Because there are already various conspiracies being discussed in this thread, I'd like to invite you to entertain, just momentarily, the possibility that this is simply a functioning system of justice seeking to prosecute what they consider credible evidence of a crime.
I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a court of law.
- Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes.
- Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence?
- Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping their friend?
- There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his welcome" and "complete egomaniac".
- Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles overboard.
- At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the "Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged.
- All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their subscriber data?
- Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just... underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier, lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were already borderline.
- The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target comes along that needs her couch to crush on?
- Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport?
- Indeed, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system?
- If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various other character assassination in any thread on this subject.
- The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape.
> Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence?
Perhaps because the US political / justice / military intelligence system contains more people wielding power than just the president.
"Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments"
Sure, why not? It would be an excellent cover persona for that type of spy. From what little I know about how intelligence agencies operate, it always amazes me who their assets are. Look at who the OSS used as spies in WWII. Find out who her parents are before passing judgement. They don't recruit the obvious James Bond types. Find the family connection.
I can believe the CIA has all sorts of assets in obscure places. Believing the CIA is directing its assets to have sex with a target then wait several days until a chance conversation with somebody else about his alleged sexual indiscretions before making a crime report so tentative the case was only reopened on appeal is a step much further. If the CIA wanted to honeytrap someone, which certainly wasn't the most obvious route to going after Assange, they'd have made the case stick.
Similarly, believing that everybody who has ever interacted with an anti-Castro organization (the only "evidence" presented of CIA involvement) is a CIA asset is a step beyond which I'm willing to go.
Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of whether someone else posted a bad comment. We've had to warn you several times before. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this, so we don't have to ban you?
The two often coincide. And facts can make an attack crueler. Imagine a middle schooler pointing out facts about another kid's face.
With your comment above, even if I assume you were right on all the facts, it is still a personal attack, insulting the other person's aversions and so on. This is not how thoughtful discussion goes, and we ban people that do this on HN.
We've had to ask you quite a lot about this kind of stuff. I don't want to ban you—I'd rather persuade you that following the site guidelines is in your interest. Why not take them to heart? Doing that makes the site better for everyone, including you—just the same as not littering in a city park or having campfires when a forest is at risk. This being the internet, HN is always at risk, and we all need to care for the commons.
I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a court of law.
- Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes.
- Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence?
- Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping their friend?
- There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his welcome" and "complete egomaniac".
- Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles overboard.
- At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the "Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged.
- All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their subscriber data?
- Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just... underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier, lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were already borderline.
- The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target comes along that needs her couch to crush on?
- Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport?
- Indeed, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system?
- If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various other character assassination in any thread on this subject.
- The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape.