11 ms·

You quote: > “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

You quote: > “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.“ That quote lacked information on who was exposing him and what that exposure actually was, so I followed your source. That source elaborates as follows: > “In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.” Apart from the last item, that all sounds either like hyberbole ("systematic judicial persecution" -- unless he is above the justice system, that's the system at work), or self-inflicted.

counterpig 7y ago
The charges from Sweden have been dropped and bought several times depending on their usefulness to the Americans it is not a case of the system working as intended. It is a foreign power putting diplomatic pressure on the Swedish government to put pressure on a man who has embarrassed them.
- papito 7y ago
  And in this case, William Barr really doesn't want Assange here, in order to protect his client, Donald J. Trump. And that's why we will not see the extradition to the United States while the Justice Department has been essentially neutered by, what would you call it? Deep State?
  - wwweston 7y ago
    The current administration, given its stated opposition to a deep state, is perhaps best characterized as The Shallow State.
  - vintermann 7y ago
    I'm more inclined to think Trump's impeachment will be well timed to the date of Assange's extradition. The three letter agencies can live with an erratic president, but not one that might pardon or otherwise protect Assange. (Barr will eventually side with them, not Trump)
    - jki275 7y ago
      I think you don't know how impeachment works. Trump will not be removed from office, no matter what the lower house of the US government happens to do. The Senate would have to have 67 votes in a majority republican controlled body to remove him. That simply will not happen -- even in the House, which is politically far more independent, the Democratic Party was not able to get a single Republican vote, and even had defectors from their own party just to authorize the proceedings at all. You can't win an impeachment trial without broad bipartisan support, and there is exactly zero bipartisan support for this proceeding.
      - stjohnswarts 7y ago
        Yeah I don't see how the trial will go through, there is no way they get 67 votes in the senate. He would have to literally walk up and shoot a nun in the face on camera before those Republicans would budge, they've already made up their mind he's forgiven for (almost) any crimes while he's in office.
        magduf 7y ago
        Some of them have already said they'd be fine with him shooting someone in broad daylight on a NYC street, and think that this isn't an impeachable offense.
        stjohnswarts 7y ago
        That's hyperbole though. they're just showing that they are trumpers until something ridiculous like that happens. I'm sure there are some zealots but 99% of them would not be cool with him murdering someone in cold blood.
- vintermann 7y ago
  Yup, very convenient that the pseudo-charges (He was never formally charged) were maintained for ten years, but as soon as they complicate extradition to the US they get dropped. It's not the only thing in the Assange case which is blatantly political persecution. You got to wonder how most of the press can keep pretending it's not.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lordlimecat 7y ago
    My understanding is that Sweden under no circumstances would have been able to extradite him to the US, and certainly not with less difficulty than extradition from the UK. The fact that Assange fled Sweden for the UK, skipped bail, and then concocted a Swedish conspiracy theory is a bit on the implausible side. >He was never formally charged My understanding is that the Swedish system does not allow formal charges in abstentia.
- belorn 7y ago
  I actively try to avoid anything that look like a conspiracy, but when I read the news that the prosecutor was going to make a statement my first thought was that it would be very convenient for the US if Sweden dropped the case. And then the actually statement came out and they dropped it.
DubiousPusher 7y ago
If she finds his treatment report worthy she should visit almost any county jail in America and write a report. I'm seriously not being flippant. If people genuinely find this kind of treatment disturbing and inhumane then they should know it is befalling daily many of their over 2 million incarcerated American brothers and sisters.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too. It is one of a few aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average. Also over many decades many organizations have called out the conditions in parts of the US justice system as torture(-like).
  - seirl 7y ago
    Yeah, the "few aspects" like the prison system, healthcare, inequality, corruption, homelessness rates, freedom of the press, air pollution, crime rates, discrimination, police violence, homicide rates, unemployment benefits, social nets...
    - jki275 7y ago
      Seriously, if you all believe everywhere else in the world is so much better, why stay? For context, I'm married to a person from a real developing country, as it's actually defined. I'm sending multiple family members to school there so they can get out. Every single person in her family has done everything they can to get out. Every single person I know there has done everything they can to get out. Every single person they know has done everything they can to get out. Getting out is the primary motivator for people in developing countries. Whining about the country being unfair is something that perhaps privileged children who know nothing about "developing countries" do -- other people get out. The US is nothing like a developing country.
      - paulmd 7y ago
samdfonseca 7y ago
> "arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" Not only hyperbole, but it's entirely self-imposed. He wasn't confined to the embassy, he chose to stay there rather than face trial. He chose "deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over defending himself against the accusations.
- all_factz 7y ago
  Right, because all evidence points to him getting a fair trial if he came forward.
- dingoegret 7y ago
  I don't know why you don't think a trial doesn't carry seriously negative and scary connotations, but it does and no rational person just subjects themselves to persecution.
  - samdfonseca 7y ago
    I agree that standing trial for rape must be terrifying, but that doesn't mean he's being persecuted. We've agreed upon a system of justice that best protects the rights of both the accuser and the accused, and he decided to deny the alleged victim their day in court. He was free to leave the embassy, he was free to defend himself from humiliation, but he chose not to.
    - davengh 7y ago
      We've agreed on a system of law. Actual justice is frequently only an accidental byproduct.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      "We" didn't "agree" to anything.
    - tripzilch 7y ago
k1m 7y ago
I don't know how to respond to this. UN experts on human rights have looked into his situation and been quite alarmed by it. I can't think of a group of people more respected in the field of human rights than the experts at the UN. And yet there are commenters here on HN who, I don't know on what basis, write that it's all mostly "hyperbole".
- mcv 7y ago
  It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges. And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way. So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question remains who tortured him. For a long time, by his own choice, it was only the Ecuadorian embassy that had access to him.
  - vintermann 7y ago
    This talking point had been soundly debunked. Sweden kept up the threat of charges and demand for extradition for nearly ten years, but dropped them like a hot potato when the US charges became public (when Sweden's charges would only get in their way). Never mind that Assange was ridiculed for most of those ten years for claiming that US would seek his extradition. His understanding of the world, including the assessment that Sweden is extremely servile to the US in security/foreign policy matters, has been vindicated again and again.
    - kls 7y ago
      While I don't disagree, the crowd is fickle and has at best a short attention span. He would have been better served to face the charges while it was all going on and he had the crowds attention. He is in a far worse position now, given that attentions and the world have moved on. The US can pretty much railroad him and no one will bat an eye. Whereas before they risked making a martyr.
dingoegret 7y ago
Self-inflicted? That makes no sense. I advise you to revise your understanding of that definition.
refurb 7y ago
I don’t understand. He stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. His conditions are self-imposed.
- johnbrodie 7y ago
  Another take, with no more or less evidence as far as I can tell: He essentially had no choice, as it was obvious he was going to be railroaded at any trial, and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.
  - microtherion 7y ago
    This was far from "obvious". Extradition from Sweden would have been harder than from the UK.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      But he was right. It happened. He was proven correct. The people who disagreed were just wrong. And I think it is OK to call the people who didn't believe this, to have been extremely misinformed.
      - microtherion 7y ago
        He was extradited from the UK, not from Sweden.
        pugwash 7y ago
        He hasn't been extradited from anywhere to anywhere. He's still serving time in prison for jumping bail, and he will have a chance to argue against his extradition to the US early next year. If he does lose his extradition battle and does get sent to the US, he will have a further opportunity to defend himself against the crimes that he is accused of committing there. In other words, the legal avenues that the moron could have availed himself of a decade ago are now open to him. If anyone thinks that Assange was ever in danger of being extraordinarily renditioned to the US from Sweden then they need to consider that a decade ago he was high-profile enough for the Ecuadorians to stick their necks out for him.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Why would you think that? He helped putting light on war crimes and got the obvious political prosecution. I don't think downplaying this fact is in any way adequate. And I don't think this is hyperbole at all if you look at the big picture.

counterpig 7y ago

The charges from Sweden have been dropped and bought several times depending on their usefulness to the Americans it is not a case of the system working as intended. It is a foreign power putting diplomatic pressure on the Swedish government to put pressure on a man who has embarrassed them.

papito 7y ago
And in this case, William Barr really doesn't want Assange here, in order to protect his client, Donald J. Trump. And that's why we will not see the extradition to the United States while the Justice Department has been essentially neutered by, what would you call it? Deep State?
- wwweston 7y ago
  The current administration, given its stated opposition to a deep state, is perhaps best characterized as The Shallow State.
- vintermann 7y ago
  I'm more inclined to think Trump's impeachment will be well timed to the date of Assange's extradition. The three letter agencies can live with an erratic president, but not one that might pardon or otherwise protect Assange. (Barr will eventually side with them, not Trump)
  - jki275 7y ago
    I think you don't know how impeachment works. Trump will not be removed from office, no matter what the lower house of the US government happens to do. The Senate would have to have 67 votes in a majority republican controlled body to remove him. That simply will not happen -- even in the House, which is politically far more independent, the Democratic Party was not able to get a single Republican vote, and even had defectors from their own party just to authorize the proceedings at all. You can't win an impeachment trial without broad bipartisan support, and there is exactly zero bipartisan support for this proceeding.
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Yeah I don't see how the trial will go through, there is no way they get 67 votes in the senate. He would have to literally walk up and shoot a nun in the face on camera before those Republicans would budge, they've already made up their mind he's forgiven for (almost) any crimes while he's in office.
      - magduf 7y ago
        Some of them have already said they'd be fine with him shooting someone in broad daylight on a NYC street, and think that this isn't an impeachable offense.
        stjohnswarts 7y ago
        That's hyperbole though. they're just showing that they are trumpers until something ridiculous like that happens. I'm sure there are some zealots but 99% of them would not be cool with him murdering someone in cold blood.
vintermann 7y ago
Yup, very convenient that the pseudo-charges (He was never formally charged) were maintained for ten years, but as soon as they complicate extradition to the US they get dropped. It's not the only thing in the Assange case which is blatantly political persecution. You got to wonder how most of the press can keep pretending it's not.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  My understanding is that Sweden under no circumstances would have been able to extradite him to the US, and certainly not with less difficulty than extradition from the UK. The fact that Assange fled Sweden for the UK, skipped bail, and then concocted a Swedish conspiracy theory is a bit on the implausible side. >He was never formally charged My understanding is that the Swedish system does not allow formal charges in abstentia.
belorn 7y ago
I actively try to avoid anything that look like a conspiracy, but when I read the news that the prosecutor was going to make a statement my first thought was that it would be very convenient for the US if Sweden dropped the case. And then the actually statement came out and they dropped it.

DubiousPusher 7y ago

If she finds his treatment report worthy she should visit almost any county jail in America and write a report. I'm seriously not being flippant. If people genuinely find this kind of treatment disturbing and inhumane then they should know it is befalling daily many of their over 2 million incarcerated American brothers and sisters.

blattimwind 7y ago
The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too. It is one of a few aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average. Also over many decades many organizations have called out the conditions in parts of the US justice system as torture(-like).
- seirl 7y ago
  Yeah, the "few aspects" like the prison system, healthcare, inequality, corruption, homelessness rates, freedom of the press, air pollution, crime rates, discrimination, police violence, homicide rates, unemployment benefits, social nets...
  - jki275 7y ago
    Seriously, if you all believe everywhere else in the world is so much better, why stay? For context, I'm married to a person from a real developing country, as it's actually defined. I'm sending multiple family members to school there so they can get out. Every single person in her family has done everything they can to get out. Every single person I know there has done everything they can to get out. Every single person they know has done everything they can to get out. Getting out is the primary motivator for people in developing countries. Whining about the country being unfair is something that perhaps privileged children who know nothing about "developing countries" do -- other people get out. The US is nothing like a developing country.
    - paulmd 7y ago

samdfonseca 7y ago

> "arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" Not only hyperbole, but it's entirely self-imposed. He wasn't confined to the embassy, he chose to stay there rather than face trial. He chose "deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over defending himself against the accusations.

all_factz 7y ago
Right, because all evidence points to him getting a fair trial if he came forward.
dingoegret 7y ago
I don't know why you don't think a trial doesn't carry seriously negative and scary connotations, but it does and no rational person just subjects themselves to persecution.
- samdfonseca 7y ago
  I agree that standing trial for rape must be terrifying, but that doesn't mean he's being persecuted. We've agreed upon a system of justice that best protects the rights of both the accuser and the accused, and he decided to deny the alleged victim their day in court. He was free to leave the embassy, he was free to defend himself from humiliation, but he chose not to.
  - davengh 7y ago
    We've agreed on a system of law. Actual justice is frequently only an accidental byproduct.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    "We" didn't "agree" to anything.
  - tripzilch 7y ago

k1m 7y ago

I don't know how to respond to this. UN experts on human rights have looked into his situation and been quite alarmed by it. I can't think of a group of people more respected in the field of human rights than the experts at the UN. And yet there are commenters here on HN who, I don't know on what basis, write that it's all mostly "hyperbole".

mcv 7y ago
It is mostly self-inflicted, though. He chose that exile over facing justice for these charges. And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way. So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question remains who tortured him. For a long time, by his own choice, it was only the Ecuadorian embassy that had access to him.
- vintermann 7y ago
  This talking point had been soundly debunked. Sweden kept up the threat of charges and demand for extradition for nearly ten years, but dropped them like a hot potato when the US charges became public (when Sweden's charges would only get in their way). Never mind that Assange was ridiculed for most of those ten years for claiming that US would seek his extradition. His understanding of the world, including the assessment that Sweden is extremely servile to the US in security/foreign policy matters, has been vindicated again and again.
  - kls 7y ago
    While I don't disagree, the crowd is fickle and has at best a short attention span. He would have been better served to face the charges while it was all going on and he had the crowds attention. He is in a far worse position now, given that attentions and the world have moved on. The US can pretty much railroad him and no one will bat an eye. Whereas before they risked making a martyr.

dingoegret 7y ago

Self-inflicted? That makes no sense. I advise you to revise your understanding of that definition.

refurb 7y ago

I don’t understand. He stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. His conditions are self-imposed.

johnbrodie 7y ago
Another take, with no more or less evidence as far as I can tell: He essentially had no choice, as it was obvious he was going to be railroaded at any trial, and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.
- microtherion 7y ago
  This was far from "obvious". Extradition from Sweden would have been harder than from the UK.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    But he was right. It happened. He was proven correct. The people who disagreed were just wrong. And I think it is OK to call the people who didn't believe this, to have been extremely misinformed.
    - microtherion 7y ago
      He was extradited from the UK, not from Sweden.
      - pugwash 7y ago
        He hasn't been extradited from anywhere to anywhere. He's still serving time in prison for jumping bail, and he will have a chance to argue against his extradition to the US early next year. If he does lose his extradition battle and does get sent to the US, he will have a further opportunity to defend himself against the crimes that he is accused of committing there. In other words, the legal avenues that the moron could have availed himself of a decade ago are now open to him. If anyone thinks that Assange was ever in danger of being extraordinarily renditioned to the US from Sweden then they need to consider that a decade ago he was high-profile enough for the Ecuadorians to stick their necks out for him.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Why would you think that? He helped putting light on war crimes and got the obvious political prosecution. I don't think downplaying this fact is in any way adequate. And I don't think this is hyperbole at all if you look at the big picture.