7 ms·

What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campa

by Tycho 7y ago

What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.

milquetoastaf 7y ago
That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.
ChrisSD 7y ago
He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
- Tycho 7y ago
  Well done for missing the point.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
    - Tycho 7y ago
      The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.
      - ChrisSD 7y ago
        Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.
        Tycho 7y ago
        Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially * the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station * the only actual formal accusation that one of the women is standing behind is that Assange tampered with a condom. How the heck is anyone supposed to investigate that? * the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor * once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist * for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward * now that they have a chance to prosecute him, of course they will not bother
        ChrisSD 7y ago
        Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you? He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted. To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left. On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011. So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- roenxi 7y ago
  That is true, but he was hiding in an embassy for the best part of a decade. That isn't a scheme to avoid 50 months in jail. The jail sentence for skipping bail is the reasonable part of the whole story. No question that it was about as bad a case of bail-skipping as could be imagined. The issue is more one of why exactly is the justice system involving itself in his business. He didn't think he'd committed a crime in Sweden. His 'victims' didn't think he needed to be arrested. The police didn't think he needed to be arrested at the time either. The word 'rape' seems to be something of a mistranslation on this one. I gather (from Wikipedia) that he maintained he had consensual sex [0], so it's going to be interesting, if he does get to Sweden before the US grabs him, what actual evidence is involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
SkyBelow 7y ago
Is there a timeline of when the public turned against him. One which compares it to the spread of information/propaganda about his involvement with helping Trump win the election? I wonder if that was a key event in people becoming willing to accept any other information/propaganda that casts Assange in a negative light.
- Tycho 7y ago
  He never had much support once the smear that “two women accused him of rape” was intentionally leaked and broadcast. Most people don’t dig into the details, and no one wants to defend “a sex offender.” And, since the British high-brow media are such a bunch of weasels, he didn’t have much chance of overcoming it.
- rich-tea 7y ago
  It changed when people realised the truth that was being revealed was the wrong truth. People remembered that huge swathes of society are built on lies and deceit and they aren't prepared to do better.
fit2rule 7y ago
Hubris and self-loathing: Julian weaponised these human emotions against the American people, and they despise him for it.

by Tycho 7y ago

milquetoastaf 7y ago

That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.

ChrisSD 7y ago

He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".

Tycho 7y ago
Well done for missing the point.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
  - Tycho 7y ago
    The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      Sweden followed all normal procedures for an extradition request within the EU. Both the UK high court and the appeals court ruled he should be extradited to answer for accusations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. If he feared the US, why the heck did he flee from Sweden to the UK in the first place? The UK is notorious for its one sided extradition treaty with the US.
      - Tycho 7y ago
        Yes what they did is totally 'normal' if you ignore the elephants in the room that Assange had a legitimate claim to asylum from US persecution (and that they refused to promise no extradition) and that the case was ridiculous in the first place. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the event and they let him leave after he failed to gain a work permit. Here's some of the ridiculous things: * the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially * the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station * the only actual formal accusation that one of the women is standing behind is that Assange tampered with a condom. How the heck is anyone supposed to investigate that? * the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor * once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist * for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward * now that they have a chance to prosecute him, of course they will not bother
        ChrisSD 7y ago
        Again, he was scared of the US so he fled to the UK. That makes sense to you? He had sex with someone who is asleep. Some who is asleep cannot consent. You understand that this is rape, right? The women involved does still want to take him to court and the Swedish Prosecution Authority is currently reviewing the matter. The other allegations have passed the statue of limitation and cannot be prosecuted. To be clear, the alleged offenses happened between 13 August 2010 and 18 August 2010. They were reported to the police on 20 August. Assange was interviewed on the 30th and had left Sweden by 27th September 2010, after an arrest warrant had been issued. They had tried to interview him before he left. On the 26 November 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued after hearings in both Stockholm District Court and the Court of Appeal (in which Assange's lawyer was present). The arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Subsequently this warrant was certified by the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It was also upheld by a district judge on 24 February 2011 and by the High Court on 2 November 2011. So it's been thoroughly reviewed by two legal systems that both agree there is a case to answer.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
roenxi 7y ago
That is true, but he was hiding in an embassy for the best part of a decade. That isn't a scheme to avoid 50 months in jail. The jail sentence for skipping bail is the reasonable part of the whole story. No question that it was about as bad a case of bail-skipping as could be imagined. The issue is more one of why exactly is the justice system involving itself in his business. He didn't think he'd committed a crime in Sweden. His 'victims' didn't think he needed to be arrested. The police didn't think he needed to be arrested at the time either. The word 'rape' seems to be something of a mistranslation on this one. I gather (from Wikipedia) that he maintained he had consensual sex [0], so it's going to be interesting, if he does get to Sweden before the US grabs him, what actual evidence is involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

SkyBelow 7y ago

Is there a timeline of when the public turned against him. One which compares it to the spread of information/propaganda about his involvement with helping Trump win the election? I wonder if that was a key event in people becoming willing to accept any other information/propaganda that casts Assange in a negative light.

Tycho 7y ago
He never had much support once the smear that “two women accused him of rape” was intentionally leaked and broadcast. Most people don’t dig into the details, and no one wants to defend “a sex offender.” And, since the British high-brow media are such a bunch of weasels, he didn’t have much chance of overcoming it.
rich-tea 7y ago
It changed when people realised the truth that was being revealed was the wrong truth. People remembered that huge swathes of society are built on lies and deceit and they aren't prepared to do better.

fit2rule 7y ago

Hubris and self-loathing: Julian weaponised these human emotions against the American people, and they despise him for it.