
UN expert says "collective persecution" of Julian Assange must end - jules-jules
https://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E
======
dang
This is a better link than the earlier post about this today
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20060252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20060252)),
but it's likely to suffer from the same problem: all threads about Assange
have become the same. They all angrily relitigate the whole story from
scratch. Receptivity, curiosity, and information exchange—what HN exists
for—are low; indignation and repetition—the two most fatal qualities—are high.
If this continues, we're going to start moderating these threads more heavily,
not for or against Assange, but to protect HN.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
Bjartr
It would be cool if there were a way to see how "repeated" the content of a
given comment is across similar stories so users could make their own
judgement on the value of novel views. Similarly, penalizing comments
(display-order wise) for being "mere" repetition would be a neat way of
nudging discussion towards novelty without applying the "strong" censorship of
deletion.

~~~
Retra
Novelty has diminishing returns when you don't optimize for something else;
there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right, after all.

~~~
clairity
it's useful to be reminded of where the argument stands, and to get people
unfamiliar with the state of argument up to speed.

a quick, factual recitation of basic arguments could be helpful, if boring, to
direct the novelty toward the edges of the argument where it can hopefully
push toward insightful territory?

it should be ok to be wrong (if hard to identify and harder to internalize);
the problem seems to be obstinacy (e.g., shouting the same things over and
over).

------
sschueller
"“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution
I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately
isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with
so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” Melzer said. “The
collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!”"

Sad how democratic values are tossed out the window when it doesn't suite
them.

~~~
geggam
Technically the democratic process is when the larger number gang tells the
smaller number gang what to do.

~~~
JulianMorrison
That technicality is a poison.

When people say democracy they generally don't mean it. They mean instead a
system that protects the few from the overmighty many just as much as it
protects the many from the overmighty few.

I honestly wish people would quit hanging this ideal on the merely mechanical
idea of democracy. Since that mechanism is incompatible with it in many edge
cases.

------
wbhart
The serious decline of Assange's health is worrisome. Even Belmarsh prison
(where Assange is currently) does not have the best record when it comes to
human rights violations [1, pp. 21]. However, it seems the main concern at the
moment is his lack of proper access to case files and lawyers, his health, and
the relentless, ongoing public statements against him at the highest levels.

I can accept the Rapporteur's assessment that his current condition is the
result of very high level "collective persecution", e.g. the British Prime
Minister stating "no one is above the law", the Australian Government stating
"he won't receive special treatment", statements by Ecuador that he smeared
faeces on the wall of the embassy and hacked the president's phone, and US
politicians and pundits alike calling for him to be extrajudicially executed,
for example.

There has been a very high level campaign to get Assange and make an example
of him at all costs, even though opinion is clearly divided on whether most of
the actions he is charged with were protected under the First Amendment or
even commonplace amongst media organisations, e.g. encouraging leaks of
secured information and publishing them, and the remaining acts seem to be de
minimis, e.g. offering to, but not actually, cracking a password (all counts
of the indictment fall under one of the two categories, the summary wording
being almost identical in all of them).

In related news Chelsea Manning is back in prison for refusing to testify in a
grand jury against Assange. She has now made the case that they didn't need
her testimony for indictments [2], and has apparently written an eloquent
letter explaining the history of abuse of the Grand Jury process, after
seventy something days in prison to coerce her testimony.

[1]
[https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/76000/eur45004200...](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/76000/eur450042006en.pdf)
[2] [https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-mannings-
lawyer...](https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-file-
motion-to-reconsider-sanctions/)

~~~
mongol
What is known about his health? On one hand, I am not surprised it has
deteriorated, having stayed in a single location indoors for years. On the
other hand, the health concerns could be yet another delay tactic of which he
has used many in the past. I don't know what to believe.

~~~
wbhart
The rapporteur has addressed that. He took medical professionals with him and
their assessment is he is gravely ill. The specifics won't be made public, as
that would violate his privacy, however they have been clear that he is
suffering the effects of sustained psychological abuse amounting to torture
and that this is most certainly not an act, in their opinion.

I believe that in the embassy he had a chronic cough and a lot of pain in a
shoulder (both potentially signs of lung cancer). But that is all I know that
has been publicly released.

One other piece of data is that he is said to be somewhat unable to hold a
conversation.

~~~
free652
Do you have a citation that rapporteur took medical professionals?

~~~
wbhart
Yes, the NYT reported it for example [1]. Edit: ok, to be more clear, they
were medically qualified to examine victims of torture, but they gave him a
full medical evaluation.

[1]
[https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/31/world/europe/ap-...](https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/31/world/europe/ap-
eu-un-human-rights-assange.html)

------
codedokode
US law enforcement agencies put a lot effort to prosecute Assange and put him
in jail for over than hundred years. I wonder, do they investigate cases about
torturing people in Guantanamo or about killing civilians in Vietnam and other
countries or about lie about WMD in Iraq with similar level of efforts?
Someone is more equal than others here.

~~~
plandis
The US law enforcement doesn’t typically have jurisdiction over the military.
However internally the rights abuses at Guantanamo were investigated, people
were tried in court-marshall and convicted. The Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam
was prosecuted however punishment was a slap on the wrist.

------
geggam
The entire story highlights the double standards of governments and the people
they serve.

Government tells us if we have nothing to hide we shouldn't worry about the
invasive intrusions into our privacy but when government's privacy is intruded
they want to imprison people for it.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
I don't know what "Government" you're talking about, but I have never actually
heard that argument.

European governments actually have passed a host of privacy regulations. The
US Supreme Court has recognised a right to privacy etc. None of those things
would make sense if privacy wasn't valuable.

~~~
ebg13
The US Supreme Court, which by definition does not enact things, it only _un_
enacts things by interpreting the US Constitution, is not what people are
talking about when they say "the government". When people talk about "the
government" here, they mean the Executive and Legislative branches
(President+DOJ and Congress), but mostly they mean law enforcement and those
who enable them. Local and federal law enforcement do not want you to have
privacy.

~~~
paulmd
The US Supreme Court absolutely does enact things. For example, "tests" to
interpret some other law or policy, which then gain the force of law. Or
sometimes directly, as in "it would be discriminatory not to do X", and then
everyone needs to do X.

It would be more proper to say they can't enact something except in the
furtherance of another compelling interest.

------
z3c0
Regardless of where you stand on this matter, I think there are quite a few
questions we should all be seeking to answer. All the varying opinions and
nuance have only served to leave me feeling confused about the whole matter,
and I'm sure I'm not alone.

For one, were the actions Assange took to secure the "Collateral Murder" leaks
illegal? If so, where is the line that distinguishes his methods from those
regularly employed by investigative journalists? And how can he be charged in
a way that doesn't threaten the future of investigative journalism and
whistleblowing?

The DNC/Podesta leaks have turned Assange into an even more polarizing figure,
and it seems that a lot of negative attitudes towards him originate there.
Were these leaks more, less, or equally effective as all the Russian
disinformation campaigns occurring on social media? If you're one of the
people harboring an ill view of Assange for his role here, what is it that
upsets you about it? Is it that he released information about Clinton? Or that
he didn't release information on Trump? Was it that he released information at
all? As far as I know, there was no disinformation in the DNC/Podesta leaks
(unlike the Fancy Bear leaks.) So it's fair to say that voters who changed
their stance after the leaks did so from a more knowledgeable place. I'm sure
noone here is upset at the idea of more informed voters - however, do you
believe there is a better way to inform voters of matters like these? What
route do you think should have been taken to publish this information?

And with all that said, how much bearing should the DNC leaks have on the
ruling of the charges being brought forth for Collateral Murder? Are these
matters relevant to one another?

These are all genuine questions - I don't presume any answers. I'd certainly
like to learn more from you all, but if past threads are anything to go off
of, I'm expecting at least a few inflammatory responses.

~~~
thatoneuser
No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating.

So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It
was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots
candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one
specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not
to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing
presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad.
But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric
fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate
did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to
be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents.

Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on
"well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking).
Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange
has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad?

I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as
everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange
business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on
behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down
the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate
questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no
server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with
no chance of winning.

~~~
spiralx
The DNC supported the candidate that won the primary, that's true. I've yet to
hear what actual wrong=doing was exposed by the leaked emails though, what
bylaws are you referring to?

> Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than
> assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad?

Maybe if Assange hadn't have been in hiding for the last seven years he would
already have been through the same process of trial, conviction, prison and
pardon that Manning has. He made the choice to do what he did, so you can't
really compare the outcome of his situation with Manning's at all; I agree
that his crime seems less serious than Manning's was, maybe it would all be
over now had he not entered the embassy? It's entirely possible he would never
have been charged with any crimes at all.

------
benj111
On one level this is obvious. I mean Assanges fears of getting deported are
well founded. Does anyone expect the US govt to just shrug its shoulders and
say "meh"? When you kick a hornets nest, you're going to get stung.

On the other hand, I'm surprised the UN is saying it.

I'm not sure how much political power the UN has in all this, I would guess
the US has more though?

~~~
type0
> I'm not sure how much political power the UN has in all this, I would guess
> the US has more though?

Not sure, but I would think they couldn't do much in regard to veto members.

~~~
inawarminister
General Assembly and other UN organs have zero vetoes, only Security Council
have them IIRC. Of course the UNSC is the most important UN organ in
international politics and diplomacy...

Oh yeah, UNSC veto-possessing members can also veto UN Secretary-general
election in secret.

------
perfmode
I don’t agree with a lot of what has happened over the past several years but
Julian’s manifesto remains a must-read.

