It's weird that for the most part, all his "crazy talk" has pretty much held up so far. I hope he's wrong about the extradition that's supposed to follow now, but honestly I doubt it. This is gonna go down in history as one of the more random biographies, and a pretty damning one at that.
The MO is shoot the messenger. As old as the hills.
We aren't discussing what Wikileaks leaked anymore. We are discussing Julian Assange's cats. See how they shifted our attention? That's the power of a propaganda - eventually, it will work. They just have to keep at it, and they did.
Nobody even disputed what was leaked. Officials confirmed the authenticity and so far, 0% is wrong of the leaks. Yet, we are still discussing how the condom slipped, the smell of the cat, and so on, and so on.
No consequences for anyone, almost. We should focus on whether the leaks are legitimate or fabricated and then deal with the perpetrator(s) in a court of law. We should not focus on the person that had the platform to leak them on.
It's so easy to see that this is orchestrated. This cannot be a coincidence. I can only imagine the kind of pressure Ecuador was under for the last few years. Finally, they conceded. Can't blame them - you can't go against military superiority of that kind.
This is only true, if at all, today, on this forum. The mainstream press has been talking about Hillary's emails (and how they were obtained, and other fallout) for literally years now.
Can't you see that we delve into insane details (cats, condoms, urine, smells), yet ignore prosecution for major things uncovered? By the way, the only one prosecuted for that whole accident was Bradley Manning. Even though the video clearly shows civilians being killed unprovoked and people laughing about it.
I mean, come on. This is just desperate attempt to control the narrative. It's pure old fashioned propaganda. That's it.
And did you read the military legal review of the collateral murder incident? You're free, of course, to disbelieve what it concludes, but I'm not sure what more process you could reasonably have hoped for on that topic since the military is (unfortunately) in control of all the relevant evidence.
(By the way, it is also not great for your theory that I don't even know what cat, urine, or smells you're even talking about.)
Prior to that there was the talk of he would turn himself in if Manning were released and then balked when Obama let Manning out shortly before leaving office. The Podesta emails, the exploits that the NSA or some US intelligence group who had in their warchest (and the brief fallout when some of those were exploited right after before a patch was pushed), and things of that nature.
Personally, I like the idea of Assange/Wikileaks more than the execution of it. The current example, both really, carries too much pretentiousness for my liking (the article/interview shortly after the initial leaks where he talks about releasing a massive archive for public downloading that is protected by password and his handlers have said password that they'll release if he is murdered read like a story out of Hollywood). More generally, I guess in some way I just wish those that were responsible for bringing to light the failings of governments and those in power were themselves mostly infallible.
Granted, if the max charge he's susceptible to is 5 years in prison, I'd almost consider his "asylum" in the embassy as time served and save taxpayers' money. His time in the embassy for all intents and purposes has neutered him as a figure.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but my guess is Ecuador only used him as a pawn to get something. Somebody else linked in this thread that they recently received like a 4 billion IMF loan. My guess is they immediately began angling to improve their own country in some fashion as soon as he stepped foot through their embassy doors.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but that's my guess. I feel like through this whole thing, they walked through shit and always intended to come out smelling like roses.
Pretty serious throwaway comment without stating what "heinous crimes" were apparently committed..
Randomly spewing "facts" with no evidence to back up your claim can be quite damaging.
Quote: "While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.
Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA."
That's like five degrees of Kevin Bacon...
Edit: That's three edges between her and the CIA, and frankly Ardin to Seltzer is one, making the count two. One to Seltzer, one to the CIA.
If "reportedly" doesn't cut it for you, then you must think the CIA is the world's most incompetent intelligence agency because they evidently have connections to nobody at all!
I'm actually assuming he's "reportedly connected" because he's the boss of an organisation whose leader is "reportedly connected".
Sure, it's possible she was working for CIA. But the story is that she was volunteering with wikileaks. Based on her background, does that sound unreasonable?
Comes up with "wake up sex without a condom for an otherwise consensual episode", and operative isn't overly motivated to pursue charges.
If this is the best the CIA can muster, I don't feel outrage so much as profound sadness at the waste of our resources (leaving aside, for the sake of example, related moral or ethical questions, and merely talking abilities and logistics).
It seems that the allegations were dropped after initial questioning and he was told he was free to go, then a special prosecutor reopened the case and asked to question Assange, who by then was out of the country.
The statute of limitations for most of the allegations seems to have expired primarily because of the indecisiveness or otherwise mishandling of the case by the special prosecutor who reopened it in the first place, who maintained she couldn't interview Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy- which seems to have been incorrect.
From the wikipedia article:
In 2010, the prosecutor said Swedish law prevented her from questioning anyone by video link or in the London embassy. In March 2015, after public criticism from other Swedish law practitioners, she changed her mind and agreed to interrogate Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, with interviews finally beginning on 14 November 2016. These interviews involved police, Swedish prosecutors and Ecuadorian officials and were eventually published online. By this time, the statute of limitations had expired on all three of the less serious allegations.
Chapter 46 (proceedings in the district courts)
Section 15 a
If the matter can be satisfactorily investigated, the case may be adjudicated notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has appeared only by counsel or has failed to appear if:
1. there is no grounds to impose a criminal sanction other than fine, imprisonment for a maximum of three months, conditional sentence, or probation, or such sanctions
2. after service of the summons upon the defendant, he has fled or remains in hiding in such a manner that he cannot be brought to the main hearing, or
3. the defendant suffers from serious mental disturbance and his or her attendance as a result thereon is unnecessary.
Orders under the Penal Code, Chapter 34, Section 1, paragraph 1, clause 1, shall have the same standing as the sanctions stated in the first paragraph, clause 1.
However, this does not apply if, in connection with such an order, a conditional release from imprisonment shall be declared forfeited as to a term of imprisonment
exceeding three months.
In the situations stated in first paragraph, clause 2, the case may be adjudicated even if the defendant has not been served the notice of the hearing.
Procedural issues may be decided even if the defendant has failed to appear in court. (SFS 2001:235)
Looks like a perfect fit for Assange's case. Why didn't they try him this way?
However, according to precedents the criteria “the matter can be satisfactorily investigated” is not easily satisfied in case of serious crime that is contested (see the court case RH 2011:4).
Looking at Swedish law, they have a rough equivalent of Miranda - https://open.karnovgroup.se/processratt/fuk Section 12(google translate):
- Do not have to comment on the suspicion and not otherwise have to contribute to the investigation of their own debt
Consider “he whom rape charges were brought against” and “the accused rapist”.
Or how about this? “The accused child-murderer Assange”
Words, put certain ways by bad actors towards bad ends because they are inflammatory, are a thing.
How? if they can get a conviction they should get the conviction. For eg, Vijay Mallya from india was convicted of a crime and india is now seeking his extradition. how does it make sense that you keep the case open?
Note that Mallya has not been convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Mallya#Accusations
He is charged with different crimes and therefore there is a warrant out, and a request for extradition: "When he failed to appear, the Supreme Court said the contempt case would only proceed further after he is produced before the court".
There are also multiple court verdicts in favour of banks and business partners, but those are all civil law, not criminal.
Do you have a reference that they are not possible in Sweden?
I can't find anything either way.
There are many reasons for dropping charges besides "she obviously lied". One of the reason might be that nobody wants to get all this attention and ensuing insults and death threats.
In this specific case, there wasn't even much debate over facts, only law. She refused to have sex without a condom, then woke up to him having sex with her, without a condom.
Reasons the women were lying: the first had tweeted and texted about how happy she was to have slept with Assange. She later tried to destroy this evidence after deciding she'd been "raped", a decision that was triggered by meeting another woman he'd also slept with and getting mad she wasn't the one.
The reason Assange went to the embassy after the charges were resurrected is that it was obvious the case was a dud as it has already been dropped due to the hopeless case of the witnesses. So why did Sweden suddenly decide to try again? Assange was right to judge it as being politically motivated.
The Swedish government always folds like a wet paper towel as soon as the US asks for anything.
Remember, the US government views Wikileaks the same as ISIS.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Just follow this as I think it is very entertaining.
Edit: It could be both!
The courts do, though, take a dim view of scofflaws. And especially those who successfully evade proceedings by doing so. And even more so those who put the authorities to trouble to bring them back to the court. So my guess is that there will be a trial on it, followed by a sentence in the upper end of that range.
It's only logical to hedge a potentially decade-long sentence with a likely inescapable two year sentence.
When the charges are bogus and you know that they are being used to censor your work, which positively impacts the lives of millions of people, you may also consider it your civil duty to evade a wrongful arrest.
I'm incapable of providing a good reason why Assange should have just submitted to the bogus rape charges.
And the fact that sympathizing with him in this regard in an open forum has a high chance of impacting my civil freedoms at some point in the future just magnifies the impact of the work he was trying to achieve when all of this started.
I think this description is a little too martyring for my liking.
I'd love to know what civil freedoms of yours you believe are going to be impinged by virtue of this post.
Are you supposed to let your accuser have 100% say in whether you are guilty, even if you believe the system is rigged against you and you are acting in good faith?
Such an attitude is subservient and enables totalitarian governments to operate under the guise of justice.
You have to understand that nothing gives any body of government legitimacy just because other governments recognize it. The only thing that gives your government power is your permission as a citizen. My country was founded on this sentiment.
When Martin Luther King said:
"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,"
he was not thinking of whistleblowers and the fact that their greatest impact on society comes from maintaining their sovereignty in spite of globally coordinated efforts to censor and imprison them.
Assange was operating in good faith that his life's work might end the moment he stepped foot back in Sweden. He chose not to recognize the authority of a State he was actively politically engaged with. Countries do this every day.
Just because he doesn't have an army behind him to legitimize his claim to sovereignty, doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to that claim and the right to achieve his sovereignty by any means that can be ethically justified.
To claim that he does not get the right to decide for himself, as all men do, whether to recognize what a particular group of people with guns and land command of him, is to claim that he is not human, because that is a natural human right.
I have personally been the victim of an illegal charge despite overwhelming evidence in my favor, and received the maximum possible fines and jail sentence. Going to jail made sense because I wanted to just get my life back on track after my government destroyed it, as soon as possible. But it was not the morally responsible thing to do. I didn't even commit the crime I was convicted for. The morally responsible thing to do would have been to not submit myself to the illegitimate city government which prosecuted me.
> I'd love to know what civil freedoms of yours you believe are going to be impinged by virtue of this post.
Any number of things.
My country asks for social media accounts when applying for a passport, sure it's optional now, but give it time.
Automation and machine analysis will ensure my Hacker News account factors into my Social Credit score.
If you get out from under your rock you would see similar things happening in many countries across the globe.
Even if Assange had violently raped and murdered multiple people (which would absolutely make him a terrible person) how would that affect the credibility of his civil work in any way? Does it make the truths that he helped expose any less true?
What's not a crime is breaching the conditions of your bail, e.g. you can't go to political protests if you're released on bail.
In particular, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail#a19
This shows that breaching your bail conditions means you may be arrested and either re-bailed, or taken into custody.
The only "crime" he committed was refusing to cooperate and fleeing the country, since he saw this only as a pretext to get him in custody for US extradition, which objectively was the case (the US wasn't hiding its attempts to get him extradited).
That was extremely strange and suspicious so he resisted the extradition first legally then by fleeing into the embassy. And in there he deteriorated greatly - spiraled into conspiracy and paranoia.
Strange how her lawyer today told the press that the victim hopes that Sweden re-opens the rape case. Definitely no ill will towards Assange, only concern for his health.
...it's not the cat's fault, and the cat doesn't have to prove that it is a vicious killer one needs to hide from.
I think only Assange and Ecuador really had it in their power to alter the length of the "siege", I don't think the Met Police were going to simply say "whatevs" once he had skipped bail.
I can’t see why anyone would do that if they valued their own personal security. /s