一名联合国酷刑专家表示，他对起诉维基解密创始人朱利安·阿桑奇感到“真正愤怒”，因为本周在伦敦前线俱乐部的一次活动上发言人警告称，该案件应被视为“对所有记者的攻击”
阿桑奇，48岁，自去年4月以来一直被关押在比利时监狱，当时他在政治庇护下在厄瓜多尔大使馆被关押了7年。他将面临最高175年的美国监禁，罪名是根据间谍法提出的指控。
周二在前线俱乐部，他吸引了一大群同情者，尤其是在一名前英国情报局长在最后一刻退出后。
根据查塔姆大厦规则进行的会谈承诺对该法律案件进行“冷静”的讨论，而不诉诸政治诽谤或阴谋论。这可能吗？
虽然它并不总是平衡的，但它从来没有完全成为维基解密的粉丝俱乐部。
在这个拥挤的房间里，很少有人谈论俄罗斯黑客、已故的民主党全国委员会(DNC)工作人员或与右翼人物的可疑的反向渠道。
但该小组达成了广泛共识，其中包括资深记者彼得·奥博恩、魅力律师克莱夫·斯塔福德·史密斯和联合国酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚问题特别报告员尼尔斯·梅尔策教授。
“不幸的是，在这起案件中，这个国家的司法机构要么不愿意，要么无法保证正当程序，”梅尔策教授说，他声称阿桑奇似乎有与心理折磨相一致的症状。"我认为这个案子掌握在公众手中。"
讨论变成了对辉煌岁月的激光聚焦:成为全球头条的“附带谋杀”视频、阿富汗和伊拉克军事战争日志的发布、大量外交电报和关塔那摩湾被拘留者的文件。
这并不奇怪。毕竟，那是2010-2011年维基解密的时代，美国决定在其18条罪状中提及取代起诉书指责阿桑奇是“美国历史上最大的机密信息泄露事件之一”的同谋
凭借混乱的能量和不可预测的感觉，维基解密在那些日子里是一只不同的野兽。现在，阿桑奇和他的前线人切尔西·曼宁都在监狱里，这个泄密的组织周围有一种不同的、更具防御性的气氛。
曼宁被判犯有间谍罪，并于2013年8月在一所军事监狱服刑35年，但在2017年1月被巴拉克·奥巴马总统赦免。在拒绝在维基解密案件的大陪审团面前作证后，她于去年被送回监狱。
对阿桑奇的起诉——去年5月因涉嫌2012年逃避保释而被判50周——导致前线的一名专门小组成员强烈谴责，他抨击了媒体的态度，暗示一些媒体“实际上与政府联手反对自由”
“我完全接受对国家机密的需要，”发言人详细阐述道。“我在那方面相当守旧。这里的问题是，如果你要让一个人在监狱里度过余生，或者因为发表外交电报而把他关进监狱...这是对所有记者的攻击。”
美国司法部指控阿桑奇与曼宁合谋获取秘密文件，并表示泄密包括800份关塔那摩湾被拘留者评估简报和25万份美国国务院电报。它并不否认这些文件都是准确的。
美国司法部称:“阿桑奇的行为可能会对美国国家安全造成严重伤害，给我们的对手带来好处，并使未被提及的人类资源面临严重和紧迫的人身伤害和/或任意拘留的风险。”媒体发布阅读。
同意被引用的梅尔策在这些文件中提到了所谓的军事滥用，包括著名的视频显示两名路透社记者被杀，他显然是维基解密在小舞台上最坚定的支持者之一。“战争罪呢？”他说。
2019年6月14日，在英国伦敦威斯敏斯特市地方法院，维基解密创始人朱利安·阿桑奇的支持者们聚集在一起，通过视频链接在他的预期露面前展示他们的团结。
“我们生活在一个我们自己的战争罪行不再被起诉的时代，”他说。
“不管他们指控阿桑奇先生犯了什么罪，175年来，这肯定不是暴力，肯定不是种族灭绝，肯定不是屠杀平民或折磨任何人，人们在海牙被判35年或45年种族灭绝。我真的很愤怒。”
“无论我们指控阿桑奇先生什么，他都有权为自己辩护，但他的律师一直抱怨没有足够的机会接近他。没有采取任何措施来补救，”梅尔策补充道。
梅尔策还是日内瓦国际人道主义法和人权学院的人权教授，也是格拉斯哥大学的国际法教授。他说，他最初不打算接这个案子，害怕被人操纵，但对其政治处理方式感到震惊。
全国记者联盟(NUJ)的一名代表在观众中表示，“阿桑奇是记者吗”的问题仍然无关紧要。
他说:“我们需要关注的是针对他使用的前所未有的法律手段的极端性。使用这些会给新闻业带来寒蝉效应。
“如果我们在这种场合不表明立场，如果我们不指出这种行为有多么骇人听闻，那么它不仅会给这个国家的新闻业，也会给全世界的新闻业带来打击。”
这个论点以前已经提出过了。如果美国政府追查维基解密处理国家机密，是什么阻止了它最终追查纽约时报？就美国而言，它在这个问题上有自己的立场，这对支持者来说将是不受欢迎的消息。
“朱利安·阿桑奇不是记者，”负责国家安全的助理司法部长约翰·德默斯在一份声明中说声明去年五月。“起诉书中指控的他的全部行为清楚地表明了这一点——即他与一名安全审查人员合谋并协助其获取机密信息，以及他公布了人力资源的姓名。”
维基解密代表约瑟夫·法雷尔否认该组织在不考虑编辑的情况下发布任何信息，一些众所周知的例子是其他人的错。
“每六份文件中就有一份被阿富汗出版物扣留，”法雷尔声称。他说，维基解密花了9个月的时间编辑外交电报的发布，并在一名记者透露了一个保护缓存的密码后被迫提前发布。
没有英国或美国政府的已知代表出席本周的前线俱乐部。正如一位小组成员反复指出的那样，这种平衡有时会受到欢迎。活动组织者表示，查塔姆大厦——该活动最初应该在那里举行——因为敏感的主题而“临阵退缩”。
查塔姆大厦的发言人告诉记者新闻周刊这是因为违反了合同。
一份声明写道:“与所有外部预订一样，合同明确规定，不得暗示这是查塔姆大厦的活动，也不得暗示这是我们认可的活动。
“他们发给我们的请柬与实际使用的请柬之间存在差异，这使我们遗憾地以违约为由取消了预订。这是一项合同决定，不是根据主题事项作出的。”
目前，引渡迫在眉睫。维基解密编辑克里斯汀·赫夫森，57岁，一露面后说道上个月在威斯敏斯特地方法院，听证会将持续比预期的更长的时间。
“我们已经了解了...他们不认为外国公民享有第一修正案的保护。“让它下沉一秒钟。与此同时，美国政府正在全世界追捕记者，他们声称自己拥有治外法权。他们决定所有外国记者都没有保护...这与朱利安·阿桑奇无关。这是关于新闻自由。”
阿桑奇引渡听证会于2月24日在伦敦伍尔维奇刑事法庭开始。它将持续大约一周，稍作休息，5月18日再次回升，持续三周。
内政部此前驳回了联合国任意拘留工作组(WGAD)关于阿桑奇的监禁判决侵犯了他的人权的指控。
“英国与联合国机构有着密切的工作关系，并致力于维护法治，”政府表示。“量刑是我们独立法官的事，他们会考虑每个案件的全部事实。法律赋予被定罪者上诉权。”
据英国广播公司当时报道，时任内政大臣赛义德·贾维德在2019年6月签署了美国引渡请求，称他希望“看到正义在任何时候都得到伸张”。
“我认为如果你把它交给司法部门，[引渡是不可避免的，”梅尔策告诉记者新闻周刊谈话结束后。“我不得不说，尽管在英国，我还有一点残存的希望，即在高等法院一级，法官们如此关注这可能对他们的声誉造成的影响，以至于可能会做出不利于他们的裁决。但我认为这不太可能。”
维基解密创始人朱利安·阿桑奇于2019年5月1日在英国伦敦被判刑后，乘坐一辆安全面包车离开了南华克刑事法庭。
U.N. TORTURE EXPERT 'OUTRAGED' BY WIKILEAKS FOUNDER ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION CASE: 'WHAT ABOUT THE WAR CRIMES?'
A United Nations torture expert says he has been left "genuinely outraged" by the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as speakers at an event at London's Frontline Cub this week warned the case should be considered an "attack on all journalists."
Assange, 48, has been incarcerated inside H.M. Prison Belmarsh since last April, when he was detained after seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy under political asylum. He is facing up to 175 years in U.S. prison in relation to charges filed under the Espionage Act.
At the Frontline Club on Tuesday, he attracted a largely sympathetic crowd, especially after a former British intelligence chief withdrew at the last minute.
The talk—which took place under the Chatham House Rule—promised a "sober" discussion of the legal case without resorting to political mud-slinging or conspiracy theory. Is that even possible?
And while it wasn't always balanced, it never quite descended into a full-on WikiLeaks fan-club.
There was little talk of Russian hackers, deceased Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffers or suspicious backchannels with right-wing figureheads in this packed-out room.
But there was broad agreement on the panel, which included veteran journalist Peter Oborne, charismatic lawyer Clive Stafford Smith and Professor Nils Melzer, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
"The judiciary in this country, unfortunately in this case, has proven either unwilling or unable to guarantee due process," Prof. Melzer said, claiming Assange appeared to have symptoms that were consistent with psychological torture. "I think this case is in the hands of the public."
The discussion became laser-focused on the glory years: The "Collateral Murder" video that made global headlines, the release of military war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, the large cache of diplomatic cables and the trove of documents about Guantanamo Bay detainees.
It was hardly a surprise. After all, that's the 2010-2011 era of WikiLeaks the U.S. decided to reference in its 18-count superseding indictment accusing Assange of being complicit in "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States."
Ramped up on chaotic energy and with a sense of unpredictability, WikiLeaks was a different beast in those days. Now, with Assange and his one-time source Chelsea Manning both in jail, there is a different, more defensive, atmosphere surrounding the leaking organization.
Manning was convicted of espionage charges and sentenced to 35 years in a military prison in August 2013, but was granted clemency by President Barack Obama in January 2017. She was sent back to jail last year after refusing to testify before a grand jury in the WikiLeaks case.
The prosecution of Assange—sentenced to 50 weeks last May for allegedly skipping bail in 2012—led to a strong rebuke by one panelist at the Frontline, who slammed the attitude of the press, suggesting some outlets had "actually ganged up here with the state against freedom."
"I fully accept the need for state secrets," the speaker elaborated. "I am quite old-fashioned in that way. The issue here is that if you are going to put somebody in jail for the rest of his life or put him in jail at all for publishing diplomatic cables... that is an attack on all journalists."
The U.S. justice department has accused Assange of conspiring with Manning to obtain secret documents, and says the leaks included 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. It didn't deny the files were all accurate.
"Assange's actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention," the DoJ media release read.
Melzer, who agreed to be quoted, referenced alleged military abuses in those files, including the famous video showing the killing of two Reuters journalists, and was clearly one of WikiLeaks' most staunch advocates on the small stage. "What about the war crimes?" he said.
Supporters of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gather to show their solidarity ahead of his expected appearance by video-link at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on June 14, 2019 in London, England.
"We are living in a time when our own war crimes are no longer prosecuted," he said.
"175 years for whatever they are accusing Mr. Assange of, it's certainly not violence, certainly it's not genocide, certainly it's not massacring civilians or torturing anybody, and people for genocide in the Hague they receive 35 or 45 years. I'm genuinely outraged."
"Whatever we may accuse Mr. Assange of he has a right to defend himself, but his lawyers keep complaining of not having enough access to him. Nothing is being done to remedy that," Melzer added.
Melzer is also the Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and a Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow. He said he was not initially going to take up the case and feared being manipulated, but became alarmed at its political handling.
Speaking from the audience, a representative from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) said the question of "is Assange a journalist" remains irrelevant.
He said: "What we need to focus on is the monstrousness of the unprecedented legal devices being used against him. The use of those will place a chilling effect on journalism.
"If we don't make a stand on this occasion, if we don't point out just how monstrous this behavior is then it really will put a dampener on journalism not just in this country but around the world."
The argument has been made before. If the U.S. government goes after WikiLeaks for handling state secrets, what's stopping it from eventually going after The New York Times? For its part, the U.S. has its own stance on the matter, and it will be unwelcome news for supporters.
"Julian Assange is no journalist," the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, John C. Demers, said in a statement last May. "This made plain by the totality of his conduct as alleged in the indictment—i.e., his conspiring with and assisting a security clearance holder to acquire classified information, and his publishing the names of human sources."
WikiLeaks representative Joseph Farrell denied the organization releases any information without considering redaction and some well-known examples were the fault of others.
"One in six documents was held back from the Afghan publications," Farrell claimed. He said that WikiLeaks spent nine months redacting the release of diplomatic cables and were forced to publish them early after a journalist revealed a password that was protecting the cache.
There were no known representatives from the British or American governments in attendance at the Frontline Club this week. At times, that balance would have been welcome, as one panelist repeatedly indicated. Event organizers suggested that Chatham House—where the event was initially supposed to take place—had "got cold feet" due to the touchy subject matter.
A Chatham House spokesperson told Newsweek it was due to breach of contract.
A statement read: "As with all external bookings the contract clearly stipulated that there must be no implication that this is a Chatham House event or that it is endorsed by us.
"Discrepancies between what they forwarded to us purporting to be their invitations and the invitations actually being used led us regretfully to cancel the booking for breach of contract. This was a contractual decision and not made on the basis of the subject matter."
For now, extradition looms. WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson, 57, said after an appearance at Westminster Magistrates' Court last month the hearings would last longer than expected.
"We have learned...they do not consider foreign nationals to have first amendment protection," he said. "Let that sink in for a second. At the same time the U.S. government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extraterritorial reach. They have decided that all foreign journalists have no protection... this is not about Julian Assange. It's about press freedom."
The Assange extradition hearing starts February 24 at London's Woolwich Crown Court. It will last for about a week and take a short break, picking up again on May 18 for another three weeks.
The Home Office previously rejected claims from the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) that Assange's prison sentence is a violation of his human rights.
"The U.K. has a close working relationship with U.N. bodies and is committed to upholding the rule of law," the government said. "Sentencing is a matter for our independent judges, who take into account the full facts of each case. The law provides those convicted with a right of appeal."
Then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed the U.S. extradition request in June 2019, saying that he wanted to "see justice done at all times," the BBC reported at the time.
"I think if you leave it in the hands of the judiciary [extradition is] inevitable," Melzer told Newsweek after the talk. "I have to say though that in the U.K., I have a small residual hope that at the High Court level the judges are so concerned with the implications for their reputation that this could have, that perhaps there could be a decision against it. But I think it's very unlikely."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves Southwark Crown Court in a security van after being sentenced on May 1, 2019 in London, England
