4 ms·

I feel sad, because this is not the right debate to have, and I initiated it. First, I repeat: What he allegedly did is a serious and horrible crime. Also, pe

I feel sad, because this is not the right debate to have, and I initiated it. First, I repeat: What he allegedly did is a serious and horrible crime. Also, people need to see the elephant in the room. These two victims' case is weaponized by some governments to scare whistle-blowers. Assange directly or indirectly exposed many horrible crimes, including war rapes, group rapes, mass murders. People need to remember this video of soldiers in Irak shooting at human beings from far away while laughing and listening to rock music, and shooting again at wounded survivors crawling on the floor. People need also to remember the images of war prisoners tortured, humiliated, forced to be naked and raped with sticks. But, more importantly, people need to make sure that future whistle-blowers fell safe to expose this kind of hideous crimes. Prisoners' case [nsfw]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...

mikeash 7y ago
I see no indication that this was “weaponized.” Assange was wanted for questioning in Sweden. He was in the UK and would have been arrested and extradited. This is all completely normal. It went off the rails when he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, which was his own choice. Supposedly he did this because he was afraid that he’d be hauled off to Guantanamo Bay or whatever, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. At any rate, we should separate these things. The whistleblowing done by Assange and the rape (allegedly) done by Assange are unrelated. Talking about the whistleblowing should not involve minimizing the rape.
- repolfx 7y ago
  He had already been questioned by police in Sweden prior to that. He even stuck around for a month and then asked the Swedish police if he was free to leave, he was told he was. The prosecutor dropped the charges because the alleged victims were quite obviously lying about having been raped using any conventional definition of the term, there was also no way to resolve any dispute about whether someone was asleep when sex happened, and they would never reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" by any jury as a consequence. The charges were later mysteriously resurrected by a different prosecutor so he could be questioned again. Or maybe it's not such a mystery after all. Either Sweden is doing as the USA asked for some convoluted reasons, or the Swedish justice system is a complete joke when the R word gets involved.
  - tdcbfdct3 7y ago
    The prosecutor dropped the case because the alleged rape victim didn't want to press charges, because she was overwhelmed in the immediate aftermath. Then she hired a lawyer to advocate for her who got the charges re-opened. The other woman, who alleged lesser offenses, never dropped charges, though the statute of limitations have since expired on them. Assange was told early on in the investigation that he was not restricted from traveling, but as the investigation developed further and it became clear they wanted to prosecute him, he went missing. After multiple failed attempts to schedule another police interview, the prosecutor told his attorney she'd be filing an arrest warrant that day. Five hours later, Assange arrived at the airport and bought the next available ticket to Berlin. Assange claims that's just a coincidence. That he was avoiding contact with his lawyer because he was afraid of "threatening statements made by politicians in the U.S"
- akvadrako 7y ago
  > I see no indication that this was “weaponized.” Then you haven't been following this story very closely. A few brief examples: (1) The case was closed before he left Sweden. (2) They could have questioned him remotely, which they often do, but declined to. (3) The women didn't even want to charge him. (4) There is a USA extradition order in place. How can you doubt the USA wants to extradite him? (5) This isn't "rape" by any standard definition.
  - JoeSmithson 7y ago
    > (5) This isn't "rape" by any standard definition. The "Miss W" allegation in particular is rape by almost every country's legal definition.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Quick tip to anyone taking Assange’s side in this: your argument will work a lot better if you leave out all the stuff about whether his alleged crime is really “rape” or is just some lesser crime involving his wiener and another person. It just makes you sound like a redpiller and will turn people against you.
      - akvadrako 7y ago
        And a tip for anyone trying to defend Sweden - calling this rape shows your bias right away - that word is just used to discredit him.
    - akvadrako 7y ago
      The legal definition of rape in many US states include two drunk people having sex together or two underage kids doing it. But almost nobody considers that rape so the legal definition is irrelevant.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    >This isn't "rape" by any standard definition. Yes it is. He engaged in sex with partners without their consent. That is the definition of rape.
- bdamm 7y ago
  The timing of the Swedish charge is very noteworthy. The charge and extradition request was made shortly after the release of the US diplomatic cables.
  - ivarb 7y ago
    The diplomatic cables were released November 28 2010. The international arrest warrant November 18 2010. Before that other documents had been released, during the course of almost a year. So, the way I see it there is nothing really special about the timeline here. It is interesting that a lot of people seem to think that he should not be held responsible (or at least investigated) for the crimes he might have committed against the women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
    - SXX 7y ago
      Wikileaks is not just Assange. Obviously there far more people were working in background to verify everything they can and make sure their data is legit before they show it to the public. Do you really think there was way for them to keep upcoming release like actually secret from US government?
      - ivarb 7y ago
        Sure. They probably had an idea of what was going on. Don't really see why that is important though. What I was replying to stated "The charge and extradition request was made shortly after the release of the US diplomatic cables." which is incorrect. There is not anything suspicious about the timeline as I see it, the arrest warrant was issued after Assange left Sweden during an open investigation, which he was quite aware of. The only thing that would have been strange is if an arrest warrant hadn't been issued.
        bdamm 7y ago
        We're discussing this now, using materials available now, and discussing a historical event that differs by two weeks. It could have been that the time stamp on the warrant was backdated two weeks.
notahacker 7y ago
It has to be said that many other journalists who reported on war crimes (including collaborating with Wikileaks on Manning stories) are entirely safe and well and have not been accused of rape.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The US hasn't asked for their extradition for conspiracy either, and yet they have for Assange. Unless being accused of raping women in Sweden causes the US to do that, there must also be some other difference between Assange and those other journalists.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- whatshisface 7y ago
  We don't really know what threats have been delivered to them, only Assange is high-profile enough for whatever happens to him to send message. For all we know those other journalists received a friendly phone call and capitulated immediately - or more likely, they're simply not as big a target.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    I mean, some of the other journalists include Wikileaks members and Assange supporters who've personally assisted Snowden in escaping to Russia. If it's an intimidation strategy, it's clearly not working.

mikeash 7y ago

I see no indication that this was “weaponized.” Assange was wanted for questioning in Sweden. He was in the UK and would have been arrested and extradited. This is all completely normal. It went off the rails when he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, which was his own choice. Supposedly he did this because he was afraid that he’d be hauled off to Guantanamo Bay or whatever, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. At any rate, we should separate these things. The whistleblowing done by Assange and the rape (allegedly) done by Assange are unrelated. Talking about the whistleblowing should not involve minimizing the rape.

repolfx 7y ago
He had already been questioned by police in Sweden prior to that. He even stuck around for a month and then asked the Swedish police if he was free to leave, he was told he was. The prosecutor dropped the charges because the alleged victims were quite obviously lying about having been raped using any conventional definition of the term, there was also no way to resolve any dispute about whether someone was asleep when sex happened, and they would never reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" by any jury as a consequence. The charges were later mysteriously resurrected by a different prosecutor so he could be questioned again. Or maybe it's not such a mystery after all. Either Sweden is doing as the USA asked for some convoluted reasons, or the Swedish justice system is a complete joke when the R word gets involved.
- tdcbfdct3 7y ago
  The prosecutor dropped the case because the alleged rape victim didn't want to press charges, because she was overwhelmed in the immediate aftermath. Then she hired a lawyer to advocate for her who got the charges re-opened. The other woman, who alleged lesser offenses, never dropped charges, though the statute of limitations have since expired on them. Assange was told early on in the investigation that he was not restricted from traveling, but as the investigation developed further and it became clear they wanted to prosecute him, he went missing. After multiple failed attempts to schedule another police interview, the prosecutor told his attorney she'd be filing an arrest warrant that day. Five hours later, Assange arrived at the airport and bought the next available ticket to Berlin. Assange claims that's just a coincidence. That he was avoiding contact with his lawyer because he was afraid of "threatening statements made by politicians in the U.S"
akvadrako 7y ago
> I see no indication that this was “weaponized.” Then you haven't been following this story very closely. A few brief examples: (1) The case was closed before he left Sweden. (2) They could have questioned him remotely, which they often do, but declined to. (3) The women didn't even want to charge him. (4) There is a USA extradition order in place. How can you doubt the USA wants to extradite him? (5) This isn't "rape" by any standard definition.
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  > (5) This isn't "rape" by any standard definition. The "Miss W" allegation in particular is rape by almost every country's legal definition.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Quick tip to anyone taking Assange’s side in this: your argument will work a lot better if you leave out all the stuff about whether his alleged crime is really “rape” or is just some lesser crime involving his wiener and another person. It just makes you sound like a redpiller and will turn people against you.
    - akvadrako 7y ago
      And a tip for anyone trying to defend Sweden - calling this rape shows your bias right away - that word is just used to discredit him.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    The legal definition of rape in many US states include two drunk people having sex together or two underage kids doing it. But almost nobody considers that rape so the legal definition is irrelevant.
- wang_li 7y ago
  >This isn't "rape" by any standard definition. Yes it is. He engaged in sex with partners without their consent. That is the definition of rape.
bdamm 7y ago
The timing of the Swedish charge is very noteworthy. The charge and extradition request was made shortly after the release of the US diplomatic cables.
- ivarb 7y ago
  The diplomatic cables were released November 28 2010. The international arrest warrant November 18 2010. Before that other documents had been released, during the course of almost a year. So, the way I see it there is nothing really special about the timeline here. It is interesting that a lot of people seem to think that he should not be held responsible (or at least investigated) for the crimes he might have committed against the women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
  - SXX 7y ago
    Wikileaks is not just Assange. Obviously there far more people were working in background to verify everything they can and make sure their data is legit before they show it to the public. Do you really think there was way for them to keep upcoming release like actually secret from US government?
    - ivarb 7y ago
      Sure. They probably had an idea of what was going on. Don't really see why that is important though. What I was replying to stated "The charge and extradition request was made shortly after the release of the US diplomatic cables." which is incorrect. There is not anything suspicious about the timeline as I see it, the arrest warrant was issued after Assange left Sweden during an open investigation, which he was quite aware of. The only thing that would have been strange is if an arrest warrant hadn't been issued.
      - bdamm 7y ago
        We're discussing this now, using materials available now, and discussing a historical event that differs by two weeks. It could have been that the time stamp on the warrant was backdated two weeks.

notahacker 7y ago

It has to be said that many other journalists who reported on war crimes (including collaborating with Wikileaks on Manning stories) are entirely safe and well and have not been accused of rape.

icebraining 7y ago
The US hasn't asked for their extradition for conspiracy either, and yet they have for Assange. Unless being accused of raping women in Sweden causes the US to do that, there must also be some other difference between Assange and those other journalists.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
whatshisface 7y ago
We don't really know what threats have been delivered to them, only Assange is high-profile enough for whatever happens to him to send message. For all we know those other journalists received a friendly phone call and capitulated immediately - or more likely, they're simply not as big a target.
- notahacker 7y ago
  I mean, some of the other journalists include Wikileaks members and Assange supporters who've personally assisted Snowden in escaping to Russia. If it's an intimidation strategy, it's clearly not working.