Assange Hearing Day 2(craigmurray.org.uk)
craigmurray.org.uk
Assange Hearing Day 2
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/
294 comments
> This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not,
That can't be true. For an extradition to happen, the requesting party must provide some evidence - not for a conviction, but to establish that the charges were made in good faith and that it is not unreasonable that the accused will actually be found guilty. States can't just frivolously request extradition. AFAICT.
> You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by any country
Yes, for the reasons you gave and others.
That can't be true. For an extradition to happen, the requesting party must provide some evidence - not for a conviction, but to establish that the charges were made in good faith and that it is not unreasonable that the accused will actually be found guilty. States can't just frivolously request extradition. AFAICT.
> You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by any country
Yes, for the reasons you gave and others.
Under the UK-US extradition treaty of 2003, no prima facie (at first appearance) evidence is required, only reasonable suspicion.
This means that the US is not required to provide any evidence to be examined by the court, merely assert reasonable suspicion based on specific facts. This is a lower legal standard of proof and so will theoretically be easier for the prosecution to meet.
This means that the US is not required to provide any evidence to be examined by the court, merely assert reasonable suspicion based on specific facts. This is a lower legal standard of proof and so will theoretically be easier for the prosecution to meet.
Wow, that's terrible. I didn't know that.
It's funny how, on one hand, there's a lot of hue and cry regarding how the UK has given up some of its sovereignty entering the EU, and on the other hand, a foreign country can pick off people to be locked up in prison without an evidentiary basis.
It's funny how, on one hand, there's a lot of hue and cry regarding how the UK has given up some of its sovereignty entering the EU, and on the other hand, a foreign country can pick off people to be locked up in prison without an evidentiary basis.
It’s perhaps not called extradition within the EU, but Sweden sought the “extradition” of Assange without even formally charging him with a crime.
That was under the auspices of a European Arrest Warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant
It is extradition. They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him. He suggested a questioning in the Ecuadorian embassy but they refused.
> They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him
This was all for show. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
This was all for show. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
I didn't say the demand was legitimate, but it was still an extradition request...
True. Of course, that may not matter. From her behaviour, the judge appears to understand the outcome the hearing is expected to produce, and as Mr. Murray fears in the O.P, it seems like nothing said in court is going to affect that...
Please don't speculate, simply to get to the point of the hearing Assange is having now The US needed to provide:
>a prosecutor's affidavit describing the facts of the case, including dates, names, docket numbers and citations, and preferably executed before a judge or magistrate (particularly if extradition is sought from a civil law country)
>copies of the statutes the fugitive is said to have violated, the statutes governing the penalties that may be imposed upon conviction, and the applicable statute of limitations
…
>… certified copies of the arrest warrant (preferably signed by the court or a magistrate) and of the indictment or complaint
>… evidence of the identity of the individual sought (fingerprints/photographs) and of the evidence upon which the charges are based and of the fugitive's guilt in the form of witness affidavits (preferably avoiding the use grand jury transcripts and, particularly in the case of extradition from a common law country, the use of hearsay)
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-958.html#_Toc46360...
>a prosecutor's affidavit describing the facts of the case, including dates, names, docket numbers and citations, and preferably executed before a judge or magistrate (particularly if extradition is sought from a civil law country)
>copies of the statutes the fugitive is said to have violated, the statutes governing the penalties that may be imposed upon conviction, and the applicable statute of limitations
…
>… certified copies of the arrest warrant (preferably signed by the court or a magistrate) and of the indictment or complaint
>… evidence of the identity of the individual sought (fingerprints/photographs) and of the evidence upon which the charges are based and of the fugitive's guilt in the form of witness affidavits (preferably avoiding the use grand jury transcripts and, particularly in the case of extradition from a common law country, the use of hearsay)
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-958.html#_Toc46360...
Nothing I've said was based on speculation. It is not the purpose of extradition hearings to determine whether the accused is guilty or not.
Wait, what is this "everycrsreport.com" -- is that some kind of authority on.. things?
Should we trust it? If so, why?
Should we trust it? If so, why?
It's a search engine for Congressional Research Service Reports and is easier to copy/paste from into HN than the PDFs themselves:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/0?termsToSearch=98-...
https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/0?termsToSearch=98-...
Thanks... though I think it would be great to refer to original sources, rather than some random site that adds... what value? They do add Google Analytics/tracking, I would not consider that "added value".
> CRS is Congress’ think tank, and its reports are relied upon by academics, businesses, judges, policy advocates, students, librarians, journalists, and policymakers for accurate and timely analysis of important policy issues. The reports are not classified and do not contain individualized advice to any specific member of Congress. (More: What is a CRS report?)
> Until today, CRS reports were generally available only to the well-connected.
The original sources have not been generally available to the public.
> Until today, CRS reports were generally available only to the well-connected.
The original sources have not been generally available to the public.
[deleted]
> As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years.
You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1]
I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Ma...
You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1]
I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Ma...
> They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons.
How valid is that argument? It seems like you could use it to justify doing anything to them.
The link you gave specifies:
> Norman Carlson, director of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the Marion incident, said that ordering the permanent lockdown was the only way to deal with "a very small subset of the inmate population who show absolutely no concern for human life."
Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok?
I imagine that seeing them as dangerous and violent comes from the crimes they committed that put them there. Is there no expectation at all that they would rehabilitate with their time there?
I wonder how the US compares on these matters (especially the public expectation of rehabilitation) with other countries (re: "US justice system has serious flaws" as jonathanstrange put it).
How valid is that argument? It seems like you could use it to justify doing anything to them.
The link you gave specifies:
> Norman Carlson, director of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the Marion incident, said that ordering the permanent lockdown was the only way to deal with "a very small subset of the inmate population who show absolutely no concern for human life."
Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok?
I imagine that seeing them as dangerous and violent comes from the crimes they committed that put them there. Is there no expectation at all that they would rehabilitate with their time there?
I wonder how the US compares on these matters (especially the public expectation of rehabilitation) with other countries (re: "US justice system has serious flaws" as jonathanstrange put it).
> Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok?
No, you misunderstand that. Just because the inmates are locked down for 23 hours a day (allowed out for exercise) doesn't mean that they don't get released at the end of their sentence, when the judge ordered them to be released.
When I came into the federal prison system, I flew from Seattle to Denver to Oklahoma City on Con-Air. At the stop in Denver, a boarding inmate was seated by me and struck up a cheerful conversation. He told me he was thrilled to be out and about, that he was from the Supermax in Colorado Springs. He said that going out for court was the only time he got to eat cheeseburgers. Said he had to try to kill a guard in order to get sent out. I never saw him again after that flight.
I was in three prison riots. Literally backed in a corner and fearing for my life. After each one, the facility was locked down for a long time. Not just the few guys who were involved in the riot, but everyone. When there are security issues that threaten the safety of staff, all the inmates are locked down. There is no right to freedom in prison.
I never was in a Supermax. I was in medium security the whole time. I got to eat cheeseburgers. I learned how to draft, both by hand on the board and in Autocad. I played a lot of D&D.
But you would probably have had to been there to understand fully.
Edit: Almost all inmates in Supermax are doing life sentences, so I don't know how their sentences can get extended.
No, you misunderstand that. Just because the inmates are locked down for 23 hours a day (allowed out for exercise) doesn't mean that they don't get released at the end of their sentence, when the judge ordered them to be released.
When I came into the federal prison system, I flew from Seattle to Denver to Oklahoma City on Con-Air. At the stop in Denver, a boarding inmate was seated by me and struck up a cheerful conversation. He told me he was thrilled to be out and about, that he was from the Supermax in Colorado Springs. He said that going out for court was the only time he got to eat cheeseburgers. Said he had to try to kill a guard in order to get sent out. I never saw him again after that flight.
I was in three prison riots. Literally backed in a corner and fearing for my life. After each one, the facility was locked down for a long time. Not just the few guys who were involved in the riot, but everyone. When there are security issues that threaten the safety of staff, all the inmates are locked down. There is no right to freedom in prison.
I never was in a Supermax. I was in medium security the whole time. I got to eat cheeseburgers. I learned how to draft, both by hand on the board and in Autocad. I played a lot of D&D.
But you would probably have had to been there to understand fully.
Edit: Almost all inmates in Supermax are doing life sentences, so I don't know how their sentences can get extended.
Seems to me that this creation of hopelessness could be a major factor in creating unsafe environments.
Everyone who is locked up should have a reasonable chance of getting out within a reasonable timeframe.
Everyone who is locked up should have a reasonable chance of getting out within a reasonable timeframe.
I had a release date, and I could tell you how many days I had until then on any day.
The people with life sentences usually have done things to get them.
The people with life sentences usually have done things to get them.
> I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility.
I don't believe you.
I don't believe you.
> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press. Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took them long enough.
A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares to report on it.
Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press. Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took them long enough.
A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares to report on it.
> Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press.
Remember when Assange was a hero to these people when he exposed bush era war crimes?
Isn't it funny how propaganda works. When we think of propaganda, we think of what is being said. But many times propaganda is what is not said. What is covered is just as part of propaganda as what is ignored.
Another interesting aspect is when it comes to superificial issues, the mainstream press can be adversarial. But when it comes to certain issues, they all sing the same tune or are equally quiet.
Why the hysterical focus on the protests in hong kong and not the ones in bolivia? Why the hysterical focus on democracy in hong kong but not bolivia or venezuela? Why the neverending focus on the muslim ughyurs and hardly a peep about the suffering of the muslim yemenis or palestinians?
Why does foxnews/etc and the nytimes/msnbc/cnn appear to be so antagonistic while moving lockstep when it comes these stories? The nytimes/msnbc/cnn claim they care about democracy, but they hardly had anything negative to say about trump's invitation of his hand selected and unelected "president" of venezuela to the state of the union.
Remember when Assange was a hero to these people when he exposed bush era war crimes?
Isn't it funny how propaganda works. When we think of propaganda, we think of what is being said. But many times propaganda is what is not said. What is covered is just as part of propaganda as what is ignored.
Another interesting aspect is when it comes to superificial issues, the mainstream press can be adversarial. But when it comes to certain issues, they all sing the same tune or are equally quiet.
Why the hysterical focus on the protests in hong kong and not the ones in bolivia? Why the hysterical focus on democracy in hong kong but not bolivia or venezuela? Why the neverending focus on the muslim ughyurs and hardly a peep about the suffering of the muslim yemenis or palestinians?
Why does foxnews/etc and the nytimes/msnbc/cnn appear to be so antagonistic while moving lockstep when it comes these stories? The nytimes/msnbc/cnn claim they care about democracy, but they hardly had anything negative to say about trump's invitation of his hand selected and unelected "president" of venezuela to the state of the union.
It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail experience, sadly.
Is it typical for the US to jail Australian journalists or publishers in another country in a supermax prison in solitary confinement for almost a year on trumped-up charges to seek extradition for doing their job? You're conflating different entirely situations. The US MSM won't cover it because the powers that be won't let them and the MSM doesn't want to outrage people how publishing and reporting facts has been perverted into a "crime" because it doesn't suit those in power. If you're Jesse Ventura, Cenk Uygur or Phil Donahue, that's off the top of my head who just MSNBC has tried to silence. Chris Hedges - NY Times is another. Please get a clue rather than oversimplifying or rationalizing your lack of big-picture understanding and desensitized lack of empathy.
"You're conflating different entirely situations."
Not really. I'm saying that stories about poor jail conditions, excessive holding cell time, no speedy trial, violations of attorney-client privilege, etc, won't get much air time in the US. It's not newsworthy because it's common. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country, deplorable jail conditions, and nobody cares.
It's not whether I'm conflating. The US public will conflate and think, "yeah, bad jail conditions, poor rights protections, lack of due process, excessive confinement, already knew about that. yawn." Editors are aware, so this won't be big featured news here.
Not really. I'm saying that stories about poor jail conditions, excessive holding cell time, no speedy trial, violations of attorney-client privilege, etc, won't get much air time in the US. It's not newsworthy because it's common. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country, deplorable jail conditions, and nobody cares.
It's not whether I'm conflating. The US public will conflate and think, "yeah, bad jail conditions, poor rights protections, lack of due process, excessive confinement, already knew about that. yawn." Editors are aware, so this won't be big featured news here.
From time to times there are detailed articles by writers that happen to have a brush with the US jail and legal system. I can't recall any where they could not shake hand with their lawyer and have their court documents, including privileged communications from their lawyer taken. The typical US jail experience is bad, but I don't think the evidence say it is that bad.
I've personally seen all of that and worse. Anecdotal, of course. It is worth noting that the experience varies wildly in the US. Every city, county, federal, etc, jail has its own set of written and unwritten rules.
[deleted]
the US has successfully become a 3rd world country.
power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check
the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your dystopia.
power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check
the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your dystopia.
No, it just has the really high levels of corruption like a 3rd world country.
They still have rather large amounts of both weapons and economic leverage.
They still have rather large amounts of both weapons and economic leverage.
the US has been a rich 3rd world country, since Reagan.
As if any of this is recent. People keep voting for the same crooks, generation after generation. Another election cycle, nobody is talking about the wars, just what benefits the government should pay for.
Nailed it. Just vote harder, amirite?
This has come so far from the individual freedom that the bill of rights was envisioned to protect. Now the question is "what is right thing to do for me" rather than "what is the right thing to do."
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - anon
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - anon
It's crazy. I always speak out about the wars, that's the single most important issue of our day. The government is literally killing people overseas, spending literal trillions of dollars. You would think it's something we can all agree on, but people treat you like a literal crackpot.
Keep spouting off, it's better than being silent about it all
Yep. This is because of the vicious circle of money capturing power through greater wealth, greater corruption, and greater power. As Chris Hedges calls it: inverted totalitarianism. Autocratic plutocracy by force by other means. It's like how many Americans are chained to their jobs by healthcare and other benefits, but let's not call it slavery or indentured servitude (student loans) because anarcho-capitalism with "no government, no regulations and more greed will solve everything! It will just work itself out magically!"
I think we're more like a first-world banana-republic.
I mean, and this is just my opinion, this decline has been happening for a loooong time. Reagan just made things even worse by the war on drugs. Consolidation is just making things worse. I mean seriously look at the effective tax rate in the US for corporations over time [0]. The US is just making legislation to benefit corporations instead of individuals.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effec...
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effec...
An interesting learning was, how to most effectively frame a person if you want them to lose public support.
They first did the "rapist" framing. Making up a case that never existed and repeating it in the media all the time. Surprisingly, that didn't work as effectivity as expected.
So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing". That seems to have achieved the intended outcome with many previous supporters.
They first did the "rapist" framing. Making up a case that never existed and repeating it in the media all the time. Surprisingly, that didn't work as effectivity as expected.
So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing". That seems to have achieved the intended outcome with many previous supporters.
It's like straight out of Bolshevik handbook.
If you can catch a person stealing, it's open-shut case. Easy peasy.
If not, try to discredit them (appealing to the morals of the people) -- maybe they cheat on their spouse, or use prostitutes?
If that still doesn't work just try slapping an "enemy of the people" / fascist / reactionary label and see if it sticks.
If you can catch a person stealing, it's open-shut case. Easy peasy.
If not, try to discredit them (appealing to the morals of the people) -- maybe they cheat on their spouse, or use prostitutes?
If that still doesn't work just try slapping an "enemy of the people" / fascist / reactionary label and see if it sticks.
They also tried to frame him as working for the Russians before and when that did not work as a pedophile:
https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-t...
https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-t...
The rape accusations were credible, he just refused to answer to them. That doesn’t mean they were invalid in the first place, it just means they’ll never be proven in a court of law.
No, the police in Sweden invented them.
The UN special investigator documented the whole thing pretty thoroughly.
But apparently some people still stick with the lie.
Propaganda is pretty effective.
The UN special investigator documented the whole thing pretty thoroughly.
But apparently some people still stick with the lie.
Propaganda is pretty effective.
It was incredibly effective. His support dropped to almost nothing overnight because nobody wanted to be seen supporting a rapist.
Nope, he did offer to answer to them, repeatedly:
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
This article details more than I could ever have wanted to know about the entire situation. It is an excellent 10,000 ft view.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
This article details more than I could ever have wanted to know about the entire situation. It is an excellent 10,000 ft view.
I would use more specific facts rather than pronouns. "They" were the Swedish prosecutor clearly acting on orders from their government either a) in furtherance of appeasing the US or b) someone who didn't like or was working for one of Assange's enemies, a con-artist, concocted a story with enough detail to convince an authority that crime potentially occurred.
It is transparent that Assange doesn't belong to either American political party but attempted to parlay the emails* into a hail-mary get-out-of-jail-(but-not-for-)free card by trying to appease Trump. On that, he gambled and lost, and now some idiots on the internet assume idiotic statements like "he's a Ruskie spy," "he loves Trump," or "he's Putin's best friend."
\* The emails were NOT from a Russian operative. Assange stresses this if anyone cares to listen. Furthermore, if someone watched Jimmy Dore, they'd know this is a continuation of anti-Russian conspiracy theories.
It is transparent that Assange doesn't belong to either American political party but attempted to parlay the emails* into a hail-mary get-out-of-jail-(but-not-for-)free card by trying to appease Trump. On that, he gambled and lost, and now some idiots on the internet assume idiotic statements like "he's a Ruskie spy," "he loves Trump," or "he's Putin's best friend."
\* The emails were NOT from a Russian operative. Assange stresses this if anyone cares to listen. Furthermore, if someone watched Jimmy Dore, they'd know this is a continuation of anti-Russian conspiracy theories.
>So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing".
I don't know who is "they" but the shift in perception didn't need any prompting from anyone. It was Assange that started acting as Russia's stooge.
I don't know who is "they" but the shift in perception didn't need any prompting from anyone. It was Assange that started acting as Russia's stooge.
He "stated acting as Russia's stooge" when the Clinton people decided Russia was to blame for their 2016 elections campaign failing. Then suddenly everybody and their uncle became a Russian asset, Russian stooge, Putin puppet and so on.
Yes yes, we've heard it all before. Over 3 years of this stuff, with no evidence of any stoogery.
Yes yes, we've heard it all before. Over 3 years of this stuff, with no evidence of any stoogery.
These are not things that "they" did, though. They're things that "he" did.
Well, no. Assange did not accuse himself of rape and then push out a media narrative about it over successive months. "They" (in this case, Swedish and other legal authorities and various news agencies did). And though the question of his level of guilt in those cases remains somewhat ambiguous as far as I know, the now dropped rape cases have the whiff of political smear to them.
Regardless of Assange's merits or failures as an activist or human being, the current conditions he's being subjected to absolutely do indicate a man being made an example of for politically motivated reasons and in violation of basic legal guarantees. That is something that's far more dangerous than anything he himself is likely to be convicted of.
Regardless of Assange's merits or failures as an activist or human being, the current conditions he's being subjected to absolutely do indicate a man being made an example of for politically motivated reasons and in violation of basic legal guarantees. That is something that's far more dangerous than anything he himself is likely to be convicted of.
The way the rape case was initially dropped and then picked up again certainly seemed weird, and there may have been political pressure behind it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.
But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge seems strongly biased against him. Does not sound like a fair trial.
In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. He's done things I wholeheartedly support, and things I strongly oppose. I support his early fight against censorship and the release of the collateral murder video. I disagree with releasing all the material concerning sensitive operations unchecked and unedited. I am concerned by the rape stories, strongly oppose his self-centered grandstanding, and my working theory is that he went mad, possibly with power, due to the massive size of the Manning leaks. I supported the rape investigation, but oppose his extradition to the US, because I doubt he's ever going to get a fair trial there. And now it looks like even the extradition trial from the UK is not going to be fair.
He's a complex figure with good and bad sides. His are a bit more extreme than most. I find it hard to form a simple opinion about him, because nothing about this is simple. But it seems obvious to me that both blind support and total condemnation are wrong positions to take in this. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons, and that's very wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean he's entirely innocent either.
But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge seems strongly biased against him. Does not sound like a fair trial.
In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. He's done things I wholeheartedly support, and things I strongly oppose. I support his early fight against censorship and the release of the collateral murder video. I disagree with releasing all the material concerning sensitive operations unchecked and unedited. I am concerned by the rape stories, strongly oppose his self-centered grandstanding, and my working theory is that he went mad, possibly with power, due to the massive size of the Manning leaks. I supported the rape investigation, but oppose his extradition to the US, because I doubt he's ever going to get a fair trial there. And now it looks like even the extradition trial from the UK is not going to be fair.
He's a complex figure with good and bad sides. His are a bit more extreme than most. I find it hard to form a simple opinion about him, because nothing about this is simple. But it seems obvious to me that both blind support and total condemnation are wrong positions to take in this. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons, and that's very wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean he's entirely innocent either.
> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, disagrees: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
Specifically, this section:
"Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. 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."
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, disagrees: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
Specifically, this section:
"Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. 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."
"Go figure" seems such an odd phrasing for someone writing an objective investigation on such a serious matter.
I think there's a cake and eat it too. That the rape campaign was an organized smear campaign. That the combined resources of Sweden and the US (and possibly the UK) too's best ability at a smear campaign at someone was "may not have used a condom when he implied he would during a sexual encounter". That's a pretty sad indictment of those intelligence communities (regardless of the merits either way).
I think there's a cake and eat it too. That the rape campaign was an organized smear campaign. That the combined resources of Sweden and the US (and possibly the UK) too's best ability at a smear campaign at someone was "may not have used a condom when he implied he would during a sexual encounter". That's a pretty sad indictment of those intelligence communities (regardless of the merits either way).
The important part is that the woman would have had consensual sex, then walked away with the condom to use it as evidence for something that didn't happen. This makes it sound like it was planned from the beginning.
The rape case is rather odd to say the least, as posted above by a user you might want to read this article:
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on the 21st and only after that did she accuse him of 'rape' (not actually rape, but stealthing).
According to her he had intentionally broken the condom during sex. However the broken condom that was submitted into evidence had no DNA of her, nor of Assange.
Neither woman accused him of anything before headlines were being made apparently.
Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on the 21st and only after that did she accuse him of 'rape' (not actually rape, but stealthing).
According to her he had intentionally broken the condom during sex. However the broken condom that was submitted into evidence had no DNA of her, nor of Assange.
Neither woman accused him of anything before headlines were being made apparently.
Not sure what "stealthing" is. I know that in Sweden, having sex with someone in a way they don't want, still counts as rape, and I think that's not unreasonable. It's certainly a different case than violent rape, but that doesn't mean it's 'not actually rape'.
I hadn't heard that the condom contained no DNA. That certainly sounds odd to me, but I'm no forensic expert. If that's sufficient proof that the whole story is a lie, then that's certainly worthy of investigation. False rape allegations are as serious as rape in my opinion.
I hadn't heard that the condom contained no DNA. That certainly sounds odd to me, but I'm no forensic expert. If that's sufficient proof that the whole story is a lie, then that's certainly worthy of investigation. False rape allegations are as serious as rape in my opinion.
The page I linked is an interview with a United Nations investigator (Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). I'm just relaying what was written in a condensed format.
The lady who went to the police to force assange to do an HIV test never accused him of rape, they had unprotected sex and she wanted to ensure that she was safe.[1]
The second lady only accompanied the first. But the article had already been made and she only made a statement the day after. As for the reason to not clasify it as rape, it's probably due to a contradiction in her statement. [2]
Per the article: [1] "S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes."
[2] "... But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. ..."
The lady who went to the police to force assange to do an HIV test never accused him of rape, they had unprotected sex and she wanted to ensure that she was safe.[1]
The second lady only accompanied the first. But the article had already been made and she only made a statement the day after. As for the reason to not clasify it as rape, it's probably due to a contradiction in her statement. [2]
Per the article: [1] "S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes."
[2] "... But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. ..."
> That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though.
As you well know, it is usually impossible to prove a negative, especially when it supposedly occurred in a private setting between an accuser and an accused.
> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.
They did not seem very credible. That is, it is credible that they encountered Assange, but the accusations not so much. At any rate, they were not credible enough for the Swedish authorities to decide to indict Assange (which they could have done).
> In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. ... I am concerned by the rape stories. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons ... but that doesn't ... mean he's entirely innocent
Assange's current imprisonment is not about any allegations of sexual misconduct. He is not accused of any of that. Also, be aware that Assange was _made_ controversial by the treatment of those allegations and by the UK's insistence to put Assange in custody. Yet we know that the UK was motivated not by the Swedish affair but by the US, and went as far as to pressure Sweden not to drop their extradition request. So, regardless of whether you are skeptical of Assange's personal/sexual conduct - that matter was cynically used to persecute him politically.
And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.
As you well know, it is usually impossible to prove a negative, especially when it supposedly occurred in a private setting between an accuser and an accused.
> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.
They did not seem very credible. That is, it is credible that they encountered Assange, but the accusations not so much. At any rate, they were not credible enough for the Swedish authorities to decide to indict Assange (which they could have done).
> In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. ... I am concerned by the rape stories. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons ... but that doesn't ... mean he's entirely innocent
Assange's current imprisonment is not about any allegations of sexual misconduct. He is not accused of any of that. Also, be aware that Assange was _made_ controversial by the treatment of those allegations and by the UK's insistence to put Assange in custody. Yet we know that the UK was motivated not by the Swedish affair but by the US, and went as far as to pressure Sweden not to drop their extradition request. So, regardless of whether you are skeptical of Assange's personal/sexual conduct - that matter was cynically used to persecute him politically.
And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.
> And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.
I think this is entirely unfair. There are numerous implications in the parent, and others, posts that they recognize that other things, claims, etc. are going on. The assumption that anyone who fails to discount the other issues has been "manipulated" is bad faith...
... no more than assuming that Craig Murray is an impartial observer of events occurring here too, and not entirely biased as well.
I think this is entirely unfair. There are numerous implications in the parent, and others, posts that they recognize that other things, claims, etc. are going on. The assumption that anyone who fails to discount the other issues has been "manipulated" is bad faith...
... no more than assuming that Craig Murray is an impartial observer of events occurring here too, and not entirely biased as well.
You believe that Assange is both a rapist and a right wing zealot? There is no evidence to support either claim.
As pointed out elsewhere, the rape allegations are credible. And while I'm not calling him a right-wing zealot, and considered him left-libertarian for his dedication to free information and opposition to censorship, he did at some point seem to work with Trump and Russia in order to falsely discredit Clinton and get Trump elected. So again, there is evidence to support it.
As pointed out by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, they were not, and the Swedish authorities did everything to indicate that they didn't care about Assange's answers, they just wanted to force him out of the embassy.
This is kind of how prosecutors in Sweden think though. They don’t want to ask some questions over the phone, to be answered by someone feeling physically safe. They want to lock you up for a day or two, to shake you up a bit, and then ask you the questions. It’s primitive as fuck, but kind of how it works here.
This isn't the only case that has involved Sweden questioning people in another country, they have a treaty with the UK explicitly setting up a method of questioning people over video link in the UK. This was unacceptable for some reason with Assange.
And I doubt anyone involved thought that Assange has felt physically safe for the past decade.
And I doubt anyone involved thought that Assange has felt physically safe for the past decade.
Muellers report doesn't say so, I've read the whole thing from cover to cover and they do talk about him a lot. Yes, he was useful for Russia, just like he was when the American liberals hailed him as a hero and next Jesus when he was beneficial for them, shat on Bush, leaked Palin's emails etc. All politics are full of hypocritical behavior but Americans sure put it to next level, possibly because of the two party system, but I personally couldn't care less about it. It's sickening and vile.
It should be noted that Mueller's report - the redacted version at least - doesn't contain evidence for any of the claims it does make. So even if Mueller had concluded "Wikileaks was working with Russia", you would not have found any basis for the claim in that report, besides more assertions to that effect.
How credible is a rape case when the police themselves admitted to altering the reports of the accusers to fit the narrative given to them?
That is pretty curious.
“police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW.”
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... (The report itself)
“police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW.”
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... (The report itself)
[1] https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
A source for that statement.
A source for that statement.
Citation needed.
Propaganda works.
You probably once supported his fight for free speech, until they made up the "Trump supporter" story.
With that, they actually managed to catch many people who previously supported him.
Of course, he was "left" and they told all his friends that he "now supports the enemy".
Was a really clever framing move.
You probably once supported his fight for free speech, until they made up the "Trump supporter" story.
With that, they actually managed to catch many people who previously supported him.
Of course, he was "left" and they told all his friends that he "now supports the enemy".
Was a really clever framing move.
Made up how, exactly?
> On Oct. 3, WikiLeaks, writing a day before it was set to announce the release of hacked Democratic emails, wrote to Trump Jr.: "Hiya. It'd be great if you guys could comment on /push this story."
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
* https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/563996442...
* https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign...
Which aspects of these stories were "made up"?
> On Oct. 3, WikiLeaks, writing a day before it was set to announce the release of hacked Democratic emails, wrote to Trump Jr.: "Hiya. It'd be great if you guys could comment on /push this story."
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
* https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/563996442...
* https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign...
Which aspects of these stories were "made up"?
Further:
In a subsequent message to Trump Jr., WikiLeaks proposes what it acknowledges is "an unusual idea":
"Leak us one or more of your father's tax returns," the message suggests, "Most of the harm has already been done by the nyt [New York Times] and pre-empted by your father (tax writedowns)."
"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality," the message continues. "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing about Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russian' source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."
In a subsequent message to Trump Jr., WikiLeaks proposes what it acknowledges is "an unusual idea":
"Leak us one or more of your father's tax returns," the message suggests, "Most of the harm has already been done by the nyt [New York Times] and pre-empted by your father (tax writedowns)."
"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality," the message continues. "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing about Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russian' source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."
That trial may not be unlawful in the U.K. the way it would be in the U.S.
A quick search using Google news in the UK shows that all the main broadsheets and many of the tabloids have Assange related stories over the past several days at least. I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the media as disinterested.
None of the homepages I looked at today (Guardian, BBC) has a single mention of Assange. Yes they all had token articles buried somewhere though if you search.
The Guardian has it on it's UK Politics main page. That's not really buried.
There is only so much space front pages have and much more impacting news events transpiring currently. The aspect as you say that even the Guardian has no mention of this upon its front page, should be testament to that, more so as they would be the first ones in many eyes to jump all over this if it was felt by them to be front page material over other content.
However - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/26/julian-assange... does not appear to be a token article in any way, shape or form. Though if one is to label anything not upon the front page as a token article, then I concede that point from that perspective, albeit I disagree with that assertion given the substance and depth of the article in this instance.
However - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/26/julian-assange... does not appear to be a token article in any way, shape or form. Though if one is to label anything not upon the front page as a token article, then I concede that point from that perspective, albeit I disagree with that assertion given the substance and depth of the article in this instance.
Fair point regarding it perhaps not being a token article. What I was trying to express is the lack of attention the trial is receiving, no one I know has mentioned it because the media has decided not to give it any obvious coverage, obvious in the sense that people realise it is something that is currently happening. The Guardian has chosen many mundane subjects to grace it's homepage that I think most readers would agree are much lower on the importance scale. Someone at the organisations has obviously decided "yes, we need to cover it, but just do the minimum we have to to appear to not be ignoring it"
Agreed, though equally interesting how social media seem to not be picking up upon it either - at least going by Twitter trends in the UK: https://trends24.in/united-kingdom/
Though given those trends, kinda glad the front page is not composed around those trends as a whole and with that, we should be thankful as the news would be a far sadder place if that was the case.
[EDIT ADD] the BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 seems like it could and should traction and if enough people click the link - it would actually make the front page given how the BBC has the top 10 articles being viewed listed upon its front page. So there is some people power input upon this that you can exercise.
Though given those trends, kinda glad the front page is not composed around those trends as a whole and with that, we should be thankful as the news would be a far sadder place if that was the case.
[EDIT ADD] the BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 seems like it could and should traction and if enough people click the link - it would actually make the front page given how the BBC has the top 10 articles being viewed listed upon its front page. So there is some people power input upon this that you can exercise.
The article he linked is in the frontpage of The Guardian right now, under Headlines.
This is correct, I'm now seeing it near the bottom of the homepage.
The decision not to the show it during prime news reading hours in the morning and mid day would have been a conscious decision though I believe. I think there's some apathy towards the case these days.
The decision not to the show it during prime news reading hours in the morning and mid day would have been a conscious decision though I believe. I think there's some apathy towards the case these days.
"decided" versus do give it a different priority then you do.
They are much further away from this story as we are. I can ask plenty of people whats up with assange and they will just not know anything much.
There might be no article from him today but i have read plenty of articles about him the last few weeks. Including the criticisim of how he gets treated.
So what is the real issue? I would say none. Would i say there is some deliberate action going on? Also no.
They are much further away from this story as we are. I can ask plenty of people whats up with assange and they will just not know anything much.
There might be no article from him today but i have read plenty of articles about him the last few weeks. Including the criticisim of how he gets treated.
So what is the real issue? I would say none. Would i say there is some deliberate action going on? Also no.
A prominent journalist has been locked up in Belmarsh prison in harsh condition for months. Even if there was some coverage now, it's still massively undercovered. That should have been on the news just about every day or two - as a form of news media self-defense if nothing else. Politicians answer other questions should also have been asked why Assange is in custody.
Not to mention the under-coverage during his years in effective imprisonment by the UK in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Not to mention the under-coverage during his years in effective imprisonment by the UK in the Ecuadorian embassy.
> Politicians answer other questions should also have been asked why Assange is in custody.
He's in custody because he's a flight risk. Are there people out there genuinely disputing this?
He's in custody because he's a flight risk. Are there people out there genuinely disputing this?
1. I meant, why is the government pursuing any legal action against him, not why he's in custody vs house arrest.
2. Even the claim that he is a flight risk is disputed. Assange has not ran away or hid anywhere - neither while in Sweden nor in the UK. He asked for political asylum, which is not the same as flight. Not to mention the fact that Assange is in a poor condition, physically and mentally, after years of detention and months of harsh solitary confinement, and if anything, should be transferred to a civilian medical facility for treatment and recuperation.
2. Even the claim that he is a flight risk is disputed. Assange has not ran away or hid anywhere - neither while in Sweden nor in the UK. He asked for political asylum, which is not the same as flight. Not to mention the fact that Assange is in a poor condition, physically and mentally, after years of detention and months of harsh solitary confinement, and if anything, should be transferred to a civilian medical facility for treatment and recuperation.
The UK government are pursuing legal action against him because he is wanted in the US and the US government submitted an extradition request under the US-UK extradition treaty, and Assange is appealing it
... and journalists should be asking why is the UK government helping the US in trying to put a publisher like Assange on trial, rather than repealing the extradition request.
> Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner".
That... is saddening. I donate cca 120$ to AI every 6 months believing they would right some wrongs out there where it matters, but I'll strongly consider dropping this.
Maybe they don't have balls to go directly against US government, but then we are talking about huge amount of wrongs that will never be challenged.
As a non-US person, like 95% of the world, I couldn't care less if his actions of revealing massive US war atrocities and breaches of international laws potentially endanger some US spies.
That... is saddening. I donate cca 120$ to AI every 6 months believing they would right some wrongs out there where it matters, but I'll strongly consider dropping this.
Maybe they don't have balls to go directly against US government, but then we are talking about huge amount of wrongs that will never be challenged.
As a non-US person, like 95% of the world, I couldn't care less if his actions of revealing massive US war atrocities and breaches of international laws potentially endanger some US spies.
[deleted]
So you're upset that he's NOT being tried in the press, and instead under judicial review in a court of law? I don't see any problem here.
It really is a testament to how shitty main stream outlets actually are. To be fair, there are some exceptions, but not that many as it seems.
If they don't feel the need to defend press freedom, it is probably not worth reading their detached antics.
If they don't feel the need to defend press freedom, it is probably not worth reading their detached antics.
Tortured?
I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured?
I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured?
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert [a medical expert accompanying the UN Special Rapporteur on torture Melzer during a visit to Assange] 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...
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
Excuse me, solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year is torture, cruel, and unjust for a simple, nonviolent skipping bail charge. This sort of thing should've been 2 months at a minimum security prison in genpop at the most. This is purely political persecution by British toadies of American hegemony. If you can't see any of this, then you are blind.
Thanks for your informative (and measured) response. To clarify, I'm no expert on the Assange case, and was responding to the previous commenter, whose account didn't mention solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year.
If that is indeed the case, I'd agree it sounds pretty awful.
If that is indeed the case, I'd agree it sounds pretty awful.
Here's what Nils Melzer the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture had to say:
> Question: At what point does imprisonment become torture?
> Nils Melzer: Julian Assange has been intentionally psychologically tortured by Sweden, Britain, Ecuador and the U.S. First through the highly arbitrary handling of proceedings against him. The way Sweden pursued the case, with active assistance from Britain, was aimed at putting him under pressure and trapping him in the embassy. Sweden was never interested in finding the truth and helping these women, but in pushing Assange into a corner. It has been an abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a person into a position where he is unable to defend himself. On top of that come the surveillance measures, the insults, the indignities and the attacks by politicians from these countries, up to and including death threats. This constant abuse of state power has triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange and has resulted in measurable cognitive and neurological harm. I visited Assange in his cell in London in May 2019 together with two experienced, widely respected doctors who are specialized in the forensic and psychological examination of torture victims. The diagnosis arrived at by the two doctors was clear: Julian Assange displays the typical symptoms of psychological torture. If he doesn’t receive protection soon, a rapid deterioration of his health is likely, and death could be one outcome.
Source: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
> Question: At what point does imprisonment become torture?
> Nils Melzer: Julian Assange has been intentionally psychologically tortured by Sweden, Britain, Ecuador and the U.S. First through the highly arbitrary handling of proceedings against him. The way Sweden pursued the case, with active assistance from Britain, was aimed at putting him under pressure and trapping him in the embassy. Sweden was never interested in finding the truth and helping these women, but in pushing Assange into a corner. It has been an abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a person into a position where he is unable to defend himself. On top of that come the surveillance measures, the insults, the indignities and the attacks by politicians from these countries, up to and including death threats. This constant abuse of state power has triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange and has resulted in measurable cognitive and neurological harm. I visited Assange in his cell in London in May 2019 together with two experienced, widely respected doctors who are specialized in the forensic and psychological examination of torture victims. The diagnosis arrived at by the two doctors was clear: Julian Assange displays the typical symptoms of psychological torture. If he doesn’t receive protection soon, a rapid deterioration of his health is likely, and death could be one outcome.
Source: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
And a 3 million euro extortion scheme as a cherry on top. This was for the surveillance videos/audio and stolen medical, legal and personal documents of Julian's that WikiLeaks EIC Kristinn worked with Madrid police to thwart Ecuadorian embassy staff from "selling" back to them. (I take it they claimed some sort of diplomatic immunity because I don't see any news regarding arrests.)
This is how the corrupt elites in power maintain their position, folks; by ordering the political, legal, military, police, judicial establishments to lie, cheat, and steal in order to conduct a sham trial. It's a farce, without legitimacy.
This is how the corrupt elites in power maintain their position, folks; by ordering the political, legal, military, police, judicial establishments to lie, cheat, and steal in order to conduct a sham trial. It's a farce, without legitimacy.
No problem, I can never quite tell how writing comes across to be calibrated reasonably.
In general, I only hope and suggest every individual determines to make themselves more informed (knowledge is literally a prerequisite of power), in depth and breadth, rather than haphazardly absorbing information to a shallow depth that is ambiently shoveled on them by commercial forces.
I'm not a reporter, but I know a little about it:
- Just days before Assange was dragged out from the embassy, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief met with would-be extortionists in Madrid, Spain (unnamed Ecuadorian embassy staff; either intelligence operatives or for personal gain) who suggested a payment of 3 million euros in lieu of releasing months/years of surveillance video & audio and stolen documents covering Julian's daily existence. On top of that, WikiLeaks collaborated with the Madrid police to conduct a sting operation that recorded audio and video of the extortion scheme, and it was referred to the Madrid's prosecutor's office. (I've checked multiple sources and it doesn't seem any of the Ecuadorian embassy staff were arrested, they probably claimed diplomatic immunity?)
- Assange was holding a book, History of The National Security State by Gore Vidal, in his hand when he was being illegally dragged out by British police.
- It is internationally illegal to revoke asylum once granted, unless the statements leading to its granting are disputed by new evidence.
- Julian's parents support him on Twitter quite often, and were at the latest hearing. They had to threaten to walk-out in order to keep Kristinn (WL E-I-C) from being banned for no reason.
- Pamela Anderson has been a vocal supporter. One could surmise that they may have "a thing." I haven't seen her in a while supporting Assange, guess she's too busy marrying and divorcing Jon Peters. ;-)
- Dragging Assange out from the embassy accomplished four goals for Moreno:
1) Silenced a potential embarrassing story from misbehavior of civilian or intelligence service personnel allowing WikiLeaks to make Ecuador look bad.
2) Got rid of "a stone in [his] shoe." (That's a direct quote.)
3) Appeased US interests.
4) Secured the $10.2 billion IMF loan package.
Wikileaks Editor in chief holds press briefing 143K views - Apr 10 2019
https://youtu.be/QFq38d3Q9qY
Spanish police ‘recover Julian Assange surveillance footage’ [and stolen legal and medical documents]
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/10/julian-assange...
In general, I only hope and suggest every individual determines to make themselves more informed (knowledge is literally a prerequisite of power), in depth and breadth, rather than haphazardly absorbing information to a shallow depth that is ambiently shoveled on them by commercial forces.
I'm not a reporter, but I know a little about it:
- Just days before Assange was dragged out from the embassy, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief met with would-be extortionists in Madrid, Spain (unnamed Ecuadorian embassy staff; either intelligence operatives or for personal gain) who suggested a payment of 3 million euros in lieu of releasing months/years of surveillance video & audio and stolen documents covering Julian's daily existence. On top of that, WikiLeaks collaborated with the Madrid police to conduct a sting operation that recorded audio and video of the extortion scheme, and it was referred to the Madrid's prosecutor's office. (I've checked multiple sources and it doesn't seem any of the Ecuadorian embassy staff were arrested, they probably claimed diplomatic immunity?)
- Assange was holding a book, History of The National Security State by Gore Vidal, in his hand when he was being illegally dragged out by British police.
- It is internationally illegal to revoke asylum once granted, unless the statements leading to its granting are disputed by new evidence.
- Julian's parents support him on Twitter quite often, and were at the latest hearing. They had to threaten to walk-out in order to keep Kristinn (WL E-I-C) from being banned for no reason.
- Pamela Anderson has been a vocal supporter. One could surmise that they may have "a thing." I haven't seen her in a while supporting Assange, guess she's too busy marrying and divorcing Jon Peters. ;-)
- Dragging Assange out from the embassy accomplished four goals for Moreno:
1) Silenced a potential embarrassing story from misbehavior of civilian or intelligence service personnel allowing WikiLeaks to make Ecuador look bad.
2) Got rid of "a stone in [his] shoe." (That's a direct quote.)
3) Appeased US interests.
4) Secured the $10.2 billion IMF loan package.
Wikileaks Editor in chief holds press briefing 143K views - Apr 10 2019
https://youtu.be/QFq38d3Q9qY
Spanish police ‘recover Julian Assange surveillance footage’ [and stolen legal and medical documents]
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/10/julian-assange...
Assange is not in solitary confinement. This has been confirmed by Nils Melzer himself. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I'd not put a demonstrated and notorious flight risk in minimum security. Low security, yes--not to be allowed freedom of movement until the extradition is decided.
That certainly should have already happened. I don't understand any legitimate reason for the delay.
That certainly should have already happened. I don't understand any legitimate reason for the delay.
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession"
Yes, it is exactly torture.
https://apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/
Yes, it is exactly torture.
https://apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/
Again, probably depends on which aspects of his treatment you're referring to.
The original quote spoke of "twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells" - which is unpleasant treatment, but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners, fairly regularly, within our dehumanising criminal justice system. And I don't think it would constitute torture, per your definition.
That said, as another commenter added, he's apparently been in solitary confinement [for up to 23 hours a day[0] ] in a high category prison for a year. This sounds pretty awful, and much closer to a definition of "torture". That said, it's hard to know: maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh? And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine for prisoners in Belmarsh?
Would be interesting to know why it's taken a year for his case to be heard, though.
[0] https://inews.co.uk/news/julian-assange-solitary-confinement...
The original quote spoke of "twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells" - which is unpleasant treatment, but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners, fairly regularly, within our dehumanising criminal justice system. And I don't think it would constitute torture, per your definition.
That said, as another commenter added, he's apparently been in solitary confinement [for up to 23 hours a day[0] ] in a high category prison for a year. This sounds pretty awful, and much closer to a definition of "torture". That said, it's hard to know: maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh? And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine for prisoners in Belmarsh?
Would be interesting to know why it's taken a year for his case to be heard, though.
[0] https://inews.co.uk/news/julian-assange-solitary-confinement...
> but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners
It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners
> maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh.
Its often used in high-profile cases.
> And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine
It isn't. 60% of the cells at Belmarsh are multi occupancy and inmates at have access to education, workshops and gyms.
You seem to be casting doubt on a lot of claims, without putting in any effort to challenge your own assertions.
It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners
> maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh.
Its often used in high-profile cases.
> And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine
It isn't. 60% of the cells at Belmarsh are multi occupancy and inmates at have access to education, workshops and gyms.
You seem to be casting doubt on a lot of claims, without putting in any effort to challenge your own assertions.
> It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners
You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.
You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.
Easy. Take any politician involved in embezzlement. Even if they will do decades of jail, during their trial they never wear handcuffs. Yes maybe they are VIPs. But this kind of shows that Assange is treated as an anti-VIP.
If they’re already in custody?
Will not argue that some celebrities / politicians do and should not get special treatment (lead out the back door, not through the media circus), absolutely.
But if you’re already in custody, you’re getting cuffed. Not least for safety/security/risk to yourself/other prisoners.
Will not argue that some celebrities / politicians do and should not get special treatment (lead out the back door, not through the media circus), absolutely.
But if you’re already in custody, you’re getting cuffed. Not least for safety/security/risk to yourself/other prisoners.
In all honesty, just because it's common or routine, it can still be torture.
I mean they needed to wait for something big enough to bury it (Corona).
Now's the perfect chance :kappa:
In all honesty though, there is a bunch of evidence in his US court case that basically frees him of all accusations in his british court case, but the judge refuses to accept it. Although the case is about delivering him to the US. So she denies the rightfulnes of the US court system, but wants to deliver a person to this very system???
And then there is a treaty of denying political extradictions. But then the judge said that she does not care for the treaty and only honors the UK Extraction Act, which does not mention any of it.
In all honesty though, there is a bunch of evidence in his US court case that basically frees him of all accusations in his british court case, but the judge refuses to accept it. Although the case is about delivering him to the US. So she denies the rightfulnes of the US court system, but wants to deliver a person to this very system???
And then there is a treaty of denying political extradictions. But then the judge said that she does not care for the treaty and only honors the UK Extraction Act, which does not mention any of it.
It may not be "enhanced interrogation" but...
I guess A.I. can say Assange wasn’t a prisoner until he left the embassy, then he was detained and imprisoned.
Never the less, A.I. is probably influenced by politics as much as any other organization. Like the ACLU. Before the 2000s they were more about principles by and large and now it’s become principles+politics.
Never the less, A.I. is probably influenced by politics as much as any other organization. Like the ACLU. Before the 2000s they were more about principles by and large and now it’s become principles+politics.
It’s about funding for amnesty int. On a side note, it can be confusing when you refer to them as AI
If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case.
Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture.
None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.
Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture.
None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.
Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".
Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly.
Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment."
Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status.
(Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)
Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly.
Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment."
Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status.
(Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)
The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil".
Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...
Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...
Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil.
Having said that:
1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action.
3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
Having said that:
1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action.
3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
> 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact
What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance."
So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact".
And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public".
> But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form.
What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance."
So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact".
And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public".
> But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form.
What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration.
Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence.
About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted.
> Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form
That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper...
Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.
Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence.
About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted.
> Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form
That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper...
Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.
I'm confused about your understanding of events.
Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition.
Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries.
"At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation."
I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations.
> If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical.
There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf).
It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
> Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes.
I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.
Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition.
Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries.
"At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation."
I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations.
> If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical.
There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf).
It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
> Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes.
I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.
> Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued.
No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...
> It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
Even taking that as an assumption, it is still perfectly ethical to encourage privileged source to leak information about crimes or other information whose publication is of significant public interest.
No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...
> It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
Even taking that as an assumption, it is still perfectly ethical to encourage privileged source to leak information about crimes or other information whose publication is of significant public interest.
To be very clear, I entirely agree that it is perfectly ethical for an investigative journalist to encourage a source to whistleblow crimes or information in the public interest.
I also believe that Assange went above and beyond "encouraging" to participating in, and committing of his own accord, crimes intended to either cover tracks or that gained unauthorized access to further information (whose criminality nor public interest was not known).
Cracking or attempting to crack passwords of uninvolved third parties in order to get access to or coverup your unauthorized access to information is unethical at least, illegal at worst, no more than it would be for me to clone your ID card to gain access to your employer.
I also believe that Assange went above and beyond "encouraging" to participating in, and committing of his own accord, crimes intended to either cover tracks or that gained unauthorized access to further information (whose criminality nor public interest was not known).
Cracking or attempting to crack passwords of uninvolved third parties in order to get access to or coverup your unauthorized access to information is unethical at least, illegal at worst, no more than it would be for me to clone your ID card to gain access to your employer.
> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".
We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up.
1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made.
And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy
That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further.
> Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.
> Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.
That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further.
> Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.
> Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.
I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading:
> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.
Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?
There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.
But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:
"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"
is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.
> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.
Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?
There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.
But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:
"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"
is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.
Yes this shows maliciousness, because in normal circumstances when you are sick you spontaneously propose a reschedule.
It was never stated, shown nor implied that no rescheduling was ever offered, attempted, or took place.
No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave.
Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
> Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes".
Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes".
Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
> Is there some inherent human right against persecution?
"Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances.
> Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
1. Assange was not charged with any crimes.
2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.
"Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances.
> Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
1. Assange was not charged with any crimes.
2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.
Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.
Murray's report of the first day of the trial also worth reading: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
Interesting.
> Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state.
...
>There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.
> Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state.
...
>There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.
An alternate possibility is that this one reporter is too biased to report accurately. "Everyone's hiding the truth but me" is sometimes true, but not always.
This reporter makes no bones about being a close personal friend.
He's also stated with no evidence but only conjecture and supposition that "the US government has given explicit directions to the UK magistrate in how they are to treat the case", and "found it odd" that US officials were in court (for an extradition hearing to the US?).
He's also stated with no evidence but only conjecture and supposition that "the US government has given explicit directions to the UK magistrate in how they are to treat the case", and "found it odd" that US officials were in court (for an extradition hearing to the US?).
> when the entire media has abandoned that role.
Exactly. Almost as if the media as a whole gets orders to follow.
Exactly. Almost as if the media as a whole gets orders to follow.
That judge does not exactly come across as impartial in this description. I'm not a lawyer, but it does look like a mistrial of some sort.
Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this doesn't sound like he's getting one.
Whatever you think of Julian Assange, he deserves a fair trial, and this doesn't sound like he's getting one.
It's more the description is not impartial than the judge is not impartial. These hearing summaries are not good.
[deleted]
The problem is, from the very first paragraph, this website doesn't come across as anything close to impartial either. So I'd suggest you find some more sources before you criticize the judge.
More information on the piece of shit Judge
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
> world socialist website
Doesn't exactly seem to be impartial either.
Doesn't exactly seem to be impartial either.
It is public knowledge who the judge is married to, and what Wikileaks has published about him. The world socialist website's bias can further sensationalize the story, but the conflict of interest is undisputable.
True. Like I said: "from this description". No idea how accurate it is. It would be good to have other sources.
[deleted]
The courtroom has 14 seats for the public and press, so don't expect that many sources ...
This is an egregious miscarriage of justice and everyone involved in perpetrating it against this man - for publishing the misdeeds of government, should be strung up, Literally. That is what the founders of this country would have done, and we could do worse than following their example, here.
This is a sham as his trial in the US, which is inevitable, will be. The US will not stop at anything in this case because leaking a video showing that US soldiers enjoy killing children is worse for them than actually killing children. This video showed the world what everyone already knew: that the US, and specifically the US armed forces, have no ethics, no morals, no qualms about killing children even when it's unnecessary. This isn't about endangering troops. This is about image only. Frankly, I hope the leaks did endanger troops. Scum soldiers that enjoy killing children deserve to die as do their superiors who almost certainly encouraged it and certainly didn't punish it. The US armed forces have no honor and they should be ashamed of themselves as should the government that starts bullshit wars and kills millions of innocents. This applies to everyone from the commander in chief to the lowest soldier. As a fellow American, I despise them for their service and they can all go fuck themselves. The video that Assange leaked is just one example of many of despicable behavior and the fact that they are punishing him rather than the animals who enjoy killing children is indefensible, immoral, and reflects on the entire armed forces institutions. Fuck them.
I found the article valuable and also a bit ironic that the only method to donate to this blogger, apart from a bank transfer, is PayPal. (In case anyone does not remember, they suspended Wikileaks account in 2010.)
Is there any explanation for why the special counsel never attempted to interview Assange on the Wikileaks DNC email leak?
The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took 2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.
The whole premise of their investigation started with the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails through Wikileaks to help Trump win. Why never ask Assange where he got the emails? He’s been adamant publicly that it wasn’t Russia. Why not ask him then who in an investigation that took 2 years? This has always bothered me and intrigued me about Assange.
A quick summary of day 3 is here: https://www.rt.com/news/481711-assange-protection-political-...
According to GOOGL: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.”
Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.
Twelve Russian military intelligence officers were indicted in the US for in part working with WikiLeaks, so readers should find a more neutral source as well.
Given the state of the justice system in the UK and USA, maybe the best course of action for Assange is to get extradited, then tell the public that Wikileaks helped expose Hillary's private email server, and get pardoned by Trump...
The judge has basically said this is a politically motivated extradition, and the court is fine with that. I hope that this get appealed to a higher court and it's not left to this hostile judge.
The judge hasn't said that at all. The judge said that the UK law as a matter of fact doesn't bar extraditions for political reasons - so the defense has to prove the treaty is legally binding on the court as a pre-condition for even making the argument that extradition should be stopped because its politically motivated.
International treaties are more binding than domestic law, as the Vienna Convention:
https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%2...
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.“
In practice this is untrue.
Sure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.
I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which is pretty important:
"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."
Article 46 states:
""" 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """
I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.
"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."
Article 46 states:
""" 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """
I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.
Why is he calling Bellingcat a warmongering propaganda operations and saying they've got a "source of state, corporate or institutional finance"? I though they were independent
Because Craig Murray's position is always aligned with Kremlin's official position.
they are independent. i wouldn't trust craig murray if he was the last person on earth.
This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to have the rule of law.
The article is about England...
Why have you been downvoted? You are correct. This extradition hearing, and the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Assange, is taking place in London under British authorities.
From the day 1 proceedings [0]:
> Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public... When enquiring about facilities for the public to attend the hearing, an Assange activist was told by a member of court staff that we should realise that Woolwich is a “counter-terrorism court”. That is true de facto, but in truth a “counter-terrorism court” is an institution unknown to the UK constitution. Indeed, if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed.
Something very fishy is going on here, it seems. So while the proceedings might appear to be above board, it seems that Mr Murray (the reporter here) is convinced of otherwise:
> It’s the Lubyanka.
[0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
> Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public... When enquiring about facilities for the public to attend the hearing, an Assange activist was told by a member of court staff that we should realise that Woolwich is a “counter-terrorism court”. That is true de facto, but in truth a “counter-terrorism court” is an institution unknown to the UK constitution. Indeed, if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed.
Something very fishy is going on here, it seems. So while the proceedings might appear to be above board, it seems that Mr Murray (the reporter here) is convinced of otherwise:
> It’s the Lubyanka.
[0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
Several famous courts are or were historically attached to prisons in the UK, eg Lancaster Assizes which were connected to a prison inside Lancaster Castle and were frequently used for high security trials. The Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court) is built in the former Newgate Prison.
I don't think this is anything to be concerned about - and I believe building courts attached to prisons where people are held pending arraignment or trial is common practice in many countries for the same practical reasons, including some which are arguably in the interests of the defendants (it facilitates a speedy trial for example and can offer them and their defence team better physical security where they might be widely hated eg terrorist suspects or high profile murder trials).
I don't think this is anything to be concerned about - and I believe building courts attached to prisons where people are held pending arraignment or trial is common practice in many countries for the same practical reasons, including some which are arguably in the interests of the defendants (it facilitates a speedy trial for example and can offer them and their defence team better physical security where they might be widely hated eg terrorist suspects or high profile murder trials).
if we are splitting hairs, it's not England but the United Kingdom
There is a legal jurisdiction called England (or England and Wales), though. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own separate legal systems (Wales is pretty close to identical to English law and for most purposes England and Wales are the same jurisdiction, NI is quite similar to English law and Scotland is quite different).
I'm not sure if it's quite as distinct here where it's an extradition hearing though.
I'm not sure if it's quite as distinct here where it's an extradition hearing though.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
:)
:)
I think it goes without saying that the UK is becoming less and less the kind of place that any freedom-loving person would want to visit. Living in Europe, I am aware of a number of people who have decided to have nothing more to do with the place, and these are wealthy, educated, business leaders.
I can't imagine where this is going to lead if Assange is not freed as a result of these proceedings. We are watching the West eat itself.
I can't imagine where this is going to lead if Assange is not freed as a result of these proceedings. We are watching the West eat itself.
There have been significant cutbacks in the criminal justice system in England and Wales over the last decade or so - ironically by the party of "law and order".
I can strongly recommend the book by the Secret Barrister:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
I can strongly recommend the book by the Secret Barrister:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
>Woolwich Crown Court
".. if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed."
".. if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed."
I can’t imagine freedom-loving people choosing to live in hateful, racist places that are found all over Europe.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#Tab...
Perhaps Europe could learn a thing or two from US culture.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#Tab...
Perhaps Europe could learn a thing or two from US culture.
Since Brexit and because of it, the UK is becoming part of the US empire; it's a dominion and as such, it will obey US injunctions in that case and any other.
I’d be interested in your sources for these statements?
I understand the long history of cooperation between the US and UK (not always balanced) but has anything substantive changed since, or because of, Brexit?
I understand the long history of cooperation between the US and UK (not always balanced) but has anything substantive changed since, or because of, Brexit?
the US has a lot of leverage due to post-brexit trade deal negotiations, afaik that's the only change
Since the AUMF on Iraq and the founding of the 5-eyes War Coalition, the US has had its Empire expanded to include the Anglo- states.
We in the 5-eyes nations are all proxy subjects of the USA now. Our militaries no longer answer to us.
We in the 5-eyes nations are all proxy subjects of the USA now. Our militaries no longer answer to us.
It is sad to say that, but I would feel safer traveling from the EU to Russia than to the USA right now. My last visit to the states was such a bad experience (I've never been as physically terrified in my life as when the customs officers interrogated me), that I will never go there again.
It's no different here in the EU. After all, Sweden and the UK (until recently) are EU countries.
I'm from Germany, and I can totally see things like this could happen here too.
I'm from Germany, and I can totally see things like this could happen here too.
There is no way somebody could face in Germany for whistleblowing (or computer hacking, etc.) the same as what Assange is facing in the US if he's extradited. The alleged crimes they've stacked up against him have a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. It's simply ridiculous.
What is done to him is done to him by European governments so far.
UK != Europe.
UK may not be in the European Union, but they most certainly are in Europe.
The context is legislation and body of law. UK is most definitely not European in that regard.
Not sure what your are trying to say, but geography disagrees.
aren't the US Gov claiming people died due to his hacking?
With no direct proof, as far as I know.
But they do refer to the complete publishing of the diplomatic cable, where apparently quite some irakian sources were mentioned in plain text, or with enough information to identify them.
So it is possible, that indeed people died of it. (killed by ISIS or alike) And this point is also the weakest in the defence of Assange in my point of view. (generaly speaking. I am not in favor of extradicting him)
Because the goal of the leaks was to uncover war crimes etc. But by just publishing everything, even though wikileaks worked with newspapers before to especially prevent informants from being exposed, he went over the line.
On the other hand, the whole invasion of iraq was against all international right. So from that point of view Assange did not care for informants for the US. (he actually said so, said some press people involved)
But they do refer to the complete publishing of the diplomatic cable, where apparently quite some irakian sources were mentioned in plain text, or with enough information to identify them.
So it is possible, that indeed people died of it. (killed by ISIS or alike) And this point is also the weakest in the defence of Assange in my point of view. (generaly speaking. I am not in favor of extradicting him)
Because the goal of the leaks was to uncover war crimes etc. But by just publishing everything, even though wikileaks worked with newspapers before to especially prevent informants from being exposed, he went over the line.
On the other hand, the whole invasion of iraq was against all international right. So from that point of view Assange did not care for informants for the US. (he actually said so, said some press people involved)
It was German journalists who revealed the names in the leaks, not Wikileaks/Assange.
In fact, Assange made extra efforts to warn the White House that the leaks had been published with cleartext names.
So no, nobody died because Assange published leaked data. If anybody got into trouble at all because their names were revealed, its because German journalists published the password to decrypt the files containing the names of informants involved.
So, this is an even worse travesty of justice on top of the existing torture, already.
In fact, Assange made extra efforts to warn the White House that the leaks had been published with cleartext names.
So no, nobody died because Assange published leaked data. If anybody got into trouble at all because their names were revealed, its because German journalists published the password to decrypt the files containing the names of informants involved.
So, this is an even worse travesty of justice on top of the existing torture, already.
After reading Wikipedia about it ... not quite correct.
"It was German journalists who revealed the names in the leaks, not Wikileaks/Assange."
British, not german:
"In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full Cablegate file."
And he also did only revealed the password.
"Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
And after that password was revealed, Assange said, now state actors could decrypt it, it is better to just publish it, so everyone can read it.
"It was German journalists who revealed the names in the leaks, not Wikileaks/Assange."
British, not german:
"In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full Cablegate file."
And he also did only revealed the password.
"Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
And after that password was revealed, Assange said, now state actors could decrypt it, it is better to just publish it, so everyone can read it.
Trying to, although they admitted in Chelsey Manning’s court martial that nobody was injured as a result.
Scrapped my wishes of visiting as they started an unrelated war to save face against terrorism they probably caused themselves to a degree through intelligence operations where they propped up the perpetrators. The same they did with Saddam. At least they cleaned up that to a degree, but it also wouldn't win many prices.
Wait till you realize that US government officials can shoot you at the border at whim and they will not be even tried or your family allowed to take this to US courts, no matter the reason for the murder.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cr...
> Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that "regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications" and that any risk of undermining border security provides a "reason to hesitate."
Basically absolutely nothing will happen, except maybe your country's foreign ministry wagging a finger at US, if that.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cr...
> Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that "regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications" and that any risk of undermining border security provides a "reason to hesitate."
Basically absolutely nothing will happen, except maybe your country's foreign ministry wagging a finger at US, if that.
Truthfully though, it would be an international incident with lots of press coverage if someone from a western country was killed at the US border.
The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated.
The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or contested.
It's true that you have no rights as a non-US citizen at the US border, you can be detained for any reason on entry; so ask yourself: Would the media be interested in the fact you got detained for 9hrs? Even if you were abused in custody? (and not provably so).
I think that's unlikely, but that's a big deal to most people.
The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated.
The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or contested.
It's true that you have no rights as a non-US citizen at the US border, you can be detained for any reason on entry; so ask yourself: Would the media be interested in the fact you got detained for 9hrs? Even if you were abused in custody? (and not provably so).
I think that's unlikely, but that's a big deal to most people.
They certainly made a simple killing look fuzzy and complicated with all the arguments.
But even murdering people for fun on the border seems to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg
Outrage happens too. But reprecussions?
But even murdering people for fun on the border seems to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg
Outrage happens too. But reprecussions?
Er, I have nearly no information to go on, but he wasn't shot.
From the looks of it, a guy turned up to the border with an illegal substance in a drinking bottle; proceeded to drink it, and the officer gestured and the person took another few sips. Before succumbing to an overdose because it was a highly concentrated narcotic.
I don't think this is a defence or support of anything, I don't have more facts like: what was said, where did the drugs come from, was coercion involved, etc;
It just looks sad, certainly not an indictment of border officials.
From the looks of it, a guy turned up to the border with an illegal substance in a drinking bottle; proceeded to drink it, and the officer gestured and the person took another few sips. Before succumbing to an overdose because it was a highly concentrated narcotic.
I don't think this is a defence or support of anything, I don't have more facts like: what was said, where did the drugs come from, was coercion involved, etc;
It just looks sad, certainly not an indictment of border officials.
Since when is Mexico not a Western country?
Free Assange
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics like this one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He has done enough damage with his "work" on leaks with Russia. No thanks.
So shooting the messenger is now a defensible position in polite company?
The democrats rigged their own primary process and when this was revealed, it pissed off their base so much that they lost the election. You can’t blame the guy who brought these sordid deeds to light.
Perhaps he was slightly pissed off after being prosecuted for hinting at war crimes. But I don't think so, because the whole Russia story is a bit of a myth to explain dissatisfied voters.
Consider the source, right? Always ask ourselves "What does this source, this reporter, this organisation, want us to think?"
That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves.
Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof.
Of course so do we all, but not all of us are reporting on this case to the public at large, pushing our own beliefs and agenda.
That doesn't mean that we have to ignore everything they say; it just becomes us to know what the source's own agenda is, to better arm ourselves.
Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof.
Of course so do we all, but not all of us are reporting on this case to the public at large, pushing our own beliefs and agenda.
Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If this is an agenda, I support it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....
Thank you for the second link, absolutely astonishing
Boom. Here's someone considering the source. Well done 9nGQluzmnq3M. I bet very few people actually did.
he left the foreign service in disgrace.
this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.
this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.
If your problem is the source then read a different one. Here's the the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, on Assange being tortured.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
No problem here, buddy. Just reminding us all to consider that everything we read has an agenda. Including what I wrote, and what you wrote.
This kind of quisling act is of little value.
Look at yourself in the mirror. I invited you to consider the source. That's it. I asked you to exercise your mind, and to be careful not to accept other people's agendas, be they conscious or unconscious.
Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be.
Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. It should be standard fare; that people remember to consider the sources of things they read, especially on divisive subjects. Look at the time people are now wasting on this thread. Assange is on trial, yet people are here arguing about the nature of bias, FFS.
Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be.
Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. It should be standard fare; that people remember to consider the sources of things they read, especially on divisive subjects. Look at the time people are now wasting on this thread. Assange is on trial, yet people are here arguing about the nature of bias, FFS.
>Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post.
Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.
Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.
Publishing your beliefs and publishing the facts of a case are completely different things.
"Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.
"Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.
I disagree. Nobody, but nobody, is some kind of robot perfectly witnessing and reporting events in some kind of perfect language that perfectly conveys the whole truth and nothing but the truth (despite the typical HN cyborg-wannabee viewpoint - the locally over-represented kind of person who decides they have no biases). "Consider the source" is always an issue. Always.
It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.
It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.
What does this commenter want us to think?
He wants us to think "Murray is a conspiracy theorist with a wacko following†, so I will take this blog post with a pinch of salt."
Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray.
†that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.
Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray.
†that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.
i agree. craig murray is not to be trusted. he may be telling us exactly what is happening, but then again he might start another crusade against israel any moment now.
I'd like you to, yes.
The Guardian (never to be accused of outlandish sympathies toward Assange) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange...
I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient.
The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what.
The article headlines with thehandcuffs, but the vast majority of the article is nothing to do with that. So honestly no idea on that one; feels like a headline designed to attract attention and maybe spark outrage based on a reader's pre-conceived ideas without actually making any value judgement.
I get it, he's Assange, the state is bad, he's a whipping boy. Probably all true. Really, I think he's going to get a raw deal in this and I think the states involved have really spent too much time and effort chasing something that really won't benefit them, and perhaps not with as much fairness as we'd like.
But the breathless rush with which people run to believe is disconcerting.
The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what.
The article headlines with thehandcuffs, but the vast majority of the article is nothing to do with that. So honestly no idea on that one; feels like a headline designed to attract attention and maybe spark outrage based on a reader's pre-conceived ideas without actually making any value judgement.
I get it, he's Assange, the state is bad, he's a whipping boy. Probably all true. Really, I think he's going to get a raw deal in this and I think the states involved have really spent too much time and effort chasing something that really won't benefit them, and perhaps not with as much fairness as we'd like.
But the breathless rush with which people run to believe is disconcerting.
> I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient.
1. Moved from prison cell to holding cell at prison for transport.
2. Moved from holding cell into transport.
3. Moved from transport into court holding cell.
4. Moved from court holding cell into court.
And reverse equals at least 8. Add in a pretrial meeting with lawyer, and I can see 10 times in a day at court happening, entirely.
1. Moved from prison cell to holding cell at prison for transport.
2. Moved from holding cell into transport.
3. Moved from transport into court holding cell.
4. Moved from court holding cell into court.
And reverse equals at least 8. Add in a pretrial meeting with lawyer, and I can see 10 times in a day at court happening, entirely.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, certainly thinks assange is being tortured.
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
Why are you telling me this? I didn't say he wasn't. Genuinely, I think he's getting a raw deal. The balance of sources certainly indicates that. This isn't about whether or not his treatment is acceptable; this is about ensuring that we read sources carefully. Although it seems to be turning into the idea that to question a source is to take an opposing view, and even that to suggest a source be examined critically is to take an opposing view.
My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post.
If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.
If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.
My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.
> Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof.
and you somehow think
> I did not attack his credibility
and you somehow think
> I did not attack his credibility
Ah, I see. In which case, then yes. I attack his credibility. I attack yours. I attack mine. You are biased. I am biased. He is biased. Everything you write is tempered. Everything I write is tempered. His credibiltiy is compromised and the source must be considered, as is yours, as is mine.
This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.
This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.
This is always going to happen when you go about doing what he did in such a flamboyant way.
I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal..
That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public.
> Is Assange the victim of torture?
It looks as though he's being made an example of. If thats right or wrong is anyones guess, but it doesn't make anyone confortable.
I agree that he was by no means an angel, but I also see the reasons why the governments want to set an example. People have this idea that it's a terrible thing if their governments have secrets.. It's normal..
That doesn't justify this treatment of him. By any means, one would think he would be treated well in public.
> Is Assange the victim of torture?
It looks as though he's being made an example of. If thats right or wrong is anyones guess, but it doesn't make anyone confortable.
Yes he's being made an example of. He brazenly broke the (unwritten) rules and this is an educational beatdown[1].
It will end badly for Assange, because two of the "three cases where the EBD may be dangerous" (see linked article) apply. Whether Assange is 'in the right' or not, #1 will still apply to him.
[1] https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-education...
It will end badly for Assange, because two of the "three cases where the EBD may be dangerous" (see linked article) apply. Whether Assange is 'in the right' or not, #1 will still apply to him.
[1] https://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/03/cofv10-education...
That was an interesting read. Let's make it clear to the "educational beatdown" people that we don't agree!
Absolutely! Pressure can be applied. I’m not sure what might actually work in the end but a show of public opinion being against the ‘beat down’ could work. Unfortunately the public opinion has been primed to agree with it - or at least turn away for fear of being seen to defend a ‘rapist’.
> If thats right or wrong is anyones guess
You're fucking joking right?
Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter too, and has been signed by both the US and England.
You're fucking joking right?
Something about "cruel and unusual punishment", which is present in both English and American law. Furthermore, there's this little document called the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which has stuff to say on this matter too, and has been signed by both the US and England.
I'm not joking, what Assange did was at best 'cunty'. He could have been more careful releasing the information but he wasnt.
He's being made an example of, its clear as day. My 'if its right or wrong' depends on your side of the argument, so no. I'm not joking.
> "cruel and unusual punishment"
Couldn't agree with you more, he should not be made to suffer needlessly.. He's not in a labor camp, he's not being whipped. He knew he was going to be made an example of. This is the result. I'm not saying its nice, but it's not even punishment yet. He will receive much worse later I'm sure.
He's being made an example of, its clear as day. My 'if its right or wrong' depends on your side of the argument, so no. I'm not joking.
> "cruel and unusual punishment"
Couldn't agree with you more, he should not be made to suffer needlessly.. He's not in a labor camp, he's not being whipped. He knew he was going to be made an example of. This is the result. I'm not saying its nice, but it's not even punishment yet. He will receive much worse later I'm sure.
The post is interesting.
I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts her behavior to fit the mold.
Bilekas post is the same. It attempts to present a neutral position. It recognizes current state and assumes that this is just how things are.
Personally, I find it chilling that an individual today is willing to effectively say the following:
1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )
I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts her behavior to fit the mold.
Bilekas post is the same. It attempts to present a neutral position. It recognizes current state and assumes that this is just how things are.
Personally, I find it chilling that an individual today is willing to effectively say the following:
1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )
> 1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )
I get what you mean and yes, you have a point. I guess I'm just surprised that people are getting annoyed this is happening now when it was always going to happen.
It's like constantly reminding someone that the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand. Then people being surprised and outraged that the water burnt your hand.
This outrage just seems almost topical. It should have been made earlier, it wasn't so this is the result.
I get what you mean and yes, you have a point. I guess I'm just surprised that people are getting annoyed this is happening now when it was always going to happen.
It's like constantly reminding someone that the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand. Then people being surprised and outraged that the water burnt your hand.
This outrage just seems almost topical. It should have been made earlier, it wasn't so this is the result.
It's easy to say this was going to happen. (Especially after it happened.) But it's not a natural law like boiling water burning one's hand. Proteins are always going to be damaged by heat. But here we observe due process being violated. It's not a natural law that due process is going to be violated. Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives. As a society, we can shape those to a large degree!
We could have complained earlier, in other instances. You can say we should have been more alert. There were victims we ignored. But that does not invalidate our complaints now!
We could have complained earlier, in other instances. You can say we should have been more alert. There were victims we ignored. But that does not invalidate our complaints now!
> But that does not invalidate our complaints now!
No but they are less appreciated. A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange.
> Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives.
Yup, and given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing.
No but they are less appreciated. A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange.
> Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives.
Yup, and given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing.
> A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange.
I don't get what you are saying. It sounds like we shouldn't complain about it happening here because it's happening in other places.
I count myself as part of a wider society of which the UK is a part. If we want to criticize other societies, like Russia for example, we better damn well make sure we don't run the same shit-shows of legal persecutions. I also have more influence over processes in my society, so it is logical to spend my efforts here. Lastly, I care more about due process in my society just out of self-preservation.
Your relativism is useless in deciding where to spend effort. If you don't care, sure, you don't have to. But don't piss on people that advocate for our liberties.
> given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing
We? You're projecting your own callous ignorance. Just because you decided not to listen doesn't mean nobody spoke up. I ask you to shut up rather than to invalidate the effort of those who risk their livelihoods exposing government malfeasance. We should defend them, not tell them they had it coming!
I don't get what you are saying. It sounds like we shouldn't complain about it happening here because it's happening in other places.
I count myself as part of a wider society of which the UK is a part. If we want to criticize other societies, like Russia for example, we better damn well make sure we don't run the same shit-shows of legal persecutions. I also have more influence over processes in my society, so it is logical to spend my efforts here. Lastly, I care more about due process in my society just out of self-preservation.
Your relativism is useless in deciding where to spend effort. If you don't care, sure, you don't have to. But don't piss on people that advocate for our liberties.
> given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing
We? You're projecting your own callous ignorance. Just because you decided not to listen doesn't mean nobody spoke up. I ask you to shut up rather than to invalidate the effort of those who risk their livelihoods exposing government malfeasance. We should defend them, not tell them they had it coming!
Sure. Whatever you like then.
A lot of this went off-topic a little.
I can see why there is an example being made of him. End of.
I'll go shut up now boss.
A lot of this went off-topic a little.
I can see why there is an example being made of him. End of.
I'll go shut up now boss.
My personal expectations were that this could not happen in UK... Honestly it feels more what I expect to happen in (nowaday's) Turkey, China or Russia.
We should demand our enemies be treated without cruelty. But out of fear we renounce our friends. The old recipe works well. Just keep a few lists of persona non grata.
>He's not in a labor camp, he's not being whipped.
Solitary confinement without any justified reason is a form of torture and from the UN employee documents linked in this thread it is illegal and against human rights.
FYI you could have torture that is not physical in case you did not know. For this individual that was not proven guilty and is not a danger he must be treated as any other individual, not that if he is guilty you can torture him anyway.
Solitary confinement without any justified reason is a form of torture and from the UN employee documents linked in this thread it is illegal and against human rights.
FYI you could have torture that is not physical in case you did not know. For this individual that was not proven guilty and is not a danger he must be treated as any other individual, not that if he is guilty you can torture him anyway.
But it seems you think that Assange was responsible for the leak of the uncensored documents.
The defense's claim is that it was clearly an unintended release without consent by a third party.
So negating this, for now, is quite a stretch.
The defense's claim is that it was clearly an unintended release without consent by a third party.
So negating this, for now, is quite a stretch.
AllegedAlec(2)
The real cunts are those justifying war crimes and continued criminal, illegal crimes against humanity in the form of the 5-eyes imperialist wars. Not a word of criticism about those guys, eh - no, instead, we'll just shoot the messenger.
There will be more leaks, Assange or not. The truth is, there are far, far more worse crimes committed by the 5-eyes Coalition to be revealed on the horizon. Assange is just one of many who are working on blowing the lid on the Wests' illegal, criminal behaviour. Unfortunately for those who believe in the moral authority of the 5-eyes coalition as being irreproachable, you can't easily cover up crimes against humanity.
Be prepared for more leaks, folks. This isn't going to stop just because Assange has been kidnapped by his enemies.
There will be more leaks, Assange or not. The truth is, there are far, far more worse crimes committed by the 5-eyes Coalition to be revealed on the horizon. Assange is just one of many who are working on blowing the lid on the Wests' illegal, criminal behaviour. Unfortunately for those who believe in the moral authority of the 5-eyes coalition as being irreproachable, you can't easily cover up crimes against humanity.
Be prepared for more leaks, folks. This isn't going to stop just because Assange has been kidnapped by his enemies.
> The real cunts are those justifying war crimes and continued criminal, illegal crimes against humanity in the form of the 5-eyes imperialist wars. Not a word of criticism about those guys, eh - no, instead, we'll just shoot the messenger.
Thats a different topic and a different discussion, but sure, you just throw them all in together becase you have an opinion on one of them.
> blowing the lid on the Wests' illegal, criminal behaviour
Now you're throwing all the 'West' in with Assange, great.
> This isn't going to stop just because Assange has been kidnapped by his enemies.
Good, genuinely good, accountability is needed. But make no mistake, Assange is a terrible martyr to go by.
Thats a different topic and a different discussion, but sure, you just throw them all in together becase you have an opinion on one of them.
> blowing the lid on the Wests' illegal, criminal behaviour
Now you're throwing all the 'West' in with Assange, great.
> This isn't going to stop just because Assange has been kidnapped by his enemies.
Good, genuinely good, accountability is needed. But make no mistake, Assange is a terrible martyr to go by.
> Thats a different topic and a different discussion
No, it is the reason for the prosecution.
No, it is the reason for the prosecution.
The West = The 5-eyes Coalition. The ones who tried to start World War 3 in 2003, and haven't stopped trying since.
2,000,000 innocent people murdered. That is quite cunty.
Assange is a shining light on the darkness that is Western ignorance of the true cost of its heinous, illegal wars.
2,000,000 innocent people murdered. That is quite cunty.
Assange is a shining light on the darkness that is Western ignorance of the true cost of its heinous, illegal wars.
It's wrong. Just to clarify that for you. It's not a guess.
I'm not sure how you can say that with such confidence.
I am of the same opinion as you, but I do know why sometimes the people in positions of sensitive information might want to set an example to not let it happen again so easily.
I am of the same opinion as you, but I do know why sometimes the people in positions of sensitive information might want to set an example to not let it happen again so easily.
If anyone find compromising information about war crimes, everyone should leak the shit out of it. Please excuse the profanity.
It isn't just your duty, it is also the right thing to do. So better no make that your defense.
It isn't just your duty, it is also the right thing to do. So better no make that your defense.
That "it's normal" that governments have secrets is something that should be of the past. It goes hand-in-hand with the existence of conflicts and international tensions. Which I also think should be of the past, for the sake of it.
Then there is the way to manage lots of citizens while protecting their privacy, and for that we already have a lot of anonymization techs, using hashs, and sym or asym ciphers, etc... that's just a matter of now doing it instead of just knowing how we can do it...
Then there is the way to manage lots of citizens while protecting their privacy, and for that we already have a lot of anonymization techs, using hashs, and sym or asym ciphers, etc... that's just a matter of now doing it instead of just knowing how we can do it...
> That "it's normal" that governments have secrets is something that should be of the past.
The world doesn't work that way. It probably wont for a long time so grow up.
> Which I also think should be of the past, for the sake of it. Then there is the way to manage
same as above, I agree with you, but reality is what it is.
> that's just a matter of now doing it instead of just knowing how we can do it...
Yup again agree with you. But the responsibility is on you. I really don't know why people expect it from someone else, even the government.
The world doesn't work that way. It probably wont for a long time so grow up.
> Which I also think should be of the past, for the sake of it. Then there is the way to manage
same as above, I agree with you, but reality is what it is.
> that's just a matter of now doing it instead of just knowing how we can do it...
Yup again agree with you. But the responsibility is on you. I really don't know why people expect it from someone else, even the government.
Nothing will ever change if no one expresses their desire for it to. New ideas and ways of life only win out when the people chanting "it is what it is" are drowned out by those shouting "it shouldn't be so!"
The world does not work that way because you are unable to shape it. Of course it could be different.
Just because the law requires us to give our data to the government. And the government has all legal means to collect the data in the first place.
[deleted]
> Just because the law requires us to give our data to the government
Not sure where you live but if you're giving too much information over by law, you should leave. Giving your address, Name, maybe Citizenship and birthday to your government is not as crazy as it sounds.
Not sure where you live but if you're giving too much information over by law, you should leave. Giving your address, Name, maybe Citizenship and birthday to your government is not as crazy as it sounds.
You are forgetting, for example, your income data, your marital status, your penal history, your real estate, and not to mention any data gathered while doing some police investigation even if just brushing past your shoulder. Also, your health history.
You can even make a case that almost nobody should be extradited to the US by any country, since the US justice system has serious flaws, might not be just at all (e.g. it has about 10 times longer maximum prison sentences than in the rest of the civilized world) and the US penal system constitutes a constant human rights violation. For example, the administrations of many US prisons are notoriously unable to prevent the raping and murdering of their inmates. I've even heard people from the US making jokes about prison rape, as if that was to be expected and part of the "justice". As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. There are credible accounts that Assange is facing imprisonment in high-security isolation facilities similar to what they did to Manning for a long time. I cannot understand why any civilized person would allow a treatment as inhumane as in US maximum security prisons with isolation, regardless of the crime.
Generally speaking, countries should review their extradition treaties. US justice is non-proportionality based on revenge and involves frequent human rights abuses. The same is true of other countries like Japan or Russia, but AFAIK extradition requests to these countries are much rarer.