The Lies About Assange Must Stop Now
對於阿桑吉的抹黑必須終止
原文：Consortium News
https://tinyurl.com/sbecjus
譯文：巴勒網
http://palinfo.habago.org/Entry?Command=Information_PrintHome&iFlowNo=1573
John Pilger 作
李鑑慧 譯；陳真 校訂
原始刊登日期：2019.11.25
Newspapers and other media in the United States and Britain have recently
declared a passion for freedom of speech, especially their right to publish
freely. They are worried by the “Assange effect”.
It is as if the struggle of truth-tellers like Julian Assange and Chelsea
Manning is now a warning to them: that the thugs who dragged Assange out of
the Ecuadorean embassy in April may one day come for them.
美國與英國媒體近來總愛高唱言論自由，特別是他們信口開河的「自由」。事實上，他們
十分擔心「阿桑吉效應」。他們顯然認為，朱利安阿桑吉（Julian Assange）與雀喜‧曼
寧（Chelsea Manning）這類真相挖掘者的下場，無非就是一場殺雞儆猴的警告；他們擔
心，那些把阿桑吉硬拖出厄瓜多大使館的惡棍，也許有一天也會找上他們。
A common refrain was echoed by The Guardian last week. The extradition of
Assange, said the paper, “is not a question of how wise Mr. Assange is,
still less how likable. It’s not about his character, nor his judgement. It’
s a matter of press freedom and the public’s right to know.”
英國《衛報》上週的報導就是一例，當他們提到阿桑吉引渡美國一事時，竟說道：「這跟
阿桑吉有多聰明或他是否讓人喜歡無關，這也無關乎他的品格與言論；這僅僅關乎新聞自
由與大眾『知』的權力。」
What The Guardian is trying to do is separate Assange from his landmark
achievements, which have both profited The Guardian and exposed its own
vulnerability, along with its propensity to suck up to rapacious power and
smear those who reveal its double standards.
《衛報》之所以這麼說，目的就是要將阿桑吉的里程碑貢獻〔指維基解密〕一筆抹煞，故
意避而不談，儘管《衛報》曾經因之大獲其利。當然，《衛報》也因維基解密一事而暴露
出他自身的脆弱以及對於殘暴權力的攀附，還有對揭露其雙重標準者的諸多汙衊。〔校註
：《衛報》曾與維基解密合作，揭露美軍在伊拉克的不當作為，但之後就變了調，開始誣
衊阿桑吉。〕
The poison that has fueled the persecution of Julian Assange is not as
obvious in this editorial as it usually is; there is no fiction about Assange
smearing faeces on embassy walls or being awful to his cat.
Instead, the weasel references to “character” and “judgement” and “
likeability” perpetuate an epic smear which is now almost a decade old.
Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, used a more apt
description. “There has been,” he wrote, “a relentless and unrestrained
campaign of public mobbing.” He explains mobbing as “an endless stream of
humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press”. This “
collection ridicule” amounts to torture and could lead to Assange’s death.
在《衛報》的一則社論中以一種比過去更加惡毒的含沙射影手法，進一步妖魔化阿桑吉。
也許，阿桑吉真的曾經在大使館中以糞便塗牆抗議，也可能未善待他的貓，但這篇社論卻
很狡猾地藉此影射阿桑吉的「人格」與「思想」之「令人難以恭維」等等，延續一個長達
將近十年的媒體重大抹黑戲碼。
聯合國「刑求調查專員」 Niles Melzer 倒是講出了公道話。他說，阿桑吉長久以來所遭
受的，其實就是「一系列殘酷無情而且毫無節制的媒體公審」，包括「各式各樣的羞辱抹
黑與人格謀殺及威脅」，無異於刑求，而且可能間接導致阿桑吉之死。
Having witnessed much of what Melzer describes, I can vouch for the truth of
his words. If Julian Assange were to succumb to the cruelties heaped upon
him, week after week, month after month, year upon year, as doctors warn,
newspapers like The Guardian will share the responsibility.
我可擔保並親眼見證聯合國「刑求調查專員」Melzer 所描述的大部分情況，其所言不虛
。如果阿桑吉最終承受不住日復一日、經年累月對他所做的公眾酷刑，那麼，諸如《衛報
》這樣一些媒體，就應為此負起責任。
A few days ago, The Sydney Morning Herald’s man in London, Nick Miller,
wrote a lazy, specious piece headlined, “Assange has not been vindicated, he
has merely out-waited justice.” He was referring to Sweden’s abandonment
of the so-called Assange investigation.
幾天前，雪梨《晨鋒報》駐倫敦記者 Nick Miller 寫了一篇信口開河、似是而非的報導
，標題是「阿桑吉並未證明一己清白，他只是以拖待變，企圖延遲司法制裁」。Miller
指的是瑞典法院最後決定放棄偵辦所謂的阿桑吉案件。
Miller’s report is not untypical for its omissions and distortions while
masquerading as a tribune of women’s rights. There is no original work, no
real inquiry: just smear.
There is nothing on the documented behaviour of a clutch of Swedish zealots
who hi jacked the “allegations” of sexual misconduct against Assange and
made a mockery of Swedish law and that society’s vaunted decency.
Miller的抹黑手法司空見慣；一方面假裝是個為女權捍衛者，一方面則刻意疏漏真相、扭
曲事實；不但沒有從事任何第一手新聞調查工作，也沒有任何事實探究，從頭到尾就是
一味地抹黑。而且，他完全沒有提到一群瑞典狂熱者如何操弄對於阿桑吉不實的性侵「指
控」。這些人之所作所為，無疑是對於瑞典法律及瑞典社會向來所自恃的「正直」之最大
諷刺。
He makes no mention that in 2013, the Swedish prosecutor tried to abandon the
case and emailed the Crown Prosecution Service in London to say it would no
longer pursue a European Arrest Warrant, to which she received the reply: “
Don’t you dare!!!” (Thanks to Stefania Maurizi of La Repubblica)
此外，Miller 也沒有提到在 2013年瑞典檢察官打算放棄起訴，並電郵給倫敦的「皇家檢
察署」（Crown Prosecution Service），告知此案並不需要發佈歐洲逮捕令。對此，這
位女性檢察官收到的回覆竟然是：「妳有膽就試試看！！！」（Don’t you dare!!!）〔
感謝義大利《共和國報》的Stefania Maurizi提供這項資訊〕
Other emails show the CPS discouraging the Swedes from coming to London to
interview Assange – which was common practice – thus blocking progress that
might have set him free in 2011.
其它電郵則顯示，「皇家檢察署」阻止瑞典派人前來英國當面訪問阿桑吉。在阿桑吉的司
法遭遇上，類似作法很常見，從而阻止了原本在2011年就可能還給阿桑吉的司法清白。
There was never an indictment. There were never charges. There was never a
serious attempt to put “allegations” to Assange and question him –
behaviour that the Swedish Court of Appeal ruled to be negligent and the
General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association has since condemned.
事實上，瑞典方面從來就沒有起訴過阿桑吉，不曾提出任何控告，甚至從來不曾認真想要
對阿桑吉提出指控及問訊。瑞典的上訴法庭認為此舉「怠忽職守」，瑞典律師協會總秘書
長隨後並提出譴責。
Both the women involved said there was no rape. Critical written evidence of
their text messages was willfully withheld from Assange’s lawyers, clearly
because it undermined the “allegations”.
至於兩位女性證人，始終表明並沒有所謂強暴一事。她們的書面簡訊這項關鑑證據，檢方
卻刻意不讓阿桑吉的律師取得，因為這將完全否決對於阿桑吉的一切所謂「指控」。
One of the women was so shocked that Assange was arrested, she accused the
police of railroading her and changing her witness statement. The chief
prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the “suspicion of any crime.”
其中一位涉案女性甚至非常震驚阿桑吉被捕，她指控警方竄改筆錄，捏造事實，嫁禍阿桑
吉。總檢察官 Eva Finne 事實上也駁回了任何對於阿桑吉的相關指控。
The Sydney Morning Herald man omits how an ambitious and compromised
politician, Claes Borgstrom, emerged from behind the liberal facade of
Swedish politics and effectively seized and revived the case.
這位雪梨《晨鋒報》的記者先生，並且故意避而不談一位長袖善舞野心勃勃的政客
Claes Borgstrom，如何在瑞典政治的開明假像底下，取得此案主導權，欲使該案敗部復
活，藉以興風作浪。
Borgstrom enlisted a former political collaborator, Marianne Ny, as the new
prosecutor. Ny refused to guarantee that Assange would not be sent on to the
United States if he was extradited to Sweden, even though, as The Independent
reported, “informal discussions have already taken place between the US and
Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic
sources.” This was an open secret in Stockholm. That libertarian Sweden had
a dark, documented past of rendering people into the hands of the CIA was not
news.
Borgstrom 召喚先前的一位政治夥伴 Marianne Ny，擔任該案新任檢察官。然而，儘管英
國《獨立報》已明白揭露，「根據外交資訊來源，美國和瑞典官方之間早已展開非正式對
話，討論將朱利安阿桑吉交由美方拘押的可能性。」然而，Ny 依舊拒絕保證阿桑吉倘若
被引渡到瑞典，將不會被進一步引渡到美國。
事實上，斯德哥爾摩早已流傳一項公開秘密，一段黑暗歷史，亦即所謂自由派的瑞典政府
，長久以來不斷協助將 CIA 所要獵捕的人士送交美國手上。此事由來已久，並非新聞，
並且證據確鑿。
The silence was broken in 2016 when the United Nations Working Party on
Arbitrary Detention, a body that decides whether governments are meeting
their human rights obligations, ruled that Julian Assange was unlawfully
detained by Britain and called on the British government to set him free.
直到 2016年，沉寂方才打破：專門負責裁決各國政府是否遵守人權義務的國際組織--「
聯合國任意拘留問題工作小組」（United Nations Working Party on Arbitrary
Detention），判決裁定英國非法拘押阿桑吉，要求英國政府應立即釋放。
Both the governments of Britain and Sweden had taken part in the UN’s
investigation, and agreed to abide by its ruling, which carried the weight of
international law. The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, stood up in
Parliament and abused the UN panel.
英國和瑞典政府事實上都參與了聯合國的調查，並且同意遵守其與國際法具有同等約束力
的判決。不過，英國外交部長 Philip Hammod 卻在國會中對聯合國工作小組的判決依舊
置若罔聞。
The Swedish case was a fraud from the moment the police secretly and
illegally contacted a Stockholm tabloid and ignited the hysteria that was to
consume Assange. WikiLeaks’ revelations of America’s war crimes had shamed
the hand-maidens of power and its vested interests, who called themselves
journalists; and for this, the unclubbable Assange would never be forgiven.
瑞典的案子打從一開始就是一項詐欺，先是警方暗中非法聯繫斯德哥爾摩一家小報，製造
歇斯底里般的抹黑風潮，欲置阿桑吉於死地。這一切都起因於維基解密所揭露的美國戰爭
罪行，揭露了掌權者醜陋的權力運作及其既得利益共犯體系，當然也包括所謂媒體記者，
不願與之同流合污的阿桑吉，自然也就成為他們的頭號敵人。
It was now open season. Assange’s media tormenters cut and pasted each other
’s lies and vituperative abuse. “He really is the most massive turd,”
wrote Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore. The received wisdom was that he had
been charged, which was never true. In my career, reporting from places of
extreme upheaval and suffering and criminality, I have never known anything
like it.
從那時開始，獵巫行動便如火如荼地展開。那些以媒體抹黑方式刑求阿桑吉的人，相互剪
貼複製一切有關阿桑吉的謠言與惡毒詆毀。《衛報》的專欄作家Suzanne Moore 更是直接
寫道：「這傢伙真是個超級人渣 (He really is the most massive turd.)」。
經過這一番鋪天蓋地的抹黑，現在大家都以為阿桑吉已被起訴，其實這完全不是事實。在
我的職業生涯中，我行走八方，親歷世上各種災難現場，報導過各種極端動亂、苦難與罪
行，但我從來不曾見過如此卑劣的媒體惡行。
In Assange’s homeland, Australia, this “mobbing” reached an apogee. So
eager was the Australian government to deliver its citizen to the United
States that the prime minister in 2010, Julia Gillard, wanted to take away
his passport and charge him with a crime – until it was pointed out to her
that Assange had committed no crime and she had no right to take away his
citizenship.
在阿桑吉的家鄉--澳洲，獵巫行動更是到最高點。澳洲政府急切地想要將他的公民送交給
美國。首相朱莉亞‧吉拉德（Julia Gillard）在2013年甚至想要沒收阿桑吉的護照並起
訴他，直到有人提醒她阿桑吉並沒有犯下任何罪行，而且她也沒有權力剝奪阿桑吉的公民
權。
Julia Gillard, according to the website Honest History, holds the record for
the most sycophantic speech ever made to the U.S. Congress. Australia, said
she to applause, was America’s “great mate”. The great mate colluded with
America in its hunt for an Australian whose crime was journalism. His right
to protection and proper assistance was denied.
根據「誠實歷史」（Honest History）網站，朱莉亞‧吉拉德是美國國會史上對美國最為
諂媚的一位演說紀錄保持者：在一片掌聲中，她說澳洲是美國的「最佳拍檔」（great
mate）。這個最佳拍檔極其樂於與美國同流合汙，共同追殺一名澳洲公民，而他的罪行卻
是因為他報導了真相，因此連受到適當協助與保護的基本權利也完全被否決。
When Assange’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce, and I met two Australian consular
officials in London, we were shocked that all they knew about the case “is
what we read in the papers”.
當阿桑吉的律師 Gareth Peirce 和我與兩名澳洲領事官員在倫敦碰面時，我們非常驚訝
地得知他們所知有關這案子的一切，居然是「從報紙上讀來的」。
This abandonment by Australia was a principal reason for the granting of
political asylum by Ecuador. As an Australian, I found this especially
shaming.
澳洲政府對阿桑吉的遺棄，也是厄瓜多政府給予阿桑吉政治庇護的主要原因。做為一名澳
洲人，我特別為之感到羞恥。
When asked about Assange recently, the current Australian prime minister,
Scott Morrison, said, “He should face the music”. This kind of thuggery,
bereft of any respect for truth and rights and the principles and law, is why
the mostly Murdoch controlled press in Australia is now worried about its own
future, as The Guardian is worried, and The New York Times is worried. Their
concern has a name: “the Assange precedent.”
最近，澳洲現任首相史考特‧莫里森（Scott Morrison）當被問到阿桑吉時，甚至說「他
必須自食惡果」。這種落井下石的惡行，完全缺乏任何對於真相、權利、原則與法律的基
本尊重，但也正是梅鐸所控制下的大部分澳洲媒體時下所擔心的己身安危的原因。《衛報
》如此，《紐約時報》也一樣，全屬一丘之貉。他們的擔心甚至有個名稱，就叫做「阿桑
吉的前車之鑑」。
They know that what happens to Assange can happen to them. The basic rights
and justice denied him can be denied to them. They have been warned. All of
us have been warned.
他們知道，發生在阿桑吉身上的事，也有可能發生在自己身上。阿桑吉被剝奪的基本權利
與正義，也有可能從他們身上奪去；他們曾被如此警告，事實上我們所有人也都面臨同樣
的威脅。
Whenever I see Julian in the grim, surreal world of Belmarsh prison, I am
reminded of the responsibility of those of us who defend him. There are
universal principles at stake in this case. He himself is fond of saying: “It
’s not me. It’s far wider.”
每當我在那陰森詭異的英國貝爾馬什監獄 (Belmarsh prison) 與阿桑吉會面時，我都不
禁會想起我們這些企圖捍衛阿桑吉的人應有的責任。阿桑吉的案件關係到的是普世原則的
淪喪。阿桑吉自己也常說：「這不是關於我。它遠遠大於我」(“It’s not me. It’s
far wider.”)。
But at the heart of this remarkable struggle – and it is, above all, a
struggle – is one human being whose character, I repeat character, has
demonstrated the most astonishing courage. I salute him.
但是，在這場驚心動魄的鬥爭中，整個奮鬥的核心，事實上卻只是一個「人」，一個活生
生的人。阿桑吉的人格--我必須再次強調，沒錯，就是他的人格，展現了最為動人的勇氣
。我要向他致敬。
This is an edited version of an address John Pilger gave at the launch in
London of In Defense of Julian Assange, an anthology published by OR Books,
New York. See also: www.dontextraditeassange.com .
本文編輯自John Pilger在倫敦的《捍衛朱立安‧阿桑吉》（In Defense of Julian
Assange；紐約 Or Books出版）新書發表會所發表的演說。
--
論述謬誤：1 轉移議題 change of subject、2 偷換概念 concept swap、3 虛假目標
strawman argument、4 人身攻擊 ad hominem、5 感性辯護 appeal to emotion、
6 關聯替代因果 correlation as causation、7 不當類比 false analogy、8 不當引申
slippery slope、9 同義反覆 circular reasoning、10 無知辯護 argument from
ignorance、11 引用權威 appeal to authority、12 黨同伐異 appeal to faction
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 129.110.242.26 (美國)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/IA/M.1581732175.A.AC1.html