This is an illuminating article but unfortunately I think the CIA's campaign to smear and discredit Julian Assange has been highly successful on HN and elsewhere. Many people already disliked him for his libertarian ideology and saw his willingness to be a figurehead for Wikileaks as arrogance. Also, a lot of people saw Wikileaks release of documents and their opinion journalism during elections as giving an unfair advantage to Trump.
> One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the
> women did not want any charges brought against Assange,
> "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him".
> She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she
> only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not
> want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police
> who made up the charges". In a witness statement, she
> is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by
> police and others around her".
This is utterly crazy. How is this not seen as wrongdoing by the police?
> It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United
> Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the
> tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether
> governments comply with their human rights obligations
> - last year ruled that Assange had been detained
> unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international
> law at its apex.
Do powerful governments have to listen to the UN though?
They don't have to in the strictest sense in the same way as they don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention even if they were a signatory. However, in the long term it affects their image as a country, allies trust it less, are less willing to make deals based on good faith, and so on.
Look at how partisan WikiLeaks is - look at the countries that it doesn't publish information on, look at the candidates it doesn't try to discredit
Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.
The CIA may have been after him but ultimately he discredited himself
You shouldn't imprison someone for incorrect political opinions and unsubstantiated gossip about non-criminal bad behaviour.
In any case, I think you're wrong that WikiLeaks doesn't publish information on certain countries [0]. And, I agree that they do have political opinions however it's impossible to avoid this: if you don't think something is political, it's because you share its politics.
> Look at how partisan WikiLeaks is - look at the countries that it doesn't publish information on, look at the candidates it doesn't try to discredit.
Before we get carried away by the attitude: "Johnny does it too...", why don't we focus on the information that has been published. The crimes that have been exposed by Wikileaks ?
From a pragmatic point of view , it would be stupid of Wikileaks operatives or anyone in their position to antagonize all sides. Where would Snowden be today if he did not have the Russians to help save his life?
In any case, as I have stated, focus on the crimes laid bare before us now. They can always leak more later.
>Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, , look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.
Do you have any proof that Wikileaks has any information on those countries or that they are conciensely withholding information? Have you ever considered that you might be partisan?
When wikileaks was launched, I thought that Assange was such an idiot that it would never get off the ground. How wrong I was.
Note that Wikileaks did try to redact the material they got. So eventhough they messed it up, they tried to do the right thing.
Wikileaks was supposed to be a platform for leakers. To get their material out. Wikileaks is not supposed to be balanced publication that tries to compile some sort of truth.
So in that sense, given the original goal of wikileaks, they just had to publish those documents during the US elections. It would be different if there was evidence that they got documents damaging to Trump and refused to publish them.
So, Assange is an idiot and best not invited to parties. Wikileaks is probably a bad idea. But none of that warrents a complete abuse of the legal system by Sweden. And also a complete violation of basic european human rights by the UK.
I am aware of zero credible accusation that Wikileaks has suppressed publication of anything, ever. If you are and have any evidence of it, the front page of the new York Times is yours.
> ...I think the CIA's campaign to smear and discredit Julian Assange has been highly successful on HN and elsewhere....
I think not.
Outside of the USA virtually nobody buys into the pathetic attempts of the US establishment to slander Assange,Snowden,Manning and others;(on a personal note, my respect for Obama died the day he referred to Snowden as a "common hacker").
Within the US, perhaps they have had more success. I must point out that this is so because despite the tech credentials and high educational levels of HN (and other website) readers, you still find a fair share 'murica' nationalists.
It's easy to down-vote people who have dissenting opinions. Especially if the poster provides facts and evidence to support their opinions.
US politics is become even more of an echo chamber than ever. "My" side is on the side of light, goodness, and rationality. "Their" side is evil, sinister, and denies evidence.
The behavior on HN is just one side-effect of this.
God forbid we treat others with dignity... or assume that they're different, but honest and well-intentioned. Instead, it's better to treat them like scum, make all kinds of false accusations about them.
Not that I've seen a lot of that here.... /s
It's better to treat people well, even if you disagree with their position. It worked for a Daryl Davis:
I wonder if Trump could just manage to find a way to get him by force, meaning enter in the embassy with armed guys and capture him, at the cost of a diplomatic incident, as long as there is no loss of life.
I mean that's exactly the kind of thing I would expect from Trump. I don't know if it is technically possible, and if he would find people to do it.
You're wondering if one country could invade a second country, for the purposes of invading a third countries embassy.
While that's physically possible, the international ramifications would be immense. It's one thing to bomb weddings in Yemen. It's an entirely different prospect to violate diplomatic immunity on an allies soil.
Assange is free to leave the wardrobe he's been hiding in to escape a rape charge for seven years whenever he likes.
The fact that post-consequences egotistical Kremlin-collaborating Clinton-sabotaging democracy-undermining nutcase thinks the law doesn't apply to him is surely his own problem. Because it does.
You might want to listen to and look into the women who are making the allegations. Also, "rape"? Really? For refusing to use a condom (which is BTW, the alleged crime)?
One of the women in question "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and said "it was the police who made up the charges".
If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them.
Rape is a serious issue and it doesn't deserve this post-truth political treatment you're giving it.
> If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them.
You might want to read about the effects of coercive control.
I'm not suggesting it applies to Assange, but what you've written here is wrong and causes a lot of harm.
That is the direct implication of ignoring the woman involved.
> If there's an accusation of rape the state needs to investigate that
> "it was the police who made up the charges"
That's one hell of an accusation.
> When accused of rape most people cooperate with police. They do not skip bail and hide in a cupboard for many years.
Only idiots cooperate with the police [0]. By the way, most people aren't being persecuted by the government for exposing violations of international law, so what "most people" do probably shouldn't define how we would expect Assange to act.
That's only true for the US. He isn't being asked to talk to US police, he's being asked to talk to Swedish or British police. In both those countries the population have little to fear from the police.
And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
> That's only true for the US. He isn't being asked to talk to US police, he's being asked to talk to Swedish or British police. In both those countries the population have little to fear from the police.
This isn't true at all. The specifics of American law are unique, but the general ideas apply everywhere. The idea that you shouldn't talk to the police is much older than the recent rise in police brutality in America. The 5th amendment was originally a response to overreach by the British government.
> And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
Why does that make him an idiot? It is the smart play if you think you won't get treated fairly in court, which is obviously what he believes. You might think he is wrong, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
The British police have just as much of a credibility problem as any other police force in the world. That is what happens when you participate in a cover-up of political pedophilia, as has happened with the UK's police force. There is no honor to be saved.
It's fairly clear to me that it's the swedish government which should be accused of coercive control here.
If you want to try to convince me of your position feel free to explain what you mean in a less opaque way, rather than merely accusing me of harmful speech and implying something hard to understand.
2) You've said "If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them." -- this is harmful bollocks. People who are the victims of abuse partners, especially in cases of coercive control, will not make police complaints or will not cooperate with police, even when the crimes they've been subjected to are horrific.
Oh fair enough, that is valid opinion in cases of domestic abuse. I was trying to specifically express an opinion on Assange though - I don't think what you're saying applies in this case.
Playing devil's advocate... what if I (as a man) consent to sex because she says she's on the pill? And then she's not?
In Canada, having sex without a condom is "sexual assault", and is criminal. Lying about birth control isn't a crime because (paraphrasing the judgement) "No physical or economic harm has been done".
18 years of paying child support apparently isn't "economic harm".
The legal situation on those things varies quite a bit from country to county. It's regarded as a rape like offence in Sweden but not I think the UK or US.
The rape charge is on account of him fucking her while she was sleeping, the condom trickery was the basis for one of the other charges that has since been prescribed.
John Pilger actually puts "rape investigation" in inverted commas. This is misogynist fuckwittery of the first order.
Assange is FREE TO LEAVE THE CUPBOARD HE'S HIDING IN TO ESCAPE A RAPE CHARGE WHENEVER HE LIKES. This is literally the EXACT opposite meaning of detained.
Let's go over this again since Assange fans are largely misogynistic rape-apologist gullible fools.
1. He has been voluntarily hiding in a cupboard for seven years.
2. He's been doing this because he was accused of rape
3. In the U.K. and Sweden we consider rape a serious crime
4. Hiding in a wardrobe does not exempt him from answering to the crimes of which he is accused
5. He skipped bail losing his followers £60,000 in surety
6. Bail skipping is a criminal offence; he is wanted in the
U.K. for that
7. If he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding in he will be arrested and charged for bail skipping
8. Sweden may reopen the rape investigation until 2020
9. Now the rape charges are droppped it will be easier, not harder, to extradite Assange to the US
10. The US has made no formal extradition request yet, but given Assange's role in collaborating with the kremlin to sabotage the 2016 US presidential election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to.
One of my favorite quotes is from "A man for all seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Denying the rule of law to "get" a bad person is called "lynching".
Not charged. Not even accused by victims.
The omission of the number of very public death threats he's received as a possible factor is less than balanced at best.
Not charged. Not even accused by victims.
The omission of the number of very public death threats he's received as a possible factor is less than balanced at best.
I'm pointing out, that which is 100% factually correct, that he was accused of rape and fled from justice.
This is a matter of public record.
He skipped bail, costing his supporters £60K in surety.
For skipping bail he's now wanted for failure to appear, which is a criminal offence in the U.K. of which he is most certainly guilty.
Whether or not Assange is a rapist we can't ascertain because he fled justice rather than face the accusations.
Maybe if he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding from justice the case will be re-opened he'll answer the accused and we'll find out if he's a rapist or not.
But since there's no statue of limitations on his failure to appear, of which he is certainly guilty, it doesn't look like he's emerging from that attic any time soon.
Makes several sweeping claims that I have not heard before (case against Assange was corrupt, Hilary Clinton supports ISIS). Would be more convincing if he would support these by evidence from neutral, trustworthy sources.
Just keep in mind whether you like Mr Assange's manner and or politics or quite the opposite that his rights are your rights. Support the destruction of his right by all means just be sure you know they'll be gone for you. Both directly, when you need them and indirectly, when someone exposing crime affecting your family needs them. Is it a price you can afford to pay? It's not a one time payment.
60 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadLook at how partisan WikiLeaks is - look at the countries that it doesn't publish information on, look at the candidates it doesn't try to discredit
Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.
The CIA may have been after him but ultimately he discredited himself
In any case, I think you're wrong that WikiLeaks doesn't publish information on certain countries [0]. And, I agree that they do have political opinions however it's impossible to avoid this: if you don't think something is political, it's because you share its politics.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...
Before we get carried away by the attitude: "Johnny does it too...", why don't we focus on the information that has been published. The crimes that have been exposed by Wikileaks ? From a pragmatic point of view , it would be stupid of Wikileaks operatives or anyone in their position to antagonize all sides. Where would Snowden be today if he did not have the Russians to help save his life? In any case, as I have stated, focus on the crimes laid bare before us now. They can always leak more later.
>Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, , look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.
His sexual behavior is irrelevant to the expose.
Note that Wikileaks did try to redact the material they got. So eventhough they messed it up, they tried to do the right thing.
Wikileaks was supposed to be a platform for leakers. To get their material out. Wikileaks is not supposed to be balanced publication that tries to compile some sort of truth.
So in that sense, given the original goal of wikileaks, they just had to publish those documents during the US elections. It would be different if there was evidence that they got documents damaging to Trump and refused to publish them.
So, Assange is an idiot and best not invited to parties. Wikileaks is probably a bad idea. But none of that warrents a complete abuse of the legal system by Sweden. And also a complete violation of basic european human rights by the UK.
I think not.
Outside of the USA virtually nobody buys into the pathetic attempts of the US establishment to slander Assange,Snowden,Manning and others;(on a personal note, my respect for Obama died the day he referred to Snowden as a "common hacker"). Within the US, perhaps they have had more success. I must point out that this is so because despite the tech credentials and high educational levels of HN (and other website) readers, you still find a fair share 'murica' nationalists.
HN is very dominantly US (both in sponsorship and membership), so that doesn't really invalidate the point at all.
This is a fact
As it is a fact that WL "leaked" documents relating to Fillon (before his candidature sank - though not because of WL) in France
So, no, he's not a "neutral party" (though he has an entirely understandable beef with HRC)
Wikileaks Twitter shows that they linked to a search result for "Fillon" in their old releases, which they often do for current topics.
But what really did him in (I think) were the Canard Enchainé revelations
They linked to search results - in fact for multiple (opposing) candidates - from their old leaks.
It's easy to down-vote people who have dissenting opinions. Especially if the poster provides facts and evidence to support their opinions.
US politics is become even more of an echo chamber than ever. "My" side is on the side of light, goodness, and rationality. "Their" side is evil, sinister, and denies evidence.
The behavior on HN is just one side-effect of this.
God forbid we treat others with dignity... or assume that they're different, but honest and well-intentioned. Instead, it's better to treat them like scum, make all kinds of false accusations about them.
Not that I've seen a lot of that here.... /s
It's better to treat people well, even if you disagree with their position. It worked for a Daryl Davis:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386533 and marked it off-topic.
I mean that's exactly the kind of thing I would expect from Trump. I don't know if it is technically possible, and if he would find people to do it.
You're wondering if one country could invade a second country, for the purposes of invading a third countries embassy.
While that's physically possible, the international ramifications would be immense. It's one thing to bomb weddings in Yemen. It's an entirely different prospect to violate diplomatic immunity on an allies soil.
The fact that post-consequences egotistical Kremlin-collaborating Clinton-sabotaging democracy-undermining nutcase thinks the law doesn't apply to him is surely his own problem. Because it does.
To say he is detained is, simply, a lie.
If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them.
Rape is a serious issue and it doesn't deserve this post-truth political treatment you're giving it.
You might want to read about the effects of coercive control.
I'm not suggesting it applies to Assange, but what you've written here is wrong and causes a lot of harm.
If there's an accusation of rape the state needs to investigate that, and if they think they have enough evidence they need to prosecute that.
When accused of rape most people cooperate with police. They do not skip bail and hide in a cupboard for many years.
That is the direct implication of ignoring the woman involved.
> If there's an accusation of rape the state needs to investigate that
> "it was the police who made up the charges"
That's one hell of an accusation.
> When accused of rape most people cooperate with police. They do not skip bail and hide in a cupboard for many years.
Only idiots cooperate with the police [0]. By the way, most people aren't being persecuted by the government for exposing violations of international law, so what "most people" do probably shouldn't define how we would expect Assange to act.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
That's only true for the US. He isn't being asked to talk to US police, he's being asked to talk to Swedish or British police. In both those countries the population have little to fear from the police.
And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
This isn't true at all. The specifics of American law are unique, but the general ideas apply everywhere. The idea that you shouldn't talk to the police is much older than the recent rise in police brutality in America. The 5th amendment was originally a response to overreach by the British government.
> And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
Why does that make him an idiot? It is the smart play if you think you won't get treated fairly in court, which is obviously what he believes. You might think he is wrong, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
If you want to try to convince me of your position feel free to explain what you mean in a less opaque way, rather than merely accusing me of harmful speech and implying something hard to understand.
2) You've said "If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them." -- this is harmful bollocks. People who are the victims of abuse partners, especially in cases of coercive control, will not make police complaints or will not cooperate with police, even when the crimes they've been subjected to are horrific.
In Canada, having sex without a condom is "sexual assault", and is criminal. Lying about birth control isn't a crime because (paraphrasing the judgement) "No physical or economic harm has been done".
18 years of paying child support apparently isn't "economic harm".
Assange is FREE TO LEAVE THE CUPBOARD HE'S HIDING IN TO ESCAPE A RAPE CHARGE WHENEVER HE LIKES. This is literally the EXACT opposite meaning of detained.
Let's go over this again since Assange fans are largely misogynistic rape-apologist gullible fools.
1. He has been voluntarily hiding in a cupboard for seven years.
2. He's been doing this because he was accused of rape
3. In the U.K. and Sweden we consider rape a serious crime
4. Hiding in a wardrobe does not exempt him from answering to the crimes of which he is accused
5. He skipped bail losing his followers £60,000 in surety
6. Bail skipping is a criminal offence; he is wanted in the U.K. for that
7. If he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding in he will be arrested and charged for bail skipping
8. Sweden may reopen the rape investigation until 2020
9. Now the rape charges are droppped it will be easier, not harder, to extradite Assange to the US
10. The US has made no formal extradition request yet, but given Assange's role in collaborating with the kremlin to sabotage the 2016 US presidential election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to.
If you're accused, you're guilty. Damn the facts!
That's worked out well in the past. /s
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kill-a-mockingbird-1...
One of my favorite quotes is from "A man for all seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Denying the rule of law to "get" a bad person is called "lynching".
But he'll always be the man who spent a decade hiding in an attic to avoid a rape charge.
That's a level of cognitive dissonance which is surprising to admit publicly.
This is a matter of public record.
He skipped bail, costing his supporters £60K in surety.
For skipping bail he's now wanted for failure to appear, which is a criminal offence in the U.K. of which he is most certainly guilty.
Whether or not Assange is a rapist we can't ascertain because he fled justice rather than face the accusations.
Maybe if he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding from justice the case will be re-opened he'll answer the accused and we'll find out if he's a rapist or not.
But since there's no statue of limitations on his failure to appear, of which he is certainly guilty, it doesn't look like he's emerging from that attic any time soon.