
Abuses show Assange case was never about law - yasp
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-05-27/abuses-show-assange-case-was-never-about-law/
======
wbhart
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who just visited Assange
[1], he has fallen gravely ill and shows all the signs of prolonged
psychological torture.

Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after
visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that
this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of
which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years.

He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that
extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very
real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human
rights.

[1] [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-
sy...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-symptoms-
psychological-torture-expert-says-n1012081)

~~~
Tomte
> that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture

I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others
led to those symptoms.

His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years,
and not going to see a doctor, led to those.

Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition.
Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better
living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which
isn't too likely).

~~~
wbhart
I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he
could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish
prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the
UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all
states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.

~~~
Tomte
> more or less binding UN ruling

Less. As in "not at all binding".

~~~
wbhart
"Binding", in that the parties had signed the convention and agreed to
"uphold" such rulings. They instead claimed that "Assange was free to leave at
any time", i.e. that they were "upholding" the ruling. At the very least,
Assange would be entitled to compensation as a means of enforcing the ruling,
should the states refuse to comply. Which court would rule about such
compensation is not clear to me. Perhaps the European court of Human Rights,
but that is speculation on my part.

~~~
Tomte
You're right, I concede that point.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape
> trial_

The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely
political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every
subsequent claim.

The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when
extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was
popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American
base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The
leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made
Assange valuable [2].

I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges _per se_. But there is
insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any _bona fide_ crimes under
U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive
information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, _e.g._
agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi
Arabia [3].

I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the
latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly
excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice.

[1] [https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-
reports/20...](https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-
reports/2019/04/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrested-poll-survey)

[2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-
his...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his-anti-
american-mentor-1517308200)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-
post...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-
sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia)

[4]
[https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...](https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assange-
Superseding-Indictment)

~~~
deogeo
> But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any _bona fide_
> crimes under U.S. law.

Assange is an Australian, currently in the U.K., and was accused of rape in
Sweden. We shouldn't let the apparently global reach of U.S. law go
unexamined.

~~~
sbuttgereit
So as an American, with an American targeted business (and having never
visited the EU), doesn't the EU's GDPR law make the same attempt at global
reach should a European decide, unbeknownst to me, to visit my web properties?
Or are you suggesting that laws that try to assert such global scope are wrong
in general?

~~~
deogeo
That's a good question - if your business has no presence in the EU, then I
would think the GDPR is toothless? But yes, I don't like such laws in general.

Although the attempt is certainly not the _same_ , as I don't think you can
get extradited for GDPR violations.

------
module0000
How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first
published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it
would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think
what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice?
spoiler alert: it's not!

~~~
cc81
Do you think the rape charges were made from nothing?

~~~
JudgeWapner
Did you follow the Snowden case? In early interviews he talked about working
for the CIA and in order to coerce a senior official, they got him drunk and
then had the cops arrest him for DUI. Then told him if he didn't comply, the
DUI charges would end his career. Can you put 2 and 2 together here?

------
duxup
The whole "didn't flee rape charges" (or some form of that claim as the
'charges' thing hadn't happened at that time IIRC) situation is always odd to
me.

Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people
for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted
for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be
for that.

The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him
from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find
the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly
absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a
first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a
RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about
governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before
the embassy events too.

I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has
struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is
hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes
his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page
(not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and
asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today"
they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to
release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control
the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted
Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but
their actions did not seem to follow the ideals.

This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's
charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step
beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO,
and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment
there is.

~~~
YUMad
Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap
people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on
'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.

~~~
paganel
As long as there will be Russian subs sailing under the nose of the Swedish
authorities in Swedish teritorial waters then I’m pretty sure every Swedish
government will play by the rules dictated by the US.

A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because
they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but
when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to
think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking
secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.

~~~
duxup
Edit, oops I misunderstood your post, now I get it.

------
duxup
This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear,
here are some vied insults about people who share that view".

There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual
actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously.

To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the
government(s) take it.

------
cryptica
The system is rigged but our society lacks the idealism necessary to make a
change. We have no shared values. The only thing we agree about is who has
power... So whoever that is can decide what values should be upheld;
unfortunately those people are usually greedy psychopaths whose entire value
systems revolve around personal aggrandisement and enrichment.

Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power
more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish
democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects
government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is
the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.

------
kombucha11
The biggest issue here imo is he encouraged his sources to get more
information for him in way that could be considered to have a alleviated him
of the protections a journalist would normally receive. I used to be a fan of
Assange but hes lost his way entirely. That being said the US government ought
not to be prosecuting actual whistleblowers.

------
acdha
He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal
opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy.

He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good
discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion,
every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the
readership.

The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to
reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the
appropriate journalistic path.

The facts presented plainly is the contribution.

~~~
acdha
Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look
to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For
example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that
journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant
which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and
for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being
litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity
for years.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the
conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good
discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks
particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it
as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.

Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority)

~~~
JudgeWapner
The fact that he illustrated is: how the media keeps ignoring salient points
about the case. They consistently get it wrong. That consistency is not a
mistake, it's by design.

------
jMyles
> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives
> changed, the asylum was rescinded.

An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the
personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend
personalities and people.

For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and
spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a
panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems
like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.

~~~
pjc50
This guy? [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-
co...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-cody-wilson-
on-multiple-counts-of-sexual-assault-of-a-minor/)

It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find
a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That
doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.

~~~
satokema_work
Why can't they just be a standup guy that has issues dealing with women in
specific circumstances? Why are they defined by that specific case and not
their holistic behavior?

~~~
anbop
Why can’t Josef Stalin just be a standup defender of the arts that has issues
with killing people in specific circumstances?

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
YUMad
The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example
of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working
hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that
everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments
just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist.

The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of
extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence
charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by
Ecuador to USA.

In my opinion, Assange was proven right.

~~~
NelsonMinar
The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a
Russian puppet.

~~~
cheeseomlit
How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make
them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.

~~~
gamblor956
No, but knowingly releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged
by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet.

Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite
the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for
political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.

~~~
cheeseomlit
This is the first I've heard that the DNC/Podesta emails were forged, do you
have a source for that?

And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release
that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards.
If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against
a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's
something I'd want voters to know about.

~~~
gamblor956
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-
dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/#50209f5e52ff)

~~~
cheeseomlit
This is in regards to emails leaked from a journalist David Satter by Fancy
Bear, the article doesn't say those were published by Wikileaks and I couldn't
confirm elsewhere that they were. The article does mention:

>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and
published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.

While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked
by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:

>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of
emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers
inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests
that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any
specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent
investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files
obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident
forgeries".[5]

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

In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the
Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done
by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)

------
mtgx
The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this
cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by
not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way
to the Supreme Court.

~~~
1121redblackgo
Calling him a whistleblower may have fit early on in his 'career', but by the
end he was a huckster and an agent, knowing or unknowing, in state level
espionage.

I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify
the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally
obtained information.

------
arminiusreturns
part of the snowden leaks was a document where the gov recognized JA as an
increasing threat, and laid out plans to character assasinate him and other
psyops things, and most of the bullshit being spewed about him is easily
identifiable as feddback loops on that operation which continues today

