

Julian Assange is expected to address the world's media at 11:00pm (AEST) - jfoster
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-19/julian-assange-live-blog/4208800

======
objclxt
From his speech:

"The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights
that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a
different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for
justice"

I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the
worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government
that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should
be held up as a shining beacon of justice.

It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for
posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that
the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and
imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2].

[1]:<http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador>
[2]:[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2yf8X1FT5_w9UWANn3bjQ?docId=CNG.a24fb352dbca8778c3acc558060f5fa5.311)

~~~
Retric
The US has committed atrocity's just as bad as most countries. EX: Slavery,
Bio warfare vs American Indians along with the 'trail of tears' etc. ( _Many
died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee_
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears>) The Atlantic Slave Trade
actually killed ~16 million which is several times more people than all the
Nazi concentration camps put together.

But, IMO it's not meaningful to look at a country and say their good or evil.
You look at individual acts and say that's good or that's evil.

~~~
Natsu
I think that there's no such thing as a country that "is" good. There are
those which do good and those which do not.

There are plenty of atrocities to go around, almost every one of them
justified by people hating whoever was at the other end of the atrocity.

------
btilly
Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is NOT politically
motivated?

Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a
normal sexual assault extradition case, you would _never_ get that level of
response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for
it.

~~~
cup
I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women
involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to
them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio
silence.

It's very suspect.

~~~
citricsquid
What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their
side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their
identities are not released because that's Swedish law.

Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it
seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I
think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't
find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up
for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.

~~~
hammersend
"The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that
they could say?"

Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave
"their side of the story" right? Wrong.

~~~
citricsquid
I'll rephrase:

What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can
clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at
trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the
story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of
little consequence in public opinion.

~~~
hammersend
"What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can
clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at
trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the
story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of
little consequence in public opinion."

Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness.
There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing
public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few
years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew"
those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to
trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing
ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike
Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial
decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public
perception is absolutely untrue.

------
_gbc
If Julian Assange is worried about being extradited to the US (which seems to
be his main objection to going to Sweden) why is he in the UK in the first
place? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US in place and have
extradited several people to the US.

~~~
manuelflara
I think it's because UK can't extradite someone who may face the death penalty
(if Assange is charged with treason or espionage he might).

~~~
arrrg
Sweden also can't.

~~~
vacri
Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the CIA for
rendition, who were subsequently handed over to the Mubarak regime where they
were tortured. The victims had no chance of legal recourse, as the time
between being nabbed and handed over was only a few hours. Whether or not
Sweden's laws allow it to do this, the fact of the matter is that Sweden _has_
done this.

In comparison, the UK has a proven track record of standing up to the US on
similar issues, given that it demanded the return of its citizens from gitmo.
If extradition was requested in the UK, from past experience Assange would at
least have a chance to fight it in the courts, instead of being
unceremoniously handed over.

~~~
arrrg
And it was a scandal. And it happened in secret. And it happened to people no
one knew or cared about.

It's disgusting shit alright, but that won't happen to Julian Assange. Never
ever. That's completely ridicoulos.

No one inside the Swedish government can or will want to pull something like
this with Assange. I'm not sure how you can even begin to believe that.

~~~
jfoster
They definitely couldn't do it secretly, but why couldn't they pull it off?
Sure there would be outrage, but governments have faced that before over
issues much larger than this. (eg. decisions to go to war and such)

------
manuelflara
The actual speech in "text": Part 1:
[https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697...](https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697/photo/1)
Part 2:
[https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936...](https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936/photo/1)

------
DanielBMarkham
This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about
principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and
openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them
around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere.

I say the more we keep talking about Assange the less we're actually using our
brains to figure out the fine details of what works and what doesn't work in
democracies. For the media, this is becoming a story of drama and conflict.
I'd ask them politely to please go peddle it somewhere else.

I have no opinion on whether Assange was set up or not, but I will say this:
he is purposely using his publicity as a self-aggrandizing tool. He has been
doing this since long before the charges were brought. The more we buy into
this narrative of one-man causes, the more we harm our ability to make a
better world. Instead we just head down the road of civil unrest and conflict.
Assange is not my hero, even if there were no criminal charges. The things I
believe are more important than one man, and I refuse to have my principles
owned by somebody else besides me.

~~~
hammersend
"This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less
about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and
openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them
around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere."

If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in
the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in
Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to
do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either.
Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting
everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people
will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give
credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles
cough _DanielBMarkham_ cough.

