<i>RC3-Music</i>

Herald: So here with us, Stefania Maurizi
from Il Fatto Quotidian, she's an

investigative journalist, and Nils Melzer,
who's the UN special rapporteur on

torture, and they are here tonight to
dissect the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

case. And so, the stage is yours.

Nils Melzer: Yes, thank you.
Stefania Maurizi: Absolutely, we are very

lucky to have the UN special rapporteur on
torture Nils Melzer tonight, so we have

many questions that I expect. Question for
you, and I hope you will have many

questions for us as well. So let's start
Nils, about this case because I suppose

you have hundreds of cases every year. And
why do you focus on these with many cases

dealt with serious torture and all sorts
of serious human rights violations?

Nils: Well, thanks Stefania, for the
question because I think that's what many

people ask themselves. You know, how are
you focusing on a person who's locked up

or was locked up at the time in an embassy
with a cat and a skateboard? How can it be

torture, right? And to be honest with you,
that's what I thought, in the beginning

because you're right, I received 10 to 15
requests of individuals, either by the

victims themselves, that have been
tortured, or are exposed to the risk of

torture, or their lawyers or family
members or NGOs. So, I get about 15 cases

per day on my desk and I can do maybe one.
So, I really have to choose quite quickly.

And I remember I was writing up a report
for the United Nations in December 2018,

so that I would have been actually three
years ago, and I had this little message

coming up on my screen saying Julian
Assange's lawyers are asking for your

protection. And I immediately have this
emotional reaction of, Oh no, not this

one. Isn't this, this hacker and rapist
and, you know, traitor? And I'm not going

to be manipulated by this guy. And so, I
swept it off my screen and I continued

working on my report, and it took me three
months until I, actually ... I got

contacted again by his lawyers in March
2019, about the month before he was

expelled from the embassy. And they sent
me some medical reports from an

independent doctor, a US doctor, who was
specialized in examining torture victims,

who had visited Guantánamo and so on, and
she had visited him in the embassy, not as

an Assange activist at all. And she and
she came to the conclusion, in that

medical opinion, that the Convention
against Torture was being violated, that

his living conditions were inhumane. And I
thought that if a person like this comes

to that conclusion, I probably better have
a look at this case and feel

Stefania: sorry for you. Let's name her
because she's very authoritative.

Nils: Yeah, it is Dr. Sandra Crosby is her
name. So, she's one of the first doctors

... independent doctors ... who visited
Guantánamo and really someone who is very

highly regarded, and impartial. So, I
looked at this, but I also received some

other evidence. And you know, Stefania,
you have a very important role in making

that available through your Freedom of
Information litigation, where you received

the release of some of the email
correspondence between the Swedish

Prosecution Service and the UK Prosecution
Service. Because at the base of the

Assange case in the beginning was these
allegations of rape in Sweden and so on.

And this correspondence really cast some
doubt on the legitimacy of this

prosecution, which I had never doubted
before. And so, I started realizing

that I had a lot of prejudice against
Assange, but I didn't really know what the

evidence was. And the more I looked into
this case, the more I saw that it doesn't

hold up. There is really no evidence for
this narrative. And I decided, well, I

think there's something wrong here. I
can't rely on the governments. I can't

rely on what I find on the internet, just
like this. And so, I really have to go and

look at this case myself and have decided
to visit Julian Assange in London. I asked

for permission to visit him in the
embassy. And as soon as I asked for

permission three days later they expel
him, I might have sped it up. Also, I

fear, although we know today that this
expulsion had been planned for months

before, but all of a sudden, everything
went really, really fast. They expelled

him, and he was arrested by the British
and put in a high security prison in

Belmarsh in London, where I visited him
about three weeks ... four weeks later on

the 9th of May 2019 with two specialized
doctors. I didn't expect to find torture,

to be quite honest with you. I expected to
find a man who is, you know, a bit

stressed, who is in bad health because
he's been in a room in the embassy for six

years and more. And that, he needed some
medical treatments. I would make some

recommendations, and I was sure we are in
Britain now. You know, he's in British

hands. This is a rule of law country.
There's going to be due-process. They're

not going to extradite him to the US, and
it's fine. But then what I realized is how

the authorities reacted to my comments and
to my requests is that they didn't want to

engage in a discussion on this case. They
didn't want to listen to my assessment.

And both of the doctors that I took with
me are very specialized people. One is the

psychiatrist, the other is the former
president of the World Forensic Society. I

mean, he is a very established forensic
doctor. They've been examining torture

victims for 30 years, and both of them,
independently from each other, came to the

conclusion that Julian Assange showed all
the symptoms that are typical for a victim

of psychological torture and psychological
torture is not some kind of a light form

of torture. It is really extremely grave
destabilization of the identity through

isolation, constant threat, constant
stress, constant also confusion through

arbitrariness and the defamation,
humiliation. All these elements together

are deliberately employed to destroy a
person's stability and identity, and we

could actually measure neurological damage
on Julian Assange already and cognitive

impairments that would, due to that
constant stress and harassment that he was

exposed to in the embassy already and has
been exposed to since then. So, we came to

a clear assessment. This person has been
tortured, and when I confronted the

authorities with this, they basically shut
down. They didn't want to engage with me

in a discussion. And the same happened
with Sweden because Sweden had contributed

to this, and Ecuador and the US, all of
these countries basically refused to

engage in a dialog with me on this. And
now I have to point out I'm mandated by

states. I mean, I am the UN special
rapporteur on torture. I'm not an NGO

person. I'm not an activist, I am not a
journalist, and I am not belittling that.

I think that all of this is very
important. But when you talk to states, as

someone who's been appointed by states to
do exactly that, to transmit allegations

of torture to them, you would expect them
to at least engage in a dialog. But they

refused. And when I saw that, I was sure
now something's wrong here, and I started

really investigating this case. I looked
deeply into the Swedish case. I looked

into the US case, where we saw that the
US is accusing Assange of espionage. And

I really started digging into this case.
And the more I did, the more dirt came

out, and not on the side of Assange, but
on the side of the governments. And that's

really a long answer to your first
question, why did I take on this case?

Because I felt well, if we have a case of
torture in a rule-of-law, western

democracy like Sweden and Britain, and as
the United Nations rapporteur, I cannot if

I have evidence for this, and I went there
with two specialized doctors to look at

this. I mean, it's consolidated. I, you
know, by law they have an obligation now

to investigate this and to, you know, to
compensate him and prosecute those who are

culpable and so on. There is no
discussion. But if democracies can afford

to simply ignore this, well, what does
this mean for our society? And that was

the first thing. And the second thought
was, and by the way, what does this mean

for press freedom? You know, what does
this mean And I've never been a press

freedom specialist. But, I thought, well,
here we have a person who is being

persecuted for the fact that he has
disclosed, not even stolen, but he's

received and disclosed, published true
information that proved serious crimes for

government officials, torture, murder, I
mean, horrible stuff. I mean, very serious

crimes. If this becomes a crime, to bring
the evidence for other crimes, and we see

that those criminals are not being
prosecuted. But the witness, basically,

who informs the public, is being
prosecuted and threatened with one hundred

and seventy-five years in prison. What
does this mean for people like you,

Stefania? You know, who are the
investigative journalists, and if people

like you no longer can work... What does
this mean for all the rest of us in

society? What does it mean? Do we have a
right to know what the governments are

doing with the power that we give to them
in a democracy, with the tax money we pay

to them? Or does it become a crime if we
ask the wrong questions? I mean, this is

really, that's why this is so important.
Assange isn't as important as any other

victim of torture. You know, they're all
the same. But the case is a precedent case

that is of enormous importance for the
functionality of democracy and the rule of

law.
Stefania: Absolutely. Absolutely. You have

a book which is coming out in February and
during the investigation on the case, I

was really impressed by the chapter on
collateral murder, your analysis of the

brutal attack on civilians. And you
analyze it from your point of view as an

expert on human rights law. I would like
to ask you to do a quick analysis for our

public, to explain where the war crimes
are involved. What are your conclusions

and so on.
Nils: Right? OK, I'll quickly show the

book just so people can see it. So, it
comes out in February, and it's true that,

you know, in the beginning, I explain my
own role, obviously the role of WikiLeaks.

But this collateral murder video was a
very important publication. The first big

publication of WikiLeaks is this video,
that was recorded by an attack helicopter

in Iraq, a US attack helicopter. It's a
standard, you know, a tele-lens camera,

and it shows how... How those helicopters
are circling over Baghdad, and we see

people walking in the streets, and then
you can hear the radio communication, and

the helicopters basically report that we
have, you know, several people with

AK-47s, which is a form of an automatic
rifle, a Kalashnikov. And they ask for

permission to fire and then put on the
image. We cannot see armed people, really.

In the beginning, to admit the truth, we
can see two people in a group of about 20

who might be carrying a weapon. But then
also, we have to know that at the time, in

2007, when this was recorded in Iraq, in
Baghdad, the US occupying forces had

authorized the Iraqi population to own
kalashnikovs and to carry them, you know,

to keep them at home, especially to
protect themselves from the looting.

Because when after the invasion of the
British and the US, the rule of law broke

down in Iraq, and they needed people to be
able to defend themselves. So, they were

actually allowed to carry that type of
weapon. And so, they (the helicopter gun-

ship) received permission to fire. And
then what we can see is that a group of

about 10 people is just being massacred.
They are in civilian clothing, they are

walking relaxed on the street. So, they're
clearly not preparing any attack or

something. We know that there is some,
some US soldiers from the of radio

communication. We can tell that there is
some US soldiers on the ground somewhere

close to there, but nobody is preparing an
attack. You know, and so we see how these

10 people are being massacred. And then we
hear those nasty comments by soldiers

like, you know, "good shooting" and "you
see these bloody bastards" and these types

of remarks. But the most troubling thing
is that then we have the helicopter makes

a couple of circles, and they report what
they see on the ground, all the dead

bodies and then some of the wounded people
who are crawling around and from the

conversations, we understand that the
soldiers know that it's prohibited to

attack wounded people. And I want to, you
know, I've been a law of armed conflict

expert on the use of force for the
International Committee of the Red Cross.

I've been teaching this at university
level for more than 10 years.I have

analyzed hundreds of combat operations as
an expert. So, I can easily see that these

soldiers are aware that they cannot
lawfully attack those wounded people and

that also in the law of war, you cannot
attack people who rescue the wounded as

long as they're not fighting themselves.
And then we see a minibus coming with

civilians trying to rescue this man. And
this man we're talking about is a wounded

journalist, is a Reuters journalist, who
was wounded in that attack. And the

soldiers, the US soldiers asked for
permission to fire on these people, and

they received permission. And then they
basically. You know, massacre, the wounded

person and the rescuers with the machine
gun and there is even in the minibus, the

two children of the driver that are
gravely wounded. So, I mean, all of this,

this is a clear war crime. When you
deliberately attack a wounded person who's

no longer participating in fighting or
rescue personnel, that's only trying to

rescue someone, that is, without any
question, a war crime. In the first scene,

I think we have to be fair that these
helicopters are circling at about one and

a half miles distance. The video we see is
recorded by a tele-objective lens. So, the

soldiers are not that close. When they
look out of the window, they cannot see

any details. It is too far away. So, they
have to rely exclusively on that picture.

And you also have to be fair that they can
see this picture only once in real time,

and they have to decide immediately. They
cannot, like us, rewind it 100 times and

watch it again from the armchair. So, all
of this being said, though, you know the

first attack, I think in the best case,
it's a very sloppy mistake. And I don't,

you know, I think it's already this
crosses the line to a war crime, but this

would be for a court to decide. But the
second attack, where they attack a clearly

wounded person and from the conversations
we know that the soldiers know that, you

know, they say, OK, he's wounded, and then
they're saying, you know, someone is

coming to pick them up and picking up the
weapons can we fire? The law of war is

very clear. This is absolutely prohibited
and what happened there is a clear war

crime and the scandal is that everybody
knows that the soldiers knew that. I mean,

the Department of Defense in the US knew
that, the US government knew that, the

public knows it. I mean, it's obvious when
you watched the film, but it's, and we

have video evidence, ... but nobody has
ever been prosecuted for that. That's the

first scandal. The second scandal..
Stefania: Let me help you. Why no one has

prosecuted. Why there was no International
Criminal Court investigation. Nothing.

Nils: Well because, the US is not party to
the ICC treaty. Of course, they have not,

.... You know, they have made sure that no
one can prosecute them for war crimes. And

also now, legally, any country in the
world could, and not even could, but would

have to prosecute these people as soon as
they are on their territory because war

crimes are so-called universal
jurisdiction crimes, which means if I

commit a war crime anywhere in the world,
no matter what nationality I am, no matter

where I am, the country where I am has to
arrest me and to prosecute me or to

extradite me to a country that will
prosecute me. That's what the Geneva

Conventions say. That's what the
International Criminal Law says and not

only the ICC treaty, but actually even the
Geneva Conventions that the US has

ratified. So, but what the reason is clear
is a political reason because no one dares

to prosecute a US soldier. If the US
doesn't do it. Now, to me, the most

troubling thing is that the US doesn't
do it because it's in their interest to

prosecute people who violate the law of
war. Because we know that the discipline

in an army diminishes very quickly when
you tolerate people committing war crimes.

And so, it's very, very important for, and
even for just the hygiene of the armed

forces, that they prosecute these things.
Now, not to say, you know, that the

humanitarian reasons and the human rights
of these people who have been murdered and

their families that don't receive
compensation, and then it also means that

these types of operations proliferate. You
know, if you don't stop it like this, this

becomes the normal modus operandi. And
that's exactly what many veterans of the

Iraq War have said, that this is not
collateral. Murder is not an exception.

This was the standard procedure. This
happened every day, in that period. And

so, that's really a major scandal. But you
know, the second thing I want to say is

the even bigger scandal is some people are
being prosecuted. And that's the

whistleblower that actually leaked this
information and the journalists who

published it. So, that is really turning
the world of justice upside down when

murderers are walking free and the
witness, you know, who witnessed the

murder or brings the (...). He would get
one hundred and seventy-five years in

prison. That's enormous. That's a bit, ...
that's more than any war criminal in The

Hague has ever received. That's what we're
looking at, and, you know, when you were

asking, well, you know what, what is
Assange actually being accused of? When

you look at the indictment, it's all about
receiving this type of information and

publishing this type of information.
That's what I mean, you tell me, but

that's what an investigative journalist
does. No?

Stefania: Politically, absolutely. This is
what we do on a regular, ... on a daily

basis.
Nils: Yeah. And so now, if I ask you an

honest question, Stefania, if I gave you
today a USB stick with "Collateral Murder

Video #2", and another 250,000 diplomatic
cables, would you publish them? I mean, 10

years ago, you probably would have.
Because at the time, even the New York

Times, The Guardian and the Spiegel and Le
Monde and everybody, you know, wanted to

co-publish this together with Assange. But
today? They're not even, they're not even

really reporting on what's happening here.
And, you know, if I ask you, do you feel

intimidated by what's happening to
Assange? Would you feel comfortable

publishing these things today?
Stefania: I do feel really intimidated.

Nils: Yeah,
Stefania: I think I would approach this

with serious, serious concern, ...
Nils: Yup,

Stefania: of not being protected by
anything at the end of the day because I

have seen, in the last 13 years which I
have been covering and together in this

case, that Julian Assange and the
WikiLeaks journalists have tried

everything. They have tried to use the
laws. They have tried to ask for asylum.

They have tried to look for protection by
the media community. They have tried

everything. And with the exception of the
UN authorities, the U.N. Special

Rapporteur on Torture and the UN Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, they have

received no protection whatsoever. So, I
would be terrified, honestly.

Nils: Yes. And I think this is the type of
question we have to ask ourselves. It's

not about will Assange be extradited or
not. Yes, it's important, but it's already

working. You see, the example has already
been set for the last 10 years. This man

has not been free. He's been on the run
from a country that's accusing him for

telling the truth about its crimes. That's
really what's happening here because

nothing else that he's accused of has been
proven and that they've tried hard.

They've invested millions in trying to
create the narrative. But everything else

from rape to hacking to, you know,
treason, all these things. There's not

that there's no proof whatsoever. So, all
of this is constructed to push him into a

corner, but also to intimidate people like
you. And I think that's that's what we

have to understand. That's the effect of
this. Yes, it's on Assange and his health

and his person, and that's important for
the individual. But my point of this being

a general, in the case of general
importance, is proven by your reaction.

And you, I know, are one of the more
courageous investigative journalists, and

you've been fighting, you know, the
secrecy for very long through your FOIA

litigation that has been so valuable in
producing, you know, evidence. And we know

that, you know, a lot of key evidence is
still being kept secret by these states.

And so, that's what we're risking to lose,
this access to the truth that is so

essential for democracy.
Stefania: Absolutely. Definitely. You

know, we know that is precisely what they
want, and that's why we had to fight hard

because it's about the society we want in
the free allowed to go out to the .... If

we allowed them to go ahead with this
persecution, with this extradition, they

will .... It will be the end of the press
freedom ..., it would be the end of

investigative journalism and the right of
the public to know. it's not just about

us, it's not just about the investigative
journalism. It's about the public's right

to know. I mean, Nils: And I think it's
important, you know, I know, that to many

people, this might sound alarmist. You
know, oh, this is exaggerated. Oh, come

on, this is just Assange, and he's going
to be prosecuted and everything's going to

be fine. No, you know, when you look in
history, that's exactly how powerful

states have behaved and dictators, and you
know, for creating dictatorships. You

know, you take someone, and you destroy
their reputation. You accuse them of, you

know, stupid things and or even serious
crimes, you know, but they cannot be

proven. And you destroy their reputation.
And then when the whole public is

convinced that, you know, this is a bad
guy. Then you set an example with "him".

On press freedom, but nobody cares about
"him" because I think it's just him and

nobody likes him because his reputation
has been destroyed. But the problem is the

precedent case can be applied to anybody,
afterwards. And that's exactly what

they're trying to do. And I think it's
very, very important that we are aware of

this. It's not whether you like or dislike
Assange, it's whether you like or dislike

the rights that he has and that you have
and that everybody else has, which is the

right of freedom of expression. And that's
not just the freedom of expression is not

just the right to say anything you want
and think anything you want, but also to

receive that information that the public
has the rights under the freedom of

expression, to hear and to read, and to
see the evidence of government misconduct.

And that's what they're trying to
suppress. Now, if you say this is a

conspiracy theory, look, it's very
obvious, the torture, the murder of

civilians, of journalists or collateral
murder and other documents has been

proven. It's not something that the
government has said is not true. No, they

have never, .... They have never claimed
that anything is not true that WikiLeaks

has proven. So, actually by law, those
officials have to be prosecuted, and they

should spend, you know, many years in
prison. Some of them. So, but they will

say, but I received orders from up, and it
goes higher up the chain of responsibility

doesn't end in the attack helicopter. It
ends somewhere in a government building,

in a nice little office with or a big
office, rather with thick carpets. And

that's what they're afraid of because the
commander is responsible for this. So,

that's why they cut this, and they
intimidate everybody, and they

criminalize. It's basically it's a re-
classified information, and if you publish

it, you will be punished and re-classified
for reasons of national security. But

that's not true. They're classifying it
for their own impunity. That's what they

want to protect. And it's natural. You
know, if you accuse someone of murder in

court, and you allow him to classify all
the evidence against him and to make it a

crime to disclose it, he will do it, for
sure. So let's be realistic, you know,

governments are not good or bad. They're
just normal human beings. And if they make

a mistake, they want to cover it up like
everybody else. So, that's the natural

behavior. That's why we really have to
insist on transparency for the powerful.

You know, we have to insist on oversight
on the separation of power. We have to

insist that it be treated as a serious
crime to circumvent these checks and

balances because it threatens the very
core of our society, of our democracy and

of our civil liberties. And when you look
at the legal proceedings that Assange has

been exposed to, I'm not going to bore you
with a lot of legal technicalities, but

I've really investigated every single
legal proceeding from the Swedish

accusations or, you know, allegations of
sexual misconduct where I was able to read

original documents because I do speak
Swedish, and you know, luckily I had all

those documents that you also got to hand
on it through the FOIA litigation. And I

don't know what happened between Assange
and these women. But what I do know is

that the government in Sweden never cared
about that. They clearly from the

beginning wanted to create a rape
narrative and maintain it and to avoid,

you know, him getting a chance, a fair day
in court to actually deal with this. The

narrative that he evaded these accusations
that he was hiding in the embassy because

of the sexual allegations is false. He
offered to come to Sweden. He wanted to

testify in this case, but he was afraid
that the Swedish would send him to the

US without a legal proceeding, as they
had done with other people before. And he

just wanted guarantees from them, and the
Swedish didn't want to give those

guarantees, which is really something that
I can tell from international experience.

That's a warning. If the country doesn't
want to give you those guarantees, you

better not go there.
Stefania: Yeah,

Nils: He was right not to go. And they
really abused those legal institutions to

keep him in limbo, you know, suspected of
rape, but unable to defend himself. And

so, his reputation suffered because of
that. And then he continued, obviously

with, you know, the economic pressures on
Ecuador once they had a new president,

Moreno. The US put Ecuador under pressure,
and we have written evidence of Congress

writing to the president of Ecuador,
saying, Look, we would be happy to support

you economically and to, you know, to help
you bring up a country that the country's

situation, the economic situation to
financially support you. But there is one,

not several, there's one problem, and
that's the situation of Assange. And we

need him to be handed over, so we can
start helping you. So, that, ... we have a

letter of October 2018 of US Congress to
President Moreno. And from then on, it was

clear and Moreno was working together with
the British and the US to expel him from

the embassy. So, that was done without any
rule of law proceeding. You know, he had

official asylum, and it was just taken
from him along with his nationality. He

had no right to access a court to have a
lawyer defending him. It was just from one

hour to the other. He was expelled, and
the UK behaved just the same way. When you

think the UK is the quintessential rule of
law country, which I can, you know, this

was my conviction as a professor in the UK
university. And then you see that we have

a judge who is insulting him publicly in a
court hearing where Assange had said

nothing, except I plead not guilty. And
then we have another judge who's in charge

for the first couple of months for the
extradition procedure and her husband had

been exposed by WikiLeaks. I mean, it's
there's a conflict of interest. It's just,

you know, even it's a perception of bias
that you cannot afford in a democracy. And

then we have, you know, him being put in a
high security prison. Although he's not

serving a sentence for two years, he's
been in Belmarsh. He's not serving a

sentence. He's just being held there in
extradition detention. And normally people

should be allowed to work and to be with
their family and maybe to have an ankle

bracelet. Or they think Assange's case
because he has sought asylum in the

Ecuadorian embassy before, maybe they put
him in house arrest like they did with

Pinochet. But you will never. There's no
legal basis to put someone in a high

security prison. They do this with him
because they want to silence him because

they want to intimidate you, journalists.
That's the reason. And you know, when you

see this happening...,
Stefania: Let me stop you and ask you

something very, very serious, like the CIA
attempt to kidnap or poisoning him, which

is, I mean, this received so little
consideration. If we, ... I mean, I was

really upset about realizing how lethal it
was, considering the legal process in the

UK.
Nils: Absolutely. We've had we've had

indicators before we thought that the
security company that was working for the

Ecuadorian Embassy to guard the Ecuadorian
Embassy, U.C. Global was actually behind

the back of the Ecuadorian government
cooperating with the CIA and, you know,

streaming video feeds from surveillance
cameras, from the embassy to the CIA 24-7.

But not only that, we also had indicators
before, former employees of that company

testifying in court that, you know, there
were assassination plans for, you know,

against Assange by the CIA. And this was
then confirmed also by this Yahoo

disclosure in September this year, where
more than 30 agents or former agents of

the CIA allegedly confirmed that there
were plans to kidnap or Assange to, you

know, disappear him into black sites or
even to assassinate him was considered at

least, but then found to be too dangerous.
But the plan was to poison him. Now, I

mean, I'll just take another case,
Navalny, right, that everybody knows, you

know, and says that, allegedly, the
Russian government tried to poison him.

Well, that's what we're talking about. But
you know, it's the same thing. It's just

that in Nawalny's case, and rightly so,
you know, everybody is is is protesting

and of the western governments are very
courageously, you know, imposing sanctions

and so on. But when the same thing is
being planned by the CIA against Assange,

nobody speaks out. And that's that's what
I found, this kind of hypocrisy that we

have in Western governments is just so
disappointing. It's scandalous because it

threatens the foundations of what our
societies are. And if someone has

committed a crime, yes, arrest and try
him, you know, bring the evidence or

acquit him. But that's that's the end of
the story. But they don't know what to

accuse him of because he hasn't committed
any crime. So, they invent these stupid

stories. You know, he's not feeding his
cat, and he's playing football in the

embassy and all these stupid headlines
that you see. I mean, the BBC, you know, I

mean, they're reporting on these types of
things, but they're they're not, you know,

considerate enough about their own
profession as journalists to report on

what's actually happening here, that this
is about criminalizing investigative

journalism. This should be really at the
heart of the mission of a BBC or a New

York Times to be very, very outspoken
about this. And I'm convinced that if the

mainstream media, the main outlets in the
Anglo-Saxon world, let's say the New York

Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian
and the BBC, if they together deliberately

launched an effort to condemn this
persecution on their front pages and the

main news hour, you know, for one week
straight. This would be finished because

the government has nothing in their hands
in terms of truth. All they can do is

orchestrate a secret trial in Alexandria,
an espionage court where they tape the

doors and lock the windows and nobody is
allowed to witness what's going on, and

then they condemn him for something and
sentence him to 175 years in prison. And

nobody, even the defense counsel, doesn't
have access to the evidence. I mean,

that's that's a show trial that's not a
rule of law proceeding. And I think the

societies in the West and around the
world, but they're talking about Western

democracies now. They deserve, you know,
governments and judiciaries that respect

those principles and respect the law. And
it's really very worrying. That's why I

put my whole professional weight and
personal credibility into this case

because I think this is about our rights,
it's about it's about the rights of our

children to know what their governments
are doing with the money and the power

that they give to the governments. And if
we allow it to become a crime to tell the

truth, we will be living in a tyranny
that's not exaggerated.

Stefania: Absolutely. I mean, we read this
about something we really care about. We

realized that this case is crucial, and we
cannot lose it. We absolutely don't want

to lose it. Nils, let me ask you one last
question, then we will ask for the public

asking question to ask. Well, this case is
about Julian Assange, of course, and it is

all about the WikiLeaks journalists
because they have at least (...), for now,

he's in prison, but they will be the next.
Let's mentioned Sarah Harrison, for

example, the former WikiLeaks section
editor, who flew to Hong Kong. (...) or

many, many others. Kristie Larson, Joseph
Farrell. I have the Freedom of Information

case in the UK, and it is about these
three WikiLeaks journalists former and

current WikiLeaks journalists. And
Scotland Yard, is doing whatever it can to

deny me access to these documents using
anti-terror laws again or for denying me

access to these documents. I have been
litigating this case about the WikiLeaks

journalists and Julian Assange for over
six years. So, what do you think is going

to happen in this case now? What's next?
Nils: Well, I think the first thing I want

is to finish this case. Set a precedent.
You know, with this man that most of the

public still somehow despises because they
have been deceived and poisoned by this

narrative that has been created about him.
But once this is done, clearly they will,

they will continue. This is not the end of
it. This is the beginning of a new era

where journalists will be prosecuted for
telling the truth about government

misconduct. Because then the precedent has
been set. And you know, it's very

important as we speak and as we observe
this case, all ready countries are

adapting their laws to this new future. We
see that in Australia, we see that in the

UK, where the Official Secrets Act is
being tightened. Basically, we see that,

well, the interpretation of the Espionage
Act in the US. Sweden has just passed a

law on foreign espionage where it becomes
a crime. Sweden used to be the safe haven

of press freedom, which is why Julian
Assange was in Sweden in the first place,

In 2010. We wanted to establish WikiLeaks
there because it was the safe haven for

press freedom. Sweden has passed a law
just two months ago by which from January

2023, it will be a crime in Sweden to
disclose classified information that does

not even threaten national security.
That's only prejudicial to the relations

of Sweden with a different country or an
international organization. I mean, it's

ridiculous. I mean, that's the standard is
so low. It's basically, though, the

diplomatic cables, something that's just
embarrassing before the relations of

Sweden with Austria, for example. You
know, I'm just taking by random example.

It's just embarrassing. That's sufficient.
It becomes a crime. So, what we have to

realize is this is, ... Now states are
building a system not only in the US, the

UK, the Anglo-Saxon world throughout, but
also even now, the allied countries are

building a system where it becomes a crime
to tell the truth. It's. Really high time

for us to ring the alarm bell and to stop
this, to insist that we have a right to

know.
Stefania: Absolutely. What do you expect

from the legal process in the UK? What do
you expect the next?

Nils: Well, unfortunately, I cannot expect
justice. I was hopeful. I mean, I am

pessimistically hopeful. If I can allow to
say that the High Court would refuse

extradition. But I sensed that exactly
what happened, was going to happen. I said

it before publicly, and it's happened
exactly as I presumed it would. I think

that the UK judiciary, unfortunately, is
unable to ensure respect for the law here

and that they will basically wave this
extradition through, and they will try

perhaps to extend this proceeding another
year or two. Because for the US, it's not

urgent for Assange to be extradited if he
dies in prison in the UK, all the better

for the US, so they don't have to deal
with it. What they want is to set the

precedent that everybody knows, including
yourselves, Stefania, that this is what's

going to happen to you if you ever mess
with our secrets, our dirty secrets. And

so, I don't know exactly what's going to
play out and how it's going to play out.

But in the big picture, these states have
not persecuted Assange for 10 years for

tens of millions of dollars to let him off
the hook any time soon. So, the only

chance he has, and that's the very real
chance, if public opinion changes and if

the main media organizations change their
view. As I said before, this is going to

be over. This is just like waking up from
a nightmare. It's going to be over. But if

they don't, we're in for a long nightmare.
Stefania: Thank you, Nils, let's open the

question from the public.

Herald: Yeah. There are More and more
questions coming up here. And let me start

by, ... one, that's more like the
beginning of the whole story as to what

exactly did you expect, or who do you
exactly expect to respond in the first

instance, when torture in UK is concerned?
Like before you send letters, you would

expect kind of a maybe a police showing up
or something like that. What would you

normally expect?
Nils: Well, if I receive allegations of

torture, I transmit them, I mean, the
first thing that happens, I look whether

they are credible. You know, if they are,
if they're not credible, obviously, I

will. I will. I will try to consolidate.
Maybe I will. My team will call the person

or organization that submitted the
information and try to consolidate it to

make sure that it is credible. It doesn't
have to be proven, but it has to be

credible. If that's the case, I will
transmit it to the government. And if it's

an urgent case, you know, if it's about
preventing torture, it's a historical case

that happened 15 years ago, and we're just
investigating it's not very urgent, and we

can take time. I mean, you know,
reasonable timeframe. But if it's very

urgent, someone is about to be executed or
transferred or extradited. Then within 24

hours, I can write a letter and transmit
it to the foreign minister of. And that's

your question. Who will actually will, ...
my interlocutor as the UN rapporteur is

always the foreign minister of the country
of the UN member state through the

diplomatic mission in Geneva. And so, they
will then have to distribute it to the

proper authorities in their country. If
it's an allegation about a police station,

that will have to, you know, transmit it
to the police and so on. But depending on

the country and the precise allegation, it
will be different authorities. It could be

a migration center or something like this.
But for me, it's very it's a diplomatic

protocol. I always have to go through the
Foreign Ministry and they will then have

to initiate those investigations and
inside the country.

Herald: OK, thank you very much. The Next
question would be, will Assange be

able to appeal to the European Court of
Justice? How long do you estimate Julian

will stay in prison until the highest
applicable court would publish a decision?

And are there any moves that can still be
made from a lawyer's point of perspective?

Well, I'm clearly not his lawyer. But, you
know, and his legal team would have to

speak to the strategy. So, I can't. I'm
not representing him, obviously. But

clearly, yes, at some point you will be
able, as soon as the last instance

decision has been validated by the last
instance of court in the U.K., then this

decision can be appealed to the European
Court of Human Rights, not the European

Court of Justice, that's an EU court, but
the European Court of Human Rights would

be that instance. They can also, already
now, appeal to that court for preliminary

protection, for example, to release him
from prison and to house arrest or

something like this. But that's a bit
technical. But yes, at the end there is an

opportunity to appeal to the European
Court of Human Rights. And the question of

how long it will last really depends on so
many factors. What's the strategy of the

lawyers? What's the strategy of the court?
You know, how long does the court take to

decide, after a hearing? Do they take two
weeks or do they take four months? It's up

to them. And so, it's, ... I can't, you
know, I can't. But it could last anywhere

from at least one year to, you know,
another three years or something like

this.
Stefania: I just want to add one important

info about this European Court of Human
Rights because according to the documents

I was able to get from my Freedom of
Information litigation, the UK authorities

were discussing with the Swedish
authorities an attempt to extradite Julian

Assange without allowing him to apply to
the European Court of Human Rights and

obtaining the protective measure. So, it
was an attempt to extradite him before he

could get a protective measure. Do you
think that means that they could play the

same game for the extradition to the US?
Nils: It's conceivable, yes. The problem

is that normally a judgment of the, ... or
an appeal to the European Court of Human

Rights is not, ... does not suspend the
validity of the national decision. So if

the Supreme Court of the UK allows the
extradition, for example, and Assange

appeals that then he can still be
extradited, unless the European Court of

Human Rights orders preliminary measures,
you know, that suspend that the validity

of that ruling. So but they still have to
decide that. And obviously, between the

decision of the Supreme Court and the
issuing of that preliminary protective

measure, there will be a few days. And so
in this time, you know, they can try to

send him out. So, it's very important that
his lawyers react in time and perhaps even

provisionally ask for measures like this.
But again, you know, his legal team would

be better placed to answer those
questions.

Herald: OK, thank you very much. I hope
you might answer the next question. What

is the government's justification for
keeping Assange in Belmarsh? And what

happens to other high, or high risk,
persons above who have a flight risk that

are on remand in the UK?
Nils: Well, the government doesn't just,

... I mean, they just say he's a flight
risk. OK. Well, yes, there is a precedent

that he's basically his, look, ... you
know, he's asked for asylum in the

Ecuadorian embassy. So now clearly, you
know, in my view, even the whole

extradition proceeding is illegitimate and
illegal. You know, for various reasons

because it concerns espionage, which is a
political offense and because, you know,

it's protected by press freedom, what he's
done and all of these things. But even if,

for the sake of the argument, if we accept
that this is a legitimate extradition

proceeding, then if he's a flight risk,
then yes, you can. You can secure his

presence, but you have to use the least
harmful means to do that. So, you cannot

take measures that are more restrictive
than necessary. And so if you put him in

house arrest, a guarded house arrest where
he cannot leave because there's a guard in

front of the door, that's sufficient, and
it's even cheaper than a high security

prison. And that's what they've done with
with with Augusto Pinochet, who was, I

remind you, not accused of journalism. He
was accused of having, you know, being

responsible for murder and torture and
disappearance of thousands of people as

the dictator of ex-dictator of Chile. And
the British, But he was an ally of the

United Kingdom. So, but he was in the
legal, legally accepted, (cough) excuse

me, except that he was accused of serious
crimes, and Julian Assange is not. He was

in the same extradition kind of situation,
and he was allowed to spend one and a half

years in a luxurious villa where he was
visited by, you know, ex-Prime Minister

Thatcher. But Julian Assange has been put
in a high security prison. That's, ...

he's not a violent person. He's put in the
toughest high security prison where, you

know, violent criminals are being held.
And so, that's actually that's absolutely

not justifiable. He could be kept in
anywhere else, you know where he can be

supervised, and he has a human right to
live his family life, to live his

profession. There is, ... he's not serving
a sentence. He's not convicted of

anything. And his health is in the dire
state. We have examined him two years ago

and warned that he would enter a downward
spiral very soon, and it actually

happened. He was not even able to to to
attend his, ... to observe his own appeals

hearing at the end of October. He actually
had a stroke during that hearing. And it's

absolutely grotesque that the judges in
that hearing, you know, decided that his

health was stable enough to be extradited
to the US, based on some flimsy assurances

that don't guarantee anything. You know
that don't protect him from anything.

Herald: Then this question fits right
perfectly to that because it does. Are you

confident that the US government won't
harm Assange as they promised?

Nils: To the contrary, I'm confident they
will because there's no way he's going to

get a fair trial. The public narrative
against Assange is so overwhelming, and

the prejudice is so overwhelming against
him. He's going to be tried in Alexandria,

the infamous espionage court where I
indicated before it's a secret trial. Very

often, the defense does not even have
access to the evidence against the

suspect, and there is no press allowed.
There is no trial observation allowed. You

know, there is, ... the jury takes
information from the prosecution that the

defense doesn't have access to. No one has
ever been acquitted in that court. It's a

national security court. No one has ever
been acquitted, and people are being

threatened with enormous prison sentences
there, unless they accept some kind of

plea bargain. In his case, it would
certainly mean that he would have to spend

decades in prison. So, ... and for this
type of suspect, it's always solitary

confinement, which means near complete
isolation. No contact with the outside

world, no contact to other inmates, no
talking even to the guards. You know, very

often the US authorities then say, Oh, we
have to put him on suicide watch, you

know, for his own benefit, which means
they wake him up every 15 minutes at

night. He cannot sit down or lie down
during the day. And it's really a form of

torture. And I say this as an expert, and
I'm not the only one saying this. It's my

predecessors. That's, you know, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch.

Everybody agrees these types of conditions
are a violation of the Convention against

Torture and Ill Treatment.
Herald: Thank you for that answer. I have

one last question, and that's probably the
big one. What can society do, or what

needs to happen, to stop the extradition
from happening now? And what would need to

happen to undo the effects of the US 
government's approach in this case, like

the intimidation of journalists?
Nils: Well, I guess, Stephanie, you will

have something to say about this as well.
I mean, from my perspective. The US has to

drop this case. They have to, or they have
to be pressured by their own media and

their own society to drop this case
because, you know, the US society is

really, ... is they have the political
influence on their political leadership,

and it's in their own interest that they
stop this from happening because otherwise

they will lose, as I said before, the
right to know what their government is

doing, the fact already it lost that
right, actually, they have to regain it.

And I think, so, civil society is very
important, but the media, especially the

mainstream media, that they start picking
this up is very, very important. Public

opinion has to turn around and not only in
the US, in the UK, in Australia, in Sweden

and anywhere, anywhere. People have to ask
their governments, Why are you accepting

that a country that you are allied with,
you know, is persecuting journalists, that

expose their war crimes? We have to ask
the people, that are elected to

parliament, why they are, accepting this?
Why they are keeping silent, you know

because, it will cost it will cost us very
dearly. I don't know what you think,

Stefania.
Stefania: Yes, I absolutely agree with

you. We absolutely have to win this case,
which means we absolutely have to put

pressure, take to the streets, must see
press coverage of the situation. It's a

scandal that it took an Italian journalist
to litigate a Freedom of Information case

in the UK and the US, Australia and Sweden
because no one else did it. It's a scandal

that you took an Italian journalist to try
to discover the pressure from the Crown

Prosecution Service on the Swedish
authorities and the attempt to bypass the

European Court of Human Rights. Can you
believe that the Guardian was not able to

do this, or can you believe that the New
York Times could not expose the CIA

attempts to kill him? I mean, it took
Yahoo? I mean, can you believe Yahoo had

more sources inside the CIA than The
Washington Post or the New York Times that

inside this agency? Can you believe that
they were not able to expose before Yahoo

News? So, we absolutely have to call them
out and to make, ... to have them on

board. They don't want to be on board. We
have seen they don't cover the case

properly. They say they want to be
factual, when in fact they have not looked

for the facts. And it took an Italian
judicial system, a U.N. special

rapporteur, to investigate the case, which
is unbelievable, you know. So, we have to

have them on board, and we absolutely have
to win this case. Having the case dropped,

the investigation dropped because it is a
scandal. I mean, in 20 years of

journalism, my experience of 20 years as a
journalist, 15 in investigative

journalism, I have never heard of a media
organization put under investigation for

11 years. I never heard this. I don't
know. I don't believe it exists. Not even,

... I mean, just in seriously
authoritarian dictatorships. I never heard

of a media organization under
investigation for 11 years as WikiLeaks,

... the WikiLeaks journalists have been.
So, we absolutely have to win this case,

and we have not to rely on the legal
process. The legal process is completely

corrupt, completely corrupt. So, we, it is
up to us. It's up to us to take to the

street and to have press coverage or
whatever press coverage we can, the

independent media, the citizen journalism
for the whatever. We can to mobilize

people to have people taking to the
streets and realize this monstrous

injustice. In the preface to my book, Ken
Loach, the great film director Ken Loach,

calls it "this monstrous injustice". He's
absolutely right.

Nils: And if you allow me to just say one
sentence here also, to conclude my own

statement, here is just to say, don't
think that this is just the Assange case,

that is the tip of the iceberg. And I
wrote the book about this, not because

this is the only case, but this is the
case that makes it most visible what's

really going on? It's actually a keyhole
through which you can see into a parallel

world that already exists, where democracy
and the rule of law is being

systematically undermined. So, don't
believe those public narratives, in this

case or in others, you know. Ask
questions, ask for evidence and always

ask, you know, who has what kind of
interests here? And are we still able to

know what the powerful are doing with the
power and the money they have? And that's

really at the core of it. So, I hope this
was useful, and clearly I invite people,

you know, read, read, it's the Stefania's
book. Read my book, read, read about the

case and make up your own mind, you know
because it's about your rights and your

life.
Stefania: Absolutely. Let me close this

conversation with reminding people that we
will keep this conversation going in the

"after three village" at 10 p.m. We will
wait for you. We appreciate more questions

about these important crucial case. Thank you.
Herald: Yeah, thank you both very much for

being here and for the very interesting
talk, and maybe we see each other later in

the "after three village" and yeah, have a
good evening.

<i>Music</i>

Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2022. Join, and help us!