(caution: contains some fairly unpleasant reading)
Edit / clarification: only one of the two quotes appears in the NYT article.
There was a time when the official narrative was "he can leave at any time, we don't want him, he's just hiding because of potential rape charges". That at least is clearly falsified.
Some years later, the US secretly submitted an extradition request. At that point he was also avoiding extradition to the USA and at that point, people were wrong to say he was only avoiding extradition to Sweden.
If anyone has evidence that the US was seeking his extradition in early 2011, I would be very interested in seeing it.
I mean, can we know there wasn't a secret request in play, or one intended to be issued? Their later actual (even secret? Leaked?) request certainly validates the concern, no?
> "He said that credible sources had stated the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, notably Matthew Miller, a highly respected Justice Department figure who had been close to Attorney General Holder and would have been unlikely to brief the media without Holder’s knowledge and approval."
I have never seen any evidence contradicting this, despite lots of people on the internet saying the Sweden EAW was part of a US conspiracy.
What we have right now is clear revealed preference. Opportunity arose (leverage with Ecuador), US pushed, UK opened procedures. This is a very clear falsification of "what extradition? it's all about rape charges".
After reading he's headed for ADX, however, I'm sympathetic. No prisoner of any kind should be exposed for anything remotely resembling that, in my opinion. It's a horror movie come true.
Is there any proof/indication of him being a political actor?
You know the game you're playing, and all.
This could be applied to any journalist who exposes powerful institutions.
I do think that both journalists and whistleblowers should have certain protections in a free society.
However, I can't shake the feeling that wikileaks exploits the hunger for justice of honest-minded whistleblowers as a front for information gathering, and then choose to use said information however fits their own selfish interests. So I don't like them at all as martyrs of free speech. Assange is no Snowden.
Then again, as I said, I am 100% against certain punishments that I think go against basic human rights. Just the possibility of ending up in ADX should be enough to deny extradition, regardless of who's the alleged criminal.
It's hard to wrap my head around the argument that since the information was used to forward an agenda or was released selectively it's somehow "bad"
Who cares, if the content is valid and incendiary? Leaks or whistleblowers don't have to be "balanced".
Apparent Somali assassination order
Guantanamo Bay procedures
Daniel arap Moi
Tibetan Unrest videos
Sarah Palin Emails
Killings by the Kenyan police
Congressional Research Service reports
Climategate 1 and 2 (the forgotten one that outright stated what the first implied)
Barclays Bank tax avoidance
Internet censorship lists
Bilderberg Group meeting reports
2008 Peru oil scandal
Nuclear accident in Iran
Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report
Joint Services Protocol 440
9/11 pager messages
U.S. Intelligence report on WikiLeaks
Baghdad airstrike video
Afghan War Diary
Love Parade documents
Iraq War logs
State Department diplomatic cables release
Guantanamo Bay files
The Spy Files
Stratfor email leak
Prosecution and prison documents for Anakata (the pirate bay guy)
Draft Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement IP Charter and later TPP Investment Chapter
Trade in Services Agreement chapter draft
Australian bribery case suppression order
Trident Nuclear Weapons System
The Saudi Cables
DNC email leak
Podesta emails (DNC and this show bias against Bernie Sanders rather than dealing with trump vs hillary)
Yemen files (US secret involvement in Yemen conflict)
German BND-NSA Inquiry (US spying on Germany)
Turkish AK Party emails
CIA espionage orders
Vault 7 (CIA hacking software info)
Spy Files Russia (Russia spies on it's citizens too)
ICE Patrol (ICE employee LinkedIn profiles)
corrupted broker in France-UAE arms deal (French and German governments selling weapons)
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Syria/Russia interfering with chemical weapon investigation)
I see no evidence that the releases favor particular countries or ideologies aside from the general anti-war stance. Most are about corruption and spying across a wide set of countries. It also makes sense that the US has the most leaks. The US probably has more continuing wars and "police actions" than any other 10 countries combined. In addition, the culture of the US tends to be more open making leaks a bit easier.
What exactly on this list do you take issue with?
I think it’s gone on too long now, and needs resolution - which I believe is one of the important aspects of judicial systems beyond “justice” - simply drawing a line under things so society can move on.
Julian poked a sharp stick into the US military, intelligence and political system - I expect a few years in a US prison will be the result - something to be anticipated if you had a normal amount of ego and wisdom.
You’re argument is that journalists and whistle blowers are above the law - but they aren’t. And that’s before you take an objective stance about JA’s good faith and personal motivations.
If you set up a “leaking” organisation, and use it to selectively embarrass certain governments and politicians while coincidentally building your brand and obtaining a measure of power, influence and money ... you better make sure you fully obey the law.
They’re charging him with conspiracy to crack hashes. This is a technically literate forum and we should talk about things as they really are, not hand waving nonsense like “misuse of computers.” In some sense he’s being persecuted for knowing that Hashcat exists.
Edit: read for yourself: https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-brea...
Govt should abide by law, if not, blowing the whistle should be rewarded not punished.
It's Chelsea Manning who I have far more sympathy for. Somehow she's not promoted so much by Assange supporters, despite being the insider responsible for the leak and already having served in prison for it.
The Iraq war remains a moral disaster, and things have not improved on that front.
Regardless of his political leanings, he's an important journalist who ought to be celebrated for revealing some very uncomfortable facts.
There is a debate on whether going to a « coke and prostitutes party in exchange for a role in a movie » is an act of consent or such naivety that it is unbelievable, but the immense majority were consenting adults who did take the role in the movie in exchange. But blaming it entirely on men shifts the focus of the major problem here: the number of women who want to become actresses and who are willing to compete on sexuality because they believe it’s their only asset. In other words: We haven’t succeeded as a civilization in giving women self-confidence in doing a job of science or talent, and they keep falling back on offering what they are, not what they do.
That would solve the problem in a much wider way than giving the power to women to crucify any man around them, because that makes a large percentage of men weary of working with women, and multiplies the problem of female employment. Just saying.
This is a gross mischaracterisation of how difficult it is to get rape convictions.
> We haven’t succeeded as a civilization in giving women self-confidence in doing a job of science or talent, and they keep falling back on offering what they are, not what they do.
This is a gross mischaracterisation of the pressure is applied to women to do these things.
A conviction is not necessary to severely negatively affect someone's life.
Of course the Swedish government are saying that it’s standard procedure to prosecute or chase prosecution if charges are brought and withdrawn. But, it doesn’t look good.
That casting a critical/dismissive eye is dangerous as it means we no longer try to confirm the claim?
It’s a think grey line here: but I think charges being filed should lead to him being questioned.
We should not say though that he “definitely did it”, (or that he definitely didn’t) just that he needs to answer the claim.
In this particular case it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.
Answer the charge and be extradited.
Don’t answer the charge and be thought of by the public as guilty.
If I had the power (and, nobody does here, don’t kid yourself) I’d like to see him sent to Sweden but with a protection about being sent to the US.
Nothing short of war will stop the US though, they are used to getting their way in ways we’re not comfortable admitting to.
Yes, it is. And we must fight such idiocy.
Are you noticing anything coming back over this last couple of weeks?
(note: I do not know whether Assange is pro-trump or not so I will take pjc50's word for it - seems weird though as Trump has been holding an anti-whistleblower position)
(note2: The allegations were not regarding rape but rather of intentionally breaking the condom while having an otherwise consensual sexual encounter - fun fact, this is legal in California although I personally think that it should not be)
But there's no doubt this is a political prosecution, which UK law is extremely clear about: extradition is not applicable for political charges. There's no doubt that he should not be extradited, and that extraditing him is an act of political cowardice by both the UK and Australian governments.
> The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.
> I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.
I'm leaning the other way, though. His reporting of the Assange trial, plus his coverage of the Alex Salmond trial, and the various other things on his blog, have caused me to reconsider the Salisbury poisonings (and the UK's Russophobia in general).
He's also being taken to court by the government on a ridiculous charge - always a sign that someone in power wants to shut him up.
- In the UK, publishing the transcript of a public hearing is a crime - "NB this is not a precise transcript. It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript (of a “public” court hearing; fascinating but true)." - IMO something is deeply broken with this, needs to be changed and potentially people who created this system need to be punished (for taking steps to undermine democracy).
- Publishing evidence of (war) crimes (this is what Assange did, right?) somehow appears to be a crime. What happened to failure to report a crime? Shouldn't instead people not publishing this be punished?
- A video call is too high tech for the UK government; also moving to a different courtroom where it would work is impossible because they'd have to carry over too much paper. They do everything on paper - linking to some other piece of paper means making a physical copy - "Are you saying that I should have repeated his affidavits and all the other evidence in my statements? My statements would have been thousands of pages long." - Hello, we have the internet and hyperlinks, can we pls use them? To me this feels like the courts are designed as a DoS attack on people's attention.
- Some US prisons are designed as death penalty without having to go through the legal trouble of saying it out loud - "Suicides in jail are increasing by 18% a year."
- Assange seems like a political prisoner - "Eric Lewis than gave testimony on the change of policy towards prosecuting Assange from the Trump administration." - Why does a president have this power? What happened to the 3 branches of government? Maybe this is a US thing, seems very broken.
- It's not even a public process, except in name - "Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online." - Why is everything not recorded and at least transcript posted online by default?
His "crime" was that he conspired to use a computer without permission. The fact he used it for a noble purpose doesn't get him out of extradition apparently. The fact that no one has been prosecuted for the much bigger crime that he exposed just adds perversity.