4 ms·

Five years living in a single room, not able to leave or walk outside. Millions of pounds/dollars spent enforcing the same. A gigantic show of idiocy from bot

Five years living in a single room, not able to leave or walk outside. Millions of pounds/dollars spent enforcing the same. A gigantic show of idiocy from both sides.

tomp 9y ago
Both sides? Makes complete sense from Assange, IMO. Better 5 years of prison than lifetime of torture.
beagle3 9y ago
Assange was basically, from his POV, defending his future freedom and poasibly his life, and still is. Very likely, he was right. How is Assange showing "idiocy" here? Also, from the perspective of a government, any government, 10 million is not even a rounding error of a rounding error in the defense budget. The intimidation might have stopped the forming of another Wikileaks or the rise of a 2nd assange. From this perspective, it's not idiocy - it's a good investment. Which is not to say I support this perspective - I don't. But it is important to understand motives rather than dismiss actions as idiotic.
- rmc 9y ago
  > Assange was basically, from his POV, defending his future freedom and poasibly his life, and still is. And I suspect, his reputation/good name. If he'd gone to trial, and lost, he'd be called a "convicted rapist" for the rest of his life.
  - Avalyst 9y ago
    And so he should, after all at that point he would be a convicted rapist, no?
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    True. How very noble of him. Did not want to see his reputation challenged, so refused to deal with consequences of his actions...
matt4077 9y ago
That strikes me as slightly unbalanced. The investigation may be debatable, but certainly not on the same level of idiocy as Assange self-imposed golden cage. And once the investigation had started, there really wasn't an option to drop it when the subject raised the stakes: there's just no concept of "oh well, if he really doesn't want to stand trial..." in any sane system of justice.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Dolores12 9y ago
In essence he is in prison for 5 years.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  In essence he imprisoned himself for 5 years.
dullgiulio 9y ago
All he had to do was answer some questions to the Swedish prosecutor. I still fail to understand why Sweden, NOT a NATO member, would have been more dangerous than the UK. Also, Sweden is not exactly the worst place in the world to spend prison time (which was only the worst case scenario.) Answer the questions, clarify everything, and walk free. He chose himself not to answer. He chose to dump all the rich people who paid for his bail. He was always able to leave the embassy to go to Sweden for an interview.
- bb101 9y ago
  Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US. Also, the Swedes are unlike Germans, in that they are more eager to be seen to be doing the right thing and helping other countries than upholding principles. So it's quite likely they would have eagerly extradited him if the US asked politely.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  So why did they not ring him up and asked him?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Not being a NATO member doesn't mean they don't collaborate with the CIA: Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. (...) Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    Just to be clear, it's two Egypitians being transferred to Egypt. Assange is not American. The case you quote is obviously a violation of International Law, but it doesn't make me more suspicious for the fate of Assange in Sweden.

Five years living in a single room, not able to leave or walk outside. Millions of pounds/dollars spent enforcing the same. A gigantic show of idiocy from both sides.

tomp 9y ago

Both sides? Makes complete sense from Assange, IMO. Better 5 years of prison than lifetime of torture.

beagle3 9y ago

Assange was basically, from his POV, defending his future freedom and poasibly his life, and still is. Very likely, he was right. How is Assange showing "idiocy" here? Also, from the perspective of a government, any government, 10 million is not even a rounding error of a rounding error in the defense budget. The intimidation might have stopped the forming of another Wikileaks or the rise of a 2nd assange. From this perspective, it's not idiocy - it's a good investment. Which is not to say I support this perspective - I don't. But it is important to understand motives rather than dismiss actions as idiotic.

rmc 9y ago
> Assange was basically, from his POV, defending his future freedom and poasibly his life, and still is. And I suspect, his reputation/good name. If he'd gone to trial, and lost, he'd be called a "convicted rapist" for the rest of his life.
- Avalyst 9y ago
  And so he should, after all at that point he would be a convicted rapist, no?
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  True. How very noble of him. Did not want to see his reputation challenged, so refused to deal with consequences of his actions...

matt4077 9y ago

That strikes me as slightly unbalanced. The investigation may be debatable, but certainly not on the same level of idiocy as Assange self-imposed golden cage. And once the investigation had started, there really wasn't an option to drop it when the subject raised the stakes: there's just no concept of "oh well, if he really doesn't want to stand trial..." in any sane system of justice.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Dolores12 9y ago

In essence he is in prison for 5 years.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
In essence he imprisoned himself for 5 years.

dullgiulio 9y ago

All he had to do was answer some questions to the Swedish prosecutor. I still fail to understand why Sweden, NOT a NATO member, would have been more dangerous than the UK. Also, Sweden is not exactly the worst place in the world to spend prison time (which was only the worst case scenario.) Answer the questions, clarify everything, and walk free. He chose himself not to answer. He chose to dump all the rich people who paid for his bail. He was always able to leave the embassy to go to Sweden for an interview.

bb101 9y ago
Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US. Also, the Swedes are unlike Germans, in that they are more eager to be seen to be doing the right thing and helping other countries than upholding principles. So it's quite likely they would have eagerly extradited him if the US asked politely.
ageofwant 9y ago
So why did they not ring him up and asked him?
icebraining 9y ago
Not being a NATO member doesn't mean they don't collaborate with the CIA: Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. (...) Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  Just to be clear, it's two Egypitians being transferred to Egypt. Assange is not American. The case you quote is obviously a violation of International Law, but it doesn't make me more suspicious for the fate of Assange in Sweden.