Assange in Court
阿桑吉法庭實錄
原文：https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
作者：Craig Murray
作者簡介：英國前外交官，解職後，轉為政治活動家、人權活動家與吹哨者。2002年至
2004年期間，擔任英國駐烏茲別克共和國大使，因揭露卡里莫夫政府 (Karimov) 的侵犯
人權行為，與英國外交部上司發生衝突，遭到撤職。
譯文：https://tinyurl.com/y4eyz4vd
譯者：陳真
I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster
Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely
heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who
barely pretended to be listening.
昨天，目睹了在英國西敏寺法院公審阿桑吉的過程，我感到極度震驚。整個審判過程的每
一項決定竟如此草率，對於阿桑吉律師團隊的訴求，庭方沒有任何辯駁；法官甚至連假裝
一下聆聽訴求也懶得演出。
Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must
note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my
friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of
premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have
never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
在我出席這項公然缺乏公正程序的審判之初，我首先注意到阿桑吉的身心狀況，我很驚訝
他竟變得如此消瘦，頭髮稀疏，急遽蒼老；尤其是舉步艱難，更是之前從沒見過的狀況。
自從今年四月被捕以來，他已足足瘦了十五公斤。
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration.
When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over
several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his
statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in
making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the
words and focus his train of thought.
但是，更讓人驚恐的不是他的外觀，而是他的心智退化。他很顯然連回答姓名與生日都感
到困惑遲疑。我稍後會提及他在庭訊終結時的談話之重要性，但他的言語表達與思緒集中
卻似乎遭遇極大的困難。
Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that
Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may
be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in
Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with
survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday
changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a
torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of
disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through
the fog of learned helplessness.
在這之前，我對於外界傳聞阿桑吉遭到與刑求無異的身心虐待時，我總是不太相信；即便
是「聯合國酷刑特別調查專員」梅爾澤 (Nils Melzer) 這麼說，我依舊半信半疑；對於
人們說阿桑吉可能遭到某種藥物注射，我更是不敢相信。可是，當我昨天目擊整個狀況，
我已經完全相信阿桑吉確實遭到酷刑。
我過去擔任英國駐烏茲別克共和國大使時，曾經參與幾樁遭受極度殘酷的刑求受害人調查
。我也曾經和獅子山共和國及其他一些國家的受害者共事過。因此，我可以很負責任地告
訴大家：阿桑吉恰恰就是表現出跟那些酷刑受害人一模一樣的症狀，包括意識與思緒的混
亂、行使自由意志的困難，以及人為製造之所謂「習得性」(learned) 的無助感與絕望。
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of
his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian
might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not
only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court
yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important
dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our
eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have
ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable.
Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa
Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport.
She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings,
then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question
of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be
highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody
incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of
concern.
阿桑吉的律師團隊成員曾經跟我說，他們很擔心阿桑吉的生命恐怕撐不到整個引渡庭訊的
結束。我過去不太相信，但我現在不但相信，而且為此感到驚恐無比。
在昨天的庭訊中，所有人都親眼看到了：我們這個時代最傑出的一位記者，最偉大的一個
異議人士，竟然就在世人眼前，被這個國家活活刑求至瀕臨死亡。看著我的好朋友阿桑吉
，這麼一位我個人生平所見思考最敏捷、最擅於訴說的思想家，竟然被糟蹋到成為一個步
履蹣跚語無倫次的「廢人」(wreck)，我真是很難承受這樣的事實。
然而，美國的律師代表們，特別是這位冷血的承審法官芭拉瑟 (Vanessa Baraitser)，卻
迫不及待想加入這場獵殺阿桑吉的血腥遊戲中。法官芭拉瑟告訴阿桑吉說：「如果你聽不
懂我們現在在做什麼，沒關係，你的律師等一下也許可以告訴我們到底你是怎麼了？」問
題是：當一個眾所公認的天才，能力卓越，遭受如此巨大的罪名指控，如今卻連庭訊在做
些什麼都搞不清楚，究竟何以致之？卻完全無法引起這位法官絲毫的關切。
The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning
to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State
Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do
with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification
the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.
阿桑吉的罪名十分明確，那就是被美國控告和美軍上等兵曼寧 (Chelsea Manning) 共同
發佈美國在伊拉克和阿富汗的戰爭檔案及一些國務院電報。這些罪名與瑞典政府及所謂性
侵案毫無關係，跟2016年的美國總統選舉也根本無關，這麼清楚明白的一個事實，主流媒
體卻故意裝蒜，總是故意往絲毫不相干的事情上大作文章。
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the
timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that
Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and
arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the
extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary
hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.
昨天的庭訊，基本上就是決定何時把阿桑吉引渡美國的前期作業，爭議關鍵在於阿桑吉要
求更多時間準備證據；辯護律師據此提出抗告，主張政治案件應排除在引渡條約的適用範
圍之外，因此應該先有個程序審，以判定此一案例是否適用引渡條約。
The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were
both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client
in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case
until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access,
and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the
Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own
materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.
阿桑吉的辯護團隊要求更多時間做準備，此一要求極其合理，卻也令人吃驚。因為，辯護
律師竟然難以獲准進入監獄中與阿桑吉碰面，並且不被允許轉交任何文件給他，直到一週
前才放行。而且，阿桑吉在獄中幾乎無法使用電腦，他的所有相關記錄與文件亦全數被美
國透過厄瓜多政府沒收，以致於他根本沒有任何資料可供法庭佐證。
Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts
about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide
vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on
Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to
provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged
conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against
these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010.
In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the
extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the
Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA,
specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I
discussing various matters.
另一方面，阿桑吉的辯護律師指出，他們需要時間和西班牙馬德里法庭連繫，以便取得一
些至關重要的有利證據。該證據將指出：美國中情局 (CIA) 透過收買西班牙一家公司叫
做UC Global，直接下令監控阿桑吉在厄瓜多大使館的一舉一動，甚至監聽阿桑吉和他的
律師們之間理當有權守密的談話。(譯者按：該公司的主任於今年八月因為此案被西班牙
政府逮捕。) 中情局的非法監控，打從2010年便開始如火如荼地進行。在任何案件中，光
是這樣一些非法政治活動，就足以使引渡要求打從一開始就被駁回。我同時也很意外地發
現，中情局提供給庭上一些關於這個西班牙案子的資料，裡頭竟然也有我和阿桑吉的高清
版談話光碟。
The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange,
which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the
treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that
the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be
extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not
fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for
the Assange extradition hearings.
西班牙法庭將提供給辯護團隊有關美國中情局密謀綁架阿桑吉的證據，這將足以使美國喪
失引渡要求之適法性，因為它很清楚地表明：阿桑吉倘若被引渡美國，將會遭受不當對待
。阿桑吉的辯護律師對法官清楚解釋了這些證據之根本重要性。問題是，西班牙的案子仍
在進行之中，相關證據仍無法完全核實，因此要求引渡審訊的日期應該往後延。
For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly
opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly
opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was
a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her
cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition
hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates
for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute
recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.
但是，美方律師代表詹姆士·路易斯(James Lewis) 強烈反對任何延遲，反對給被告更多
時間做準備，並且強烈反對關於引渡本身是否具有適法性的分案訴求。承審法官芭拉瑟片
面聽取美方的要求，專斷地決定明年2月25日為引渡審訊日期，並表明將不會有任何改變
。她休庭了十分鐘，僅僅同意雙方針對證據呈堂截止日做出協議。
What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of
the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the
course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The
prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives,
then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the
dates.
美方代表原本只有三人，庭訊進行一半之際卻又冒出兩人，公然坐在律師席的後方。美方
律師忙進忙出和這兩位美國代表討論如何因應關於證據呈堂日期的協議。
After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their
professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to
February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless
outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this,
Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the
Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking
instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said
this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted
but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that
the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said
they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may
not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.
阿桑吉的律師表明，就專業上來說，倘若引渡庭訊日期訂在明年二月，他們將很難有充份
時間準備證據，不過，如果法官堅持如此，他們也只好儘可能配合。美方律師代表路易斯
的助理一聽到這些話，便立即衝向後方座位上，請示那兩位美國代表的意見。路易斯清楚
地告訴法官說「我們正在聽取坐在後面的那些美國人的意見」。你應注意到一點：他們並
不是聽取美國司法部長辦公室的意見，而是接收美國駐英大使館的指令。最後，雙方達成
協議在兩個月內提供證據 (辯護一方原先是要求最少需要三個月的時間)，前提是二月的
庭訊日期將不會改變。芭拉瑟法官批准了美方代表的所有要求。
At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US
government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those
instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The
charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the
bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they
were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a
moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial
expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from
contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was
attentive, open and warm.
現在的問題是，這明明是一齣鬧劇，我們為何還要枯坐法庭？美國政府下達指令給律師代
表，然後再由他來傳遞各項指示給法官，做出所謂「法律決定」。這場荒唐戲碼要怎麼演
，整個過程完全是由美國一手操控。
我相信，那天坐在法庭內的觀審民眾，沒有一個人會相信這是一個真正的法庭，也沒有人
會相信法官芭拉瑟對於被告阿桑吉的要求曾有一絲絲的考量；當她看著阿桑吉時，表情總
是充滿不屑、不耐且語帶嘲諷。可是，當她轉頭面向美方代表時，便又立即變得親切細心
且溫柔。
The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a
Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish
court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what
makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.
整個引渡時程，其實純粹就是完全配合華盛頓方面的指令。除了積極排除西班牙法庭對於
中情局非法活動之證據，藉以進一步打壓被告之外，為何非得趕在明年二月前引渡，十分
耐人尋味。
Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to
consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to
give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had
been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US
Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:
On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a
political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any
of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether
this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the
long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the
treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.
承審法官芭拉瑟完全不給任何理由就否定了引渡適法性的分案訴求。我猜，她可能沒法清
楚記住美國到底給了她哪些指令。然而，根據英、美之間的引渡條約第四條規定 (全文請
見：https://bit.ly/2Pn57eV)，政治案件應被排除在引渡範圍之外。
阿桑吉所被控告的罪名，如果不是政治案件，什麼是政治案件？當然，並不是所有政治案
件都可以被排除，比方說涉及謀殺元首、政要或使用暴力、綁架等手段製造大規模傷亡等
等，仍然適用引渡條約。但阿桑吉的罪名哪一點與此有關？因此，針對引渡適法性的爭議
進行另案裁判是完全必要且合理的作法，法官卻對此根本不予理會而斷然否決。
Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here,
Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to
waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the
substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine
should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court,
perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would
need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered
that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was
not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it
once she had received the evidence bundles.
也許有些人會想知道法庭內究竟還發生了哪些狀況？我可以大致說說。例如，美國律師代
表路易斯一度站起來嗆聲說：庭上不應該再容許被告浪費大家的時間講一堆廢話，被告一
方倘若有什麼意見要說的話，就應該在開庭之前以書面陳述；庭上應「立即停止討論，逕
行表決」(guillotine should be applied。作者強調這是美方代表路易斯的談話原文)，
不應該再讓被告有案情表述及提供證人的機會；給他五小時就已經夠多了。
其實，阿桑吉的辯護律師原先是要求應該比表定之五天更多的時間來陳述案情，但是美方
代表路易斯卻反駁說整個庭審必須在兩天內結束。法官聽了之後說，在程序上，她目前無
法針對此事進行裁定，但是稍後就會依據各項證據來處理。
(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive
hearing short).
(作者說：我早就預料到，法官肯定會依照美方代表的指示來縮短原有的審訊時程。)
Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not
at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where
we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility
used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum
security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the
public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to
evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public
again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading.
I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.
接著，法官果然做出結論說，明年二月的引渡庭訊不但將如期舉行，而且審訊地點將會從
現在這個較為開放且旁人容易接近的司敏寺法院，改為英國專門審理重罪恐怖份子、戒備
森嚴的貝爾馬塞 (Belmarsh) 法院。該法院隸屬阿桑吉目前被囚禁的貝爾馬塞監獄。這所
監獄專門囚禁英國最為惡名昭彰的恐怖份子，擁有最高等級的安全戒備。屆時，法院將僅
僅開放六個座位給社會大眾。此舉之目的昭然若揭，為的就是避人耳目，以免類似芭拉瑟
法官之醜態重現，一如你現在所閱讀的法庭真相。我自己到時候恐怕也不一定能親臨現場
。
Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who
had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the
much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long
career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who
arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in
because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were
present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American
initiative.
這回的開庭，因為數以百計的善良人民在法庭外聚集聲援阿桑吉，官方的如意算盤似乎受
到了一點干擾，因此，他們當下決定把下回的開庭地點改為旁人極難接近的貝爾馬塞監獄
法院。根據我擔任外交官多年的經驗，我非常確定，庭訊進行到一半才進來的那兩個受到
武裝保護的美國人，他們的臨時出現，肯定是因為庭外抗議人潮眾多，使得美國產生疑慮
。下回開庭改為貝爾馬塞監獄法院，有可能就是美國的決定。
Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in
particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there
to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the
jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite
smirk.
阿桑吉的辯護團隊，強烈反對改變開庭地點的決定，主要是因為貝爾馬塞監獄法院並沒有
會議室可供討論，而且律師極難接近被告當事人。芭拉瑟法官卻毫不遲疑地駁回被告律師
的意見，臉上竟還帶著一抹相當詭異的神祕微笑。
Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him
if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that
he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he
seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:
庭訊尾聲，芭拉瑟法官命令阿桑吉起立，詢問他是否瞭解整個庭訊過程在做些什麼。阿桑
吉說他不是很清楚，因為他覺得自己當下無法思考。阿桑吉當時看起來意識顯然有點錯亂
，稍後方才回神，並略微挺直了身子說道：
I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10
years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is
very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited
resources.
「我不認為這個庭審過程是公平的。美國這個超級大國，為了這一刻，準備了十年，而我
卻連過去自己寫的一些東西都無法取得。以我當下的處境，我什麼事也做不了，而美國這
些傢伙卻有著無限的資源。」
The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became
increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and
publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children
’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his
psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these
points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly
not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser
showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he
could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him,
and she swept out of court.
阿桑吉顯然費了很大的力氣才能說出這番話，他的聲調旋即變得微弱，意識趨於混亂而且
語無倫次。他提到那些揭發黑幕的吹哨者及一些出版商，竟然統統被標示為人民公敵，他
還提到說自己和心理師的幾次會面中，自己的幾名小孩的DNA被竊取，藉以監控等等。
對此，我並不是要說阿桑吉哪裡說錯了，但他顯然已經無法適當表達，更不用說清楚陳述
想法。眼前這個阿桑吉，已經不是原來的阿桑吉，他病得很重。目擊這一幕，對我而言，
猶如椎心之痛。然而，芭拉瑟法官對此不但毫無一絲同情與關切，而且很刻薄地說：「如
果他 (指阿桑吉) 根本不知道現在是怎麼一回事，那就讓他的律師想辦法跟他解釋吧。」
說完便宣告退庭。
The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there
was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was
a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of
proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass,
and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were
in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could
see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising
anybody. He gave no indication that he did.
聆聽整個庭訊的過程，讓我非常挫折。毫無疑問，眼前並沒有任何真正的法律程序，完全
就是國家暴力赤裸裸的展現，完全就是美國一手操控的司法傀儡戲。阿桑吉就像被關在一
個防彈玻璃後方的小盒子裡，而我及其他大約三十幾位旁聽者，則擠壓在另一個有著更多
阻隔的盒子中，我不知道以阿桑吉當時的身心狀況是否能看見我或其他朋友，我甚至不確
定他是否還能認得任何人。
In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is
permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the
corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he
has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly
supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this
inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is
a remand prisoner.
在貝爾馬塞監獄裡，阿桑吉每天單獨囚禁23小時，一天只能有45分鐘的放風時間。每當他
要出來外面活動時，他所經過的每個走廊就會完全淨空，所有房間全部上鎖，避免在這遭
受嚴密監控的短短45分鐘的運動時間中他和任何人有任何接觸。這樣一個專門關押犯下重
罪之恐怖份子的慘無人道監獄，實在沒有任何一絲理由必須以這樣一種不人道的方式，對
待一個僅僅只是等候開庭審理的記者。
I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly
authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be
so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and
dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after
government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly
killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth
about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal”
society.
許多年來，我不斷記錄並且抗議英國越來越傾向於威權統治的國家力量，對此我並不陌生
。但是，對於眼前這樣一種如此公然進行、毫無遮掩而且極度嚴重的侵犯人權罪行，我依
然感到極為震驚。一些人發起運動，要求政府及媒體停止透過一個又一個的謊言妖魔化阿
桑吉。如今，阿桑吉卻在世人面前被公然緩慢地謀殺，並且對他揭露政府惡行之義舉進行
司法制裁，而這一切可怕的遭遇，卻從未從所謂「自由」社會中得到任何協助。
Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do
this, then who is next?
最後，我想說的是：除非阿桑吉能夠在短時間內獲釋，否則他將被摧毀。如果一個國家可
以幹出這樣的事，阿桑吉之後，誰是下一個？