. It’s a kind of >> death by a thousand cuts. >> >> Julia Hall. Amnesty International > > At this point, I think the appeal will go through in the United Kingdom, and > the disturbing thing about it, in addition to the fact that they are > appealing at all, is how long things will take, how this really continues to > harm Assange because of his conditions in detention in the UK, especially now > with COVID-19. This is part of the strategy to keep him detained as long as > possible, it’s a kind of death by a thousand cuts. > > Can you explain to us why Amnesty International thinks that diplomatic > assurances will not work, and therefore opposes the extradition of Julian > Assange to the US despite those assurances? > > The US made it very easy for us to oppose the extradition, because they gave > with one hand and took away with the other. They say: we guarantee that he > won’t be held in a maximum security facility and he will not be subjected to > Special Administrative Measures and he will get healthcare. But if he does > something that we don’t like, we reserve the right to not guarantee him, we > reserve the right to put him in a maximum security facility, we reserve the > right to offer him Special Administrative Measures. Those are not assurances > at all. It is not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these > are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the > right to break the promise. > > The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, who denied extradition last January, said: > under section 91 of the Extradition Treaty, it would be oppressive to send > Julian Assange to a situation in the United States where he may be subjected > to conditions of detention that could lead him to self-harm or suicide. So > when you look at the assurances and you see that the US government reserves > the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to > Special Administrative Measures, based on his conduct, you are not in a state > where the prohibition of torture is absolute. > >> There is a much bigger issue at stake that goes way beyond Assange. The >> Assange case would affect so many people, should he be sent to the United >> States and prosecuted >> >> Julia Hall, Amnesty International > > The prolonged solitary confinement that exists in maximum security > facilities, or if he is subjected to SAMs, are a violation of the ban on > torture. The ban on torture cannot be conditioned on anything he does; it’s > an absolute ban. No matter what you do, under international laws, you cannot > be tortured. It’s really important to remember that the standard in Europe > is: is a person at risk of torture or ill treatment? You don’t have to say > that he will absolutely be tortured or ill-treated, you have to say: is it a > situation where this person would be at risk of torture? The US has built > that risk into these assurances. > > I have been studying this in the context of the US rendition programme for > almost two decades. The US has made it easy for other governments to use > assurances, but what this really does is undermine the international > prohibition on torture. The UK government should not be involved in any > further undermining of the global ban on torture, it should be promoting the > global ban on torture. > > It is a much bigger issue that goes way beyond Assange. The Assange case > would affect so many people, should he be sent to the United States and > prosecuted. > > Journalists and experts who have followed the case for the last decade > believe that what the US and the UK authorities want is for him to either > commit suicide or leave the UK prison brain dead. Do you agree with this? > > I am not a forensic or medical expert on torture, what I can tell you is that > international standards will be violated if he is transferred to the US, and > we do have very serious concerns about the proceedings. They have been > carried out for over two years with Assange in Belmarsh, during the COVID-19 > pandemic, in conditions that have exacerbated his mental health conditions. > > It is clear to us that he should be released on bail, pending the conclusion > of the proceedings in the UK. In the absence of the administration dropping > the extradition, the court process has to continue, but in the middle of > that, he should be released. You cannot have a court judgement saying: this > person is at risk, because his mental health condition is so fragile, and > then keep him in Belmarsh, which just continues to help degrade his mental > health condition. > > There is action on the US part to drop the charges, but there are immediate > actions that the UK can take right now, to alleviate and to mitigate the > conditions that actually continue to contribute to his mental health status, > which is quite fragile. > > Before his arrest, Julian Assange and his visitors were spied on inside the > Ecuadorian Embassy. This week, Amnesty International greatly contributed to > revealing how thousands of journalists, human rights activists and political > leaders were potentially targeted by a cyberweapon called Pegasus, marketed > by an Israeli company, NSO Group. Do you think it’s time for a global > moratorium? > > Yes, we have called for a moratorium until a strong, effective, meaningful > human rights regulatory framework is in place. Stop now, and let’s come > together and create a framework where people like human rights defenders, > journalists, opposition politicians, lawyers, they will not be targeted by > that software and – or, if they are, they have recourse. Our call is strong > and direct, it’s not ambiguous. > > It’s time to make people who defend the use of such tools for anti-terrorism > purposes understand that these are weapons: the so-called cyberweapons. > > I actually think they already know. Governments are buying from this company, > they can buy under the guise of only pursuing criminals and alleged > terrorists, but it is key to the notion of the state monopoly on power that > the state is going to use any new tool that it gets to maintain that power > for purposes beyond those for which it was intended. It’s very clear what > happens with this spyware. This is a wakeup call, really, to the rest of the > world, that simply trusting that the government is going to purchase spyware > only to catch the so-called bad guys is not true. It has been exposed through > the work we have done as technical partners on this report, and our partners > in Paris, Forbidden Stories, have done. This is such an important story and > hopefully the public will be educated to roll back surveillance of this type. > > Twenty years after 9/11, we see that in our Western democracies the war > criminals and the torturers are free, whereas Julian Assange is in prison > precisely for revealing those crimes. Isn’t it time for public opinion to > wake up before it is too late for our democracies? > > That is precisely what we are trying to do with this report on Pegasus, with > the work on Assange. Who is really the perpetrator of the human rights > violations, who is violating the humanitarian laws, who is committing war > crimes? It is not Julian Assange, it is not dedicated journalists and > publishers who put information in the public interest into the public domain. > > The perpetrators of these crimes are state actors or agents of the state, and > that is why Assange is a threat and other publishers who do the same are a > threat, because they push way beyond their weight in terms of holding the > states accountable, and states don’t like it. Assange is such an important > test case, because he is representative of all that, of state power, and if > the US extradites him, if the US gets that long arm to reach out and grab a > foreign publisher and bring him into the United States, and says he doesn’t > have First Amendment rights to do what he does, that precedent can be > damaging so far beyond this case, and that is why we are trying to forestall. > > mailto:zeynepaydo...@protonmail.com > >>
