Amnesty's Simon Crowther on why the #AssangeCase is so important for freedom of expression: "(extraditing) would set a chilling precedent on journalists around the world, and has implications far beyond Julian Assange"
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1453386063171444744?s=21 Sent from ProtonMail for iOS Açık Çar, Eki 27, 2021 17:02, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydo...@protonmail.com> yazdı: > 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 >> >>>
