3 ms·

>he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden He cooperated fully with the investigation remotely. He maintains that he has long been informed of the existence o

by elif 6y ago

>he should’ve faced his accusers in Sweden He cooperated fully with the investigation remotely. He maintains that he has long been informed of the existence of the secret US charges from credible sources. What compels a person to sacrifice his life for the sake of an investigation where the prosecutor is not even able to bring charges? He was also targeted in 2016 using an obviously contrived Bahamian pedophelia accusation. Should he have a moral obligation to sacrifice himself for that investigation as well?

ben_w 6y ago
He claims to have fully cooperated, the Swedes disagree. That’s what this is all about, from their point of view. > He was also targeted in 2016 using an obviously contrived Bahamian pedophelia accusation. Should he have a moral obligation to sacrifice himself for that investigation as well? That is for the police to decide, not him. To say literally anything else is to assume that he must be beyond reproach simply because of who he has upset. And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. Edit: also, again, Sweden isn’t threatening his life, America is (IMO, even if the government denies it) — and they’re doing that just fine without Swedish help.
- Tycho 6y ago
  If you read between the lines, it’s obvious that Sweden never had a serious case against him, looked for every excuse not to actually resolve it when they had ample opportunity, and then promptly abandoned it once it was no longer serving the ulterior motive. No one is saying Assange must be beyond reproach, we are saying let’s be honest about what games the authorities are very clearly playing.
- harry8 6y ago
  Let's not overlook the fact that he did present himself to the police for questioning in sweden. He was told he was free to go and free to leave the country. The investigation was then re-opened by a politician subsequently after he released the Afghanistan war logs. iirc. But if that doesn't bother you maybe the uncontested fact that his _one_ accuser literally wrote a scribe on how to get back at an ex-boyfriend by falsely accusing them of rape might just a little bit. To say the case was thin is the most massive understatement. If you had published the secrets of the military industrial complex and intended to publish more should any heroes get them to you for publication do you think you'd be at all scared? >To say literally anything else is to assume that he must be beyond reproach simply because of who he has upset. That is nonsense. Nobody has said that. Ever. He has consistently said he was available to be questioned a second time via video link up or in person in the uk. The total unwillingness of the swedes to make a skype call in the circumstances while being completely willing to drop the charges is something that bothers me. >And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. At no point have you ever been able to "trust the police" This is why we have the rule of law and courts in liberal democracies. It isn't perfect but its vastly better than anything else the human race has devised. We should protect it and keep striving for its ideals. This is the big issue at the center of this story. Assange's rights and yours and mine to the rule of law and equality before really appear to be being infringed based on the power of upsetting the military industrial complex. That should probably bother us all to some degree.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Oh for crying out loud. When I say “trust the police” I mean trust them to decide who to prosecute, not trust them to decide who to convict. Obviously you need to have the rest of the rule of law going on for any hope of a good outcome. Rule of law includes not skipping bail to avoid an extradition that was lawfully agreed to by a judge of the nation you’re currently in, and penalties if you try it. It also means that people don’t get to decide how they are interviewed when they are suspected of a serious crime. It was a UK judge which decided to do this, remember. Rule of law. > his _one_ accuser There were two accusers. > That is nonsense. Nobody has said that. Ever. He has consistently said he was available to be questioned a second time via video link up or in person in the uk. Then why do the Swedish allegations get mentioned and dismissed on every single discussion of the case America is making against him for completely different charges?
    - harry8 6y ago
      > There were two accusers. Nope. Just one. You were lied to. The second woman refused to sign the statement that was presented to her by the police officer. She had been taken to the police officer by the first woman. The police officer was a friend of the first woman. The second woman _refused_ to sign. If you didn't dig in to get the facts I can totally see how you would believe the constant misinformation that there were two accusers but there were not. One of the women made no accusation. >Then why do the Swedish allegations get mentioned and dismissed on every single discussion of the case America is making against him for completely different charges? Becuase this is the hook that is used to smear you as an "Asssange The Rapist Supporter" if you wish to protect your rights which are the same as his. But going back to Police deciding who to prosecute. The police in sweden decided not to prosecute Assange and that he was free to leave the country. A politican decided something different later. People /do/ get to decide to legimitately protect their human rights, even, perhaps especially, when they are being infringed through false accusation. Assange always said the US were after him. Remember when he was accused of lying about that to avoid being prosecuted for rape. Now nobody believes the rape accusation and here he is being vindictively pursued just as he said. It really should bother you if that happened to an actual goddamn nazi thug. The ACLU defend your rights when they're attacked to get at an actual muderous nazi thug. Assange is a publisher and journalist who has exposed war crimes. Those are your rights.
- elif 6y ago
  If it is for "the police" to decide, I think you will find that "the police" will continue to assassinate the character and then the body of anyone politically inconvenient.
- semiel 6y ago
  > And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. No. Life went on in the USSR, despite the police being manifestly untrustworthy. Life goes on in the US and UK, despite the police being manifestly untrustworthy (albeit to a lesser degree). You still have to make choices and decide how to live, even when you live in one of the authoritarian regimes that form the majority of the history of human societies.

by elif 6y ago

ben_w 6y ago

He claims to have fully cooperated, the Swedes disagree. That’s what this is all about, from their point of view. > He was also targeted in 2016 using an obviously contrived Bahamian pedophelia accusation. Should he have a moral obligation to sacrifice himself for that investigation as well? That is for the police to decide, not him. To say literally anything else is to assume that he must be beyond reproach simply because of who he has upset. And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. Edit: also, again, Sweden isn’t threatening his life, America is (IMO, even if the government denies it) — and they’re doing that just fine without Swedish help.

Tycho 6y ago
If you read between the lines, it’s obvious that Sweden never had a serious case against him, looked for every excuse not to actually resolve it when they had ample opportunity, and then promptly abandoned it once it was no longer serving the ulterior motive. No one is saying Assange must be beyond reproach, we are saying let’s be honest about what games the authorities are very clearly playing.
harry8 6y ago
Let's not overlook the fact that he did present himself to the police for questioning in sweden. He was told he was free to go and free to leave the country. The investigation was then re-opened by a politician subsequently after he released the Afghanistan war logs. iirc. But if that doesn't bother you maybe the uncontested fact that his _one_ accuser literally wrote a scribe on how to get back at an ex-boyfriend by falsely accusing them of rape might just a little bit. To say the case was thin is the most massive understatement. If you had published the secrets of the military industrial complex and intended to publish more should any heroes get them to you for publication do you think you'd be at all scared? >To say literally anything else is to assume that he must be beyond reproach simply because of who he has upset. That is nonsense. Nobody has said that. Ever. He has consistently said he was available to be questioned a second time via video link up or in person in the uk. The total unwillingness of the swedes to make a skype call in the circumstances while being completely willing to drop the charges is something that bothers me. >And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. At no point have you ever been able to "trust the police" This is why we have the rule of law and courts in liberal democracies. It isn't perfect but its vastly better than anything else the human race has devised. We should protect it and keep striving for its ideals. This is the big issue at the center of this story. Assange's rights and yours and mine to the rule of law and equality before really appear to be being infringed based on the power of upsetting the military industrial complex. That should probably bother us all to some degree.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Oh for crying out loud. When I say “trust the police” I mean trust them to decide who to prosecute, not trust them to decide who to convict. Obviously you need to have the rest of the rule of law going on for any hope of a good outcome. Rule of law includes not skipping bail to avoid an extradition that was lawfully agreed to by a judge of the nation you’re currently in, and penalties if you try it. It also means that people don’t get to decide how they are interviewed when they are suspected of a serious crime. It was a UK judge which decided to do this, remember. Rule of law. > his _one_ accuser There were two accusers. > That is nonsense. Nobody has said that. Ever. He has consistently said he was available to be questioned a second time via video link up or in person in the uk. Then why do the Swedish allegations get mentioned and dismissed on every single discussion of the case America is making against him for completely different charges?
  - harry8 6y ago
    > There were two accusers. Nope. Just one. You were lied to. The second woman refused to sign the statement that was presented to her by the police officer. She had been taken to the police officer by the first woman. The police officer was a friend of the first woman. The second woman _refused_ to sign. If you didn't dig in to get the facts I can totally see how you would believe the constant misinformation that there were two accusers but there were not. One of the women made no accusation. >Then why do the Swedish allegations get mentioned and dismissed on every single discussion of the case America is making against him for completely different charges? Becuase this is the hook that is used to smear you as an "Asssange The Rapist Supporter" if you wish to protect your rights which are the same as his. But going back to Police deciding who to prosecute. The police in sweden decided not to prosecute Assange and that he was free to leave the country. A politican decided something different later. People /do/ get to decide to legimitately protect their human rights, even, perhaps especially, when they are being infringed through false accusation. Assange always said the US were after him. Remember when he was accused of lying about that to avoid being prosecuted for rape. Now nobody believes the rape accusation and here he is being vindictively pursued just as he said. It really should bother you if that happened to an actual goddamn nazi thug. The ACLU defend your rights when they're attacked to get at an actual muderous nazi thug. Assange is a publisher and journalist who has exposed war crimes. Those are your rights.
elif 6y ago
If it is for "the police" to decide, I think you will find that "the police" will continue to assassinate the character and then the body of anyone politically inconvenient.
semiel 6y ago
> And if you cannot trust the police, it is already too late. No. Life went on in the USSR, despite the police being manifestly untrustworthy. Life goes on in the US and UK, despite the police being manifestly untrustworthy (albeit to a lesser degree). You still have to make choices and decide how to live, even when you live in one of the authoritarian regimes that form the majority of the history of human societies.