Worth mentioning that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, visited Assange and described his treatment as psychological torture:
> “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.
> “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.“
That quote lacked information on who was exposing him and what that exposure actually was, so I followed your source. That source elaborates as follows:
> “In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”
Apart from the last item, that all sounds either like hyberbole ("systematic judicial persecution" -- unless he is above the justice system, that's the system at work), or self-inflicted.
If she finds his treatment report worthy she should visit almost any county jail in America and write a report. I'm seriously not being flippant. If people genuinely find this kind of treatment disturbing and inhumane then they should know it is befalling daily many of their over 2 million incarcerated American brothers and sisters.
The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too. It is one of a few aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average. Also over many decades many organizations have called out the conditions in parts of the US justice system as torture(-like).
Yeah, the "few aspects" like the prison system, healthcare, inequality, corruption, homelessness rates, freedom of the press, air pollution, crime rates, discrimination, police violence, homicide rates, unemployment benefits, social nets...
Seriously, if you all believe everywhere else in the world is so much better, why stay?
For context, I'm married to a person from a real developing country, as it's actually defined. I'm sending multiple family members to school there so they can get out.
Every single person in her family has done everything they can to get out. Every single person I know there has done everything they can to get out. Every single person they know has done everything they can to get out.
Getting out is the primary motivator for people in developing countries. Whining about the country being unfair is something that perhaps privileged children who know nothing about "developing countries" do -- other people get out.
Largely because people have roots here and it's a pain to move. What, you're supposed to quit your job, leave your extended family, sell your house and possessions, find a new job and place to live overseas, and potentially even learn an entire new language? Just to be sure you won't be tortured?
(assuming you can even find a place to take you - things are easier here for this crowd, tech skills are in-demand and usually open doors, but if you are highly skilled in working a register at K-Mart you're not going to find many countries open to you when you go to immigrate somewhere else.)
For a lot of people it's just easier to take the chance that you won't be one of the people who falls into the gears of justice. I won't even say "don't commit a crime" because (a) committing a crime is not even necessarily a requirement to end up in prison given how bad our judicial system is particularly surrounding plea deals/etc. Lots of innocent people end up in jail. And (b) virtually everyone regularly does things that are, by a strict enforcement of the US legal code, punishable by prison sentences. "3 felonies a day" is perhaps an exaggeration, but 3 felonies a month or a year is still a lot of potential legal exposure. The system relies heavily on prosecutorial discretion, which falls apart when you have prosecutors who are elected on the basis of high conviction rates instead of doing what is just.
To put it simply: 1% chance of being tortured, vs having to uproot your whole life. A lot of people will choose the 1% chance of being tortured.
It's not a 1% chance. Even if one accepts your definition of torture, people who aren't criminals are very rarely caught up in the system at all. So it's far less than 1% as long as you're simply not a criminal.
If the US were really so bad, people would leave. The people who do leave typically leave for tax purposes opposite to your belief.
I've had US police pull guns on me several times, thrown to the ground have been arrested and jailed overnight, despite not having committed a crime on any of the occasions. My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect, the whole stay in your car with you hands on the wheel, the yes sir, yes mam.
One of these times was on a late night Santa Cruz to SF drive, my friend and I got too tired to drive and slept on the beach near McNee Ranch state park, in the middle of being arrested, with five guns drawn, one officer said - this is verbatim 'That's a north face jacket, I don't think this guy is homeless. Are you Homeless?' and just like that I was restored to full white privileges and the arrest was off.
I don't think changing law enforcement is easy, I believe law enforcement reflects the power relationships of society - you won't change law enforcement with out changing the society in which it exists.
I love California, it broke my heart to leave, I'll never really know if I made the right decision, and I'm pretty sure if I didn't have four kids I'd be back there.
>My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect
Either you are a slow learner, or you make a point to be a smartass with cops.
Do you think it's specific to American cops? Maybe try that with Algerian or Brazilian cops and see how things turn out for you.
You use the phrase, “smart arse with cops”
My take is that not having been raised in the US, I treated them respectfully, but without subservience, and expected mutual respect. In Eastern Europe I’m fine, I accept that i’ve chosen to travel through a broken kleptocracy, and that the cops are gangsters. I’m not willing to accept the same in a democracy, I don’t pretend that any democracy meets the standards we would like them to, but I remain committed to holding ground on the advances we have made and hoping for more with each generation
This feels like conversation that could get personal and nasty quick. I don’t want that to happen, I get your point, if a problem is avoidable and you don’t avoid it, you’ve got to question why.
And do I really fail to submit out of democratic integrity or am I just stubborn? Honestly I don’t know.
Also I want to tell you about my friend, who when instructed to address Detroit police as ‘sir’ replied ‘I struggle to believe her majesty has granted you a knighthood’
He’s stubborn - he’s also ridiculously smart and charismatic, enough to talk his way out of a beatdown most of the time
Years ago while making a regular six mile hike home from a low paying job I was regularly harassed by law enforcement who would stop me and hold me for no reason while "running my ID"
I was asked if a bag of teriyaki beef jerky in its original packaging, the edge of which was sticking out of my pocket was drugs.
Eventually I was arrested for saying fuck off while walking away. I was charged, appealed eventually rejected because half of America does not actually have any rights at all unless you have thousands of dollars and if you need that money to buy medicine or pay rent you are fucked.
Then there is the time I was almost arrested by virtue of helping a black man move a couch from his own home because burglers always leave the electronics and jewelry and take the giant furniture.
I'd keep going but the other abuses are more personal.
Your perspective is based on being well off and white.
Around 5% of the US population go to jail at least once in their life. And 0.69% are currently jailed (0.075% in Germany).
Since it is harder to _simply not be a criminal_ and prisons there are proven not to fulfill their role,
maybe OP simply wishes that this aspect of the country would improve. I don't think he/she was whining, or even saying that everything in the country terrible.
Mobility is really restricted to the top half of people. Yeah, it's not so bad as to cause mass refugee exodus, but that's a very low bar to aim for. We can and should do better.
As someone who did (US citizen now resident in the UK), it's a very difficult and expensive process. Most countries require you to have a visa sponsorship which basically means you are highly skilled enough that a company there is willing to pay a lot of fees and demonstrate to the government that they tried but couldn't find a local with your skillset. Once you've got that, it's also a lot of money on your part to get a visa, pay immigration lawyers, accountants, etc. You need money for that, a good chunk of cash up front for an apartment (first, last, security deposit, brokers fees, we had to add in a few months of rent up front because we didn't have a credit score in the UK), and a million other things. All made way more complicated because you probably don't have a bank account in the country, so everything is happening via international wire transfers.
It also happens that I don't have children or family members that need me to care for them, etc. It would get significantly harder if I had to deal with that (though I did move a cat internationally, which was not trivial).
The irony of course is that having the privilege for all that (cash reserves, highly employable skillset, etc) means that most of the problems in the US don't actually affect you as much as others. The people who are getting screwed the worst by the terrible systems in the US are in no position to extract themselves.
I have never understood this viewpoint of, "If you find fault with country X, then leave!" Sometimes it's applied to companies, tools, etc., too: "If you find fault with Y, then stop using it!"
Can you explain this to me? It seems like an extreme way to live that would preclude anyone from living anywhere that's not perfect or using anything that's not perfect. (And nothing is perfect.)
Why not just address the criticisms individually, rather than arbitrarily bundling them into a person's decision on where to live and what to use?
All of your family is there. All your friends are there. All that you own is there. All that you've ever known is there. You may not know any other language than your native one.
You: "Why don't you just move?"
This really sounds like saying "Cheer up!" to a person suffering from depression.
No, it doesn't. I know people from developing countries. I'm married to one. Universally, every single one of them wants to get the fuck out, and they do everything in their power to get out.
That's reality in a developing country.
The US is not in any way like a developing country. Comparing it to one is an act of such entitled privileged whining it's absurd.
> No, it doesn't. I know people from developing countries. I'm married to one. Universally, every single one of them wants to get the fuck out, and they do everything in their power to get out.
> That's reality in a developing country.
> The US is not in any way like a developing country. Comparing it to one is an act of such entitled privileged whining it's absurd.
I think you just argued against your own point?
1) You're saying that people from developing countries are desperate to get out. (I have no issue with this claim.)
2) Then you say: the US is not like a developing country.
The post of yours that I responded to effectively says to US citizens "why don't you just move?".
I'll note that: Point 2 (as stated by you!) means that the entirety of point 1 is completely irrelevant if you want to argue against what I said.
I didn't say that it was a developing country, I listed, as the parent commenter said, "aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average".
> Comparing it to one is an act of such entitled privileged whining it's absurd.
But apart from the holier than though putdowns, are the comparisons valid?
Because you’d make a much better comment chain with “the comparisons are invalid because XYZ” than “you’re entitled and whiny and I know people who suffer more”
The US is a big place. Not all of it is paradise. I've heard foreign exchange students from countries like Russia, placed in rural communities like Wyoming or Nebraska, describe the conditions back home as better than where they are placed in the US. I've read books describing the Chicago projects at the height of their badness and then visiting some of the poorest cities in Latin America and seeing parallels.
The US is rich, sure, but that wealth is very heavily concentrated along coastal and border states. Saying the US is "nothing" like a developing country would be a false statement as it doesn't take into account the sheer contrast of livelihoods that we have here.
I live in New Zealand with family in the UK. I have spent the last 10 years flying the other way around the planet instead of via LA because the airports are worse than places like Malaysia.
I can't speak to living in the USA but I have lived in Milawe and Fiji, and honestly being poor is definitely bad but some of the stuff happening in the US is a whole other kind of dystopian terrifying.
Is LAX really that bad? I haven't been there in years, but this seems a bit egregious. What terrifies you? The long lines at the bathroom? The food court selection? The lack of charging ports?
How about having to check out your luggage, go through security, and check it back in, even when you are just transiting on the way to Europe.
Fly through a big Asian hub and you have none of that BS, modern clean efficient airports with working toilets that can actually flush and better food.
What really put us off was arriving after a long haul to a queue that filled the immigration hall, then proceeding to wait for two hours while the three desks (out of about 12) tried to process about three flights worth of people. That and the shoes thing, most other places don't have that.
It all may have changed, but until I hear otherwise (or that the TSA have decided to calm down) I'm happy with my choice.
Edit: As the other comment mentioned, this was also all just for a flight transfer.
Somewhere around the twin cities a guy from the TSA is wearing my boots. Try buying shoes at 06:30 in the morning... Last time I ever flew to/through the USA.
The experience of entering the US is pretty embarrassing compared to most modern countries. From what I've seen, it's significantly more ridiculous for non-citizens.
In most of Europe, one scans their passport, has their photo taken, and may need to tell a border guard why they're visiting. It takes less than five minutes, even for the former Soviet Union country I visited earlier this year.
If one is traveling to the US from Dublin, there's a sort of franchise of the USA wing of the airport that's quarantined off from everything else, where one has to go through another slow baggage inspection/body scan, even though the Irish Airport staff have already conducted identical inspection/scanning on every passenger there. Then there's a ~1-hour line (looked about twice as long for non-citizens) to wait to be grilled by customs and immigration. Total overhead for me was ~3 hours once I got to the airport there.
When flying in to Seatac, the CBP staff (the first representatives of the US that one talks to, in order to discuss anything being brought along) are all super-muscular giants dressed in full body armour, for maximum intimidation.
As A US citizen, it's embarrassing that our country treats visitors this way. I wouldn't visit if I were from outside the country either, which is almost certainly one of the goals - discourage foreigners from visiting, and discourage citizens from seeing what it's like anywhere else.
Airports and customs are the face of a nation to most of the travelers that visit, the first point of contact and as such they leave a lasting impression. Think of them as ambassadors. If that first experience is a bad one that will reflect on what people think about the rest of the country.
Well, not quite. I also spent some time in LA on a different trip. It was a while ago (so not an adult perspective) but mostly I remember walking through carparks and hundreds of channels with nothing to watch. Seattle was a bit nicer as a place.
I would like to go back some time, just not right now.
Because I’m able to survive just fine in America, and I was born here and I am committed to doing my best to help.
American is a combination of a first world country and a third world country under one government. Which one you are born into is a roll of the dice. People travel between the two, but one of them is not shrinking as fast as it should.
The fact that I can point at that doesn’t make me want to move to Sweden, it makes me want to work harder to take care of my neighbors and to change our political climate.
>Seriously, if you all believe everywhere else in the world is so much better, why stay?
Right, because should an American decide that they like country X more, they can just move to country X, which is waiting for them with open arms.
Like, anyone could be Swedish, right?
Immigration is an easy-peasy thing; who can possibly find it difficult to get a job overseas, learn a language, leave family and friends behind, get an entire new social and support network, lose a ton of money and/or most of your possessions in an overseas move (re-purchasing is often cheaper, but costs a ton either way), jump through a thousand bureaucratic hoops, all with no guarantee of actually having long-term prospects in the country paper-wise.
That's, of course, assuming that no American has crippling debt that would effectively prevent them from going somewhere where people can comfortably live on a smaller salary (since their education and healthcare are free).
No sirree, not a problem at all. Love it or leave it, and when you do, don't come back, just get another citizenship somewhere. Somehow. Should be easy, right?
Also, nobody in their right mind would think to criticize some aspects of a country (healthcare, justice system, etc), while enjoying some others (opportunities as a software developer) that make it worth it to be here. Not even immigrants.
Tell you what, even in 90-s Ukraine, one wouldn't think much about calling an ambulance if someone was real sick. And I wasn't afraid of the cops there. They were corrupt, but predictable; worst case, you have to bribe them. Police shooting unarmed civilians was unheard of. I don't think I've even seen a gun before I moved to the US.
People from actual developing countries leave all the time. They put in the effort to learn the language, they do what they have to do. They don't have any significant amount of possessions -- that's one of the hallmarks of a real developing country.
You're speaking from a position of such great privilege that you don't even have a frame of reference to accurately talk about a developing country. They're leaving because they would rather make 500 dollars a month working 20 hours a day at three jobs in Dubai than make 2-5 dollars a month working 20 hours a day at subsistence farming or worse, and they're often doing it so they can support those back home who don't have the skills to find sponsorship to work abroad.
They learn a skill that will let them leave, or they find an agency that is hiring people to work abroad. I know plenty of people who have left their country to find jobs elsewhere -- many of them in the US, many in Japan. Any good nurse from southeast Asia who wants a job can usually get sponsored to come to the US -- there are other professions as well, some in the US and some elsewhere.
Dude. I come from Ukraine, it is literally a developing country[1][2], look up the meaning of the word. It does not mean "shithole". The list includes Turkey and Brazil, for that matter.
And sure, the conditions you describe are unimaginable there. But there's more to the world than the Glorious USA and subsistence farming at $5/month.
You are setting the bar waaaaaay too low. There are many shades out there. There are plenty of countries where the opportunities are much more scarce than in the US, but which nevertheless got a lot of things right that the US got wrong.
And you can make your own "real developing country" definition, just don't expect others to know it. Probably for the best to just name the country you have in mind.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means[1]. Maybe that's why a lot of people are confused about what you are trying to say.
Perhaps you mean "least developed countries"[2]? That's beside the point, however.
The point is, making up definitions and using the equivalent of "love it or leave it" when it comes to talking about the US won't get you far in terms of getting any point across.
I do not care one whit what Wikipedia has to say about anything. It's not a useful source of information.
And I didn't say "love it or leave it", I asked a question. People who hate where they are, complain about it incessantly, compare it to things they've never experienced in order to denigrate it absurdly, cons the fuck out of me with why they stay.
If your car gets a flat every other day, the driver's seat is stuck in the reclined position, it's constantly trying to steer you off the road, and the heater doesn't work, then maybe it's time to give up on fixing it and buy a new car.
It's pushing the analogy, but there are a finite amount of car materials in the world, and at some point you will have to start to recycle even the rusted out junkers if you want to drive. People fixing their country is something that's going to have to start happening eventually.
Cars are already made of recycled materials, especially steel and aluminum. But metals in old cars are melted down in foundries and reconstituted to the proper alloys before being used in new cars; they're just used-as is.
To go back to this analogy, that's basically like completely eliminating the government and creating an all-new one from a blank slate. I don't think you were thinking of doing anything that extreme.
And historically speaking, the only time this happens is usually after a major war when a country loses and becomes occupied by another power (Germany & Japan, WWII), or after a bloody revolution (Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, French Revolution in France). #1 is pretty much impossible here, and #2 is not something I want to be around to witness. The most likely outcome is something much more like #3: the fall of Rome, but on a much shorter timescale. That isn't something I want to witness either.
I'd rather work on making my home country better—especially since I have the means to not be personally affected by so many of the injustices that can make it shitty for others.
Because whatever other faults the US has, there is still a high degree of free speech protection here. And any citizen of America is still free to promote their thoughts of what would make our nation a better union. If they desire, through criticism of what makes us an imperfect union.
Some people might even consider that act patriotic or a duty of a citizen to do so.
The US respects the rights people have, and the US gives tremendous opportunity. Is it perfect? Of course not. Are there issues that need to be addressed? Of course there are.
But to compare the US to a developing country is simply profoundly ignorant and a display of such privilege that it shows one simply can't even fathom what a developing country actually is.
I've been there. I've been all over the US, I've volunteered in homeless shelters in the US, I've travelled extensively in southeast Asia. The homeless in the US would be considered extravagantly wealthy in many places in southeast Asia. Southwest Asia too, I've been deployed there more than once.
The US is not a developing country or anything near it. We're the premiere first world country, and we provide opportunity beyond the wildest dreams many people worldwide can ever imagine. That's why the people in real developing countries generally want to come here.
> The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too.
Many of the world's most dangerous countries and most brutal justice systems are in Latin America. The US looks bad from a northern European perspective, but it's far from the worst in the West.
Off-hand I wouldn't consider Latin America in general a part of the West, not in the same way the US or Europe are. Not-so-off-hand it seems like whether Latin America is part of the Western world or something else, that "just happens" to be strongly influenced by it, is pretty open for debate.
That's not what s/he said. The quote is "most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too. It is one of a few aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average."
So it says that it is the worst in the west (a term that usually does not include south/central america, even though they are west on a map), and that it is closer to a third world country than many in the west.
From my casual reading that seems pretty much on point.
The justice system does not just mean the prison system, it encompasses laws, police, courts, correctional facilities, some portions of mental health treatment.
If we are bringing up the freedoms enjoyed by citizens in different countries I'd also point out that how the constitution is interpreted seems pretty arbitrary over time depending on who is in the supreme court and what the political climate is. As an example I'm not even sure how solitary confinement can not be considered a "cruel and unusual punishment" under the eighth amendment. I don't get how NSA data collection is not a impacting the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" of Fourth Amendment. The second amendment seems pretty cut-and-dry in the text that any American should be allowed to have a rocket launcher and that background checks are illegal. I'd hate for that to come true, but if you are following the principle that the constitution supersedes all lower law then it seems logical.
Most western democracies seem to have similar freedoms and similar guarantees that the government will follow similarly given that they are also enshrined in law.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but when I hear americans talk about their freedoms they seem to talk in absolutes, but in practice it's no more free or secure than similar freedoms given by laws in many other western countries.
Amendment 1: Why is "In God We Trust" on our money?
Amendment 3: The only time it ever was litigated (in Engblom v. Carey) the government won because a bureaucrat cannot be faulted for not knowing such an obscure law.
Amendment 4: Have you seen what the NSA is doing? Also "unreasonable search and seizure" is, under the doctrine of civil forfeiture, perfectly permissible as long as it is your assets being sued and not you.
Amendment 6: Our out of control plea bargaining system makes a joke out of "fair trial".
Amendment 7: The point of a jury trial is that the jury can choose not to enforce a bad law. The legal system misinforms jurors about this to keep jury trial from being meaningful.
Amendment 8: The overuse of solitary confinement, recognized the world over as a form of torture, certainly qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment". I don't see that the USA has kept the spirit of this one!
Amendment 10: I'm guessing that you are not familiar with the massive growth of power of the government due to the systemic misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause starting in the 1930s. But the ability of the federal government to regulate local workplaces was not intended by anyone.
It is easy to wave a phrase like "our Constitutionally protected rights" around and believe that things are OK. But if you actually pay attention, you'll find that that Constitution has been a lot less protection than most Americans believe it has.
> Amendment 7: The point of a jury trial is that the jury can choose not to enforce a bad law. The legal system misinforms jurors about this to keep jury trial from being meaningful.
I lean in favor of the practice of jury nullification, but I can't see how you can make the argument that juries exist expressly to judge good vs bad laws.
I say it because the historical debate on the 7th amendment centered on jury nullification. People from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Jefferson cited the fact that juries could refuse to convict under bad laws as a final defense against unjust government.
You're straining pretty hard for several of these examples, and/or hitting far wide of the mark.
Relative to religious oppression in numerous countries (Uighurs in China, current news, any apostasy (alternate religions, atheism) in several countries, religiously-linked laws again in numerous jurisdictions), a phrase on currency, whilst strictly clearly in conflict with the amendment, is fairly low stakes. The de facto religious tests for officeholders in much of the US would be a better example.
Amendment 3 is tested so infrequently largely on account that the practices it defends against simply are not practiced except by very remote, very rare parallels. (There was a more recent case in Nevada several years ago, though ultimately the principle wasn't tested.)
I'd disagree on the 10th / commerce clause in that the effects of commerce are highly externalised. There's little way to reconcile the conflict here.
I'd be more willing to go with your 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th examples, though even in the case of the 8th, what's now considered "cruel and unusual" differs widely from what was seen as such in the 1780s.
More generally, circumstances have changed (and judicial interpretation is so conservative) that many of the concerns of the late 18th century translate poorly to the early 21st.
I'd also argue that it's a distributed set of concerns, and capacity to act on account of those, which almost certainly matters more than words on paper (or velum), no matter how revered.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Stop preaching fake constitutionalism. You don't understand what you're talking about. Congress isn't establishing a federal religion by putting "In God We Trust" on money. This edgy internet atheism is getting old.
It's illogical to call a hundred year old concern, one taken up by no less than President Theodore Roosevelt, "Internet".
Let's be clear:
The judicial interpretation is that "In God We Trust" is acceptable only because it is meaningless, despite the fact that it was clearly meaningful to the people who decided to use it, and despite that fact that this supposedly meaningless motto is used in thousands of little ways to mistreat atheists across the country.
It's not as clear-cut as you think. Venezuela was the first country to abolish the death penalty, and it's still gone. The United States still willingly, and gleefully in some cases, executes citizens. For non-citizens, whether you get justice or not is a toss-up.
We have three types of penal systems here in the United States: the actual court system, the unconstitutional-yet-protected-in-court 100-miles-from-the-border Constitution-exemption zone that contains two thirds of the US population (and a large portion of the country's non-citizens),[1-2] and the unconstitutional-yet-barred-from-being-contested-in-court intelligence agencies.[3-5] It's hard to claim that you're doing that much better when you're only so far from Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or one of the other hundreds of black sites. Worst is when these systems mix, but it happens more and more often now.[6]
[1-2 I realized this is a weird claim, but it's true, and here are two of the outlets furthest from one another politically claiming it's true to give evidence that it is]
Are you seriously confused about what they meant by "worst in the West"?
What do you expect, a pat on the back for not being as bad as those?
Prisons are meant as a way to take people's freedom away for some amount of time, not to sneak in extra corporeal punishment by making them as shitty as possible. What is happening in the US is definitely the latter, and what's worse, many people seem to cheer for it.
> The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West ...
This suggests a terminology issue -- we have the same problem here in Australia.
If you assume the system is intended to mete out justice, little of it will make sense.
If you think of it as a legal system, and consider it's working precisely as its benefactors & maintainers want, the arrangement makes much more sense.
The United Nations has criticized the US for it's treatment of prisoners in the past, the US just ignores them. It is worth noting that the two million incarcerated are serving sentences for crimes they were convicted of, making it marginally less horrible than Assange's situation.
Assange's living conditions were entirely self inflicted. He could have surrendered himself to the Swedish authorities, undergone a trial and had he served time would have spent time in a prison system known for its humane treatment and low recidivism rates: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/26/prison-swede...
I am of course assuming that he wouldn't be extradited to the US, in which case not surrendering was the correct choice.
I am not making that assumption, only pointing out that my argument hinges on that being the case and concede that if he does get extradited it was smarter from his perspective to be a fugitive.
Except this whole subthread started over a remark that what he went through wasn't as bad as how the US treats people in its jails.
Which was still bad enough to deserve a written condemnation from the UN.
The US simply ignores all these reports by various international oversight organisations such as the UN, or the ICC (there are strictly per definition no war criminals among US citizens isn't that great).
So yeah, ending up there, especially after you pissed them off, is something to be avoided at all costs.
Doesn't mean that someone is deserving of any and all treatment that is strictly "not as bad" (because that's a pretty friggin low bar).
Not necessarily. If the UK refuses the request, they likely would have accepted the request from Sweden, and Sweden may have then turned him over to the US.
To point made above, yes, it's just Federal, but the Federal stance on this could influence states to follow suit, especially since it had bipartisan support...a precious commodity in public policy these days.
> If she finds his treatment report worthy she should visit almost any county jail in America and write a report. I'm seriously not being flippant. If people genuinely find this kind of treatment disturbing and inhumane then they should know it is befalling daily many of their over 2 million incarcerated American brothers and sisters.
Did you miss the part where Assange went through all this trouble to not go to Sweden because there was the POSSIBILITY of him being extradited to the US end ending up in that prison system?
Yes he could have also done nothing and run the very real risk of ultimately getting the worst treatment that you enact upon your brothers and sisters. But that is the whole thing he was trying to avoid.
If in the process of that, he was exposed to "severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture", which MAY or MAY NOT be worse than the US prison system (which is a pretty low bar to clear and pretty bad either way), then yeah he pretty certainly has a case to be made in the parts of the world where we pretend to treat human beings with dignity.
The entire point was to not end up in the clutches of the US, so if your point was "if you think that's bad, look at the US", then here's a big WELL DUH for you ...
It is my understanding that the USA has been repeatedly admonished for their relationship with torture (prison system, off shore detainment centers, waterboarding, guantanamo, abu ghraib, the recent issues at the border with refugees, etc).
Yes, American jails and prisons are terrible. Also the fact that 2% of your adult population is in there.
IMHO you should all be ashamed. The very fact that even in a normal adult conversation, an American can gleefully make a remark about anal rape and how they wish it upon whatever criminal. Sexual violence in your prison system has become so normalized that it's gotten its own little disgusting euphemism in your language: "pick up the soap". Even in polite company, use that little phrase and it's suddenly a-okay to joke about rape.
It's very simple. If it's that normal, that expected, that people in prison become victims of sexual violence. Then that is what you're sentencing them to. Which is corporeal punishment. Which is barbaric.
So think about that next time someone jokes about someone going to "federal pound em in the ass prison", what they are in fact advocating is that they deserve corporeal punishment by anal rape. There's something to be said about the countries where they give you beatings or lashings, they do it publicly so at least it functions as a deterrent. You hide it and pretend it's a joke because lol buttrape.
So no, don't EVER bring up the American prison/jail system as some sort of "example" for how to treat criminals .. and maybe check yourself if you DON'T find it disturbing and inhumane.
From what I've heard, the US prison system is indeed inhuman, and torture (solitary isolation, etc) is common. Many people inside and outside the US criticise it and call for reform.
I found most of the comment fine except for the part
...brothers and sisters
which feels like it was designed to evoke some emotion/strong response.
I assume most of us would prefer them (brothers and sisters) be there, tucked away from the vicinity of family members?
and "tucked away" seems to evoke the idea that you actually treat them humanely, which you don't. which is the topic of discussion here. not the part where you take their freedom to keep them away from society, which the civilized countries also do.
Those who cause the innocent to suffer deserve vengeance and suffering. Why are we so concerned about the comfort of people who, the majority of the time, are in prison for violent crime?
Before someone brings up "muh drugs" and only cites stats from federal prisons...
"In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due to parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[44] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[44]"
Because vengeance as a central tenet in justice systems is straight from the Hammurabi code and unfit for the modern world. If your source is the Bible, I'll agree to disagree.
If you want a legal system that treats citizens fairly, you want one focused on rehabilitation. Locking someone up simply doesn't accomplish that goal. Dehumanising prisoners doesn't either.
What's more, crime is a proxy for socio-economic status, which given the greater inequality in the US, partly explains the disparity with other developed nations.
> Those who cause the innocent to suffer deserve vengeance and suffering. Why are we so concerned about the comfort of people who, the majority of the time, are in prison for violent crime?
My understanding is that vengeance and suffering are not good teachers and once the vengeance is exacted and the suffering is complete, the criminal comes and and causes more suffering to the innocent.
If this is true, then by arguing for harsh treatment for criminals, you're arguing for a state of affairs in which more innocent suffer.
If causing the innocent to suffer is so bad, then maybe we should be making policy that reduces it.
The charges from Sweden have been dropped and bought several times depending on their usefulness to the Americans it is not a case of the system working as intended.
It is a foreign power putting diplomatic pressure on the Swedish government to put pressure on a man who has embarrassed them.
Yup, very convenient that the pseudo-charges (He was never formally charged) were maintained for ten years, but as soon as they complicate extradition to the US they get dropped.
It's not the only thing in the Assange case which is blatantly political persecution. You got to wonder how most of the press can keep pretending it's not.
My understanding is that Sweden under no circumstances would have been able to extradite him to the US, and certainly not with less difficulty than extradition from the UK.
The fact that Assange fled Sweden for the UK, skipped bail, and then concocted a Swedish conspiracy theory is a bit on the implausible side.
>He was never formally charged
My understanding is that the Swedish system does not allow formal charges in abstentia.
I actively try to avoid anything that look like a conspiracy, but when I read the news that the prosecutor was going to make a statement my first thought was that it would be very convenient for the US if Sweden dropped the case. And then the actually statement came out and they dropped it.
And in this case, William Barr really doesn't want Assange here, in order to protect his client, Donald J. Trump. And that's why we will not see the extradition to the United States while the Justice Department has been essentially neutered by, what would you call it? Deep State?
I'm more inclined to think Trump's impeachment will be well timed to the date of Assange's extradition. The three letter agencies can live with an erratic president, but not one that might pardon or otherwise protect Assange. (Barr will eventually side with them, not Trump)
I think you don't know how impeachment works. Trump will not be removed from office, no matter what the lower house of the US government happens to do.
The Senate would have to have 67 votes in a majority republican controlled body to remove him. That simply will not happen -- even in the House, which is politically far more independent, the Democratic Party was not able to get a single Republican vote, and even had defectors from their own party just to authorize the proceedings at all.
You can't win an impeachment trial without broad bipartisan support, and there is exactly zero bipartisan support for this proceeding.
Nixon also had a whole lot of things going for him, he was hardly an unpopular president and the watergate scandal is sort of ridiculous with hindsight because he won re-election by a wide margin. The 1968 election was close and he likely would have lost if not for the trainwreck that was Wallace, but in 1972 he absolutely trounced McGovern.
Nixon was a generally popular president and it took a long time for his support to start slipping. His famous line "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got." wasn't nearly as in poor taste as it seems in hindsight.
I agree, though it is worth remembering that Nixon had strong GOP support right up until the day he did not. Trump is safe now (though I figure the odds of him being impeached are 100%) but if anything comes out that seriously deteriorates the support of the base, the Senate can change gears very quickly.
Yeah I don't see how the trial will go through, there is no way they get 67 votes in the senate. He would have to literally walk up and shoot a nun in the face on camera before those Republicans would budge, they've already made up their mind he's forgiven for (almost) any crimes while he's in office.
Some of them have already said they'd be fine with him shooting someone in broad daylight on a NYC street, and think that this isn't an impeachable offense.
That's hyperbole though. they're just showing that they are trumpers until something ridiculous like that happens. I'm sure there are some zealots but 99% of them would not be cool with him murdering someone in cold blood.
It's not hyperbole, this is directly from Congressional Republicans. They believe that "executive immunity" means the President can commit whatever crimes he wants in office, and is immune from prosecution until his term is over.
I don't know how to respond to this. UN experts on human rights have looked into his situation and been quite alarmed by it. I can't think of a group of people more respected in the field of human rights than the experts at the UN. And yet there are commenters here on HN who, I don't know on what basis, write that it's all mostly "hyperbole".
It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges.
And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way.
So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question remains who tortured him. For a long time, by his own choice, it was only the Ecuadorian embassy that had access to him.
This talking point had been soundly debunked. Sweden kept up the threat of charges and demand for extradition for nearly ten years, but dropped them like a hot potato when the US charges became public (when Sweden's charges would only get in their way).
Never mind that Assange was ridiculed for most of those ten years for claiming that US would seek his extradition.
His understanding of the world, including the assessment that Sweden is extremely servile to the US in security/foreign policy matters, has been vindicated again and again.
While I don't disagree, the crowd is fickle and has at best a short attention span. He would have been better served to face the charges while it was all going on and he had the crowds attention. He is in a far worse position now, given that attentions and the world have moved on. The US can pretty much railroad him and no one will bat an eye. Whereas before they risked making a martyr.
He was just wanted for "inquiry" about the possible case. And some details of the case are here described, by the woman in whose apartment he slept, as organized by her:
"The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing."
"When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom."
Then, another miss "Miss W" some days later:
"However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom"." ... "Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no."
"In submissions to the Swedish courts, (Assange and his lawyers) have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep"."
The job of the judicial system is to treat all citizen the same. Everyone should be judged equally under the hand of the law.
The Assange case got uniquely handled in every single step. Even a court found that the prosecutor mishandled the case. Proportionally the case used more money than any other case, used stronger legal method than any other case, and did not follow the judicial rules that all cases should follow.
Journalists has asked the prosecutor if the case had a high likelihood to find Assange guilty even without any witnesses. The answer that was consistently given before the US extradition request was yes, the case looked good in the eye of the prosecutor, years in and years out. Now, all suddenly, the answer is no. Now all the sudden the prosecutor say it is hard to convict someone without witnesses.
The behavior demonstrated by the prosecutor is one of a politician system. It gave special attention. It swings with the political winds. Being the targeted of that is torture.
> "arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation"
Not only hyperbole, but it's entirely self-imposed. He wasn't confined to the embassy, he chose to stay there rather than face trial. He chose "deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over defending himself against the accusations.
His actions are entirely undemocratic. Sweden and the US have both democratically built a system of justice that we all agree to subject ourselves to. He decided to evade that system to serve his own self-interest. What about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim? Do they only have the right to their day in court if the accused is ok with it?
From the moment he was removed from the embassy and locked in jail the Swedish prosecutor lost all interest to continue the case, and by a coincident the US extradition order came in.
That is how much anyone cared about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim.
A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.
Just to be clear, 1600 of my coworkers are journalists, so I'm pretty confident in my support for journalists creds. Assange is not a journalist. Journalists don't encourage sources to break into classified systems and absolutely don't help them with it. When journalists get a stack of classified military docs, they don't indiscriminately release them to the public, they negotiate with the WH/DOD to avoid jeopardizing national security, weigh the public interest, and remove names to avoid putting people's lives at risk. See https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html.... If you visited a newsroom, you might be surprised to find out that the overwhelming majority of journalists don't support Assange and his "I'm a journalist" defense.
What you write is a strong condemnation of the sorry state of journalism in America.
The New York Times withheld the story about Bush' illegal wiretapping program for a year, helping Bush secure reelection in 2004. They did so on flimsy "national security" grounds. The only grudgingly published the story when the journalist who had uncovered it threatened to publish it on his own. Some American news media is far too cozy with government. If they support the persecution of one of the most important journalists of our time, they're a truly rotten bunch.
What trial was he to face? Sweden hadn't charged him with anything. They wanted to interview him as a witness, against himself essentially, so they could use what he said against him if (not when) they might have actually charged him in the future. He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy.
This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
I don't know why you don't think a trial doesn't carry seriously negative and scary connotations, but it does and no rational person just subjects themselves to persecution.
I agree that standing trial for rape must be terrifying, but that doesn't mean he's being persecuted. We've agreed upon a system of justice that best protects the rights of both the accuser and the accused, and he decided to deny the alleged victim their day in court. He was free to leave the embassy, he was free to defend himself from humiliation, but he chose not to.
Why would you think that? He helped putting light on war crimes and got the obvious political prosecution. I don't think downplaying this fact is in any way adequate. And I don't think this is hyperbole at all if you look at the big picture.
Another take, with no more or less evidence as far as I can tell: He essentially had no choice, as it was obvious he was going to be railroaded at any trial, and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.
> and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.
From Sweden?
He fled Sweden, which has stronger protections against extradition, for the UK which has weaker protections. Had he been extradited from the UK to Sweden, further extradition to the US would have been prohibited.
He hasn't been extradited from anywhere to anywhere. He's still serving time in prison for jumping bail, and he will have a chance to argue against his extradition to the US early next year. If he does lose his extradition battle and does get sent to the US, he will have a further opportunity to defend himself against the crimes that he is accused of committing there.
In other words, the legal avenues that the moron could have availed himself of a decade ago are now open to him.
If anyone thinks that Assange was ever in danger of being extraordinarily renditioned to the US from Sweden then they need to consider that a decade ago he was high-profile enough for the Ecuadorians to stick their necks out for him.
There's a good chance that Swedish prison conditions are not particularly harsh, as prisons go (Never having experienced the inside of one, I must admit).
What makes you think making up charges and constantly threatening to destroy you are not extremely stressful. He has a family too that he's been unable to see properly for a long while.
Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?
Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone an Australian citizen.
That might make sense if one believed they were accused of fake charges by a private person, and are to be judged by an impartial legal system.
It makes no sense if one believes that they were accused of fake charges based on political pressure and are to be judged on a rigged legal system.
It would be like if J.E.Hoover had his eyes on you, had his police build some BS charges, and made sure (whether by police planting evidence, fake testimonies, etc or by having his judge pals on the case too) you'll be convicted.
Would you take your chances to have the case judged?
...except Assange would have been transferred to America to stand trial over Wikileaks before he would even have a chance to stand trial over the rape accusations.
I don't think there was an extradition request from the US, was there? Only one from Sweden. And it's very unlikely that Sweden would extradite him to the US for this. They value the free press, but take rape very seriously.
The plan was to get him to the US all along, unless you want to believe it was a coincidence that Sweden kept up the request for ten years but dropped it the minute it got in the way of extradition to the US.
As to why Sweden, who knows why they thought that would be preferable. Maybe just to smear his reputation a bit, to soften the protest at the treatment they want to give him? Very successful if so.
But either way, you're talking about the people who forced down the Bolivian president's plane because they thought Snowden might be hiding in it. When they say "the law only matters when the outcome doesn't", this would be an example of a case where the outcome (stop Wikileaks) mattered.
He know sthat there is little justice in the US system. It's not like he's going to a cushy Scandinavian prison. He will be going to max security federal prison with hardened criminals who will likely beat him to death or shank him.
He didn't fear the charges, he feared the extradition - and that's exactly what happened - Sweden dropped the charges anyway, but he ended-up being extradited.
It is still a choice he could make (and did), which is more than many have.
It is great that people are speaking up about the conditions under which people are punished and the no-win games that put them there. I only wish people could do so when it isn't some high-profile person.
Do you have a source to disprove or challenge the UN's definition of torture?
Solitary confinement is often used during war. That Assange is incarcerated in a civilian prison doesn't necessarily diminish or change the effectiveness and impact.
An American dismissing a UN special rapport about torture. ... I really can't fathom why people would go through such extreme lengths to avoid getting extradited there ... /s
Melzer: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool."
In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention":
> In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.
> The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
> The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds
He fled justice to hide in an embassy. He was fully free to leave, and should have faced justice from the start. Fugitives from justice do not enjoy pleasant conditions - that's not a strike against liberty, but a necessary condition of the rule of law.
I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to assess whether Assange's human rights have been violated than experts on the topic at the UN who've spent considerable time looking into his situation.
Appealing to authority is a lot less persuasive when it's a non-binding report from a minor working group. I read their account. It was poorly argued and inconsistent. Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?
The report assumes a priori that an extradition threat was real, now we see Trump's DOJ did eventually file one, but he was hiding in the Embassy for years on a false pretext of an imaginary extradition to avoid facing rape charges. The rights of the rape victims to see justice weren't addressed or considered. The question of whether Assange was fleeing justice for rape wasn't ever seriously addressed but just waved away.
The moment Assange was dragged out of the embassy, there was an extradition request from the United States. Assange was clearly correct about what would happen, and all the people who laughed off the threat of extradition to the US look pretty silly now.
The only indictment that there is evidence for is from 2017 under the Trump DoJ, 5 years after he fled justice to the embassy. Assange made up a story about a fictional sealed indictment when he fled justice. He just did such a poor job fleeing justice that he wound up with a sealed indictment for criminal behavior he engaged in after he'd moved into the embassy.
In the context of all the other times when the US got reported for human rights abuse, I think it's pretty damn persuasive. Just because the US ignores all those special UN reports, doesn't mean the rest of the world does...
It's funny that when it comes to Assange, suddenly the UN group's findings become "non-binding". Did you read what they had to say about it?
> The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
> The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.
Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group:
> The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.
> Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.
You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?"
What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?
I find it remarkable that so many here feel they are in a better position to make judgements on the validity of an indictment than the justice systems involved.
Here I thought legal factfinding was the purview of a courtroom, rather than the court of public opinion.
Free to leave to where? Solitary confinement in a UK prison for publishing embarrassing information? Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with you there.
23 hours involuntary solitary confinement is legit confirmed psychological torture. Self-inflicting that is either self-harm or else you are doing meaningful activities indoors and it's not the same thing at all.
Are you spending the other 23 hours sleeping or standing? Because that’s what solitary confinement is. You get to do nothing but sleep, walk around, or use the toilet.
Well I don't know about Sweden but the UK is falling into mass surveillance of its own population, and the US is already there and on top of that engages in wars without any form of Congress approval for a while now, and jails people for non-violent drug possession still. I guess Freedom is relative.
It was the threat of being deported to a country that has the death penalty and routinely torchers people for years without trial; If you honestly can't imagine being stressed about that then you are just not trying.
That's just your world view and western conditioning. I don't know what you mean by "free country" or what that has to do with state actors persecuting another political actor. Help me understand. I don't have the conditioning to read past the slogans and just understand why certain nations are pure.
Actually it's just 98% free. The rest is in jail or prison.
As far as "free countries" go, it's really the worst to end up.
Did you seriously forget all the UN reports about human rights issues in the US? Yeah the US ignores them, but the rest of the world knows it. It's really pretty bad.
> I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable.
Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is concerned.
I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a single precedent of someone being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what Assange would be accused of.
That's oddly specific, but still be careful what you're asking for. "Police torture suspect" gives a lot of results, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge
There's a good chance some of those 200 cases were rape cases.
Then there is also the torture of terrorism suspects, if you wish to take that angle since Assange has repeatedly been labeled a terrorist.
Here's two more Wikipedia articles that may be interesting to you:
All you have to do is do a google search for people dying of health conditions because the cops ignored them, people lying on the ground beaten half to death, out cold, while cops yell "stop resisting arrest!", guys on the ground shot for not crawling up to the cops right, the list goes on and on.
Examples of people being tortured in the US are plenty. It all depends on what you mean by "similar to what Assange would be accused of". He was accused of rape, which is one of the few crimes that the US takes much more lightly than Sweden does.
Especially prison rape! The US takes it so lightly they even have a cute euphemism for it, "to pick up the soap", which allows you to lightly joke about sexual abuse punishment fantasies in polite company!
Given that he is not a US citizen, one could make the argument that he was engaged in cyber warfare against the US, thus legally classified as an enemy combatant, subject to special magistrate court and incarcerate-able at an offshore detention facility. Rules on detainee handling there are more lax and sentencing has no guidelines at least no published ones. I would consider that possible path of prosecution and even the threat of it to be torture.
You used the term first, so probably you should define it, and then you can explain why it's "questionable" for threat of prosecution to ever be considered torture in such a place, and then you can explain why the country threatening to prosecute Assange meets that definition.
Among other things, one would certainly have to exclude any country which engages in the mass collection and permanent storage of all of its citizens' communications.
Then I'd ask those same people to hand over their credentials to all their accounts since their data, privacy, and property, seem to matter little to them.
I would believe he's exhibiting symptoms correlated with torture victims, but most torture victims don't choose to stay in the torture chamber voluntarily. Assange sought and was granted asylum and could have ended the torturous circumstances at any time by rendering himself to UK custody.
The saddest thing about Assange's story is that when one lives in the realm of the paranoid for too long, the paranoia eats them.
The US and A isn't in the business of assassinating visible targets. There's plenty of people who believe they are, but there's plenty of evidence they aren't. If they were, Manning wouldn't still be breathing.
The US definitely wouldn't risk any blowback by killing someone as low value as Assange. What would be the point? Easier just to chuck him in jail forever, and the political consequences are minimal to nonexistent.
I should probably clarify: assassination of high-visibility undisclosed targets. Osama bin Laden was tagged as an enemy combatant quite publicly, and I'm not aware of anyone disagreeing with the US's tactical call to kill him during Operation Neptune Spear rather than take him alive.
Some Congresspeople have made ill-advised claims around Assange, but to my knowledge he is not tagged as an enemy combatant in a war on terror and there would be quite a lot of surprise if the US sent in a SEAL team to shoot him.
Confused by downvotes. It is a historical fact that there were assassinations plots during the Cold War. It was investigated and declassified by Congress. For starters, look at the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate Committee from 1975, that investigated intelligence malpractice.
There should be nothing remotely controversial about these events existing.
Second, by asking a clarifying question I am not implying that the "US is not currently in the business of assassinating high-visibility targets" because I have no way of knowing this. I just want to clarify this person's point-of-view.
there would be quite a lot of surprise if the US sent in a SEAL team to shoot him.
Of course there would be a lot of surprise, that would be an open act of war. The US's preferred method would be a drone strike operated from within the US borders, just as Russia's preferred method is with some radioactive poison.
As I said, Manning is still alive, and she's spent an inordinate amount of time under US custody. She's under US custody right now. If the government had "assassination of visible targets" as standard black-ops policy, why is she not dead?
Conspiracy theories suffer on lack of consistency.
Theories of grand evil government conspiracies are comforting because they let us believe someone's in charge, that the evils of the world were intended and causal. Intentions can be controlled.
The reality is much more boring and much less comforting. Hence, my handle. ;)
sure. So you think you could withstand what he has gone through?
the reputation of the UN??? go learn about the un before you defend a corrupt system that acts just like any other foundation. United Nations pays its employees an average of $82,397 a year. and every peacekeeper is paid $1,428/month.
THE UN:
"Charity sex scandal: UN staff ‘responsible for 60,000 rapes in a decade’
"Peacekeepers have been accused of sexually exploiting women in the Congo, being involved in sex trafficking in Bosnia and Kosovo, child abuse in Côte d'Ivoire and Haiti, as well as corruption, stealing, drink-driving and manslaughter.
Being confined to a room is not so bad, being confined to a room where you know if you leave or piss off the host of your room enough, that the most powerful government on the planet has a secret indictment sealed ready to go the second you make a mistake and senators have called for your head off publicly, is a little more stressful.
He could have just faced the charges in Sweden. He'd be out by now if he was found guilty. His behavior and streams of lies about extradition, etc. suggest the whole episode was a guilty man hiding and foolishly digging in. His best option was always to just face the charges instead of fleeing justice.
There is no evidence of an extradition order from the US at the point when Assange first claimed it, and the extradition now is based on Assange being very directly involved with and directing hacks on targets, which is a valid legal justification for extradition.
Even if he hadn't lied in claims re: extradition, the current extradition is for credible and serious charges and he should face justice.
But isn't this a bit of a catch 22 though? Do you honestly believe that this situation could have ended any other way, other than him being extradited to the USA?
I am saying, that no matter what happened, whether there was a secret order, or not, or whether an extradition order would have been sent, the moment he stepped out of the embassy (but otherwise did not "exist" prior to him stepping out of the embassy), what was going to happen is that he was going to be extradited to the USA.
And this prediction was proven correct. And the people who disagreed with this idea, owe the world an apology, for being entirely, completely, 100% wrong.
If you disagree, you are basically holding an unfalsifiable position. Because by doing so, you are saying that no matter if he actually gets extradite, like what just happened!, you are going to ignore the actual evidence of this prediction coming true!
It seems like there is no possible evidence or situation that I could show you, which would change your mind, because your argument is always going to be "Well, the order didn't exist before... but it does now".
I can't argue with this kind of unfalsifiable position.
If someone had predicted "this person is going to be extradited to the USA, at some point in the future", then this person was correct, and if you disagree with this person, and called them a conspiracy theorist, then you were wrong.
There are no known extradition orders from the Obama DoJ, and the feds have claimed they didn't want to bother with him in the Holder era. To believe he would be extradited to the US requires Assange's claimed extradition threat to have been real, but there's not only no evidence, but some evidence that suggests there never was one.
The position that there never was a sealed extradition request can be falsified with evidence of one, it's just that there currently is no evidence.
Ok, but imagine an alternate universe where, if during the Holder era, there was a secret extradition order.
Would you imagine that what we are observing right now, would be any different than this hypothetical universe where a secret extradition order did indeed exist?
Is it really so hard to believe that such a hypothetical universe would almost certainly look exactly like the universe that we are in right now?
There are now active concentration camps in the United States, designed to traumatize children, because Wikileaks bolstered Trump's campaign to make HRC appear destined for prison.
And people who can't hold him accountable for his role in that, "can get fucked".
Every source I can find on google shows clearly that they aren't new to the Trump administration, though often more populated than they were under the Obama administration.
But they all defeat the causal relationship you asserted in your comment.
As you know, since we've warned you multiple times before, you can't comment like this on Hacker News. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines.
Did you miss what happened to him when he was arrested? He's now being tortured even more. He put himself there, for his safety, and to think he did it 'just because' is wildly ridiculous.
No, and I do in fact think his most recent incarceration at least borders on torture. But I also think claiming that someone is torturing you while you’ve locked yourself in a room trying to evade questioning in a criminal investigation is ridiculous.
To be fair, he wasn't just evading "questioning", the fact that he isn't being extradited to Sweden and they are dropping the case makes this more obvious in my opinion
He locked himself in a room trying to evade exactly the treatment he is receiving right now. Is there any precedent in the UK for solitary confinement in Belmarsh for skipping bail on a rape charge in another country?
His treatment in Sweden if he'd complied rather than fleeing justice in the UK would likely have been far better. His dissembling about extradition and all of his actions suggest he was guilty of the rapes and hiding from justice.
Yeah but Sweden is a US ally and was just going to turn around and extradite him to the USA after they were done with him. I don't think you've been following the story closely enough. This is what he said for like the past decade. He know that Federal prison will probably end up with him beaten to death, shanked to death, or in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
"Sweden is a US ally and was just going to turn around and extradite him to the USA"
Sweden's actual extradition agreement is much more limited than Assange claimed. The UK's is much friendlier to the UK, so if he was honestly worried about extradition his behavior was strange and is more plausibly explained by him trying to cover up his rape. His account was mostly false and deeply misleading about what Sweden did and did not extradite for, which would make sense if it was just a pretext. I believe he tried to dodge real and credible charges in Sweden, and all of his behavior, esp the narcissistic levels of dishonesty point to a rapist who was caught and got trapped by their lies.
Title should really be 'US takes hand out of Swedish puppet now that its free to extradite Assange'
The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks. Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet cafe while disguised and host a torrent.
Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.
Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.
Adrian was a cyber criminal who thought Chelsea was doing the wrong thing by leaking documents to the press. He had no idea of what is a moral action. What a scum bag. Then it appears he killed himself with a kratom + prescription drug interaction in 2018, so he will now have no chance to attone.
That makes it worse, not better. Take the punishment for the shit you did and say nothing about what someone else did if what they did saved lives and served the public good.
True. As I said, it is no excuse. Just that I believe that the government can be quite convincing and has methods to let people do something they wouldn't be proud of.
The same Adrian Lamo who told Chelsea Manning that he'd treat what she told him as a confession (he was an ordained minister and the implication was that he'd never tell anybody) to gain her trust[1].
Let's not forget Kevin Poulsen's complicity in this.
The hacker community is not your friend, and you need to assume that members will sell you out for glory or to save their own asses.
I've never celebrated the death of anybody, but I did feel the world was a better place after Adrian Lamo died.
What huge damage was done to the US government by showing its citizens how its military murders civilians with their tax payer money in war that was against international law and only benefit the political class and security contractors.
It gets so much harder to pretend that they are bringing freedom to the Iraqis. I'm sure the poor government had to double its spending on pro-military propaganda because of this evil spiteful security leak.
Because exposing killings of innocent civilians is something people would not approve of unless it was the US government doing the killing?
I'm sure if she had leaked a google drone killing people in Zimbabwe everybody hate her. Google marketing guys would be like 'spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.'.
Sometimes I just can't with shit like this. I have to go offline for a while.
It's possible to be both unfairly targeted by a superpower and commit sexual assault, one doesn't cancel out the other. I'm not saying he did, I don't know how any of us could know. You seem quite confident he didn't though, I'm curious what you base that on.
People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just a legal principle - it's a philosophical principle.
If you throw that away and want to talk about probabilities - that's ok too - but then you need to add the probability that the global super power put pressure on people to drum up baloney charges.
It's interesting that people have raised presumption of innocence until proven guilty to a philosophical principle, because its primary utility is as a legal principle.
Presumption of innocence in criminal cases has value because the state has all the power (including the monopoly on violence), so if they are to use their monopoly on violence to deprive anyone of their freedoms, the burden of proof should be extremely high to offset the inherent power imbalance. In other words, even if all other things are equal, we should make the state's job harder because if the state is "cheating" to get a conviction it's a lot likelier they will succeed than the individual.
As a larger philosophical principle, assumption of innocence isn't really proven out. Iterated prisoner's dilemma solutions suggest trust followed by tit-for-tat (i.e. presume innocence until someone shows they're willing to screw you over, then assume they're likely to continue screwing you over rather than assuming that was a one-off; this is a policy the law notably excludes, as past unrelated felony convictions aren't admissible evidence in a trial). I'm not saying we should toss presumption of innocence in the bin; merely that I'm skeptical of it as a deep true virtue to build one's values upon.
I thought the solution to iterated prisoner's dilemma was what you described except with occasional forgiveness to see if both sides can get over the negative tit for tat spiral?
The reason the presumption of innocence is important is because it becomes way too easy to create false evidence (or highlight circumstantial evidence) in order to sway public opinion.
We should have a high threshold for evidence in any arena or we are otherwise way way too susceptible to manipulation.
...or perhaps, more generally - when an opposing entity exists that could conceivably manufacture poor quality evidence, then that should raise the bar of evidence required.
What you're advocating for us "Be skeptical of unverified evidence of a person's guilt." It's good advice, but does/should it also apply to evidence of a person's innocence?
The way you seem to frame the presumption of innocence, arresting and detaining someone would violate it. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle once charged, it's not a trump card against being accused and held responsible for one's actions.
yeah but that might not always work. there are evidence against him but he will never be proven guilty in a court because of unrelated practical reasons. that don't make innocent either.
Having sex with an unconscious (due to sleep) woman counts as rape in the UK. Only the UK and Sweden's laws matter when extraditing between those countries.
The allegation is there was no consent. From the arrest warrant:
> 4. Rape
> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep was in a helpless state.
sure he s accused of it. not the worst form of rape but still rape accusation. he should under normal circumstances go to court. but obviously the case is a part of a much bigger tangle here
I understand you feel Swedish law is too harsh on this, but surely that is besides the point since Assange was in Sweden at the time of the alleged crime? It doesn't really matter if his actions qualifies as rape in any other country or not if they do in Sweden (which was for the courts to decide).
Generally a country will only extradite you if the crime alleged is also a crime in that country. Some countries also stipulate that the punishment must not be severely stronger than in the current country.
Generally that's the case. However, Sweden was trying to extradite him under a European Arrest Warrant which has no such requirement for the offence to be a crime in the country being extradited from and has much weaker safeguards in general. (This has caused some problems over the years.)
Thing is, someone, at one point, needs to check the source. Also, most potential whistleblower are not privacy experts and need help. Assange wanted to be in that role, that is necessarily public.
He did many bad things (especially uncovering the name of sources, not redacting the cables in the cablegate) but like he said, it is interesting to see how censorship works in a democracy.
I also like how no one is talking about the (probably externally provoked) internal drama at wikileaks that led to the destruction of the Bank of America files that they had.
> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question."
I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
He's now safely in police custody and the US has already revealed its plans to extradite him, so there's no longer any need for the charges in Sweden. That's what's meant by this, imo.
To hand him over to the US they would, under EU law, need the UK's permission. So it would be harder to hand him over from Sweden than from the UK, and the latter is well-known for being America's lapdog. If the accausation is false, why did they not make it in the UK instead of Sweden and make things easier?
You can vouch for dead comments if you believe they are contributing to the conversation. Click on the timestamp to see if the option is available, I'd imagine it is karma dependent.
Why is he in police custody? Excuse my ignorance, I don't know a lot about him other than he's a popular whistleblower who was involved in WikiLeaks. Is he in police custody for that?
I really, really want to be mean to you, but I'll copy and paste the second and third sentences from the article.
Assange, who denies the accusation, has avoided extradition to Sweden for seven years after seeking refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.
The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.
Yes but eyewitness testimony is first written down, their testimony in court is based off that specifically for this reason. This is also why police use notebooks. Neither of which are very reliable anyway, but courts don't rely on a witness making his/her testimony unsupported.
The notion that a new law does NOT retroactively apply to acts done before the law was enacted is not called a 'statute of limitations'.
A statue of limitations serves a few purposes.
1. At some point closure is better than justice, or at least, that's a theory. Better to get a crime on record because the committer of it confesses to it than not. The idea being that after, say, 10 years, the odds that the criminal would get caught have drifted off to as near to 0 as can be.
2. Records eventually get shredded if you wait long enough; eyewitness recollections in particular slowly mutate into conjecture (whilst said eyewitnesses will believe what they remember is accurate, there's plenty of proof out there that given enough time what they remember is not at all accurate and it gets worse over time). This makes it easier to accidentally convict on flawed evidence, and makes it harder for the defendant to defend themselves.
I think it could be argued that case law is a prevalent form of ex post facto law in common law systems, and so constitutes an additional justification for statutes of limitations.
Many acts are ambiguously criminal, until clarified by a test case. Legal decisions are also often made in the context of time, taking into account what is commonly considered offensive, what a person is presumed to know (in establishing mens rea). It's difficult to try some crimes with a modern perspective and take into account what was considered acceptable in the past.
The only cases I’ve seen it become relevant is when a crime, typically sexual assault, becomes impossible to prosecute. The assumption made is that all evidence becomes irrelevant after x number of years. x happens to be well within a human lifetime and it clearly is not accurate when using 1970s technology, let alone 2010s. There are a myriad of reasons that victims don’t charge crimes that have been committed against them.
Its existence points towards having a “legal system” rather than a “justice system”.
Yes(+), but that has nothing to do with statute of limitations - if something's going to the extreme of retroactive criminal law, there will be a clause which says "and the statute of limitations does not apply".
Without the 'arguably' modifier I would hope. That's article 7 of the ECHR [1]. I also expect that the principle is part of most if not all European constitutions.
The bar against ex post facto application of law in the US is limited to criminal laws.
Civil laws, such as, immigration laws, are not so limited. That's why I encourage permanent resident immigrants (green card holders) to complete the naturalization process ASAP. (Assuming they want to retain the right to stay in the US.)
While this is certainly part of the answer, it is not the whole answer. Staying on your ally’s good side is important, but there really seems to be weakened evidence; new hearings have been made, and they _are_ substantially less impactful due to it being ten years ago.
I don't think there's any reason to believe the prosecutor is going to tell the BBC the full story behind the decision making for dropping the case, versus a sound bite that seems reasonable.
If they had obtained internal first-person memos discussion the reasons for dropping the case, then you could probably assume those would be credible.
Sometimes a rape victim will just want to move on with her life instead of being unfairly smeared as a CIA puppet by a bunch of neckbeards on the internet.
If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate.
It sounds like the women didn't really want to pursue the case (which is not at all uncommon in sexual assault cases!), they just wanted to track down Assange and make him take an STD test after he had unprotected sex with them, and the police said, well now that you've told us this, we're going to tell the prosecutor.
(One plausible interpretation is that the assaults did in fact happen as described and that the Swedish justice system was pressured by the US to prosecute it aggressively with the goal of getting him into US custody - the two are not necessarily contradictory.)
Personally I think Assange may well genuinely have believed it was US involvement - rape sentences in Sweden are short and lenient enough that evading charges for years makes no sense unless he was scared of something else. But of course that does not tell us anything about whether or not he was right.
At the same time I suspect the oddities in how the case was pursued is more likely to simply have been about domestic Swedish politics - both the prosecutor and one of the lawyers involved are known to have favoured a stricter handling of rape cases, and it's plausible they saw Assange as someone getting away with something they wanted to make an example of.
So he may well have been genuinely worried for all the wrong reasons.
> rape sentences in Sweden are short and lenient enough that evading charges for years makes no sense unless he was scared of something else
Yes he was obviously not running from the Swedish sentence. I used to think that must have meant he ran from the US. But another theory could be that he ran from the reputation hit.
> Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
> Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
That's literally rape. If you consent to a sex act, that doesn't mean you consent to any sex act. If you "switch holes", or "lose the condom" or simply don't put one on at all, without consent, that's a non-consensual sex act and thus rape.
If you lose the condom it doesn't make it rape. It makes you a loser who will probably be a social outcast.
If you agreed before to kiss for 10 minutes but stop after 5 it doesn't make it rape either.
If the person asks you to stop and you refuse that's rape.
If she finishes first and asks you to stop and you continue that is rape.
But you don't need to have a detailed conversation agreeing to everything beforehand. If you try something and the other person doesn't stop the action it is not rape.
You could both agree not to do something beforehand and end up doing that act and it wouldn't make it rape unless one party refused that action during the attempt.
If you take that point of view and use a different example it sounds foolish.
If we agree to have sex while she has a blindfold on but only if I wear a clown mask. If I take off the mask before sex and she watches the tape later she cannot claim rape.
1. I think it's extraordinarily disingenuous to compare protected vs. unprotected sex to whether or not one has a mask on. The consequences of unprotected sex - pregnancy, STDs, etc. - are potentially deadly.
2. Yes, your example describes non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
Your political belief on the importance protected sex shouldn't be part of what defines rape as a term.
If someone has aids doesn't tell the partner and they die they could be charged with murder or assault. But never rape.
If you think pointn 2 is rape then a husband promising to take out the trash if sex is performed and him not doing later makes it rape. Fraud perhaps.. you are missing the violence that rape puts the victim through.
> What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.
If we go by that definition then everytime your partner is horny and you're not, but you have sex with them regardless you're "sexually assaulted". As you didn't really want to participate.
True, but I think the parent's absolutism is closer to reality than your absolutism. I.e. it's essentially a pointless semantic argument - "didn't really want to" doesn't have enough context to decide in either direction.
I agree with you there, my point was that his definition is highly fallible and easily abused. And I was attempting to point that out with an example.
It might seem pointlessly semantic, but I think it's important with issues such as sexual assault and rape. Especially considering the people on either side of this likely have their lives ruined.
That's rubbish; you may not be in the mood, but you still consent to it - wanting to do something isn't the same as being horny. The point isn't about being horny, it's if you want to do it - being aroused is a factor you're introducing.
My point was that your partner can be pushy enough that you participate even though you didn't really want to. I.e. they are horny/want to have sex, you don't, yet you still have sex. By the definition above that is sexual assault.
If you don't communicate that you don't want to have sex it becomes a really murky topic, as you didn't give verbal nor non-verbal consent. But you also didn't give verbal nor nnon-verbal disconsent. This could be something you regret afterwards, but I don't think you can attribute that to malintent (or rape/sexual assault) on your sexual partner's side.
So removing the condom mid-act would be sexual assault, a broken condom wouldn't be. But the partner consented to sex with a condom.
Or in case a woman says she's on birthcontrol (or has a spiral) and it later turns out that was false, then you also didn't consent to that.
So basically my second point is that it takes a lot of language to define what is and what isn't sexual assault or rape. Condensing it down would be harmful to victims and people accused.
Your definition of sexual assault is dangerously lacking in nuance.
Most people who have had long term sexual partners have had a time or two where they "didn't really want to participate" but did anyway without much/any complaining for the sake of their partner. Are all all those instances "basically sexual assault"?
Watering down the definition of sexual assault to include instances where nobody felt assaulted in any way does not result in it being taken more seriously.
While there are situations like you describe where "didn't really want to participate" represents something immoral and selfish but less insidious than what we think of as rape, there are also plenty of situations where it does represent the weighty event of sexual assault. I think your simplification is less nuanced and much more dangerous than the parent's simplification. I also think "overwhelming majority" is a scary assumption, in terms of what it says about your experiences, unless we are mapping "didn't really want to" very differently onto real examples of emotional state.
*Disclaimer: The parent post was edited after I began replying to be worded a bit less absolutely.
>While there are situations like you describe where "didn't really want to participate" represents something immoral and selfish but less insidious than what we think of as rape, there are also plenty of situations where it does represent the weighty event of sexual assault.
I'm talking strictly about situations where there is no threat of violence.
Obviously there is a spectrum of varying degrees of consent from "perfectly ok" to "definitely rape" and somewhere in there is a range that constitutes sexual assault but to say that the lack of specifically enthusiastic consent defines the floor of the sexual assault range is farcical when there are so many other variables to consider.
>Disclaimer: The parent post was edited after I began replying to be worded a bit less absolutely.
I changed the order of the three points.
>we are mapping "didn't really want to" very differently onto real examples of emotional state.
I think a lot of people find "didn't really want to" to be equivalent to "really didn't want to"
Spousal rape and sexual abuse were legal in many places for a long time (and still are in some), doesn't make it not rape and sexual abuse, though.
"Informed enthusiastic consent" isn't so hard to figure out, is it? If you feel like you're being pressured into something you don't want, that's still non-consensual even if you don't put up a fight.
Voluntarily doing something you’re not excited about is different than having something done to you you don’t want done. It’s not kidnapping if I agree to go with my wife to visit her sister. It is rape if I agree to sex with a condom but the other party removes it. It’s also rape if I agree to sex with someone and then they engage in sex a second time while I am asleep hours later.
> and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate.
AFAIK, the sexual interactions where consensual as they occurred. But the two woman withdrew consent after the fact as they learned he hadn’t been wearing a condom (and they discovered he’d been with both of them).
I do think it's likely that, assault or not, Assange behaved in an unaceptable way toward these women. He has often been quoted mentioning that he has children all over the world with various women. Surreptitiously removing a condom would be in character.
If true, his attitude reminds me of Jeff Epstein's plan to "seed the human race with his DNA" by impregnanting a bunch of women on a ranch he owned. These people see their own supposed genius as justification for violating moral norms.
You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda.
>"Surreptitiously removing a condom would be in character."
You provide zero evidence for that naked assertion.
> it's not all propaganda.
If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks.
> If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks.
What I'm doing is what you're doing and what everyone should do: synthesize information into an opinion. I don't claim knowledge, but I have a model of the world, of how people act, and I'm feeding various information into that model and using it to generate an opinion. You have a different model and you've generated a different opinion. That's fine. But to conclude that people can't form certain opinions absent evidence is naive. Human beings are not courts of law.
I made no comment about whether Assange should be convicted in a court of law. I only said that I think he did something wrong and that, if I'm right, I see his behavior as representative of a pattern wherein certain people view themselves as above normative morality.
I disagree on the strongest possible way with your characterisation of what you are doing based on reading of it. Information. The lack of it are key. Let us leave it at that.
It would not matter one fuck were he a murdering, misogynist, insert horrible personality types here. The discussion is not about his personal attractiveness, but a selection of a few of his actions relating to wikileaks. You know nothing about him raping, I know nothing about him raping, but we all know the US government murdered people, covered it up and all we're stuck here talking about is raping.
This isn't Richard Stallman 2.0. Assange told you something that nobody denies is true. He's not head of GNU, let the rape allegations be dealt with by the appropriate people. Your job as somebody talking about Assange is to say, "yea, that shit he told us was terrible, something should be done." Not "he might take his fucking condoms off".
> You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda.
Anyway, I agree with you that the release of the "collateral murder" video was a good thing. But I strongly disagree with the idea that I "shouldn't have an opinion about certain things that are beyond my purview" or whatever you're saying.
This is true, but "people are unable to retrieve roughly 50% of information one hour after encoding" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/). Memory distortion can happen all kinds of ways, but it doesn't take very long at all for it to happen. The idea that after 9 years they would finally decide that maybe the witness's memory might be degraded, that ship has already sailed around the world several times.
Prosecutors will wait until the end of time and still trot out memory-based testimony (as long as it still supports their case), so I think the claim about why they dropped the case is specious.
Sure, except that the victims would be called to the stand and get to answer everything they're asked with "I don't really remember", which isn't amazingly convincing.
If admissible, there'd still be the opportunity for cross examination. Any competent defense attorney should be able to easily impeach ten year old testimony by eliciting a whole bunch of "I don't remember" responses.
They had new interviews after reopening the case to check the reliability of the various old testimonies, as well as talking to some new people, and I guess they concluded that the totality of the evidence wasn't as strong. Presumably some people have changed their testimony somewhat.
In any case, this was always the most likely outcome: very few sexual assault cases ever make it to court in Sweden.
Rape without physical violence like this rely entirely on the victim testimony and even if there is a record and everything that will weaken the case terribly if the victim is no longer on board.
There was no evidence, just two women accusing him of sexual misconduct (if memory serves, it wasn’t even rape in the classical sense, but Assange not wearing a condom when he’d said he would).
The women were "vehement" about restarting the case. Reportedly were "willing to do whatever it takes to force case to be re-opened" The statute of limitations is August,2020.
But suddenly it doesn't matter according to sweden
By the way, Chelsea Manning (the actual leaker) has been in jail for just over 6 months - again - for refusing to testify in the Assange extradition case.
Whistleblowing is a focused revelation of wrongdoing.
Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing. At best, it's irresponsible; at worst, it's irresponsibility that walks right up to the edge of malicious treason. I'm very glad Manning wasn't convicted of treason, because she got dangerously close to it (apparently, her crimes are treason-equivalent in Canada).
There are two answers to that: technical (legal) and moral.
Technical (legal): No, clearly not. There's a reason he's hiding from the US justice system in Russia. He didn't follow the legal process for whistleblowing (and he probably should not have).
Moral: The major difference between Manning and Snowden's leaks is that Snowden read the documents he forwarded and only collected and forwarded enough to blow the whistle. Manning never read all the cables she extracted; she had no idea what the blast-radius of that declassification would be.
Snowden took and gave much more than he could possibly have read.
In July 2014, The Washington Post reported on a cache previously provided by Snowden from domestic NSA operations consisting of "roughly 160,000 intercepted e-mail and instant-message conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts."
He did not read the 160k emails he provided to the Washington Post.
Since foreign organizations were mentioned up-thread: Were that many emails and documents only provided to American newspapers or also non-American ones?
Your world view is terribly idealistic from a govt perspective. We are in the midst of a whistle-blower leak right now where an army colonel no less is being threatened to the extent that the US military is looking to take that person to a secure location. This after having the US congress AND the army on his side.
Imagine being a contractor and having no established procedures to go to, and when you blow the whistle, they just bring the hammer on you. Have you read about what Katherine Gun went through for blowing the whistle on a completely illegitimate war where an ally - the US (not her own country) - was pressuring countries in the UN to join the war?
You speak in black and white for Snowden and Manning's morality, but refuse to acknowledge the downright terrible greys of the govts involved.
Without going too far off into these weeds: it's the government's task to deal with greys because the world is grey. I'll acknowledge it any time.
The State Department keeps secrets, and keeps more secrets than it needs to. The NSA's full-time job is generating and keeping secrets. The fact secrets exist (and some secrets should be publicized) doesn't imply unbridled leaking of those secrets is objectively good, and it doesn't imply the world would be a better place if the State Department or NSA operated in the open in general.
And if those secrets are all there are, what good is a democracy. A democracy can't function in the darkness. What restraint would you advocate in not leaking all secrets? Where would you draw the line? Who should be vetting these papers under such strictly pressured timelines?
On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
A democracy also can't function with blinding light shining into absolutely every corner. Otherwise, we wouldn't see nearly as many people concerned about privacy in the democracies of the world. In practice, a grey balance appears to be successful.
> What restraint would you advocate in not leaking all secrets?
Some awareness of the possible impact of leaks, and awareness of the contents of leaked documents. Both Snowden and Manning appear to have failed to read all the content they leaked, which is dangerous. In practice, we have gotten fortunate in that there were no obvious immediate lethal consequences to the leaks. But hope is not a strategy.
> On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
I'm not sure what lines you're looking for me to draw. So far, all the leaks you've named were dangerous and had significant potential for negative consequences exceeding their benefit. I'm in favor of impeachment of President Trump for the way he has chosen to handle the state secrets he has been entrusted with (along with a host of other, more pressing reasons).
> The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
> Some awareness of the possible impact of leaks, and awareness of the contents of leaked documents. Both Snowden and Manning appear to have failed to read all the content they leaked, which is dangerous. In practice, we have gotten fortunate in that there were no obvious immediate lethal consequences to the leaks. But hope is not a strategy.
You are suggesting they make judgements, but they are not independent authorities on making such judgements. People who are, are making judgements arbitrarily too, hence why being a legit whistle-blower in any organization is a problem. If you read or listen to Snowden, he worked with journalists to proof the leaks. Yes, he handed them to journalists, because if he went through official channels, nothing would have worked out.
>Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing
So, what better method should she have used? Remember she was on active duty, and already under a lot of stress from personally being aware of the atrocities being hidden.
Divulge information on the atrocities she was aware of personally. The vast bulk of the State Department cables were completely unrelated to the atrocities she was aware of.
You can't steal online data. You can only copy it.
> betrayed her country that she swore to protect
Exposed crimes against the constitution by the government and the military to the people. This sounds like a very honourable (and whistleblow-y) thing to do.
> She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
It would certainly be stealing if she deleted the documents in the server afterwards, which she did not. Stealing implies that the original is gone in everyday speech. Most people would be very upset if you stole their car, not so much if you copied it.
> I'm simply saying that a military court said that.
You might want to edit your previous post then. From "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect." to "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect", in which case I would claim that the military is corrupt and trying to cover their own asses. Anyway, whatever the military court said does not change the reality of the situation.
> Which is what happens when you're in the armed forces and have to deal with justice.
Yes, and I am against that as the objective of such "courts" is to do the military's bidding (which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals).
> Stealing implies that the original is gone in everyday speech.
"Data theft" is understood to mean illicit copying, with no assumption that originals were destroyed. In everyday speech, "stealing data" implies unauthorized copies.
I'd say that it really depends on what you do with the information.
If you find out that Coke products secretly include arsenic and you share that with the general public, I don't think anyone (besides Coke) would be calling you a thief.
If you steal their secret formula so that you can profit off of it, or just because you want to share it with the world to break their monopoly of their own product, I would consider that stealing.
> It would certainly be stealing if she deleted the documents in the server afterwards, which she did not
Again, not a lawyer, not trying to counter you personally, but if someone clones my credit card and take money from it, it is stealing, even if the card is still in my pocket.
If someone use my bank's password to transfer funds to his account, it is stealing, even if my account is still in my possess.
> "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect"
That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect."
because that's what a court does, it establish the facts, unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do.
If I'm sentenced by a court for fraud, it means I committed fraud, unless I prove the court is wrong.
Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing.
> which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals
I agree it is unfair, but the military know how it is, it's not something special to Mannings's case.
> The difference between stealing and theft was unknown to me.
Feel free to read it as "I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of stealing than 'stealing data' is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money)." -- I was not implying that there are differences between stealing and theft.
> Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
> third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
I was talking about the general case, not specifically about Manning
> is just how the system works
I did not know that the courts can magically bend the laws of nature at will.
> And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
If you really want to split hairs, I would argue that copying information that is considered secret to it's owner, is stealing in the sense that you are stealing the fact that is is secret from it's owner. It's no longer secret at this point, and you have taken that away from the original owner.
In the context of stealing secret documents from the government - the question is, did the government have a legal right to keep those documents "secret" from its people. Did those documents contain evidence of illegal activities by the government that it was attempting to keep hidden?
Whether or not it's stealing in this case, is irrelevant, imo. If the information being hidden is of detriment to the people and your intent is to share the info with the people it is harming, then I would argue that it's entirely reasonable to share the information.
I don't know why you're asking me, I'm just reporting what the trial was about and what the prosecutors said.
The court ruled against Manning in favour of the prosecutors.
She was "acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks" under the spionage act, which means treason.
If you want an explanation from me, they said that the fact that she stole classified documents regarding national security and gave them to wikileaks, which is foreign to U.S.A., is an act of treason.
The central point is that Manning never denied to taking those documents illegally, at the time she (was still a he) said she wanted to spark public debate on the matter.
And I mean, she was acquitted of aiding the enemy, ie. that charge didn't stick. All of the charges that did stick are around improperly storing classified data.
And as I've said before, the prosecution couldn't come up with any actual harm at her trial, so "betrayed" is you embellishing the story.
Sorry, but int the appeal of May 31 2018 she was sentenced for violating the Espionage Act with this motivation
"The facts of this case, leave no question as to what constituted national defense information. Appellant's training and experience indicate, without any doubt, she was on notice and understood the nature of the information she was disclosing and how its disclosure could negatively affect national defense."
Manning, the judges ruled, "had no First Amendment right to make the disclosures—doing so not only violated the nondisclosure agreements she signed, but also jeopardized national security."
I'm more inclined to think that Snowden and Manning case prove that whistleblowing it's effective only if the receiver is good at protecting the source, which wikileaks, and Assange in particular, is not.
Deep throat identity has been a very well kept secret for over 30 years, Manning and Snowden have been exposed merely weeks after the material was published.
It looks to me that Wikileaks is the real paper-thinly veil.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that wikileaks was created exactly with the purpose of exposing whistleblowers.
Or, maybe you can explain to me why the country that has the largest intelligence community by an order of magnitude also has the largest terrorism problem on the continent?
Correlation without causation. The United States has a lot of "the largest" by an order of magnitude. The size of the intelligence community could be causal, but so could the country's national visibility or wealth consolidation.
We're also working with a messy definition of "terrorism." For all its problems, the US doesn't have a destabilized central government; I would imagine one could ask the leadership of countries undergoing active revolutions whether they consider the opposition "terrorists," and if they do, I'd say they have a bigger "terrorism" problem than the US.
I don't know, I don't think so, but I also think that, as much as I don't like police, we can work on their brutality, their behaviour, their racism, their biases, but without police forces the situation wouldn't be much better.
If the CIA has "gone rogue" what current publicly-known controls would be able to stop them from continued actions which are not in the best interest of the American public?
Congressional oversight is a mild annoyance to them at best, and the CIA has been caught lying to them before. No reason to trust they are working in our interests except "I believe the propaganda" and wishful thinking.
This is exactly how terrorists are created. Some poor farmer is going to care more about feeding his family than commit suicide missions. People who lost their whole family from an American drone attack however...
> . People who lost their whole family from an American drone attack however...
Will continue to care about more about feeding their family.
There is no connection between being victim and becoming a terrorist or we in Italy should be all terrorists, because in the 70s a lot of people have been killed by state terrorists.
Lookup Giorgiana Masi, for example, or Stefano Cucchi.
What's the pathaway to justice for a family to go to die for the cause, when their children gonna die anyway if they do?
Vengeance has never been a pathway to justice, kamikazes go to die because their families are compensated or because their families are threatened or because they are radicalized in other ways, there's no connection between bombings and suicide bombers, in fact you don't see fathers or mothers do it, you see young males do it (85% of all suicide bombers are man).
Radical organizations use bombers as weapons, they need them to be reliable (as reliable as possible) you can't just count on the momentary lapse of reason that could bring a father to hope to kill his son's killers.
Hamas, for example, was against using women as suicide bombers, but in 2004 they changed idea, after the first woman was used, they said “this is a significant evolution in our fight. The male fighters face many obstacles... Women are like the reserve army―when there is a necessity, we use them.” [1]
If I commit a murder I will go to jail, even if I make a magical pill that instantly cures cancer and AIDS. The same sadly does not happen for the intelligence community. They can murder as many innocent people as they want without having to prove their usefulness.
If you made a magical pill that cured cancer and AIDS, and the medical establishment lost trillions of dollar, and were outspoken about trying to destroy you...
Then I would consider the possibility that they were framing you.
> The same sadly does not happen for the intelligence community
I confess I don't know, but I imagine that if you make some mistake while working for agencies like CIA or MI5 or KGB you simply disappear, you die if you're lucky, or something worse happens to you.
> They can murder as many innocent people as they want without having to prove their usefulness.
There is no publicly available credible evidence that the intelligence community has any effectiveness preventing attacks.
Point of reference, TSA has a 90% failure rate on tests of their performance while consuming vast amounts of money and inconveniencing every traveler. Does the public have any good reason to believe the CIA is more effective than the TSA?
Is there any reason to believe the CIA does more good than harm?
We have proof that every intelligence in the world is working to undermine our freedoms, so it's easy to speculate (with some degree of certainty) that if others have their own agencies you need to have yours, to counter theirs.
> are those "freedoms", where is that proof, and what is the motivation of these "intelligences"?
The freedom of the people to chose their own representatives and leaders, something U.S. agency CIA has tempered with many times, especially in South America.
> I assume they do it because they hate American freedom.
Or is the CIA that hates other countries freedom to not agree with them?
Maybe other countries created their agencies to defend them from CIA.
So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can he go?
Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying.
Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.
If he is released from UK jail he can hop onto a ferry and go to mainland EU. There he could travel to anywhere within the Shengen zone. I'm not sure about western countries, but Poland(as well as other eastern countries I believe) will not extradite anyone anywhere unless the crime is also considered a crime here, there is no possibility of death penalty, and there is strong evidence submitted that makes a conviction likely. By its definition treason against a country can be committed, by a citizen of that country. Assange is not a US citizen so he can't commit a crime of treason against US - end of story. US could try to get him on some other charges - espionage perhaps, but there would have to be strong evidence which allegedly is severely lacking. This is why it is very important for US to have Assange extradited from UK. UK has a "special" extradition deal with US that simplifies the procedure.
Poland, like all Eastern states, is desperate for US military assistance to stay around to deal with Russia, so they will just reply "how high?" when asked to jump by any American administration. This is particularly true now that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and the rule of law.
The hard truth is that Assange won't be free nor safe anywhere in Europe. The tactical and propagandistic value of detaining and punishing him is so high, the US won't have any qualms black-opping him out of any EU country like they did with Abu Omar in Italy; and his freedom is not valued highly enough by any EU country to stop this from happening.
The only places where he could safely stay in the long term, at the moment, are Russia and Venezuela. Even Cuba has enough problems that they won't dare adding another one to the pile just out of spite; and that goes for most South-American states in general. China stands for everything he despises, so that's another hard no. Places like Japan or South Korea, so deeply embedded in the US military stance, are extremely unlikely too.
Assange must hope the current administration is replaced by someone so firebrand-y, s/he'd be willing to make a grand gesture of reconciliation. Snowden comes before him in the list though, and doesn't carry the baggage that Julian does, so chances of that are very low too.
Sadly, this is a round that the Galactic Empire has won. The only satisfaction Julian might get, will come from history books.
>Poland, like all Eastern states, is desperate for US military assistance to stay around to deal with Russia, so they will just reply "how high?" when asked to jump by any American administration. This is particularly true now that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and the rule of law.
You are wrong on both points. Poland cooperated fully with EU's investigation of so called black sites (CIA "facilities") and the only thing that saved the people that used to rule Poland when those black sites were operational was lack of evidence of torture. How's that unconditional love for the American administration look in light of that? It is true that Poles want to have US troops on its territory(regardless of who currently rules the country), but let's not kid ourselves that US would "deal with Russia". All Us troops that ever were permanently stationed in Poland were always in the Western part. If Russia wanted to fuck with Poland they would sent their little green men into the North-East. Also it is common knowledge other NATO countries (perhaps including US) wouldn't respond to a Russian attack sooner than in 2 weeks so if Russia attacked Baltic countries Poland would have to respond on its own for first 2 weeks.
>This is particularly true now that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and the rule of law.
The executive doesn't carry any disdain for the legislative branch. The main political party has absolute majority in the legislature, they have a president from same party and the government. Why would a government have any disdain for the legislative branch that is from the same party? You must be thinking about UK not Poland.
There is however pretty sizable disdain for the judiciary.This is not only on part of the ruling party, but also a huge majority of people. The rule of law in Poland is seen as being for everyone, but corrupt judges. There many examples of judges of all levels including high court judges committing crimes (from petty theft caught on CCTV, killing a pedestrian while drunk driving, being recorded on the phone while openly discussing bribes) and nothing happens to them. Their colleagues always rule in their favor.
At the same time there are situations like this where there was a huge property extortion scandal in Warsaw that had some of the city's government involved, politicians and corrupt judges which accepted faked power of attorney documents etc. In process of this thousands of people were evicted illegally. There was a parliament special commission established with members of all political parties that over years found evidence of those crimes. All members of that commission agreed regarding its findings of crimes despite their political differences. As part of their proceedings they ruled certain properties should be returned. One of the people affected was a daughter of a woman who was killed(burned alive) by members of the criminal organisation because she started to make information about their crimes public. The property she was living in was supposed to be returned to the city's ownership, but the city still governed by the same party that participated in the original criminality appealed. Then the case got to a judge whose dad was a known communist secret police member. The judge found some technicality based on which he could deny the property retrieval and when asked why he is committing such injustice he actually laughed in the face of the woman that is the daughter of the victim I mentioned before.
The biggest problem with judiciary in Poland is that, after communism ended no one kicked out judges that were corrupt. Germany had its Nuremburg after Hitler lost - this cleansed it somewhat. Polish judiciary is a direct descendant of communist apparatchiks. Even though many people involved are younger and perhaps their intentions weer good when they were joining, they developed in the organisation that didn't change one bit since communist times.
Until this is resolved there will be no true rule of law in Poland.
I wouldn't be so sure about Poland though. CIA secret prisons and politicians begging any US politician to just wave in their general direction as sign of recognition.
US has a lot power over UK and Sweden, what makes u think western Europe is different?
There are very different people in power in Poland these days and the voters are very different. The government wouldn't do it because they would be too afraid of loosing power over it.
> If he is released from UK jail he can hop onto a ferry and go to mainland EU. There he could travel to anywhere within the Shengen zone.
That relies on his Australian passport being valid and not being cancelled by a US-friendly Australian government - the relevant Minister has the right to cancel a passport if the person is subejct to a foreign arrest warrant. [1] It would likely also rely on the EU member state being convinced that Assange was only visiting the EU for 90 days and had the intention to leave, thus qualifying for the Schenghen Visa Waiver for Australians. The border officers in France (or wherever the ferry lands) can reject him at the border before he has a chance to travel elsewhere if they aren’t convinced he is legit.
There are no border officers checking people in almost all of the border crossings. If you look white (=> probably not an illegal immigrant) being checked is extremly unlikely even with manned borders.
He might want to wear a shawl or similar, but I don't think there will be a problem unless he is deliberately tracked and intercepted.
It’s been awhile since I caught a ferry to or from the UK but the trains to and from the continent have passport controls both sides and everyone is checked. I suspect his name would raise an alarm bell when the passport is scanned, though I really don’t remember what happened on the ferry.
I wouldn't imagine that he'll be offered a choice. He'll be shipped back to Aus.
I can't see any reasonable defence against the deportation that would stand a chance in a UK court.
Thank you Julian for confirming my long held beliefs of the atrocities the US government continues to do on our world. I'm sorry that we are not as strong as you but your actions have breathed hope. Hope that there still are breathing humans with their heads together,fighting for a better world. You have convinced at least this soul to be a shittier brick. I apologize for my comfy cowardness. You deserve better citizens alongside you. By the looks of things, they are likely to be behind bars as well. Good luck sir.
> Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.
I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.
> Ms Persson said: "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events.
> "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation."
Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable there).
Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?
The guy conspired to hack govt computers with the intent of publishing classified information. This much we know from the Manning chat transcript.
What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot.
The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape victim wanting their day in court).
What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this more widely reported, but over the weekend it was announced that the Judge who has been presiding over Assange's detention hearings appears to have been removed from the case due to her conflicts of interests: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/16/arbuthnot-out-as-assan...
>the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.
This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not "weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they no longer need trumped up charges to snare him.
He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those involved in his illegal detention.
In most European countries, the state prosecutor decides who to charge with a crime, regardless what purported victims think.
It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged to prosecute it if possible.
Same is true in the U.S. as a victim you can decide whether to “press charges” i.e. file an official crime report. However it is only the District Attorney’s office that has the power to file criminal charges.
I don’t know all the details of the Swedish system, but governments over here are generally much more centralised than you’re used to from the U.S.
Prosecutors are generally not independent, but work for some arm of the justice ministry and as government officials are subject to abuse of power laws, so they can be punished for mishandling cases.
That’s the theory, at least. In practise, it’s not always that transparent what’s going on.
That’s not true, in the U.S., the DA has complete authority to decide whether to file charges. You have no right to a trial until after you are charged.
You can file a civil suit to get a judge to make declarations of fact in some cases, but I don’t believe there is any criminal equivalent of that.
In the US, there's a concept known as "prosecutorial discretion," and it refers to the fact that prosecutors have nearly absolute authority over what charges are brought.
There are limits to this, but they are extremely rare. For example the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a prosecutor can't base their decision on race or religion because it would violate the 5th Amendment.
The women did not accuse him of rape. They described alleged sexual assault, wanted the police to contact him to ask him to take an STD test, and the police took it upon themselves to want Assange for questioning in regards to sexual assault.
To be more clear: the women did not approach the police with the intention of them pursuing any allegations about sexual assault. The accusation was made by police after hearing the context around the women's request. So while the women communicated circumstances that the police interpreted as sexual assault, it was not their direct accusation
> the women did not approach the police with the intention of them pursuing any allegations about sexual assault.
I don't understand what were their intentions then. Its hard to fathom for me as to why someone wouldn't pursue criminal allegation against a person who raped them. Really bizzare.
Because the alleged situation wasn't what we commonly think of as rape, and I agree the circumstances are bizzare - which is why I am skeptical of this entire situation.
Assange is being prosecuted for his journalistic activities, while the news media that happily profited by republishing WikiLeaks material sits by, hardly raising any objection. That's the really shameful aspect of this entire drama. You'd think they'd be raising all hell right now in order to protect the freedom of the press.
You mean it was just a pretext to exfiltrate him to the US, and that Sweden does not in fact have a long national track record of pursuing rapists across international boundaries without prejudice, using the full arsenal of state power?
I don't know if it was only a pretext, probably not only, but Sweden certainly doesn't have a track record of either pursuing rape suspects using the full arsenal of state powers, or of publicly announcing rape allegations as was done in this case.
The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions and statements has baffled me from day one.
His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing to read.
It’s obvious that the rape charges were a highly selective enforcement action. It would be great if Sweden pursued every rapist as though they were Osama Bin Laden but the fact is they only pursued one.
In England, you get (essentially automatic) early release at the half way point. He's now held on remand for the extradition proceedings: didn't ask for bail, and essentially no chance of him being granted it given what happened last time he was bailed...
Given that Assange greatly benefited Donald Trump's campaign (by publishing damaging but authentic emails from Clinton's campaign), I won't be one bit surprised if the US charges somehow disappear as well.
There were, not long ago, times when Assange was considered a saint of freedom after he exposed the corrupt Bush administration, the liberals everywhere were defending him and his case everywhere, they even made a Hollywood film about him. But he then made the mistake of his life, he exposed the corruption of the Clintons and got implicated in the Russia gate meme because Trump somehow won. Now he is totally on his own. Nobody will defend him even if these corrupt governments burnt him alive and broadcasted it live. Makes you think if these liberals actually give a single shit about freedom anyway.
I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should not live anyway.
They are not, but isn't it a weird coincidence that his alleged victims stayed silent with a fucking RAPE case until he decided to expose the most powerful people and governments in the world?
If you are going to take a stand say something worth taking a stand for. Provide some proof. Just saying that the liberals will not hear it will not gain any new listeners. Assuming that your audience is hostile and will not listen will just give you a hostile audience.
Ah, the old “he was free to leave anytime” argument. No. He wasn’t. Yes, technically, he was free to leave, but arguing that is ignoring the fact that leaving would mean jail.
It’s victim blaming. Would you say a victim of Stockholm Syndrome is “free to leave at any time”? No, because that’s a ridiculous argument. Would you say Snowden is “free to leave [Russia] at any time”? No!
So why is it an acceptable argument when it’s Assange? Because he possibly committed a crime in Sweden? Because he indiscriminately blew the whistle on the US government’s crimes?
Sure, he’s a puppet of Russia, but to say he doesn’t deserve the same protections as the rest of us is to argue for tyranny.
But that line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me …
Just for the sake of argument, say you are a bank robber who successfully barricaded yourself somewhere (really uncomfortable) where police cannot reach you. You are then free to leave at any time, but would be arrested as soon as you did.
Would you really argue that police would have to drop the case to avoid torturing you?
Your line of thinking seems to presuppose that the threat of arrest was somehow unjust, but you never really argue for that point.
I’m not arguing that the case is unjust. I’m refuting the argument that he was free to leave at any time. I see where the two cross, so I’ll argue the former here:
He’s wanted because he embarrassed the United States government. Espionage laws are a horrible attack on free speech and freedom of the press and I’m appalled the Supreme Court previously ruled they’re constitutional.
I think that’s a much more coherent argument, especially if you factor in a fear of disproportionate punishment.
For example, in the case of the bank robber I would actually agree that it would amount to torture if police were clearly communicating to the bank robber that they were intent on killing them as soon as they showed up, no matter what they did.
So there is nuance to this and I don’t think that nuance ever gets you around to actually arguing the case and the facts of the case.
The espionage act is a horrible piece of legislation. So challenge it. Go fight the charges. Take the spotlight and let everyone see how unjust the law is.
Fleeing from the law made Assange seem like a coward, which worked against his cause. There is no better way to seem guilty than to run from a legal process that most people feel is fair, even if you personally think otherwise.
> Fleeing from the law made Assange seem like a coward, which worked against his cause. There is no better way to seem guilty than to run from a legal process that most people feel is fair, even if you personally think otherwise.
This comment comes up a lot in regards to Snowden too. I'm not a huge fan of Assange, but my feeling is that the people who whistleblow on corrupt governments at great personal risk don't owe you their martyrdom as well. It's very easy to claim that other people should be sacrificial lambs, but typically that argument falls apart once it gets personal -- if the government was attacking people in this forum right now, we wouldn't see so many people arguing that they had a duty to allow themselves to be used as an example of the potential harm.
I believe people like Snowden have the right to try and protect themselves from unjust systems, and fleeing from said systems is a particularly harmless measure with very few problematic knock-on effects.
Snowden hasn't, I don't believe, ever claimed that the law he broke was particularly unjust or that he'd be unfairly persecuted should he return to the US. He just felt that breaking the law was worth it, and importantly was and is comfortable living with the consequences.
Assange didn't do that. He just claims unfair persecution.
Snowden's been pretty explicit that he would be willing to return to the US if he was guaranteed a free trial, and that he believes the Espionage Act would deprive him of that trial.
> They want to use special procedures they want to be able to close the courtroom, they want the public not to be able to go, know what's going on. And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations.[0]
Ah, but that's the issue. As currently constructed, the espionage act cannot be challenged in court.
Assange would want to argue that he isn't a spy, but a whistleblower. The argument would be that he willingly broke a law in order to expose more illegal behavior by the government. In order to make that argument, he has to be allowed to talk about what the government does.
Under the espionage act, though, the government can say that the details of their activities are classified, and therefore are not admissable evidence in a public trial. Therefore, their guilt cannot be proven because any claim of illegal behavior could not be backed by evidence.
This is plainly false. The judge is the one who decides if the actions of the government bare relevant. If the judge believes they are, they will be admitted, and parts of the trial will be closed, but other parts will remain open.
I would urge you to do research to confirm your assertion here. What I described is not a fringe view, it's literally a summary of the Criticism section in the Wikipedia entry for the law in question:
No one is saying that civil disobedience should be consequence-less. We’re arguing over the legality of the laws one would be breaking and whether they’re just.
I believe that it is better to be free and seem like a coward than be punished via a process which I believe is unfair and spend the rest of my life in jail or worse.
In your example, the bank robber was free to leave a prison of their own making for the confines of another prison, or perhaps be shot and die.
That was Assange's choice: a prison in the UK, or a prison in the USA. He didn't feel that the USA would either be safe or provide a fair trial, and so he stayed put.
>Didn't it mean he would be free to stand trial for the rape allegations?
No, there were never any charges filed against Julian Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for "questioning" by a Swedish prosecutor in a case that has now been entirely dropped due to a complete lack of substance. Assange's assertion was that this Swedish investigation was created entirely as a pretense to seize him and ship him to the United States for his activities as a publisher (an assertion that has proven to be true given his current status). There was nothing preventing the Swedish prosecutor from questioning Assange in the UK - they have traveled abroad to question subjects of other investigations in the past.
They do. He should stand trial for that. However, I’m talking about the US case where he is being charged with espionage. In other words: exposing the US government’s illegal doings. He should not have to stand trial for that.
And to think that Assange was scared as hell of Hillary Clinton, which actually would be a much better option for him now, imagine Hillary forgiving Assange, she had a lot to gain from it, Trump doesn't care, he just really doesn't.
We're off in speculation territory, but I think it's unlikely the situation would have been worse for him than it is now (unless one buys into the ridiculous "The Clintons have people killed" conspiracy theory, in which case I have the basement of a pizza parlor to sell if anyone's buying. ;) ).
which to me, implies that Assange bought into that theory in 2016. Which given his situation, makes me think that 'rediculous' might not be the best descriptor.
Okay, but then any criminal on the lamb is being tortured? If someone jumps bail, we should just leave them alone, so we don't traumatize then? All criminals are being tortured (these same things happen in prison). I don't agree with how all this was handled, but I think we're being a bit rediculous here.
He could have made this point to the British legal system in an effort to avoid deportation. But instead he fled that process and doomed himself by biasing the entire British legal system against him.
There's no argument over that. The argument is that if his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy was akin to prolonged "psychological torture", he could have surrendered himself to British authorities and received the same treatment as any other prisoner. The strongest case you could make is that his life at the embassy was akin to living in prison.
Snowden's case is different, if I'm not mistaken, since the US suspended his passport. Meaning he cannot travel anywhere else (unless he's got a Russian passport, which I doubt).
Russians could grant him citizenship pretty easily though. I still think he would get picked up by interpol or CIA though if he went to the wrong countries or unescorted/unprotected by the country he traveled to.
He did not rape anyone nor did anyone accused him of rape. He is being accused of a very specific thing which at best might be classified as sexual misconduct.
> Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.
> He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.
It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.
> It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.
He did not force her though. He had consent to have sex with her. It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards.
> It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.
No, he wasn't defending Minsky, please stop saying that!
He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.
That shouldn't change the definition of rape.
> It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards
That's not what she says.
I was not there, did you?
I tend not to believe to a man that has at least 4 children with 4 women and he "prefers them virgins so he can be the first one to impregnate them" when it's about using condoms.
> He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.
Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality. Same thing applies here. Just because the Swedish law calls it rape it does not mean that it really is rape.
> Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality
Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.
He was talking about Minsky, who he was not defending.
> can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?
> Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.
Stallman was replying to "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Isiands." with "Does it really? I think it is moraily absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. i think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexuai assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone."
They use rape as to include breaking a condom -- which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious (or a much more serious) offence, because it confuses people.
They use any definition their law uses to define rape.
If it is rape for them and you do it in their country, it is rape.
> which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious
I don't think you and Stallman agreee at all.
Stallman was against using "sexual assault", because it can be conflated with opinions like "assault means using violence" while it's not necessary to be sexual assault.
Stallman was in fact in favour of using "statutory rape" which is not ambiguous.
Wait. If someone consents to sex with a condom, then the condom is tampered with, that violates the consent.
If I, a man, agree to have sex with a woman after we both agree to use a condom, but I find out that she knowingly punctured the condom, I didn't consent to that.
Sure, and it should be illegal (especially if she knows that she has a sexually transmitted disease), but it is far from rape.
If you consent to have sex with a woman as long as she promises to not cheat on you and she breaks that promise, is that rape? I would claim that it is not.
Why not? It not being rape is based on having consent. If the consent was not there, it is rape. Also, if she was sleeping, they couldn't discuss consent vis a vis the condom.
> the woman he raped and that will not see any justice
Presumption of innocence is a basic concept in law, and an international human right.
We don't know at this point if he raped, assaulted, grabbed by some part of the body, or did anything to any woman. There was not a trial, no judge, no proofs, no videos.
What we know is that Wikileaks most probably contributed to save lots of women from being massively raped. There was a global sense of impunity for armies before and a totally different situation after Assange. Soldiers were allowed to do anything they pleased with civils including children and women. Not so easy anymore
This argument seems a bit silly. The rescuing circumstance for the argument is that whatever legal process he would face in the US might not be described as predicatble or maybe not even just.
But in general, the arument is flawed. If I rob a bank and barricade myself in my basement when the police shows up I'm not being subjected to torture because I'll face jail for my bank robbery if I leave the basement. Not after one day nor after ten years.
Either there's a rule of law or there's not. You can't hide from the police and then claim that the very act of hiding is an act of torture enacted on you by the police.
You're assuming he had a lot of choice in the matter and that the UN didn't take that into account. Nils Melzer when asked about it responded: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." - https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1134400849097220102
Also, as far as I'm aware, Assange didn't claim he was tortured, the UN experts on torture came to that conclusion.
The "rule of law" isn't about individual citizens submitting to the system.
It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power and who's being charged.
The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by that system.
I didn't claim Assange was breaching the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that individuals are accountable for their actions. A court of law is usually the correct way to determine accountability. The state is obligated to protect individuals (in this case the women who were allegedly raped) via the justice system.
The idea that having to flee charges is tantamount to being tortured implies the state does not have that right. If there is to be the rule of law, the state has not only the right but the obligation.
Throughout history it's been very clearly demonstrated that laws are not always just and impartial. I'd even go so far as to argue that there has never been a time in history where all laws were just and impartial. Having a difference of opinion doesn't automatically make the other person a troll, and acting like that's the case doesn't lead to productive discourse
I didn't say they were equivalent. OP said that there's rule of law, and that if you are hiding from the police you can't claim that having to hide is an act of torture, which is obviously not always the case
I'm not weighing in on this particular example because I haven't looked at in sufficient depth.
However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations.
This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
I concur with you on this. The availability of a theoretical ‘out’ does not automatically mean that the victim is consenting to the ongoing mistreatment. Often it is intrinsic that taking that ‘out’ has perceived costs that make it less preferable than enduring the experience the victim is being subjected to. This is in and of itself a source of great angst for the victim.
"Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment."
Are you saying we should take your word over theirs?
On 9 May, Assange had only been in jail for about a month. The expert claims the abuse predates that ("for a period of several years") which implies it started in the Ecuadorian embassy where he had been staying of his own accord.
He could leave the embassy at any time, which is where the purported damage was done. He is now in prison, where he cannot leave it any time. Melzer visited him recently in prison, thus your quote. It seems pretty clear. The parent may be lacking in nuance for his situation, but it is correct.
They were waiting in front of the embassy 24/7. We can now see that he was exactly right in his prediction of what would happen if he left, and how.
He's been held in solitary confinement, itself already widely regarded as torture.
Saying "he could have left" in this situation, after being shown exactly how that would have/did go down, is like camping out in front of your ex-girlfriend's house with a baseball bat, then telling the officer you didn't beat her and thus did nothing wrong. Except the whole world can see you totally did beat her when she finally left the house.
I didn't say otherwise. The grandparent stated that he had a choice to leave, the parent implied that he did not because he was in prison. That is not true - the grandparent was correct.
As I said, framing it as that simple of a choice may lack some nuance in describing the pressure he was under. But it is factually true that he was not forced to stay in the conditions which are being criticised. Some would also say that the nature of the conditions was somewhat of his own doing, since the relationship with the embassy is well documented to have deteriorated greatly over time. I can't vouch either way, and it seems people are downvoting normal conversation so I doubt it will be productive to continue.
You're plastering this thread with the same talking points. People are responding to you. Were you going to address any of the responses, or just keep plastering?
I'm not talking about Sweden. The charges in Sweden never mattered besides being a way for him to be extradited to the U.S.
The U.S. does have the death penalty, and it would be on the table if the U.S. didn't tell the U.K. he won't get it. It's still possible that the U.S. lied of course.
Either way, he'll likely be put in prison in the U.S. for the rest of his life.
He always maintained he didn't face the charges in Sweden for fear of being extradited to the U.S.
For sexual assault he'd likely already be getting out of prison in Sweden, or at least be very close. Extradition to the U.S. has always been the real threat to him. The fact that he's facing extradition now proves it was a valid concern.
Even if the Swedes were honestly just trying to get him for sexual assault, he was still gonna face U.S. extradition. It doesn't matter if they were helping the U.S. knowingly or not.
> He always maintained he didn't face the charges in Sweden for fear of being extradited to the U.S.
Yeah... not really.
He's guilty of being a dick to women and is finally paying for it.
According to court transcripts, Assange said he “wanted to impregnate women” and “preferred virgins because he would be the first to impregnate them”. He also reportedly told one of his alleged victims that “Sweden is a good country to have kids in”.
It’s unclear if Assange has engaged in this behavior with other women, but it is clear that he was fixated on, if not obsessed with, impregnating women. By the time he was accused of sexual assault, he had impregnated at least four women, all of whom gave birth to the children.
There also was the time when he tried to scare them, to make them drop charges by using wikileaks as a weapon to frame them as manipulators
“An actual court case is going to be very, very hard for these women,” he warned. “They will be reviled forever by a large segment of the global population, so I don’t think it’s in their interest to proceed that way.”
And he also wanted to share his opinion on Sweden with the rest of the World
“I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism,” Assange said in a 2010 interview during which he also described Sweden as “the Saudi Arabia of feminism”.
Imagine saying the same thing of U.S. in U.S. while accused of having raped a woman from U.S.A.
He clearly deserve what happened to him in Sweden, I don't know about the rest, but the Sweden rape case was the nail on his coffin, and he's the sole responsible for it.
1) Assange in UK
2) Sweden tried to extradite him (via an EAW) relating to charges in Sweden
3) Assange goes to Sweden
4) The charges are dropped, but instead the US extradites him from Sweden to the US
1) Assange in UK
2) Sweden tried to extradite him (via an EAW) relating to charges in Sweden
3) Assange goes to Sweden
4) The charges are actually real, he goes to trial, gets off, then the US extradites him from Sweden to the US
1) Assange in UK
2) Sweden tried to extradite him (via an EAW) relating to charges in Sweden
3) Assange goes to Sweden
4) The charges are actually real, he goes to trial, goes to jail, then the US extradites him from Sweden to the US after his sentence
1) Assange in UK
2) Sweden tried to extradite him (via an EAW) relating to charges in Sweden
3) Assange doesn't goes to Sweden
4) The US extradites him from UK to the US
Why is Scenario 4 any different to scenarios 1, 2, 3?
Sweden has historically been more than happy to just let US intelligence just black bag Swedish residents and take them to prisons in countries that allow torture, whereas until recently the UK wouldn't even let extraordinary rendition flights refuel on British territory.
It doesn't work quite like that. People can be extradited to countries that have death penalty, as long as the country gives guarantees that death penalty (or other cruel punishment) will not be applied. Thus it is possible for a person to be extradited to U.S. for a murder committed in the U.S., but the death penalty is then not possible.
I didn't say the UK wouldn't, I believe both countries would turn him over rather quickly to the USA to get some diplomatic points. They don't care what happens to Assange because he is a citizen of neither one.
So why the whole charade of extraditing him from the UK to Sweden, to then begin the "to US" process, when the "to US" process could have simply started in the UK?
Actually he'd probably travel to a country that would offer him asylum, where he'd be able to live freely, if he was not denied that. So it's hard to say he was not held in the embassy.
Assange isn't a great example of someone escaping justice (or "the arm of the law", if you'd prefer).
He spent years in a prison-like environment, and is now in prison for skipping out on bail - he's been in jail-like conditions far longer than the original crime would've incurred. He's likely to wind up in US hands later on, too.
1. His self-imposed sequester was not in prison and had NOTHING to do with justice or serving time. He willingly chose his location and is allowed to leave it at any moment. Can you say that of any prisoner? He had free access to internet and visitors and many many luxuries rightfully denied to criminals serving time
2. Even if you think his "self-imposed punishment" was bad, it categorically by definition is not justice, and as this point, he raped a woman (understood the limits of her consent, and violated that consent to engage in non-consensual sex) and has gotten away with it with literally zero repercussion.
Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone?
He chose conditions that were arguably worse in most respects but one (access to communication/internet) than a Swedish prison.
Prison sentences in Sweden are hardly ever longer than his stay in the embassy, except for the most heinous crimes.
His claim all along was that he seek refuge in the embassy were because he feared US extradition. Those claims were ridiculed by his opponents. They are now incontrovertibly verified as true.
My understanding (based on reporting [1]) is that the Obama administration was very much on the fence about prosecuting Assange, largely because they were concerned about political blowback and precedent that it might set for prosecuting journalists. The added blowback from using the Swedish rape charge as a "backdoor" extradition would have made the case politically even more charged. So there was a view that, while extradition was possible, it was so politically fraught that Assange had a pretty good chance of walking away from it. This was also a time when Wikileaks/Assange was relatively more popular, since they weren't perceived as taking a partisan interest in an election outcome [2].
Then Donald Trump got elected and Assange was doomed.
>He chose conditions that were arguably worse in most respects but one (access to communication/internet) than a Swedish prison.
Are Nordic prisoners allowed to walk out the front door wheneever they choose?
Last time I checked, prison required removing freedom. You have to 'escape' prison, not walk out the front door.
Just saying, this bad rationalization only works on people biased towards Julian and looking to excuse his rape and the lack of justice therein.
Here's the killer point: if Nordic prisons are better, why didn't Julian stay there instead?
I bet he wanted internet, unlimited guest visits, London takeout, and the freedom to leave whenever he wanted, as well as being able to avoid a court trial and never have to be declared guilty.
> Here's the killer point: if Nordic prisons are better, why didn't Julian stay there instead?
Because he was worried about the US finding some flimsy justification to extradite him (an Australian citizen) and prosecute him locally. Fears which, apparently, were justified.
And I must say, it is bitter to have been called paranoid for years for saying US would extradite him. Or for talking about ECHELON for years and see it go from "you are crazy" to "everyone knows every country does that" after Snowden.
His embassy conditions, by all accounts, were pretty similar to a Nordic prison. "Allowed to leave at any moment" is a bit of a disingenuous way of describing "be immediately arrested and taken to real-jail". His freedom of movement was severely restricted for a good part of a decade - that's a significant repercussion, even if not directly inflicted by a court.
> Even from a rehabilitation standpoint, does anyway seriously think Julian learned his lesson and will respect consent after he literally got away with raping someone?
Oh, not at all, but the same is true for many of those who go through the normal justice system.
I don't care if his voluntary embassy stay was "similar to a Nordic prison" because he was not made to stand trial and face justice for his crimes. Justice isn't "well I did a bad thing and locked myself in a comfy house with internet and takeout food for a few years". Could you even imagine?
His "freedom of movement" is self-restricted by his fear that he will have to face justice for acting as an agent of Russian military intelligence to attack America including laundering Russian intelligence into America to upset elections.
He got away with raping a woman completely. Zero justice, zero rehabilitation, zero punishment.
His voluntary embassy stay is related to his fear of facing justice for playing spy games, not for rape.
EDIT: It's disgusting how many people are justifying his lack of justice for raping a woman by saying that his unrelated embassy stay "makes up" for it. What happened to morality? He raped a woman and did not stand trial for it. He received no punishment.
If you did this, make no mistake, you'd have gone to prison. Because you're not an agent government playing spy games. Because protecting you doesn't advance a nations anti-west ideology. Because you're a regular person so you have to face regular person justice.
>Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more.
Really depends on what you mean by 'got away with rape'. He spoke to one judge who questioned him and left him free to go. The case got closed and the reopened by a completely different judge and he was called back. The political ties of the woman he slept with leaves a lot of unknown questions in place.
He had a modicum of interaction with the justice system and offered to be questioned over the phone which they religiously denied.
Nobody should get away with rape, but it's not clear to me that's what the story is in regards to justice.
Especially since the original "victim" retracted the allegations. Sweden simply refused to drop the charges afterwards, apparently for political reasons.
This is curious, because I definitely remember someone recanting their allegations. It was a big deal. It's hard to find clear information on it now. Was there a second accuser maybe?
Edit: based on some other comments there may have been two accusers. In that case my original comment was misleading, thanks for the correction.
> His "freedom of movement" is self-restricted by his fear that he will have to face justice for acting as an agent of Russian military intelligence to attack America including laundering Russian intelligence into America to upset elections.
Let's assume for a moment that your premise is true, and Assange got the DNC documents from Russian intelligence.
Should he have buried the documents? He had in his possession documents that a huge number of Americans would find politically interesting. They showed, among other things, that DNC operatives were biased against Bernie Sanders and looking for ways to undermine him. They also contained transcripts of speeches to Wall Street firms that Hillary Clinton had refused to publish during the primaries.
Assange has always said that he will publish whatever documents are verifiable and of public interest. If he had decided not to publish the DNC documents, that would have been a violation of his stated principles. It would even look like he's hiding documents in order to help Hillary Clinton win the election.
What you're describing as "acting as an agent of Russian military intelligence" is actually the publication of documents of public interest - something journalists do. If what you're saying is correct, every NY Times journalist who publishes state secrets could be thrown in jail. Imagine if a NY Times journalist got a cache of documents about misdeeds of the Russian government, and the NY Times were to publish those documents. Imagine then that the Russian government claimed those documents came from a foreign intelligence service, and labeled the NY Times journalist a hostile intelligence agent. Would you support the extradition of that journalist to Russia to face charges of espionage?
>Let's assume for a moment that your premise is true, and Assange got the DNC documents from Russian intelligence. Should he have buried the documents?
The idea that Wikileaks took a non-partisan, journalistic attitude towards these leaks is a fantasy. He repeatedly contacted the Trump campaign and told them that he had "damaging leaks" on the way, and made it clear in internal chats that he wanted to use Wikileaks to sway the election outcome.
Journalists aren't required to be non-partisan. You don't seriously believe that journalists working at the NY Times or Washington Post are non-partisan, do you?
What matters is whether the information Assange published was true and in the public interest. Do you believe that it would have been better for Assange to cover up for the DNC and Hillary Clinton and decide not to publish their dirty laundry?
Being partisan is fine for a journalist! But your premise in the OP is that Assange had to choose between burying the documents and publishing them -- because he had a responsibility to inform the public over what were matters of public interest. I don't think he did either of those two things, I think he did a third thing.
What he did was perfectly in line with what he's always said he would do. The only reason people are upset is that they wish he wouldn't publish embarrassing things about politicians they support. If Assange had instead published Trump's dirty laundry, the very same people would be praising him. But as Assange said, it's hard to imagine what he could have published about Trump that would be worse than what was already publicly known.
People are upset because the dream of WikiLeaks was that it would would help to produce a better, more open, just world. This was the thesis that Assange himself put forward [0].
But that didn’t happen. Instead, it seems likely that closed and secretive intelligence agencies were able to effortlessly repurpose WikiLeaks into a weapon for pursuing the foreign policy of an unjust government. That isn’t a crime necessarily. It just completely undermines the core argument that Assange and Wikileaks made for the organization’s existence.
If your argument is that an organization like WikiLeaks fundamentally has no choice but to allow itself to be misused in this way, then I think it’s reasonable to ask why we need such an organization in our world.
It was only misused in your eyes because you didn't like the leaks. But I think it's obvious that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails were positive. They uncovered some really unsavory aspects of the American political system that Americans have a right to know about. WikiLeaks wasn't misused: it did a public service.
> I think it’s reasonable to ask why we need such an organization in our world.
So that information like the DNC's bias against Bernie Sanders doesn't get covered up by less ethical journalists who don't want to harm their favorite candidate.
It's crazy that people are so indoctrinated with this kind of propaganda.
Here's the kicker that proves it: There was nothing salacious in the DNC/hillary emails. NOTHING!
But in the alt-right propaganda universe, just like Donald Trump is currently floating several Big Lies by repetition, you've consumed the "Big Clinton Lie" and are repeating here robotically.
As someone who actually read those emails, my favorite was when Hillary Clinton several years after meeting a poor girl in a country without much access to education for women remembered her and inquired about her life, trying to see if they had helped her, and trying to rekindle the interest in helping her.
Truly she was a demon.
And when I look around America today, how Donald Trump just threw his weight behind the demon butcher Eddie Gallagher, a SEAL so murderous that his own brothers in arms disabled his rifle because preventing his indiscriminate slaughter of women and children was preferable to having him be of any use in a firefight, it makes me realize what we lost.
Assange, Wikileaks and Russian intelligence didn't just steal an election, they stole America's soul. They stole our empathy. They stole our ability to be better.
Now, we're a dictator-idolizing, cruelty-is-the-point, concentration camping, murderous and evil people. There's no way around it.
Assange has done more damage to democracy, freedom and empathy in America than any human in history, I could wager. Our press freedoms near all time lows, use of our military to oppress and murder is skyrocketing, the concentration camps are filling up and the next population (homeless) are slated for encampment... Assange did his job, Russia is extremely impressed.
I agree with what you say and still support him. This has nothing to do with his personality and everything to do with the fact that a free press is more important than any one of the particular things you stated.
A lot of people liked Assange back when he had only yet published information about corrupt politicians in the Third World. Some people abandoned Assange when he published information about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people abandoned him when he published information about the back-room dealing of US diplomacy. Some people abandoned him when he published embarrassing information about a Democratic Presidential candidate.
As for destabilizing the globe: some would say the people Assange has exposed are the ones destabilizing the world.
How does that prosecutor sleep at night knowing they lie for a foreign government? I also thought Sweden was supposed to be one of the countries that actually cared about human rights, too.
> “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading:
Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...