
Julian Assange “slowly dying” and “often sedated” in Belmarsh prison - nohope
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/28/assa-d28.html
======
Synaesthesia
Wikileaks has a faultless record. They’ve never had to retract a publication.
Assange, like him not not, was a reporter, who reported uncomfortable facts
about the military and our ruling class.

He is being punished, tortured really for this “crime”.

He has been endlessly and baselessly slandered. All that alleged bad behaviour
while he was imprisoned in the embassy ... funny how there’s been no footage
of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance!

And these rape charges, clearly also designed to tarnish his name, now finally
exposed as a fiasco.

Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on
them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian.

Journalists everywhere should be afraid as this sets a dangerous precedent for
all of them.

~~~
fenomas
The most detailed, nuanced account of Assange I've seen is this one[0] by
Andrew O'Hagan (an author hired to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography who
spent a year or so in and out of his orbit). And it's hard to square that
account with the image of Assange as a journalist who's being persecuted for
the truths he's shared.

Though O'Hagan is sympathetic in many ways he doesn't sugarcoat anything, and
I came away with the impression that Assange is the author of a great deal of
his own woes. (Among other things, much of the account involves Assange lying
pretty incessantly, even to his closest allies about petty dramas, so I now
find it hard to take anything he's said at face value.)

[0] [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-
hagan/ghost...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-
hagan/ghosting)

\----

Edit to add: there's a quoted exchange in the account, which now springs to
mind every time I hear about Assange.

> There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you
> might call a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he’s never met
> but has chatted with and feels largely responsible for, he expressed a kind
> of irritable admiration. "Just how good is he?" I asked.

> "He’s number nine," he said.

> "In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?"

> "I’m number three."

~~~
SeanBoocock
Indeed, this is essential reading in its entirety. The image that emerges is
one of a vain and duplicitous man who treats his projects as vehicles for
self-aggrandizement. His poor character and lack of integrity are unbecoming
in anyone who claims to speak truth to power.

~~~
MiroF
It's no secret that Assange is vain and an asshole.

That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a coordinated campaign of character
attack and punishment for revealing uncomfortable truths against him. Nor does
it mean that he is deserving of what has happened

------
moksly
Why is the WikiLeaks foundation responsible for the content posted on their
platform, when Google and Facebook aren’t?

I haven’t really been following this a whole lot, but as I understand it, the
US wants him extradited because his platform was used to leak sensible
information that put American soldiers in danger. But why is that a thing when
it isn’t for other platforms? I mean, twitter, Facebook and YouTube have all
been used as effective recruitment platforms for various Islamic terror
organisations. That would have put American lives in danger as well.

~~~
threeseed
It is alleged that Assange coordinated with Chelsea Manning and the Russian
government to obtain information for Wikileaks. This would make him an active
conspirator in breaking the law.

Completely different from Facebook, Google, Twitter etc where they merely
provide a platform for others to upload content and aren't actively involved
in sourcing illegal content.

~~~
plutonorm
Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the
moral act.

~~~
INGELRII
It's not mutually exclusive.

* Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance.

* Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do.

If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you
should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons
exist for a reason.

(I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or
justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)

~~~
samatman
Civil disobedience is breaking a law because you believe the _law itself_ is
wrong. As invented by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and MLK.

Breaking a law you otherwise believe in, in the service of some broader goal,
is called direct action, riot, or terrorism, depending on the severity of the
law broken, and/or the sympathies of the person describing it.

~~~
jessriedel
Yes, civil disobedience means you believe the specific law itself is wrong,
but not the law-making _process_. The justness of the law-making process is
why the classic method of practicing civil disobedience involves accepting the
punishment. MLK:

> In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid
> segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law
> must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I
> submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is
> unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality
> expressing the highest respect for law.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yes, civil disobedience means you believe the specific law itself is wrong,
> but not the law-making process.

The US Civil Rights movement generally practiced civil disobedience because
the views the laws, the law making process, and the process of selecting who
could even participate in the law making process as unacceptable.

The key assumption was that enough of the people who could participate in that
process were nevertheless moral enough to reform all of those aspecta given a
vivid enough demonstration that they could not turn away from of the top-to-
bottom injustice of the system.

I don't think Assange was engaging in civil disobedience, nor do I think he
would have been justified if he were, but doing so does not and never has
relied on faith in the justice of the existing law-making process any more
than it does in the law being violated itself.

~~~
jessriedel
> The US Civil Rights movement generally practiced civil disobedience because
> the views the laws, the law making process, and the process of selecting who
> could even participate in the law making process as unacceptable.

This is conflating two aspects of the civil rights movement. It's of course
true that there were _also_ objections to the law-making process. But the
segregationist laws would be unjust (and hence _require_ violating under MLK's
civil disobedience) even if the law-making process perfectly reflected the
majority will of the people. It's this latter point that is relevant to
INGELRII's comment.

> I don't think Assange was engaging in civil disobedience, nor do I think he
> would have been justified if he were, but doing so does not and never has
> relied on faith in the justice of the existing law-making process any more
> than it does in the law being violated itself.

If the law-making process is illegitimate (e.g., if there is a dictator), then
_no one_ thinks you have a moral duty (in the deontological sense) to obey the
laws, nor to accept the consequences for breaking them. It's _only_ the
situation where the law-making process is legitimate -- reflecting the immoral
will of the majority -- where the question comes up of whether (1) you can
morally violate the unjust law and (2) whether you are duty-bound to accept
the resulting punishment.

------
corporate_shi11
I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when
WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses
in the middle East.

Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They
cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they
didn't like.

Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information
related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks
as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned
it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.

This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that
those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of
information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard
those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should
not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!").

I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic
position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves
absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the
group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.

When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group.

~~~
spaced-out
The reason many people turned on Wikileaks was because he clearly sided with
Trump in 2016. He released the info he had on Hillary to damage her campaign,
even though it didn't show anything illegal, yet he refused to publish the
documents he had on Trump.

People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned away
from him when it was clear he wasn't.

~~~
malvosenior
> _People sided with him because they believed he was impartial, and turned
> away from him when it was clear he wasn 't._

He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in
favor of Clinton (against Sanders _and_ Trump). If people cared about
impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.

~~~
NovemberWhiskey
_> He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial
in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about
impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here._

Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion
fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for
newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the
editorial context.

It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over
other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_primaries)

I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-
objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of
straw man.

The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material
disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial
decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.

~~~
malvosenior
What Wikileaks revealed went _far_ beyond endorsing a candidate. For example:

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-
col...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-
questions-for-trump-cruz)

------
JaimeThompson
What ever happened to all that banking information that Wikileaks said they
would release?

"Wikileaks honcho Julian Assange told Andy Greenberg at Forbes that he was in
possession of a trove of documents that "could take down a bank or two." The
documents wouldn't necessarily show illegality but they would reveal an
"ecosystem of corruption" at one of the biggest banks in the United States.
Wikileaks would release it "early next year." "

[https://www.cnbc.com/id/42762811](https://www.cnbc.com/id/42762811)

~~~
542458
There are a bunch of documents that wikileaks has, at various times, claimed
they’d release then have never mentioned again.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Claims_of_upcoming...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Claims_of_upcoming_leaks)

TBH, this bit in particular of wikileaks has always felt really scummy/sketchy
to me. If you have the docs and have verified them and believe they are
journalistically important then release them without delay. In every other
scenario, why are you talking about them publicly?

~~~
einpoklum
There are legitimate reasons for delayed releases, like fact-checking and
cross-referencing, leaker security, Wikileaks operatives' own security,
coordinations with establishment press channels and possibly others.

Still, it's certainly better to limit such claims and it does feel a bit
sketchy when they don't eventually publish something.

~~~
542458
I'm not saying they shouldn't fact check - rather, if they aren't sure about a
leak, it's irresponsible of them to talk about it before they're sure! Same
goes for security - if delaying a leak helps security, surely it helps even
more if you don't speak about it at all until ready to release.

Furthermore, announcing leaks gives the orgs being leaked on time to get their
story straight and destroy evidence, so I'm really skeptical that announcing
leaks like that is the responsible course of action.

------
SherlockeHolmes
The discussion here is a reminder of how sufficiently competent people can
defend to death a narrative that is logically consistent enough and has some
form of "majority acknowledgment" for the sources of that narrative.

I want to remind us that rarely do enough credible (according to some formal
and stringent definition) evidences exist for a given topic for an observer to
make a conclusion with the kind of confidence we often display while
remonstrating on these issues.

Specifically: it is naive to adopt a conclusive tone involving a person
without liberty for over a decade, and possibly undergoing forms of punishment
without due trial. I suspect not one of us here is trained enough in Law and
have access to enough TRUE information to come to a judgment. If so, we are
guilty of engaging in and spreading careless commentaries made about a case
that combines possible human rights violation (its abundance in current time
does not make this any less serious of a concern) with possible government
interference in defining what constitutes journalism.

I want to leave you with this last thought - in majority cases in history, it
has been profitable for the public to challenge the government on its
policies, rather than to trust in its foresightedness and integrity.

------
flurdy
I thought he would be released from remand when the Swedish charges were
dropped.

And then expected the UK gov to keep him at a psychiatric ward as he seems a
little unstable which they could embellish.

Did not expect him to still be in Belmarsh.

~~~
jpz
He is in jail for the offence of jumping bail. That Sweden dropped the charges
doesn’t dismiss that offence.

The UK spent 10s of millions on policing costs monitoring abscondment.

It is entirely right that he is serving a sentence as for reasons of
deterrence.

~~~
sp332
He is not currently serving the sentence for jumping bail. Right now he is
just being held waiting for a hearing.

~~~
rbobby
Assange doesn't qualify for bail (he is a flight risk/certainty) so he stays
in custody until the hearings are done.

Made his bed and now has to lie in it.

~~~
yk
Having him 23 h a day in solitary confinement and not allowing him to call his
mom seems a bit harsh, if they are concerned that he's a flight risk.

~~~
rbobby
I would think he's in protective custody because he would be in extreme danger
in general population. He's a celebrity and would likely be viewed as rapist
and traitor (the facts don't matter, what matters is what the other criminals
would think).

A good question is whether he needs to be held in a maximum security facility.
He's a bail flight risk, but is he an escape risk? I would think he's at most
a moderate escape risk (has some capabilities and has shown his contempt for
the legal system previously) and would be fine in something less than maximum
security (so long as protective custody could be maintained).

I do know Assange has a competent legal team that would fight his being held
in maximum security __if __Assange wanted them too. I wonder why he hasn 't
instructed them to do so.

~~~
multjoy
Remand prisoners don’t progress through the security categories. You’re Cat C
with some extra privileges, and that’s your lot.

HMPS are solely responsible for the conditions in which somebody is held, the
legal team can do nothing for him.

------
ChrisSD
> By what authority, or on what pretext, Assange is being tranquilised, and
> kept isolated, remains unknown

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "ill health".

~~~
jellicle
Which health conditions are improved by solitary confinement?

~~~
actsof
Not that it improves the condition, but psychosis leading to violent outbursts
could be used to justify it. Anti-psychotics are also usually sedative in
nature, which would explain the rest.

~~~
banads
That same justification was used against political dissidents in the Soviet
Union

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatr...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union)

~~~
jessaustin
Sure, but Russians are _bad_ [0]. Western governments are _good_. So it's
totally different!

[0] So we're told by noted perjurer (it's OK because he's _good_ ) DNI James
Clapper!

------
sixQuarks
I'm surprised Julian Assange doesn’t have a kill switch in place, where
sensitive info which has been held up to this point will be released upon his
death or conviction. At least none that we know of.

~~~
chmod775
I'll read that as "[I'd be] surprised if Julian Assange doesn't have a [dead
man's switch] in place".

And indeed he does. Some time ago Wikileaks/Assange distributed an encrypted
insurance file. The torrent is about 90GB:
[https://file.wikileaks.org/torrent/2016-06-03_insurance.aes2...](https://file.wikileaks.org/torrent/2016-06-03_insurance.aes256.torrent)

There was actually multiple versions fo this file, each larger than the
previous one. This is the most recent version afaik.

It's likely this particular dead man's switch is actually trusted people
though.

~~~
jacobush
I wonder if this could backfire. With the "normal" or old guard politicians,
this could have been a credible threat. Nobody wanted a scandal. With the new
breed, scandals are just life.

~~~
m-p-3
Even worse, they thrive on scandals.

~~~
jp555
Chaos is a ladder, unless you're a theorist.

To theorists chaos is destruction (of their precious models). To
_practitioners_ chaos is a ladder. Those with real Skin In the Game.

Economist vs. Trader.

~~~
jacobush
Precious models like “standards” and “semblance of moral code”. :-:

------
dependenttypes
I find it kind of weird how most of the discussion is about whether assange
was good/bad/a "russian spy" etc - all of these have been discussed to death
already. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the inhumane treatment of
assange in jail regardless if you agree or disagree with what he published?

My 2c

~~~
Traster
Probably because Belmarsh is a pretty average British prison, it's slightly
better than US prisons, slightly worse than some European prisons. Claims of
being sedated come 3rd hand from an unreliable source - and are clearly
untrue.

------
Angostura
Are there any other sources on this?

~~~
Jon_Lowtek
The "news" part is that he had a phone call with a friend. Primary source is
the friend (Vaughan Smith). It's on his Twitter:
[https://twitter.com/VaughanSmith/status/1210278654615474176](https://twitter.com/VaughanSmith/status/1210278654615474176)

For the torture part, which is not news, please see The United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Torture:
[https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25249)

Primary Source for the cited open letter
[https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/concerns-of-medical-
doct...](https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/concerns-of-medical-doctors-
about-the-plight-of-mr-julian-assange-ffb09a5dd588)

~~~
JoeSmithson
There doesn't appear to be any reliable evidence that Assange is being held in
solitary confinement. The original source for this seems to be his father, who
claimed several months ago that he was being held in solitary for "up to" 23
hours a day.

There have been photos leaked by another person showing Assange looking
relaxed interacting with other inmates. The leaker claimed that Assange was
popular among the other prisoners.

In fact, Nils Melzer himself has confirmed Assange is not in solitary, but is
apparently being "tortured" for other reasons. It is not clear why these
reasons don't apply to every other prisoner on remand in Belmarsh.

~~~
Jon_Lowtek
I do not want to argue with you if the opinion of the leading UN expert in
this matter is based on enough hard evidence. The important thing is:

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture _(and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment)_ visited Mr. Assange with a medical team
and then wrote an appeal to the UK Government. The UK government should react
with a prompt and impartial investigation. They did not do that. The did not
even answer the question of the United Nations Special Rapporteur.

That by itself, no matter if Mr. Assange was subjected to torture, is non
compliance with international rules.

Given Brexit this level of " _we do not care about international rules and we
do not accept the UN as an authority_ " is unsurprising. IMHO a western nation
like the UK ignoring a member of the OHCHR is very worrisome. It shows that
the UK government has little interest to participate in the trend towards
"good governance".

------
PappaPatat
"Everybody has got a plan, until they're punched in the face." \- Mike Tyson

The horrors of physical violence are not often understood by keyboard heros
who feel superior within their bubble of close nit computer expert friends.
But as soon as things become bloody, the skillset requirements drastically
change. This happens to blackmarket vendors too. They get lured into some AFK
situation and quickly become victims of much less smart, yet truly hardened
criminals.

Good luck hacking your way out of that.

Julian will (most likely, I have 0 contact with him) be in a most awful place
with the whole "legally" allowed shit storm hitting him where it hurts. Not a
place where smart skinny people flourish.

------
dennisgorelik
Belmarsh prison drone view:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4961652,0.0932264,3a,75y,240...](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4961652,0.0932264,3a,75y,240.71h,69.99t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMN0Q29E1fDt9yWGufw2PiMvfIQQfCiMzmNkWY5!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMN0Q29E1fDt9yWGufw2PiMvfIQQfCiMzmNkWY5%3Dw203-h100-k-no-
pi0-ya4.9682255-ro0-fo100!7i14000!8i7000)

------
AtlasBarfed
Due process will strangely, coincidentally, be EXTREMELY SLOW.

... kind of like Guantanamo.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Due process will strangely, coincidentally, be EXTREMELY SLOW.

Assange and his attorneys have, from day one, done everything possible to
extend the process; there is nothing coincidental about the result.

> ... kind of like Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is a whole different problem, where people have actually received
all the process there is, been determined to be innocent or not even subject
to a y charges, and are still detained.

------
sys_64738
How does he slop out if he's under sedation?

------
cardamomo
*her

~~~
sokoloff
Genuine question: what is the most correct protocol on name and pronoun usage
to describe past events, when the author wants to keep the focus on the fact
of the accomplishment rather than the personal life of the actor?

Is it:

1\. Bruce Jenner won his gold medal in the Men’s Decathlon at the 1976
Olympics.

2\. Bruce Jenner won her gold medal in the Men’s Decathlon at the 1976
Olympics.

3\. Caitlyn Jenner won her gold medal in the Men’s Decathlon at the 1976
Olympics.

~~~
jibcage
“Caitlyn Jenner, then known as Bruce, won her gold medal in the Men’s
Decathlon at the 1976 Olympics.”

~~~
sysbin
This kind of topic comes up in transgender communities and what you're
proposing is offensive. People get really offended when the name assigned at
birth (matching one's birth sex which doesn't align with one's identity) is
kept attached to their life as a constant reminder.

------
Y-Bopinator
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time

------
e2le
Didn't Assange befriend Tommy Robinson while in Belmarsh? I'm not too sure
about his credibility and morals anymore.

------
jpz
We are all slowly dying. He’s not alone.

------
waltwalther
...and then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not
a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

