8 ms·

> "arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective

> "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
    He was also at risk of being extradited to the US, and what they would do to him was a lot scarier than standing trial.
  - dingoegret 7y ago
    This was a political stunt. Trumped up charges are a thing. Sounds like he's being persecuted.
atoav 7y ago
“Come out and we will tell you what you’re guilty of”. The US was once a great defender of liberty and democrac, but when you talk to its average citizen nowaday you start to get truely weimarian vibes.
- samdfonseca 7y ago
  His actions are entirely undemocratic. Sweden and the US have both democratically built a system of justice that we all agree to subject ourselves to. He decided to evade that system to serve his own self-interest. What about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim? Do they only have the right to their day in court if the accused is ok with it?
  - 8note 7y ago
    he's neither swedish nor American; he was not democratically involved in building either judicial system
    - occamrazor 7y ago
      When he decided to travel to Sweden and the UK he implicitly agreed to be subject to their judicial system. I agree that the US are overreaching.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    How well did Sweden's democratic system of justice work for Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.
rndgermandude 7y ago
What trial was he to face? Sweden hadn't charged him with anything. They wanted to interview him as a witness, against himself essentially, so they could use what he said against him if (not when) they might have actually charged him in the future. He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy. This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  >He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy. I'm pretty sure most people are not allowed to dictate terms to law enforcement as they conduct an investigation. Why should Assange be different?
tripzilch 7y ago
He was at a very real risk of being extradited to the US. You know, one of those countries that keeps ignoring UN human rights reports. It's not a stretch that he preferred ""deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over what the US would do to him. Doesn't mean that's fair or just. Just that he chose something less inhumane than the US.

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
  He was also at risk of being extradited to the US, and what they would do to him was a lot scarier than standing trial.
- dingoegret 7y ago
  This was a political stunt. Trumped up charges are a thing. Sounds like he's being persecuted.

atoav 7y ago

“Come out and we will tell you what you’re guilty of”. The US was once a great defender of liberty and democrac, but when you talk to its average citizen nowaday you start to get truely weimarian vibes.

samdfonseca 7y ago
His actions are entirely undemocratic. Sweden and the US have both democratically built a system of justice that we all agree to subject ourselves to. He decided to evade that system to serve his own self-interest. What about defending the liberty of the alleged rape victim? Do they only have the right to their day in court if the accused is ok with it?
- 8note 7y ago
  he's neither swedish nor American; he was not democratically involved in building either judicial system
  - occamrazor 7y ago
    When he decided to travel to Sweden and the UK he implicitly agreed to be subject to their judicial system. I agree that the US are overreaching.
- monocasa 7y ago
  How well did Sweden's democratic system of justice work for Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.

rndgermandude 7y ago

What trial was he to face? Sweden hadn't charged him with anything. They wanted to interview him as a witness, against himself essentially, so they could use what he said against him if (not when) they might have actually charged him in the future. He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy. This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.

lordlimecat 7y ago
>He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy. I'm pretty sure most people are not allowed to dictate terms to law enforcement as they conduct an investigation. Why should Assange be different?

tripzilch 7y ago

He was at a very real risk of being extradited to the US. You know, one of those countries that keeps ignoring UN human rights reports. It's not a stretch that he preferred ""deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over what the US would do to him. Doesn't mean that's fair or just. Just that he chose something less inhumane than the US.