WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.418
RC3-Music
00:00:07.418 --> 00:00:14.560
Herald: So here with us, Stefania Maurizi
from Il Fatto Quotidian, she's an
00:00:14.560 --> 00:00:19.120
investigative journalist, and Nils Melzer,
who's the UN special rapporteur on
00:00:19.120 --> 00:00:26.640
torture, and they are here tonight to
dissect the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks
00:00:26.640 --> 00:00:32.290
case. And so, the stage is yours.
00:00:32.290 --> 00:00:36.880
Nils Melzer: Yes, thank you.
Stefania Maurizi: Absolutely, we are very
00:00:36.880 --> 00:00:42.720
lucky to have the UN special rapporteur on
torture Nils Melzer tonight, so we have
00:00:43.360 --> 00:00:48.080
many questions that I expect. Question for
you, and I hope you will have many
00:00:48.080 --> 00:00:53.760
questions for us as well. So let's start
Nils, about this case because I suppose
00:00:53.760 --> 00:01:00.480
you have hundreds of cases every year. And
why do you focus on these with many cases
00:01:00.480 --> 00:01:08.560
dealt with serious torture and all sorts
of serious human rights violations?
00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:12.880
Nils: Well, thanks Stefania, for the
question because I think that's what many
00:01:12.880 --> 00:01:17.520
people ask themselves. You know, how are
you focusing on a person who's locked up
00:01:17.520 --> 00:01:21.920
or was locked up at the time in an embassy
with a cat and a skateboard? How can it be
00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:26.800
torture, right? And to be honest with you,
that's what I thought, in the beginning
00:01:26.800 --> 00:01:33.040
because you're right, I received 10 to 15
requests of individuals, either by the
00:01:33.040 --> 00:01:38.080
victims themselves, that have been
tortured, or are exposed to the risk of
00:01:38.080 --> 00:01:43.520
torture, or their lawyers or family
members or NGOs. So, I get about 15 cases
00:01:43.520 --> 00:01:49.440
per day on my desk and I can do maybe one.
So, I really have to choose quite quickly.
00:01:49.440 --> 00:01:55.680
And I remember I was writing up a report
for the United Nations in December 2018,
00:01:55.680 --> 00:02:01.520
so that I would have been actually three
years ago, and I had this little message
00:02:01.520 --> 00:02:05.280
coming up on my screen saying Julian
Assange's lawyers are asking for your
00:02:05.280 --> 00:02:13.920
protection. And I immediately have this
emotional reaction of, Oh no, not this
00:02:13.920 --> 00:02:20.560
one. Isn't this, this hacker and rapist
and, you know, traitor? And I'm not going
00:02:20.560 --> 00:02:25.680
to be manipulated by this guy. And so, I
swept it off my screen and I continued
00:02:25.680 --> 00:02:32.480
working on my report, and it took me three
months until I, actually ... I got
00:02:32.480 --> 00:02:36.560
contacted again by his lawyers in March
2019, about the month before he was
00:02:36.560 --> 00:02:40.800
expelled from the embassy. And they sent
me some medical reports from an
00:02:40.800 --> 00:02:47.120
independent doctor, a US doctor, who was
specialized in examining torture victims,
00:02:47.120 --> 00:02:51.680
who had visited Guantánamo and so on, and
she had visited him in the embassy, not as
00:02:51.680 --> 00:02:56.720
an Assange activist at all. And she and
she came to the conclusion, in that
00:02:56.720 --> 00:03:01.120
medical opinion, that the Convention
against Torture was being violated, that
00:03:01.120 --> 00:03:05.280
his living conditions were inhumane. And I
thought that if a person like this comes
00:03:05.280 --> 00:03:09.550
to that conclusion, I probably better have
a look at this case and feel
00:03:09.550 --> 00:03:14.640
Stefania: sorry for you. Let's name her
because she's very authoritative.
00:03:16.320 --> 00:03:20.640
Nils: Yeah, it is Dr. Sandra Crosby is her
name. So, she's one of the first doctors
00:03:20.640 --> 00:03:26.880
... independent doctors ... who visited
Guantánamo and really someone who is very
00:03:26.880 --> 00:03:33.680
highly regarded, and impartial. So, I
looked at this, but I also received some
00:03:33.680 --> 00:03:38.720
other evidence. And you know, Stefania,
you have a very important role in making
00:03:38.720 --> 00:03:43.120
that available through your Freedom of
Information litigation, where you received
00:03:43.120 --> 00:03:47.600
the release of some of the email
correspondence between the Swedish
00:03:47.600 --> 00:03:53.520
Prosecution Service and the UK Prosecution
Service. Because at the base of the
00:03:53.520 --> 00:03:58.000
Assange case in the beginning was these
allegations of rape in Sweden and so on.
00:03:58.560 --> 00:04:06.480
And this correspondence really cast some
doubt on the legitimacy of this
00:04:06.480 --> 00:04:10.880
prosecution, which I had never doubted
before. And so, I started realizing
00:04:10.880 --> 00:04:15.840
that I had a lot of prejudice against
Assange, but I didn't really know what the
00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:22.000
evidence was. And the more I looked into
this case, the more I saw that it doesn't
00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:26.720
hold up. There is really no evidence for
this narrative. And I decided, well, I
00:04:26.720 --> 00:04:30.880
think there's something wrong here. I
can't rely on the governments. I can't
00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:36.880
rely on what I find on the internet, just
like this. And so, I really have to go and
00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:44.080
look at this case myself and have decided
to visit Julian Assange in London. I asked
00:04:44.080 --> 00:04:48.000
for permission to visit him in the
embassy. And as soon as I asked for
00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:53.200
permission three days later they expel
him, I might have sped it up. Also, I
00:04:53.200 --> 00:04:58.160
fear, although we know today that this
expulsion had been planned for months
00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:03.200
before, but all of a sudden, everything
went really, really fast. They expelled
00:05:03.200 --> 00:05:07.680
him, and he was arrested by the British
and put in a high security prison in
00:05:07.680 --> 00:05:11.520
Belmarsh in London, where I visited him
about three weeks ... four weeks later on
00:05:11.520 --> 00:05:17.840
the 9th of May 2019 with two specialized
doctors. I didn't expect to find torture,
00:05:17.840 --> 00:05:22.880
to be quite honest with you. I expected to
find a man who is, you know, a bit
00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:27.840
stressed, who is in bad health because
he's been in a room in the embassy for six
00:05:27.840 --> 00:05:33.360
years and more. And that, he needed some
medical treatments. I would make some
00:05:33.360 --> 00:05:38.160
recommendations, and I was sure we are in
Britain now. You know, he's in British
00:05:38.160 --> 00:05:42.080
hands. This is a rule of law country.
There's going to be due-process. They're
00:05:42.080 --> 00:05:48.480
not going to extradite him to the US, and
it's fine. But then what I realized is how
00:05:48.480 --> 00:05:55.520
the authorities reacted to my comments and
to my requests is that they didn't want to
00:05:55.520 --> 00:06:00.880
engage in a discussion on this case. They
didn't want to listen to my assessment.
00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:06.880
And both of the doctors that I took with
me are very specialized people. One is the
00:06:06.880 --> 00:06:11.280
psychiatrist, the other is the former
president of the World Forensic Society. I
00:06:11.280 --> 00:06:16.000
mean, he is a very established forensic
doctor. They've been examining torture
00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:20.560
victims for 30 years, and both of them,
independently from each other, came to the
00:06:20.560 --> 00:06:25.680
conclusion that Julian Assange showed all
the symptoms that are typical for a victim
00:06:25.680 --> 00:06:31.360
of psychological torture and psychological
torture is not some kind of a light form
00:06:31.360 --> 00:06:36.480
of torture. It is really extremely grave
destabilization of the identity through
00:06:36.480 --> 00:06:42.240
isolation, constant threat, constant
stress, constant also confusion through
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:47.440
arbitrariness and the defamation,
humiliation. All these elements together
00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:54.880
are deliberately employed to destroy a
person's stability and identity, and we
00:06:54.880 --> 00:07:01.600
could actually measure neurological damage
on Julian Assange already and cognitive
00:07:01.600 --> 00:07:06.400
impairments that would, due to that
constant stress and harassment that he was
00:07:06.400 --> 00:07:11.040
exposed to in the embassy already and has
been exposed to since then. So, we came to
00:07:11.040 --> 00:07:14.560
a clear assessment. This person has been
tortured, and when I confronted the
00:07:14.560 --> 00:07:19.760
authorities with this, they basically shut
down. They didn't want to engage with me
00:07:19.760 --> 00:07:24.720
in a discussion. And the same happened
with Sweden because Sweden had contributed
00:07:24.720 --> 00:07:32.160
to this, and Ecuador and the US, all of
these countries basically refused to
00:07:32.160 --> 00:07:37.680
engage in a dialog with me on this. And
now I have to point out I'm mandated by
00:07:37.680 --> 00:07:43.680
states. I mean, I am the UN special
rapporteur on torture. I'm not an NGO
00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:48.320
person. I'm not an activist, I am not a
journalist, and I am not belittling that.
00:07:48.320 --> 00:07:52.240
I think that all of this is very
important. But when you talk to states, as
00:07:52.240 --> 00:07:58.400
someone who's been appointed by states to
do exactly that, to transmit allegations
00:07:58.400 --> 00:08:02.400
of torture to them, you would expect them
to at least engage in a dialog. But they
00:08:02.400 --> 00:08:07.760
refused. And when I saw that, I was sure
now something's wrong here, and I started
00:08:07.760 --> 00:08:13.920
really investigating this case. I looked
deeply into the Swedish case. I looked
00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:22.960
into the US case, where we saw that the
US is accusing Assange of espionage. And
00:08:22.960 --> 00:08:27.760
I really started digging into this case.
And the more I did, the more dirt came
00:08:27.760 --> 00:08:33.200
out, and not on the side of Assange, but
on the side of the governments. And that's
00:08:33.200 --> 00:08:37.120
really a long answer to your first
question, why did I take on this case?
00:08:37.120 --> 00:08:44.320
Because I felt well, if we have a case of
torture in a rule-of-law, western
00:08:44.320 --> 00:08:52.480
democracy like Sweden and Britain, and as
the United Nations rapporteur, I cannot if
00:08:52.480 --> 00:08:56.080
I have evidence for this, and I went there
with two specialized doctors to look at
00:08:56.080 --> 00:09:02.480
this. I mean, it's consolidated. I, you
know, by law they have an obligation now
00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:07.040
to investigate this and to, you know, to
compensate him and prosecute those who are
00:09:07.040 --> 00:09:12.320
culpable and so on. There is no
discussion. But if democracies can afford
00:09:13.200 --> 00:09:20.400
to simply ignore this, well, what does
this mean for our society? And that was
00:09:20.400 --> 00:09:25.200
the first thing. And the second thought
was, and by the way, what does this mean
00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:29.600
for press freedom? You know, what does
this mean And I've never been a press
00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:36.240
freedom specialist. But, I thought, well,
here we have a person who is being
00:09:36.240 --> 00:09:42.320
persecuted for the fact that he has
disclosed, not even stolen, but he's
00:09:42.320 --> 00:09:51.360
received and disclosed, published true
information that proved serious crimes for
00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:58.160
government officials, torture, murder, I
mean, horrible stuff. I mean, very serious
00:09:58.160 --> 00:10:03.680
crimes. If this becomes a crime, to bring
the evidence for other crimes, and we see
00:10:03.680 --> 00:10:09.520
that those criminals are not being
prosecuted. But the witness, basically,
00:10:09.520 --> 00:10:14.303
who informs the public, is being
prosecuted and threatened with one hundred
00:10:14.303 --> 00:10:18.320
and seventy-five years in prison. What
does this mean for people like you,
00:10:18.320 --> 00:10:23.360
Stefania? You know, who are the
investigative journalists, and if people
00:10:23.360 --> 00:10:28.640
like you no longer can work... What does
this mean for all the rest of us in
00:10:28.640 --> 00:10:34.480
society? What does it mean? Do we have a
right to know what the governments are
00:10:34.480 --> 00:10:39.920
doing with the power that we give to them
in a democracy, with the tax money we pay
00:10:39.920 --> 00:10:45.520
to them? Or does it become a crime if we
ask the wrong questions? I mean, this is
00:10:45.520 --> 00:10:50.560
really, that's why this is so important.
Assange isn't as important as any other
00:10:50.560 --> 00:10:57.360
victim of torture. You know, they're all
the same. But the case is a precedent case
00:10:57.360 --> 00:11:02.640
that is of enormous importance for the
functionality of democracy and the rule of
00:11:02.640 --> 00:11:08.000
law.
Stefania: Absolutely. Absolutely. You have
00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:14.480
a book which is coming out in February and
during the investigation on the case, I
00:11:14.480 --> 00:11:20.560
was really impressed by the chapter on
collateral murder, your analysis of the
00:11:21.840 --> 00:11:28.160
brutal attack on civilians. And you
analyze it from your point of view as an
00:11:28.160 --> 00:11:36.320
expert on human rights law. I would like
to ask you to do a quick analysis for our
00:11:37.280 --> 00:11:44.640
public, to explain where the war crimes
are involved. What are your conclusions
00:11:44.640 --> 00:11:47.983
and so on.
Nils: Right? OK, I'll quickly show the
00:11:47.983 --> 00:11:54.042
book just so people can see it. So, it
comes out in February, and it's true that,
00:11:54.042 --> 00:11:59.754
you know, in the beginning, I explain my
own role, obviously the role of WikiLeaks.
00:11:59.754 --> 00:12:05.978
But this collateral murder video was a
very important publication. The first big
00:12:05.978 --> 00:12:13.406
publication of WikiLeaks is this video,
that was recorded by an attack helicopter
00:12:13.406 --> 00:12:22.737
in Iraq, a US attack helicopter. It's a
standard, you know, a tele-lens camera,
00:12:22.737 --> 00:12:29.257
and it shows how... How those helicopters
are circling over Baghdad, and we see
00:12:29.257 --> 00:12:35.364
people walking in the streets, and then
you can hear the radio communication, and
00:12:35.364 --> 00:12:41.305
the helicopters basically report that we
have, you know, several people with
00:12:41.305 --> 00:12:47.400
AK-47s, which is a form of an automatic
rifle, a Kalashnikov. And they ask for
00:12:47.400 --> 00:12:53.953
permission to fire and then put on the
image. We cannot see armed people, really.
00:12:53.953 --> 00:12:59.917
In the beginning, to admit the truth, we
can see two people in a group of about 20
00:12:59.917 --> 00:13:05.051
who might be carrying a weapon. But then
also, we have to know that at the time, in
00:13:05.051 --> 00:13:10.840
2007, when this was recorded in Iraq, in
Baghdad, the US occupying forces had
00:13:10.840 --> 00:13:17.278
authorized the Iraqi population to own
kalashnikovs and to carry them, you know,
00:13:17.278 --> 00:13:22.224
to keep them at home, especially to
protect themselves from the looting.
00:13:22.224 --> 00:13:27.481
Because when after the invasion of the
British and the US, the rule of law broke
00:13:27.481 --> 00:13:32.484
down in Iraq, and they needed people to be
able to defend themselves. So, they were
00:13:32.484 --> 00:13:36.277
actually allowed to carry that type of
weapon. And so, they (the helicopter gun-
00:13:36.277 --> 00:13:41.557
ship) received permission to fire. And
then what we can see is that a group of
00:13:41.557 --> 00:13:47.617
about 10 people is just being massacred.
They are in civilian clothing, they are
00:13:47.617 --> 00:13:52.781
walking relaxed on the street. So, they're
clearly not preparing any attack or
00:13:52.781 --> 00:13:57.212
something. We know that there is some,
some US soldiers from the of radio
00:13:57.212 --> 00:14:01.820
communication. We can tell that there is
some US soldiers on the ground somewhere
00:14:01.820 --> 00:14:08.780
close to there, but nobody is preparing an
attack. You know, and so we see how these
00:14:08.780 --> 00:14:14.434
10 people are being massacred. And then we
hear those nasty comments by soldiers
00:14:14.434 --> 00:14:19.539
like, you know, "good shooting" and "you
see these bloody bastards" and these types
00:14:19.539 --> 00:14:28.360
of remarks. But the most troubling thing
is that then we have the helicopter makes
00:14:28.360 --> 00:14:33.612
a couple of circles, and they report what
they see on the ground, all the dead
00:14:33.612 --> 00:14:37.810
bodies and then some of the wounded people
who are crawling around and from the
00:14:37.810 --> 00:14:42.922
conversations, we understand that the
soldiers know that it's prohibited to
00:14:42.922 --> 00:14:48.980
attack wounded people. And I want to, you
know, I've been a law of armed conflict
00:14:48.980 --> 00:14:53.290
expert on the use of force for the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
00:14:53.290 --> 00:14:58.128
I've been teaching this at university
level for more than 10 years.I have
00:14:58.128 --> 00:15:05.069
analyzed hundreds of combat operations as
an expert. So, I can easily see that these
00:15:05.069 --> 00:15:10.352
soldiers are aware that they cannot
lawfully attack those wounded people and
00:15:10.352 --> 00:15:15.447
that also in the law of war, you cannot
attack people who rescue the wounded as
00:15:15.447 --> 00:15:20.175
long as they're not fighting themselves.
And then we see a minibus coming with
00:15:20.175 --> 00:15:25.505
civilians trying to rescue this man. And
this man we're talking about is a wounded
00:15:25.505 --> 00:15:29.760
journalist, is a Reuters journalist, who
was wounded in that attack. And the
00:15:29.760 --> 00:15:34.320
soldiers, the US soldiers asked for
permission to fire on these people, and
00:15:34.320 --> 00:15:41.229
they received permission. And then they
basically. You know, massacre, the wounded
00:15:41.229 --> 00:15:49.692
person and the rescuers with the machine
gun and there is even in the minibus, the
00:15:49.692 --> 00:15:55.100
two children of the driver that are
gravely wounded. So, I mean, all of this,
00:15:55.100 --> 00:15:59.888
this is a clear war crime. When you
deliberately attack a wounded person who's
00:15:59.888 --> 00:16:05.512
no longer participating in fighting or
rescue personnel, that's only trying to
00:16:05.512 --> 00:16:12.477
rescue someone, that is, without any
question, a war crime. In the first scene,
00:16:12.477 --> 00:16:18.529
I think we have to be fair that these
helicopters are circling at about one and
00:16:18.529 --> 00:16:24.312
a half miles distance. The video we see is
recorded by a tele-objective lens. So, the
00:16:24.312 --> 00:16:28.951
soldiers are not that close. When they
look out of the window, they cannot see
00:16:28.951 --> 00:16:33.214
any details. It is too far away. So, they
have to rely exclusively on that picture.
00:16:33.214 --> 00:16:37.651
And you also have to be fair that they can
see this picture only once in real time,
00:16:37.651 --> 00:16:42.765
and they have to decide immediately. They
cannot, like us, rewind it 100 times and
00:16:42.765 --> 00:16:49.205
watch it again from the armchair. So, all
of this being said, though, you know the
00:16:49.205 --> 00:16:55.578
first attack, I think in the best case,
it's a very sloppy mistake. And I don't,
00:16:55.578 --> 00:17:00.335
you know, I think it's already this
crosses the line to a war crime, but this
00:17:00.335 --> 00:17:04.868
would be for a court to decide. But the
second attack, where they attack a clearly
00:17:04.868 --> 00:17:10.790
wounded person and from the conversations
we know that the soldiers know that, you
00:17:10.790 --> 00:17:16.514
know, they say, OK, he's wounded, and then
they're saying, you know, someone is
00:17:16.514 --> 00:17:21.075
coming to pick them up and picking up the
weapons can we fire? The law of war is
00:17:21.075 --> 00:17:27.244
very clear. This is absolutely prohibited
and what happened there is a clear war
00:17:27.244 --> 00:17:34.636
crime and the scandal is that everybody
knows that the soldiers knew that. I mean,
00:17:34.636 --> 00:17:40.796
the Department of Defense in the US knew
that, the US government knew that, the
00:17:40.796 --> 00:17:47.003
public knows it. I mean, it's obvious when
you watched the film, but it's, and we
00:17:47.003 --> 00:17:52.127
have video evidence, ... but nobody has
ever been prosecuted for that. That's the
00:17:52.127 --> 00:17:57.399
first scandal. The second scandal..
Stefania: Let me help you. Why no one has
00:17:57.399 --> 00:18:03.878
prosecuted. Why there was no International
Criminal Court investigation. Nothing.
00:18:03.878 --> 00:18:09.255
Nils: Well because, the US is not party to
the ICC treaty. Of course, they have not,
00:18:09.255 --> 00:18:13.632
.... You know, they have made sure that no
one can prosecute them for war crimes. And
00:18:13.632 --> 00:18:20.914
also now, legally, any country in the
world could, and not even could, but would
00:18:20.914 --> 00:18:25.751
have to prosecute these people as soon as
they are on their territory because war
00:18:25.751 --> 00:18:30.196
crimes are so-called universal
jurisdiction crimes, which means if I
00:18:30.196 --> 00:18:35.310
commit a war crime anywhere in the world,
no matter what nationality I am, no matter
00:18:35.310 --> 00:18:40.680
where I am, the country where I am has to
arrest me and to prosecute me or to
00:18:40.680 --> 00:18:44.216
extradite me to a country that will
prosecute me. That's what the Geneva
00:18:44.216 --> 00:18:47.990
Conventions say. That's what the
International Criminal Law says and not
00:18:47.990 --> 00:18:53.933
only the ICC treaty, but actually even the
Geneva Conventions that the US has
00:18:53.933 --> 00:19:01.958
ratified. So, but what the reason is clear
is a political reason because no one dares
00:19:01.958 --> 00:19:06.773
to prosecute a US soldier. If the US
doesn't do it. Now, to me, the most
00:19:06.773 --> 00:19:12.480
troubling thing is that the US doesn't
do it because it's in their interest to
00:19:12.480 --> 00:19:19.809
prosecute people who violate the law of
war. Because we know that the discipline
00:19:19.809 --> 00:19:26.920
in an army diminishes very quickly when
you tolerate people committing war crimes.
00:19:26.920 --> 00:19:32.507
And so, it's very, very important for, and
even for just the hygiene of the armed
00:19:32.507 --> 00:19:36.882
forces, that they prosecute these things.
Now, not to say, you know, that the
00:19:36.882 --> 00:19:41.056
humanitarian reasons and the human rights
of these people who have been murdered and
00:19:41.056 --> 00:19:45.524
their families that don't receive
compensation, and then it also means that
00:19:45.524 --> 00:19:51.210
these types of operations proliferate. You
know, if you don't stop it like this, this
00:19:51.210 --> 00:19:56.374
becomes the normal modus operandi. And
that's exactly what many veterans of the
00:19:56.374 --> 00:20:00.975
Iraq War have said, that this is not
collateral. Murder is not an exception.
00:20:00.975 --> 00:20:06.814
This was the standard procedure. This
happened every day, in that period. And
00:20:06.814 --> 00:20:13.422
so, that's really a major scandal. But you
know, the second thing I want to say is
00:20:13.422 --> 00:20:18.323
the even bigger scandal is some people are
being prosecuted. And that's the
00:20:18.323 --> 00:20:24.766
whistleblower that actually leaked this
information and the journalists who
00:20:24.766 --> 00:20:33.597
published it. So, that is really turning
the world of justice upside down when
00:20:33.597 --> 00:20:40.400
murderers are walking free and the
witness, you know, who witnessed the
00:20:40.400 --> 00:20:48.480
murder or brings the (...). He would get
one hundred and seventy-five years in
00:20:48.480 --> 00:20:53.520
prison. That's enormous. That's a bit, ...
that's more than any war criminal in The
00:20:53.520 --> 00:20:58.640
Hague has ever received. That's what we're
looking at, and, you know, when you were
00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:05.360
asking, well, you know what, what is
Assange actually being accused of? When
00:21:05.360 --> 00:21:10.800
you look at the indictment, it's all about
receiving this type of information and
00:21:10.800 --> 00:21:15.040
publishing this type of information.
That's what I mean, you tell me, but
00:21:15.040 --> 00:21:17.672
that's what an investigative journalist
does. No?
00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:23.040
Stefania: Politically, absolutely. This is
what we do on a regular, ... on a daily
00:21:23.040 --> 00:21:28.000
basis.
Nils: Yeah. And so now, if I ask you an
00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:35.360
honest question, Stefania, if I gave you
today a USB stick with "Collateral Murder
00:21:35.360 --> 00:21:45.120
Video #2", and another 250,000 diplomatic
cables, would you publish them? I mean, 10
00:21:45.120 --> 00:21:48.560
years ago, you probably would have.
Because at the time, even the New York
00:21:48.560 --> 00:21:53.920
Times, The Guardian and the Spiegel and Le
Monde and everybody, you know, wanted to
00:21:53.920 --> 00:22:00.240
co-publish this together with Assange. But
today? They're not even, they're not even
00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:06.320
really reporting on what's happening here.
And, you know, if I ask you, do you feel
00:22:06.320 --> 00:22:11.440
intimidated by what's happening to
Assange? Would you feel comfortable
00:22:11.440 --> 00:22:16.960
publishing these things today?
Stefania: I do feel really intimidated.
00:22:16.960 --> 00:22:20.560
Nils: Yeah,
Stefania: I think I would approach this
00:22:20.560 --> 00:22:23.464
with serious, serious concern, ...
Nils: Yup,
00:22:23.464 --> 00:22:28.000
Stefania: of not being protected by
anything at the end of the day because I
00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:33.680
have seen, in the last 13 years which I
have been covering and together in this
00:22:33.680 --> 00:22:38.720
case, that Julian Assange and the
WikiLeaks journalists have tried
00:22:38.720 --> 00:22:45.280
everything. They have tried to use the
laws. They have tried to ask for asylum.
00:22:45.280 --> 00:22:52.080
They have tried to look for protection by
the media community. They have tried
00:22:52.080 --> 00:22:57.120
everything. And with the exception of the
UN authorities, the U.N. Special
00:22:57.120 --> 00:23:03.280
Rapporteur on Torture and the UN Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, they have
00:23:03.280 --> 00:23:07.840
received no protection whatsoever. So, I
would be terrified, honestly.
00:23:07.840 --> 00:23:14.800
Nils: Yes. And I think this is the type of
question we have to ask ourselves. It's
00:23:14.800 --> 00:23:20.880
not about will Assange be extradited or
not. Yes, it's important, but it's already
00:23:20.880 --> 00:23:27.760
working. You see, the example has already
been set for the last 10 years. This man
00:23:27.760 --> 00:23:34.080
has not been free. He's been on the run
from a country that's accusing him for
00:23:34.080 --> 00:23:39.040
telling the truth about its crimes. That's
really what's happening here because
00:23:39.040 --> 00:23:44.560
nothing else that he's accused of has been
proven and that they've tried hard.
00:23:44.560 --> 00:23:49.440
They've invested millions in trying to
create the narrative. But everything else
00:23:49.440 --> 00:23:55.920
from rape to hacking to, you know,
treason, all these things. There's not
00:23:55.920 --> 00:24:01.760
that there's no proof whatsoever. So, all
of this is constructed to push him into a
00:24:01.760 --> 00:24:07.200
corner, but also to intimidate people like
you. And I think that's that's what we
00:24:07.200 --> 00:24:12.240
have to understand. That's the effect of
this. Yes, it's on Assange and his health
00:24:12.240 --> 00:24:18.320
and his person, and that's important for
the individual. But my point of this being
00:24:18.320 --> 00:24:23.040
a general, in the case of general
importance, is proven by your reaction.
00:24:23.040 --> 00:24:27.360
And you, I know, are one of the more
courageous investigative journalists, and
00:24:27.360 --> 00:24:33.280
you've been fighting, you know, the
secrecy for very long through your FOIA
00:24:33.280 --> 00:24:38.800
litigation that has been so valuable in
producing, you know, evidence. And we know
00:24:38.800 --> 00:24:44.000
that, you know, a lot of key evidence is
still being kept secret by these states.
00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:51.040
And so, that's what we're risking to lose,
this access to the truth that is so
00:24:51.040 --> 00:24:57.840
essential for democracy.
Stefania: Absolutely. Definitely. You
00:24:57.840 --> 00:25:05.760
know, we know that is precisely what they
want, and that's why we had to fight hard
00:25:05.760 --> 00:25:14.880
because it's about the society we want in
the free allowed to go out to the .... If
00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:21.280
we allowed them to go ahead with this
persecution, with this extradition, they
00:25:21.280 --> 00:25:27.760
will .... It will be the end of the press
freedom ..., it would be the end of
00:25:27.760 --> 00:25:33.120
investigative journalism and the right of
the public to know. it's not just about
00:25:33.120 --> 00:25:38.960
us, it's not just about the investigative
journalism. It's about the public's right
00:25:38.960 --> 00:25:43.280
to know. I mean, Nils: And I think it's
important, you know, I know, that to many
00:25:43.280 --> 00:25:47.840
people, this might sound alarmist. You
know, oh, this is exaggerated. Oh, come
00:25:47.840 --> 00:25:51.040
on, this is just Assange, and he's going
to be prosecuted and everything's going to
00:25:51.040 --> 00:25:58.560
be fine. No, you know, when you look in
history, that's exactly how powerful
00:25:58.560 --> 00:26:04.240
states have behaved and dictators, and you
know, for creating dictatorships. You
00:26:04.240 --> 00:26:12.560
know, you take someone, and you destroy
their reputation. You accuse them of, you
00:26:12.560 --> 00:26:17.760
know, stupid things and or even serious
crimes, you know, but they cannot be
00:26:17.760 --> 00:26:23.360
proven. And you destroy their reputation.
And then when the whole public is
00:26:23.360 --> 00:26:28.400
convinced that, you know, this is a bad
guy. Then you set an example with "him".
00:26:29.440 --> 00:26:34.640
On press freedom, but nobody cares about
"him" because I think it's just him and
00:26:34.640 --> 00:26:40.000
nobody likes him because his reputation
has been destroyed. But the problem is the
00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:44.640
precedent case can be applied to anybody,
afterwards. And that's exactly what
00:26:44.640 --> 00:26:49.200
they're trying to do. And I think it's
very, very important that we are aware of
00:26:49.200 --> 00:26:55.280
this. It's not whether you like or dislike
Assange, it's whether you like or dislike
00:26:56.160 --> 00:27:01.760
the rights that he has and that you have
and that everybody else has, which is the
00:27:01.760 --> 00:27:05.760
right of freedom of expression. And that's
not just the freedom of expression is not
00:27:05.760 --> 00:27:10.960
just the right to say anything you want
and think anything you want, but also to
00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:16.400
receive that information that the public
has the rights under the freedom of
00:27:16.400 --> 00:27:23.200
expression, to hear and to read, and to
see the evidence of government misconduct.
00:27:23.840 --> 00:27:27.520
And that's what they're trying to
suppress. Now, if you say this is a
00:27:27.520 --> 00:27:34.400
conspiracy theory, look, it's very
obvious, the torture, the murder of
00:27:34.400 --> 00:27:39.920
civilians, of journalists or collateral
murder and other documents has been
00:27:39.920 --> 00:27:44.400
proven. It's not something that the
government has said is not true. No, they
00:27:44.400 --> 00:27:48.880
have never, .... They have never claimed
that anything is not true that WikiLeaks
00:27:48.880 --> 00:27:57.440
has proven. So, actually by law, those
officials have to be prosecuted, and they
00:27:57.440 --> 00:28:03.600
should spend, you know, many years in
prison. Some of them. So, but they will
00:28:03.600 --> 00:28:09.840
say, but I received orders from up, and it
goes higher up the chain of responsibility
00:28:09.840 --> 00:28:16.240
doesn't end in the attack helicopter. It
ends somewhere in a government building,
00:28:16.240 --> 00:28:21.680
in a nice little office with or a big
office, rather with thick carpets. And
00:28:21.680 --> 00:28:26.080
that's what they're afraid of because the
commander is responsible for this. So,
00:28:26.080 --> 00:28:29.920
that's why they cut this, and they
intimidate everybody, and they
00:28:29.920 --> 00:28:35.120
criminalize. It's basically it's a re-
classified information, and if you publish
00:28:35.120 --> 00:28:40.880
it, you will be punished and re-classified
for reasons of national security. But
00:28:40.880 --> 00:28:45.520
that's not true. They're classifying it
for their own impunity. That's what they
00:28:45.520 --> 00:28:51.040
want to protect. And it's natural. You
know, if you accuse someone of murder in
00:28:51.040 --> 00:28:56.640
court, and you allow him to classify all
the evidence against him and to make it a
00:28:56.640 --> 00:29:02.240
crime to disclose it, he will do it, for
sure. So let's be realistic, you know,
00:29:02.240 --> 00:29:05.920
governments are not good or bad. They're
just normal human beings. And if they make
00:29:05.920 --> 00:29:10.160
a mistake, they want to cover it up like
everybody else. So, that's the natural
00:29:10.160 --> 00:29:16.880
behavior. That's why we really have to
insist on transparency for the powerful.
00:29:16.880 --> 00:29:24.080
You know, we have to insist on oversight
on the separation of power. We have to
00:29:24.080 --> 00:29:29.760
insist that it be treated as a serious
crime to circumvent these checks and
00:29:29.760 --> 00:29:36.800
balances because it threatens the very
core of our society, of our democracy and
00:29:36.800 --> 00:29:43.680
of our civil liberties. And when you look
at the legal proceedings that Assange has
00:29:43.680 --> 00:29:47.680
been exposed to, I'm not going to bore you
with a lot of legal technicalities, but
00:29:47.680 --> 00:29:51.440
I've really investigated every single
legal proceeding from the Swedish
00:29:52.720 --> 00:29:58.400
accusations or, you know, allegations of
sexual misconduct where I was able to read
00:29:58.400 --> 00:30:03.280
original documents because I do speak
Swedish, and you know, luckily I had all
00:30:03.280 --> 00:30:12.880
those documents that you also got to hand
on it through the FOIA litigation. And I
00:30:12.880 --> 00:30:16.560
don't know what happened between Assange
and these women. But what I do know is
00:30:16.560 --> 00:30:21.280
that the government in Sweden never cared
about that. They clearly from the
00:30:21.280 --> 00:30:27.520
beginning wanted to create a rape
narrative and maintain it and to avoid,
00:30:27.520 --> 00:30:34.320
you know, him getting a chance, a fair day
in court to actually deal with this. The
00:30:34.320 --> 00:30:39.360
narrative that he evaded these accusations
that he was hiding in the embassy because
00:30:39.360 --> 00:30:45.520
of the sexual allegations is false. He
offered to come to Sweden. He wanted to
00:30:45.520 --> 00:30:49.840
testify in this case, but he was afraid
that the Swedish would send him to the
00:30:49.840 --> 00:30:55.200
US without a legal proceeding, as they
had done with other people before. And he
00:30:55.200 --> 00:30:58.480
just wanted guarantees from them, and the
Swedish didn't want to give those
00:30:58.480 --> 00:31:03.840
guarantees, which is really something that
I can tell from international experience.
00:31:04.400 --> 00:31:08.800
That's a warning. If the country doesn't
want to give you those guarantees, you
00:31:08.800 --> 00:31:11.340
better not go there.
Stefania: Yeah,
00:31:11.340 --> 00:31:17.360
Nils: He was right not to go. And they
really abused those legal institutions to
00:31:17.360 --> 00:31:23.440
keep him in limbo, you know, suspected of
rape, but unable to defend himself. And
00:31:23.440 --> 00:31:29.520
so, his reputation suffered because of
that. And then he continued, obviously
00:31:29.520 --> 00:31:34.320
with, you know, the economic pressures on
Ecuador once they had a new president,
00:31:34.320 --> 00:31:40.560
Moreno. The US put Ecuador under pressure,
and we have written evidence of Congress
00:31:40.560 --> 00:31:44.768
writing to the president of Ecuador,
saying, Look, we would be happy to support
00:31:44.768 --> 00:31:50.971
you economically and to, you know, to help
you bring up a country that the country's
00:31:50.971 --> 00:31:57.055
situation, the economic situation to
financially support you. But there is one,
00:31:57.055 --> 00:32:03.195
not several, there's one problem, and
that's the situation of Assange. And we
00:32:03.195 --> 00:32:08.684
need him to be handed over, so we can
start helping you. So, that, ... we have a
00:32:08.684 --> 00:32:16.480
letter of October 2018 of US Congress to
President Moreno. And from then on, it was
00:32:16.480 --> 00:32:22.751
clear and Moreno was working together with
the British and the US to expel him from
00:32:22.751 --> 00:32:28.654
the embassy. So, that was done without any
rule of law proceeding. You know, he had
00:32:28.654 --> 00:32:33.603
official asylum, and it was just taken
from him along with his nationality. He
00:32:33.603 --> 00:32:39.339
had no right to access a court to have a
lawyer defending him. It was just from one
00:32:39.339 --> 00:32:44.520
hour to the other. He was expelled, and
the UK behaved just the same way. When you
00:32:44.520 --> 00:32:49.617
think the UK is the quintessential rule of
law country, which I can, you know, this
00:32:49.617 --> 00:32:56.428
was my conviction as a professor in the UK
university. And then you see that we have
00:32:56.428 --> 00:33:02.908
a judge who is insulting him publicly in a
court hearing where Assange had said
00:33:02.908 --> 00:33:07.464
nothing, except I plead not guilty. And
then we have another judge who's in charge
00:33:07.464 --> 00:33:12.719
for the first couple of months for the
extradition procedure and her husband had
00:33:12.719 --> 00:33:17.763
been exposed by WikiLeaks. I mean, it's
there's a conflict of interest. It's just,
00:33:17.763 --> 00:33:24.120
you know, even it's a perception of bias
that you cannot afford in a democracy. And
00:33:24.120 --> 00:33:29.428
then we have, you know, him being put in a
high security prison. Although he's not
00:33:29.428 --> 00:33:33.549
serving a sentence for two years, he's
been in Belmarsh. He's not serving a
00:33:33.549 --> 00:33:38.729
sentence. He's just being held there in
extradition detention. And normally people
00:33:38.729 --> 00:33:43.394
should be allowed to work and to be with
their family and maybe to have an ankle
00:33:43.394 --> 00:33:48.063
bracelet. Or they think Assange's case
because he has sought asylum in the
00:33:48.063 --> 00:33:51.904
Ecuadorian embassy before, maybe they put
him in house arrest like they did with
00:33:51.904 --> 00:33:56.862
Pinochet. But you will never. There's no
legal basis to put someone in a high
00:33:56.862 --> 00:34:02.070
security prison. They do this with him
because they want to silence him because
00:34:02.070 --> 00:34:08.243
they want to intimidate you, journalists.
That's the reason. And you know, when you
00:34:08.243 --> 00:34:12.580
see this happening...,
Stefania: Let me stop you and ask you
00:34:12.580 --> 00:34:21.029
something very, very serious, like the CIA
attempt to kidnap or poisoning him, which
00:34:21.029 --> 00:34:28.361
is, I mean, this received so little
consideration. If we, ... I mean, I was
00:34:28.361 --> 00:34:35.407
really upset about realizing how lethal it
was, considering the legal process in the
00:34:35.407 --> 00:34:38.040
UK.
Nils: Absolutely. We've had we've had
00:34:38.040 --> 00:34:42.375
indicators before we thought that the
security company that was working for the
00:34:42.375 --> 00:34:46.768
Ecuadorian Embassy to guard the Ecuadorian
Embassy, U.C. Global was actually behind
00:34:46.768 --> 00:34:51.430
the back of the Ecuadorian government
cooperating with the CIA and, you know,
00:34:51.430 --> 00:34:58.802
streaming video feeds from surveillance
cameras, from the embassy to the CIA 24-7.
00:34:58.802 --> 00:35:06.112
But not only that, we also had indicators
before, former employees of that company
00:35:06.112 --> 00:35:13.277
testifying in court that, you know, there
were assassination plans for, you know,
00:35:13.277 --> 00:35:19.605
against Assange by the CIA. And this was
then confirmed also by this Yahoo
00:35:19.605 --> 00:35:26.020
disclosure in September this year, where
more than 30 agents or former agents of
00:35:26.020 --> 00:35:32.760
the CIA allegedly confirmed that there
were plans to kidnap or Assange to, you
00:35:32.760 --> 00:35:38.925
know, disappear him into black sites or
even to assassinate him was considered at
00:35:38.925 --> 00:35:46.160
least, but then found to be too dangerous.
But the plan was to poison him. Now, I
00:35:46.160 --> 00:35:51.126
mean, I'll just take another case,
Navalny, right, that everybody knows, you
00:35:51.126 --> 00:35:56.657
know, and says that, allegedly, the
Russian government tried to poison him.
00:35:56.657 --> 00:36:01.950
Well, that's what we're talking about. But
you know, it's the same thing. It's just
00:36:01.950 --> 00:36:07.200
that in Nawalny's case, and rightly so,
you know, everybody is is is protesting
00:36:07.200 --> 00:36:12.844
and of the western governments are very
courageously, you know, imposing sanctions
00:36:12.844 --> 00:36:18.400
and so on. But when the same thing is
being planned by the CIA against Assange,
00:36:18.400 --> 00:36:24.842
nobody speaks out. And that's that's what
I found, this kind of hypocrisy that we
00:36:24.842 --> 00:36:31.317
have in Western governments is just so
disappointing. It's scandalous because it
00:36:31.317 --> 00:36:37.207
threatens the foundations of what our
societies are. And if someone has
00:36:37.207 --> 00:36:41.566
committed a crime, yes, arrest and try
him, you know, bring the evidence or
00:36:41.566 --> 00:36:45.648
acquit him. But that's that's the end of
the story. But they don't know what to
00:36:45.648 --> 00:36:49.680
accuse him of because he hasn't committed
any crime. So, they invent these stupid
00:36:49.680 --> 00:36:53.299
stories. You know, he's not feeding his
cat, and he's playing football in the
00:36:53.299 --> 00:36:56.742
embassy and all these stupid headlines
that you see. I mean, the BBC, you know, I
00:36:56.742 --> 00:37:01.433
mean, they're reporting on these types of
things, but they're they're not, you know,
00:37:01.433 --> 00:37:06.107
considerate enough about their own
profession as journalists to report on
00:37:06.107 --> 00:37:10.571
what's actually happening here, that this
is about criminalizing investigative
00:37:10.571 --> 00:37:17.608
journalism. This should be really at the
heart of the mission of a BBC or a New
00:37:17.608 --> 00:37:23.520
York Times to be very, very outspoken
about this. And I'm convinced that if the
00:37:23.520 --> 00:37:28.622
mainstream media, the main outlets in the
Anglo-Saxon world, let's say the New York
00:37:28.622 --> 00:37:35.705
Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian
and the BBC, if they together deliberately
00:37:35.705 --> 00:37:43.158
launched an effort to condemn this
persecution on their front pages and the
00:37:43.158 --> 00:37:49.399
main news hour, you know, for one week
straight. This would be finished because
00:37:49.399 --> 00:37:55.338
the government has nothing in their hands
in terms of truth. All they can do is
00:37:55.338 --> 00:38:00.065
orchestrate a secret trial in Alexandria,
an espionage court where they tape the
00:38:00.065 --> 00:38:06.520
doors and lock the windows and nobody is
allowed to witness what's going on, and
00:38:06.520 --> 00:38:11.290
then they condemn him for something and
sentence him to 175 years in prison. And
00:38:11.290 --> 00:38:15.332
nobody, even the defense counsel, doesn't
have access to the evidence. I mean,
00:38:15.332 --> 00:38:21.702
that's that's a show trial that's not a
rule of law proceeding. And I think the
00:38:21.702 --> 00:38:25.470
societies in the West and around the
world, but they're talking about Western
00:38:25.470 --> 00:38:32.119
democracies now. They deserve, you know,
governments and judiciaries that respect
00:38:32.119 --> 00:38:39.372
those principles and respect the law. And
it's really very worrying. That's why I
00:38:39.372 --> 00:38:46.285
put my whole professional weight and
personal credibility into this case
00:38:46.285 --> 00:38:52.260
because I think this is about our rights,
it's about it's about the rights of our
00:38:52.260 --> 00:38:57.947
children to know what their governments
are doing with the money and the power
00:38:57.947 --> 00:39:03.453
that they give to the governments. And if
we allow it to become a crime to tell the
00:39:03.453 --> 00:39:08.263
truth, we will be living in a tyranny
that's not exaggerated.
00:39:08.263 --> 00:39:14.954
Stefania: Absolutely. I mean, we read this
about something we really care about. We
00:39:14.954 --> 00:39:21.404
realized that this case is crucial, and we
cannot lose it. We absolutely don't want
00:39:21.404 --> 00:39:28.425
to lose it. Nils, let me ask you one last
question, then we will ask for the public
00:39:28.425 --> 00:39:35.847
asking question to ask. Well, this case is
about Julian Assange, of course, and it is
00:39:35.847 --> 00:39:41.640
all about the WikiLeaks journalists
because they have at least (...), for now,
00:39:41.640 --> 00:39:47.557
he's in prison, but they will be the next.
Let's mentioned Sarah Harrison, for
00:39:47.557 --> 00:39:55.001
example, the former WikiLeaks section
editor, who flew to Hong Kong. (...) or
00:39:55.001 --> 00:40:03.633
many, many others. Kristie Larson, Joseph
Farrell. I have the Freedom of Information
00:40:03.633 --> 00:40:10.128
case in the UK, and it is about these
three WikiLeaks journalists former and
00:40:10.128 --> 00:40:15.306
current WikiLeaks journalists. And
Scotland Yard, is doing whatever it can to
00:40:15.306 --> 00:40:22.617
deny me access to these documents using
anti-terror laws again or for denying me
00:40:22.617 --> 00:40:29.956
access to these documents. I have been
litigating this case about the WikiLeaks
00:40:29.956 --> 00:40:35.351
journalists and Julian Assange for over
six years. So, what do you think is going
00:40:35.351 --> 00:40:40.954
to happen in this case now? What's next?
Nils: Well, I think the first thing I want
00:40:40.954 --> 00:40:46.300
is to finish this case. Set a precedent.
You know, with this man that most of the
00:40:46.300 --> 00:40:51.265
public still somehow despises because they
have been deceived and poisoned by this
00:40:51.265 --> 00:40:57.920
narrative that has been created about him.
But once this is done, clearly they will,
00:40:59.360 --> 00:41:05.920
they will continue. This is not the end of
it. This is the beginning of a new era
00:41:05.920 --> 00:41:11.200
where journalists will be prosecuted for
telling the truth about government
00:41:11.200 --> 00:41:16.080
misconduct. Because then the precedent has
been set. And you know, it's very
00:41:16.080 --> 00:41:22.400
important as we speak and as we observe
this case, all ready countries are
00:41:22.400 --> 00:41:27.760
adapting their laws to this new future. We
see that in Australia, we see that in the
00:41:27.760 --> 00:41:34.880
UK, where the Official Secrets Act is
being tightened. Basically, we see that,
00:41:34.880 --> 00:41:39.520
well, the interpretation of the Espionage
Act in the US. Sweden has just passed a
00:41:39.520 --> 00:41:47.360
law on foreign espionage where it becomes
a crime. Sweden used to be the safe haven
00:41:47.360 --> 00:41:51.280
of press freedom, which is why Julian
Assange was in Sweden in the first place,
00:41:51.280 --> 00:41:56.080
In 2010. We wanted to establish WikiLeaks
there because it was the safe haven for
00:41:56.080 --> 00:42:03.040
press freedom. Sweden has passed a law
just two months ago by which from January
00:42:03.920 --> 00:42:11.520
2023, it will be a crime in Sweden to
disclose classified information that does
00:42:11.520 --> 00:42:16.720
not even threaten national security.
That's only prejudicial to the relations
00:42:16.720 --> 00:42:21.920
of Sweden with a different country or an
international organization. I mean, it's
00:42:21.920 --> 00:42:27.520
ridiculous. I mean, that's the standard is
so low. It's basically, though, the
00:42:27.520 --> 00:42:32.880
diplomatic cables, something that's just
embarrassing before the relations of
00:42:32.880 --> 00:42:38.000
Sweden with Austria, for example. You
know, I'm just taking by random example.
00:42:38.880 --> 00:42:44.160
It's just embarrassing. That's sufficient.
It becomes a crime. So, what we have to
00:42:44.880 --> 00:42:50.880
realize is this is, ... Now states are
building a system not only in the US, the
00:42:50.880 --> 00:42:57.040
UK, the Anglo-Saxon world throughout, but
also even now, the allied countries are
00:42:57.040 --> 00:43:03.280
building a system where it becomes a crime
to tell the truth. It's. Really high time
00:43:03.280 --> 00:43:10.160
for us to ring the alarm bell and to stop
this, to insist that we have a right to
00:43:10.160 --> 00:43:15.360
know.
Stefania: Absolutely. What do you expect
00:43:15.360 --> 00:43:19.280
from the legal process in the UK? What do
you expect the next?
00:43:19.280 --> 00:43:29.120
Nils: Well, unfortunately, I cannot expect
justice. I was hopeful. I mean, I am
00:43:29.120 --> 00:43:35.120
pessimistically hopeful. If I can allow to
say that the High Court would refuse
00:43:35.120 --> 00:43:41.200
extradition. But I sensed that exactly
what happened, was going to happen. I said
00:43:41.200 --> 00:43:47.840
it before publicly, and it's happened
exactly as I presumed it would. I think
00:43:47.840 --> 00:43:55.760
that the UK judiciary, unfortunately, is
unable to ensure respect for the law here
00:43:55.760 --> 00:44:00.880
and that they will basically wave this
extradition through, and they will try
00:44:00.880 --> 00:44:06.640
perhaps to extend this proceeding another
year or two. Because for the US, it's not
00:44:06.640 --> 00:44:12.320
urgent for Assange to be extradited if he
dies in prison in the UK, all the better
00:44:12.320 --> 00:44:16.480
for the US, so they don't have to deal
with it. What they want is to set the
00:44:16.480 --> 00:44:21.600
precedent that everybody knows, including
yourselves, Stefania, that this is what's
00:44:21.600 --> 00:44:26.560
going to happen to you if you ever mess
with our secrets, our dirty secrets. And
00:44:26.560 --> 00:44:30.320
so, I don't know exactly what's going to
play out and how it's going to play out.
00:44:30.320 --> 00:44:37.520
But in the big picture, these states have
not persecuted Assange for 10 years for
00:44:37.520 --> 00:44:43.680
tens of millions of dollars to let him off
the hook any time soon. So, the only
00:44:43.680 --> 00:44:49.840
chance he has, and that's the very real
chance, if public opinion changes and if
00:44:49.840 --> 00:44:54.480
the main media organizations change their
view. As I said before, this is going to
00:44:54.480 --> 00:44:59.200
be over. This is just like waking up from
a nightmare. It's going to be over. But if
00:44:59.200 --> 00:45:09.440
they don't, we're in for a long nightmare.
Stefania: Thank you, Nils, let's open the
00:45:09.440 --> 00:45:12.999
question from the public.
00:45:12.999 --> 00:45:19.040
Herald: Yeah. There are More and more
questions coming up here. And let me start
00:45:19.040 --> 00:45:24.800
by, ... one, that's more like the
beginning of the whole story as to what
00:45:24.800 --> 00:45:30.880
exactly did you expect, or who do you
exactly expect to respond in the first
00:45:30.880 --> 00:45:37.280
instance, when torture in UK is concerned?
Like before you send letters, you would
00:45:37.280 --> 00:45:42.800
expect kind of a maybe a police showing up
or something like that. What would you
00:45:42.800 --> 00:45:48.000
normally expect?
Nils: Well, if I receive allegations of
00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:52.960
torture, I transmit them, I mean, the
first thing that happens, I look whether
00:45:52.960 --> 00:45:57.280
they are credible. You know, if they are,
if they're not credible, obviously, I
00:45:57.280 --> 00:46:02.720
will. I will. I will try to consolidate.
Maybe I will. My team will call the person
00:46:02.720 --> 00:46:06.240
or organization that submitted the
information and try to consolidate it to
00:46:06.240 --> 00:46:09.840
make sure that it is credible. It doesn't
have to be proven, but it has to be
00:46:09.840 --> 00:46:13.760
credible. If that's the case, I will
transmit it to the government. And if it's
00:46:13.760 --> 00:46:18.400
an urgent case, you know, if it's about
preventing torture, it's a historical case
00:46:18.400 --> 00:46:23.120
that happened 15 years ago, and we're just
investigating it's not very urgent, and we
00:46:23.120 --> 00:46:27.360
can take time. I mean, you know,
reasonable timeframe. But if it's very
00:46:27.360 --> 00:46:33.840
urgent, someone is about to be executed or
transferred or extradited. Then within 24
00:46:33.840 --> 00:46:38.960
hours, I can write a letter and transmit
it to the foreign minister of. And that's
00:46:38.960 --> 00:46:43.280
your question. Who will actually will, ...
my interlocutor as the UN rapporteur is
00:46:43.280 --> 00:46:47.680
always the foreign minister of the country
of the UN member state through the
00:46:47.680 --> 00:46:54.160
diplomatic mission in Geneva. And so, they
will then have to distribute it to the
00:46:54.160 --> 00:46:57.840
proper authorities in their country. If
it's an allegation about a police station,
00:46:57.840 --> 00:47:04.000
that will have to, you know, transmit it
to the police and so on. But depending on
00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:07.840
the country and the precise allegation, it
will be different authorities. It could be
00:47:07.840 --> 00:47:13.280
a migration center or something like this.
But for me, it's very it's a diplomatic
00:47:13.280 --> 00:47:18.080
protocol. I always have to go through the
Foreign Ministry and they will then have
00:47:18.080 --> 00:47:23.840
to initiate those investigations and
inside the country.
00:47:23.840 --> 00:47:28.960
Herald: OK, thank you very much. The Next
question would be, will Assange be
00:47:28.960 --> 00:47:33.920
able to appeal to the European Court of
Justice? How long do you estimate Julian
00:47:33.920 --> 00:47:38.320
will stay in prison until the highest
applicable court would publish a decision?
00:47:38.320 --> 00:47:44.480
And are there any moves that can still be
made from a lawyer's point of perspective?
00:47:45.360 --> 00:47:50.320
Well, I'm clearly not his lawyer. But, you
know, and his legal team would have to
00:47:50.320 --> 00:47:54.080
speak to the strategy. So, I can't. I'm
not representing him, obviously. But
00:47:54.800 --> 00:47:58.800
clearly, yes, at some point you will be
able, as soon as the last instance
00:47:58.800 --> 00:48:07.040
decision has been validated by the last
instance of court in the U.K., then this
00:48:07.040 --> 00:48:11.680
decision can be appealed to the European
Court of Human Rights, not the European
00:48:11.680 --> 00:48:16.640
Court of Justice, that's an EU court, but
the European Court of Human Rights would
00:48:16.640 --> 00:48:23.920
be that instance. They can also, already
now, appeal to that court for preliminary
00:48:23.920 --> 00:48:28.400
protection, for example, to release him
from prison and to house arrest or
00:48:28.400 --> 00:48:33.200
something like this. But that's a bit
technical. But yes, at the end there is an
00:48:33.200 --> 00:48:37.600
opportunity to appeal to the European
Court of Human Rights. And the question of
00:48:37.600 --> 00:48:42.720
how long it will last really depends on so
many factors. What's the strategy of the
00:48:42.720 --> 00:48:46.400
lawyers? What's the strategy of the court?
You know, how long does the court take to
00:48:46.400 --> 00:48:51.440
decide, after a hearing? Do they take two
weeks or do they take four months? It's up
00:48:51.440 --> 00:48:56.880
to them. And so, it's, ... I can't, you
know, I can't. But it could last anywhere
00:48:56.880 --> 00:49:00.720
from at least one year to, you know,
another three years or something like
00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:04.240
this.
Stefania: I just want to add one important
00:49:04.240 --> 00:49:09.440
info about this European Court of Human
Rights because according to the documents
00:49:09.440 --> 00:49:16.800
I was able to get from my Freedom of
Information litigation, the UK authorities
00:49:16.800 --> 00:49:21.840
were discussing with the Swedish
authorities an attempt to extradite Julian
00:49:21.840 --> 00:49:29.520
Assange without allowing him to apply to
the European Court of Human Rights and
00:49:29.520 --> 00:49:36.240
obtaining the protective measure. So, it
was an attempt to extradite him before he
00:49:36.240 --> 00:49:40.800
could get a protective measure. Do you
think that means that they could play the
00:49:40.800 --> 00:49:47.600
same game for the extradition to the US?
Nils: It's conceivable, yes. The problem
00:49:47.600 --> 00:49:54.000
is that normally a judgment of the, ... or
an appeal to the European Court of Human
00:49:54.000 --> 00:50:00.160
Rights is not, ... does not suspend the
validity of the national decision. So if
00:50:00.160 --> 00:50:04.640
the Supreme Court of the UK allows the
extradition, for example, and Assange
00:50:04.640 --> 00:50:09.760
appeals that then he can still be
extradited, unless the European Court of
00:50:09.760 --> 00:50:19.840
Human Rights orders preliminary measures,
you know, that suspend that the validity
00:50:19.840 --> 00:50:25.040
of that ruling. So but they still have to
decide that. And obviously, between the
00:50:25.040 --> 00:50:30.000
decision of the Supreme Court and the
issuing of that preliminary protective
00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:36.880
measure, there will be a few days. And so
in this time, you know, they can try to
00:50:36.880 --> 00:50:44.080
send him out. So, it's very important that
his lawyers react in time and perhaps even
00:50:44.720 --> 00:50:49.440
provisionally ask for measures like this.
But again, you know, his legal team would
00:50:49.440 --> 00:50:52.080
be better placed to answer those
questions.
00:50:52.800 --> 00:51:00.880
Herald: OK, thank you very much. I hope
you might answer the next question. What
00:51:00.880 --> 00:51:05.520
is the government's justification for
keeping Assange in Belmarsh? And what
00:51:05.520 --> 00:51:12.560
happens to other high, or high risk,
persons above who have a flight risk that
00:51:12.560 --> 00:51:16.415
are on remand in the UK?
Nils: Well, the government doesn't just,
00:51:16.415 --> 00:51:21.537
... I mean, they just say he's a flight
risk. OK. Well, yes, there is a precedent
00:51:21.537 --> 00:51:25.523
that he's basically his, look, ... you
know, he's asked for asylum in the
00:51:25.523 --> 00:51:30.704
Ecuadorian embassy. So now clearly, you
know, in my view, even the whole
00:51:30.704 --> 00:51:35.713
extradition proceeding is illegitimate and
illegal. You know, for various reasons
00:51:35.713 --> 00:51:39.953
because it concerns espionage, which is a
political offense and because, you know,
00:51:39.953 --> 00:51:44.640
it's protected by press freedom, what he's
done and all of these things. But even if,
00:51:44.640 --> 00:51:49.352
for the sake of the argument, if we accept
that this is a legitimate extradition
00:51:49.352 --> 00:51:56.108
proceeding, then if he's a flight risk,
then yes, you can. You can secure his
00:51:56.108 --> 00:52:05.100
presence, but you have to use the least
harmful means to do that. So, you cannot
00:52:05.100 --> 00:52:10.456
take measures that are more restrictive
than necessary. And so if you put him in
00:52:10.456 --> 00:52:14.548
house arrest, a guarded house arrest where
he cannot leave because there's a guard in
00:52:14.548 --> 00:52:19.802
front of the door, that's sufficient, and
it's even cheaper than a high security
00:52:19.802 --> 00:52:24.344
prison. And that's what they've done with
with with Augusto Pinochet, who was, I
00:52:24.344 --> 00:52:28.800
remind you, not accused of journalism. He
was accused of having, you know, being
00:52:28.800 --> 00:52:32.633
responsible for murder and torture and
disappearance of thousands of people as
00:52:32.633 --> 00:52:39.232
the dictator of ex-dictator of Chile. And
the British, But he was an ally of the
00:52:39.232 --> 00:52:43.589
United Kingdom. So, but he was in the
legal, legally accepted, (cough) excuse
00:52:43.589 --> 00:52:48.564
me, except that he was accused of serious
crimes, and Julian Assange is not. He was
00:52:48.564 --> 00:52:54.174
in the same extradition kind of situation,
and he was allowed to spend one and a half
00:52:54.174 --> 00:52:59.253
years in a luxurious villa where he was
visited by, you know, ex-Prime Minister
00:52:59.253 --> 00:53:04.116
Thatcher. But Julian Assange has been put
in a high security prison. That's, ...
00:53:04.116 --> 00:53:09.952
he's not a violent person. He's put in the
toughest high security prison where, you
00:53:09.952 --> 00:53:15.547
know, violent criminals are being held.
And so, that's actually that's absolutely
00:53:15.547 --> 00:53:20.870
not justifiable. He could be kept in
anywhere else, you know where he can be
00:53:20.870 --> 00:53:25.752
supervised, and he has a human right to
live his family life, to live his
00:53:25.752 --> 00:53:30.763
profession. There is, ... he's not serving
a sentence. He's not convicted of
00:53:30.763 --> 00:53:37.650
anything. And his health is in the dire
state. We have examined him two years ago
00:53:37.650 --> 00:53:44.166
and warned that he would enter a downward
spiral very soon, and it actually
00:53:44.166 --> 00:53:51.320
happened. He was not even able to to to
attend his, ... to observe his own appeals
00:53:51.320 --> 00:53:58.035
hearing at the end of October. He actually
had a stroke during that hearing. And it's
00:53:58.035 --> 00:54:03.844
absolutely grotesque that the judges in
that hearing, you know, decided that his
00:54:03.844 --> 00:54:10.080
health was stable enough to be extradited
to the US, based on some flimsy assurances
00:54:10.080 --> 00:54:17.320
that don't guarantee anything. You know
that don't protect him from anything.
00:54:17.320 --> 00:54:23.734
Herald: Then this question fits right
perfectly to that because it does. Are you
00:54:23.734 --> 00:54:27.914
confident that the US government won't
harm Assange as they promised?
00:54:27.914 --> 00:54:34.335
Nils: To the contrary, I'm confident they
will because there's no way he's going to
00:54:34.335 --> 00:54:40.366
get a fair trial. The public narrative
against Assange is so overwhelming, and
00:54:40.366 --> 00:54:47.520
the prejudice is so overwhelming against
him. He's going to be tried in Alexandria,
00:54:47.520 --> 00:54:54.167
the infamous espionage court where I
indicated before it's a secret trial. Very
00:54:54.167 --> 00:54:59.210
often, the defense does not even have
access to the evidence against the
00:54:59.210 --> 00:55:05.650
suspect, and there is no press allowed.
There is no trial observation allowed. You
00:55:05.650 --> 00:55:13.198
know, there is, ... the jury takes
information from the prosecution that the
00:55:13.198 --> 00:55:19.068
defense doesn't have access to. No one has
ever been acquitted in that court. It's a
00:55:19.068 --> 00:55:23.903
national security court. No one has ever
been acquitted, and people are being
00:55:23.903 --> 00:55:29.631
threatened with enormous prison sentences
there, unless they accept some kind of
00:55:29.631 --> 00:55:34.016
plea bargain. In his case, it would
certainly mean that he would have to spend
00:55:34.016 --> 00:55:42.678
decades in prison. So, ... and for this
type of suspect, it's always solitary
00:55:42.678 --> 00:55:47.640
confinement, which means near complete
isolation. No contact with the outside
00:55:47.640 --> 00:55:52.916
world, no contact to other inmates, no
talking even to the guards. You know, very
00:55:52.916 --> 00:55:58.374
often the US authorities then say, Oh, we
have to put him on suicide watch, you
00:55:58.374 --> 00:56:02.153
know, for his own benefit, which means
they wake him up every 15 minutes at
00:56:02.153 --> 00:56:09.120
night. He cannot sit down or lie down
during the day. And it's really a form of
00:56:09.120 --> 00:56:15.059
torture. And I say this as an expert, and
I'm not the only one saying this. It's my
00:56:15.059 --> 00:56:18.898
predecessors. That's, you know, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch.
00:56:18.898 --> 00:56:22.807
Everybody agrees these types of conditions
are a violation of the Convention against
00:56:22.807 --> 00:56:29.711
Torture and Ill Treatment.
Herald: Thank you for that answer. I have
00:56:29.711 --> 00:56:36.086
one last question, and that's probably the
big one. What can society do, or what
00:56:36.086 --> 00:56:41.760
needs to happen, to stop the extradition
from happening now? And what would need to
00:56:41.760 --> 00:56:45.760
happen to undo the effects of the US
government's approach in this case, like
00:56:45.760 --> 00:56:50.880
the intimidation of journalists?
Nils: Well, I guess, Stephanie, you will
00:56:50.880 --> 00:56:56.240
have something to say about this as well.
I mean, from my perspective. The US has to
00:56:56.240 --> 00:57:02.720
drop this case. They have to, or they have
to be pressured by their own media and
00:57:02.720 --> 00:57:10.240
their own society to drop this case
because, you know, the US society is
00:57:10.240 --> 00:57:15.280
really, ... is they have the political
influence on their political leadership,
00:57:16.720 --> 00:57:21.280
and it's in their own interest that they
stop this from happening because otherwise
00:57:21.280 --> 00:57:25.360
they will lose, as I said before, the
right to know what their government is
00:57:25.360 --> 00:57:29.680
doing, the fact already it lost that
right, actually, they have to regain it.
00:57:29.680 --> 00:57:36.320
And I think, so, civil society is very
important, but the media, especially the
00:57:36.320 --> 00:57:42.800
mainstream media, that they start picking
this up is very, very important. Public
00:57:42.800 --> 00:57:48.480
opinion has to turn around and not only in
the US, in the UK, in Australia, in Sweden
00:57:48.480 --> 00:57:55.440
and anywhere, anywhere. People have to ask
their governments, Why are you accepting
00:57:55.440 --> 00:58:00.800
that a country that you are allied with,
you know, is persecuting journalists, that
00:58:00.800 --> 00:58:05.360
expose their war crimes? We have to ask
the people, that are elected to
00:58:05.360 --> 00:58:10.560
parliament, why they are, accepting this?
Why they are keeping silent, you know
00:58:10.560 --> 00:58:15.680
because, it will cost it will cost us very
dearly. I don't know what you think,
00:58:15.680 --> 00:58:18.320
Stefania.
Stefania: Yes, I absolutely agree with
00:58:18.320 --> 00:58:24.240
you. We absolutely have to win this case,
which means we absolutely have to put
00:58:24.240 --> 00:58:30.400
pressure, take to the streets, must see
press coverage of the situation. It's a
00:58:30.400 --> 00:58:36.480
scandal that it took an Italian journalist
to litigate a Freedom of Information case
00:58:36.480 --> 00:58:42.560
in the UK and the US, Australia and Sweden
because no one else did it. It's a scandal
00:58:42.560 --> 00:58:47.440
that you took an Italian journalist to try
to discover the pressure from the Crown
00:58:47.440 --> 00:58:54.640
Prosecution Service on the Swedish
authorities and the attempt to bypass the
00:58:54.640 --> 00:58:59.680
European Court of Human Rights. Can you
believe that the Guardian was not able to
00:58:59.680 --> 00:59:05.760
do this, or can you believe that the New
York Times could not expose the CIA
00:59:05.760 --> 00:59:12.960
attempts to kill him? I mean, it took
Yahoo? I mean, can you believe Yahoo had
00:59:12.960 --> 00:59:18.880
more sources inside the CIA than The
Washington Post or the New York Times that
00:59:18.880 --> 00:59:26.320
inside this agency? Can you believe that
they were not able to expose before Yahoo
00:59:26.320 --> 00:59:32.800
News? So, we absolutely have to call them
out and to make, ... to have them on
00:59:32.800 --> 00:59:37.840
board. They don't want to be on board. We
have seen they don't cover the case
00:59:37.840 --> 00:59:43.040
properly. They say they want to be
factual, when in fact they have not looked
00:59:43.040 --> 00:59:48.080
for the facts. And it took an Italian
judicial system, a U.N. special
00:59:48.080 --> 00:59:53.920
rapporteur, to investigate the case, which
is unbelievable, you know. So, we have to
00:59:53.920 --> 00:59:59.840
have them on board, and we absolutely have
to win this case. Having the case dropped,
00:59:59.840 --> 01:00:05.040
the investigation dropped because it is a
scandal. I mean, in 20 years of
01:00:05.040 --> 01:00:10.880
journalism, my experience of 20 years as a
journalist, 15 in investigative
01:00:10.880 --> 01:00:18.000
journalism, I have never heard of a media
organization put under investigation for
01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:24.160
11 years. I never heard this. I don't
know. I don't believe it exists. Not even,
01:00:24.160 --> 01:00:31.360
... I mean, just in seriously
authoritarian dictatorships. I never heard
01:00:31.360 --> 01:00:36.080
of a media organization under
investigation for 11 years as WikiLeaks,
01:00:36.080 --> 01:00:41.920
... the WikiLeaks journalists have been.
So, we absolutely have to win this case,
01:00:41.920 --> 01:00:47.360
and we have not to rely on the legal
process. The legal process is completely
01:00:47.360 --> 01:00:54.000
corrupt, completely corrupt. So, we, it is
up to us. It's up to us to take to the
01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:59.280
street and to have press coverage or
whatever press coverage we can, the
01:00:59.280 --> 01:01:05.680
independent media, the citizen journalism
for the whatever. We can to mobilize
01:01:05.680 --> 01:01:10.880
people to have people taking to the
streets and realize this monstrous
01:01:10.880 --> 01:01:18.400
injustice. In the preface to my book, Ken
Loach, the great film director Ken Loach,
01:01:18.400 --> 01:01:24.080
calls it "this monstrous injustice". He's
absolutely right.
01:01:24.080 --> 01:01:29.040
Nils: And if you allow me to just say one
sentence here also, to conclude my own
01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:33.680
statement, here is just to say, don't
think that this is just the Assange case,
01:01:33.680 --> 01:01:40.080
that is the tip of the iceberg. And I
wrote the book about this, not because
01:01:40.080 --> 01:01:45.360
this is the only case, but this is the
case that makes it most visible what's
01:01:45.360 --> 01:01:50.000
really going on? It's actually a keyhole
through which you can see into a parallel
01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.160
world that already exists, where democracy
and the rule of law is being
01:01:54.160 --> 01:02:00.960
systematically undermined. So, don't
believe those public narratives, in this
01:02:00.960 --> 01:02:05.600
case or in others, you know. Ask
questions, ask for evidence and always
01:02:05.600 --> 01:02:10.320
ask, you know, who has what kind of
interests here? And are we still able to
01:02:11.200 --> 01:02:15.760
know what the powerful are doing with the
power and the money they have? And that's
01:02:15.760 --> 01:02:22.080
really at the core of it. So, I hope this
was useful, and clearly I invite people,
01:02:22.080 --> 01:02:26.960
you know, read, read, it's the Stefania's
book. Read my book, read, read about the
01:02:26.960 --> 01:02:31.520
case and make up your own mind, you know
because it's about your rights and your
01:02:31.520 --> 01:02:35.610
life.
Stefania: Absolutely. Let me close this
01:02:35.610 --> 01:02:43.840
conversation with reminding people that we
will keep this conversation going in the
01:02:43.840 --> 01:02:51.196
"after three village" at 10 p.m. We will
wait for you. We appreciate more questions
01:02:51.196 --> 01:02:57.475
about these important crucial case. Thank you.
Herald: Yeah, thank you both very much for
01:02:57.475 --> 01:03:03.520
being here and for the very interesting
talk, and maybe we see each other later in
01:03:03.520 --> 01:03:13.212
the "after three village" and yeah, have a
good evening.
01:03:13.212 --> 01:03:16.505
Music
01:03:16.505 --> 01:03:25.525
Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2022. Join, and help us!