28 ms·

The Assange case is collapsing but it remains a travesty of justice

444 points by thinkingemote 5y ago

kaliali 5y ago
Listen up peasants, this is a prime example of why you can't trust the government. For all of you leftists out there, I hope you get the same treatment or worse as Assange got for voting in authoritarianism.
Natsu 5y ago
I think a document was leaked somewhere that said they'd move him from country to country to face charges, making the process itself the punishment rather than letting the cases conclude. I doubt he'll ever be free again.
- landemva 5y ago
  Much like USA does in federal prison to harass certain inmates. This was named "diesel therapy." https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-prisoner-transit-system-aka-diesel-therapy-is-hell https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-pr...
theknocker 5y ago
If you agree with the treatment of Assange, it's because you're either a literal fascist or because you let fascists tell you what to think. Those are the options.
- holoduke 5y ago
  Nah. Ignorance is what it is. The US is a lying country with lots of hidden agendas. Not sure there are better alternatives.
  - landemva 5y ago
    A good start would be to defund 1/2 the federal government. They have too much money, so they create worldwide problems.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Those are the options No, they’re not. One can disagree with his treatment and disagree with his conduct.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    He never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with his conduct. I disagree with his conduct but I could never condone his treatment because yes, fundamentally the actions of the US government here are as close to fascism as we see in the modern age. It's putting international justice to shame. If they don't have a sound case then he shouldn't be persecuted until such time they do. If he truly committed a crime there must be evidence, they should find it and bring proceedings against him in a fair manner. Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest the US government is interested in a fair trial and much more that they are just being punitive to trying make an example of him. It's disgraceful and we should demand better.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I guess for me, I have a hard time judging it as an unfair trial when there hasn't even been a trial. If the trial happens and it's unfair, then I think we discuss that. Right now it seems as if we're discussing how it is unfair for them to indict him and seek extradition to conduct the trial. At least for how I understand the US justice system as an American, if I'm indicted, even if I think it's a sham indictment, I don't think I can fight it at the indictment phase. I fight it at trial. Now, if I think the trial won't even be fair, then I'd probably flee, but now I'm a fugitive in the eyes of the law and it doesn't seem to give the trial a chance to be fair. So I'm confused, what should we demand better of? That the government shows more evidence to the indictment in order to gain the right for a trial? How much evidence needs to be shown before trial vs during the trial? *edit: deleted duplicate sentence
  - christophilus 5y ago
    Agreed. I have no opinion on his conduct, but his treatment is appalling— criminal, even— by any reasonable standard.
lhnz 5y ago
What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? Presumably they will find another unreliable witness to lie for them? It's incredibly worrying that this he has been trapped in this situation for so many years, with the prosecution seemingly having the upper hand despite supporting their case with lies.
- supergirl 5y ago
  the CIA probably has a deck of "witnesses". I bet next theme of accusations will be something related to Russia
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? He walks a free man. Problematic as the American justice system is, Assange’s isolation was a function of his fugitive status. Nothing about U.S. detention per se. It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. This is one of those positions that is designed to sound reasonable by appealing to "the middle ground" for its own sake. It's not time for both sides to be heard in court. It never was. To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first I’m not a fan of our espionage laws. But they are, indisputably, laws. There has been a lot of evaluation of the questions of jurisdiction and standing. Barring wild, new evidence, I don’t see good reason to question that string of precedence.
supergirl 5y ago
Assange will die in prison. it's ridiculous that he is still in prison waiting for US to appeal. the previous trial was in his favor but he is still in prison awaiting the US gov to appeal. it's like the US typed in cheat codes.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  He did skip out on bail the last time he was released. Fool me once ...
  - lielielielie 5y ago
    Oh yes because the reason Assange gave for not going to Sweden was to avoid extradition to the US, something HN said was 'conspiracy theory', now proven conspiracy fact. These people know nothing of justice, only power and violence.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Remember when he repeatedly said he'd happily face the charges if he could be given assurances he wouldn't be extradited to the US for spying once he got there? And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" and the media made fun of him for being paranoid and delusional. Correa gave him asylum for a reason. It's too bad Moreno decided to cancel the asylum to score some points with the US.
    - 0110101001 5y ago
      Sweden was actually like "our law requires us to consider extradition requests on their own merits." I don't know if he knew that or not, but it's kinda weird he didn't flea to the embassy until his extradition to Sweden was imminent. The UK could've arrested him for extradition to the US any day he was out on bail.
      - pydry 5y ago
        The US had to actually submit the extradition request first. There were no public charges made at that point. It's a lot easier to fight an extradition as a free man... even if that freedom is notional (being holed up in an embassy).
firebaze 5y ago
German press stays silent on this, again. Even magazines known for investigative stories just don't mention Assange in the context of the recent developments ([1], [2], [3]). This is so frustrating. [1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Aspiegel.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Asp... [2] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Azeit.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Aze... [3] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ataz.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ata...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > German press stays silent on this, again It’s not pertinent. The journalistic draw of a years-old case and judicial mechanics. Everyone has a pet agenda that seems irresponsibly ignored by the media and the public. Procedural developments are rarely big news.
  - firebaze 5y ago
    Just focusing on Assange alone, it's not pertinent, sure. But Assange (and wikileaks, and anything behind it) in this (my?) frame of reference is not an individual, but serves as a pars pro toto for the freedom of press and the judicial system as a whole. To me, the coverage he gets in the far-reaching magazines is a little bit underrepresented, to stay polite. This includes U.S. press, UK press and german press.
  - pydry 5y ago
    They thought Navalny's 45th birthday was news. They'd probably have thought a key witness who turned out to be a liar and a rapist of underage boys who was given immunity was a little bit newsworthy if it happened during the trial to, say, lock Navalny up. Just not when it's Assange, I suppose. Sometimes media outlets have an agenda.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > Sometimes media outlets have an agenda. No. They always have an agenda. And that agenda, overwhelmingly, is pro status quo. Not left, not right, not up or down. Just "things are basically OK except for a few problems here and there which we'll tell you about, though not in much depth".
supergirl 5y ago
shameful that his home country is doing nothing for him. imagine he was a US citizen who leaked Australia's dirty doings. he would be free after 1 month.
- morelieslies 5y ago
  Yeah because Snowden and Chelsea Manning are free US citizens... People on HN are so full of propaganda and lies, it's shameful. Delete me, you're all empty slaves.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 0110101001 5y ago
    Chelsea Manning is indeed a free US citizen.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      In some sense, so is Snowden.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Also, if Snowden had only revealed details about ASIO rather than the NSA, he might not have had to flee to Moscow.
        polytely 5y ago
        He didn't really flee to russia, he was on his way to Ecuador, when the US cancelled his traveling documents trapping him in Russia because it's way easier to discredit him while he is residing in Russia
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        I think technically the problem wasn't that the US had cancelled his travel documents, as the Ecuadorian government could grant the necessary document to a refugee (which is almost what happened[0]), but rather that he was worried the US would force his plane to land in a country where he could be arrested. That fear was well-founded, given what later happened to Bolivian president Evo Morales when the US suspected he might be transporting Snowden out of Russia[1], even though forcing planes to land to capture political prisoners is more fitting for a dictatorship than a democracy[2], but I suspect that Russia made it a condition of Snowden's safety that he not attempt to travel to any other country. Of course I'm not saying I would have done anything differently were I in Snowden's position, but it is worth noting that he could in principle have avoided US and NATO airspace by travelling from Russia to Shenzhen to Johannesburg[3] to São Paulo[4] to Ecuador. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/30/how_edward_snowden_avoided_extradition_to https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/30/how_edward_snowden_av... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4978 [3] https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-szx-to-jnb https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-szx-to-jnb [4] https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-jnb-to-gru https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-jnb-to-gru
lmilcin 5y ago
The point isn't really to have a believable case. The point is to use legal system to ruin one person to scare any people from running similar actions against US government. US is loosing more and more of its standing when it comes to "spreading" democracy. You can't go and try to preach democratic values to, say, Belarus, and then do exactly the same in your own country. Principles aren't really principles if they are being tossed aside when they become uncomfortable.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  It’s funny, when it comes to something like, vaccines, we’re supposed to trust “government institutions”. Then I wake up to this and I wonder, why should I t trust the government ?
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    When it comes to vaccines, you don't necessarily have to trust government institutions. If you are normal, adult, educated person you don't need to "trust" the government for everything. You should hopefully be able to think for yourself and be able to evaluate when the story checks out and where it doesn't. Trust knowledge that has been gathered over decades, statistics and research that has been gathered by many research institutions (unless you can claim all of them are in collusion). Vaccines do work and we desperately need everybody to get vaccinated. Every country that has implemented vaccinations vigorously has seen immediate, large drop in cases. People who are going to hospital at the moment are almost exclusively unvaccinated. A person or institution or government that shows it is not trustworthy in one area undermines itself in other areas and so it is understandable that it may sow confusion. But you should still have ability to think for yourself and use it to make rational decisons.
    - version_five 5y ago
      There are two separate ideas here. Believing in the concept of a vaccine as an effective disease prevention mechanism, and believing the current narrative that all demographics need a covid vaccine, the risk reward calculus always shows it does more good than harm, etc (I'm not trying to faithfully summarize, but more make the point that there is a distinct and political covid vaccine push that's not the same as just saying a vaccine works) I personally had to suspend my mistrust of the government in order to decide it was worth getting vaccinated. A good rule of thumb is that the more someone tries to push you to do something, the more you should question their motives. And governments that have mismanaged and lied about everything else they do, like you say, have no reason to be trusted on this one thing, even if its generally popular. So it's not surprising that people who do believe that vaccines work (which is really not up for debate) may not agree with the putative urgency of getting this vaccine. Should just add that I don't really think there is anything we can do about this mistrust this time around. You get credibility by acting like you have people's interests in mind, and like you know what you're doing, so it would take a long spell of that before folks have any real reason to take what we are told at face value.
hkt 5y ago
I really wish the West wasn't so hypocritical. Between Assange, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, we show all the wrong people what to do. A pity and a shame. I hope Assange is freed soon and can get on with his life.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Evidently there are problems with incompetence in leadership and that encompasses orientation and strategy of agencies responsible for security.
  - hkt 5y ago
    It isn't incompetence. The security establishment across the west don't share democratic values. The politicians are too weak or distracted to fight them even when they're inclined to, which seems relatively rare. A sad state of affairs.
ttctciyf 5y ago
Two somewhat related pieces of recent UK news: > How a proposed secrecy law would recast journalism as spying[1] (20/07/21, Guardian) > The Home Office now wants harder and more extensive secrecy laws that would have the effect of deterring sources, editors and reporters, making them potentially subject to uncontrolled official bans not approved by a court, and punished much more severely if they do not comply. In noisy political times, a government consultation issued two months ago has had worryingly little attention. Although portrayed as countering hostile activity by state actors, the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest. > Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”. > Calling for parliament to consider “increased maximum sentences”, the Home Office claims that there is now not necessarily a “distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”, including “onward disclosure” in the press. Journalism could even create “far more serious damage” than a spy. Yet the 66-page document does not mention “journalism” once, and refers only to “onward disclosure … without authorisation”. ----- > Priti Patel is urged to spare a billionaire dubbed 'Britain's Bill Gates' from a 'grotesque and unjust' extradition to US[2] (25/7/21, Mail Online) Interesting for the plea made by Conservative ex-cabinet-minister David Davis on behalf of the beset billionaire, in terms which (though he would never allow it) could just as well be applied to Assange: > America has a ferocious legal system with a 97 per cent conviction rate, where prosecutors, not judges, set the sentences. Defendants, too, are subjected to coercive plea bargaining. For example, people are encouraged to admit an offence and get a lesser jail sentence rather than continue to plead innocence and, if convicted, get a much longer term. and later: > He ended up in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a Pennsylvania penitentiary, without a clock and thus unable to know what time of day or night it was. > He and his co-charged were treated like criminals long before any trial began – placed in chains, frog-marched and strip-searched. > It is now up to the Home Secretary to decide whether Dr Lynch should stay in this country or be sent to a US cell. > I, and many others, urge Priti Patel not to submit to this grotesque and unjust process. She must wait for the outcome of a separate High Court trial examining the fraud allegations against Dr Lynch. I'd love to see just one member of the British Government stand up for Assange like that, but I guessing he is lacking the £8B collateral of Dr. Lynch. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/proposed-secrecy-law-journalism-spying-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/propos... 2: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822229/Priti-Patel-urged-spare-billionaire-dubbed-Britains-Bill-Gates-extradition-US.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822229/Priti-Patel...
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I, for one, disagree that it has been a travesty of justice. The only travesty is that Assange has not stood trial.
- simion314 5y ago
  Yes, when US fabricate crimes,witnesses should you: - A try to find asylum and fight to bring to light the truth - B be a retard and trust in the justice system that fabricated the crimes and evidence - C kill yourself I understand you prefer Assange should ahve chose B, would you also chose the same if it were you?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Which alleged crimes were fabricated? Cite some sources if you could
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
  - tootie 5y ago
    James Risen of the NY Times exposed 10x more salient and embarrassing abuses of power than Assange and Snowden combined. When he was prosecuted to reveal his sources he stayed in the US, attended every hearing, continued reporting and was eventually cleared.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      > continued reporting and was eventually cleared Comparing these two cases is not as simple as that. Risen refused to name sources for his book and did so till the end. The only reason it didn't go further, and he didn't go to jail, was because of an arbitrary decision further up the chain that was already publicly signaled ahead of the hearing [0] Assagne is spending time in jail right now, for years he was in a self-imposed jail over fabricated accusations, with the US actively violating his rights in every way they could, down to violation the client-attorney privilege. Nothing out of the US signals that he will get a fair trail, everything suggests he would most likely be made out as a an political example, as he has been and currently is. [0] https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/holder-sees-resolution-in-risen-case-197829 https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/holde...
markx2 5y ago
The Guardian (UK), which made much of Assange's revelations currently has these two phrases as part of it's campaign to raise funds. "With the funding of more than 1.5 million readers in 180 countries, the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth." (Front page promo) "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders. And because we are reader-funded we have been able to keep our journalism open for all to read, so when important stories like this come along, everyone gets to read them." Katherine Viner - Editor-in-Chief Katherine Viner is a liar.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds those taglines galling. Lost my last shred of respect/hope for the Guardian when they did their level best to smear Corbyn in favour of BJ. Around 2015 they got suddenly and noticably (even) worse, axing Pilger and others like him. Even before that, their ME coverage was savagely lacking.
- brokenengineer 5y ago
  >Katherine Viner is a liar. Am I missing something here? After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but that's another matter) to the link. Could you please elaborate?
  - contingencies 5y ago
    Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.
  - markx2 5y ago
    The Guardian promoted everything Assange said / did. Then all of a sudden The Guardian forget all about Julian. Their coverage has been pathetic. Why? Because the UK Govt will have told them to Shut Up. And it's not just The Guardian. It's the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Sun, Mail and more. So when Katherine Viner spouts forth that: "the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth" That is bollocks. "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders." Also bollocks. Viner lies.
sebow 5y ago
The damage has been already done, when "push came to shove", the 'MSM & buddies' were covering for the exposed governments(might aswell call them 'globalists' since we're talking about 4 continents or more) and the people swallowed it down pretty effortlessly. Despite appearances, the world is very, very different from ~10 years ago, and I'm personally sure it's for worse.I doubt people will get the courage and guts to make some noise and raise their voices, there are systems that can be tyrannical as they are "useful" for whatever minuscule concern the citizens have disguised as public/nation safety.
cletus 5y ago
There is a fundamental question here: what are the limits of journalism? So you receive classified information and publish it. In the US at least there are is some precedent for journalistic protection here. Think the Pentagon Papers [1]. Let's take it a step further: what if instead of simply receiving classified information you provide material aid to whoever is stealing it? What if you're directing the thief on what to steal? Are you still a journalist? Let's take it in another direction: how do you choose what to publish? Generally reputable news organizations will redact things that aren't newsworthy or might, say, endanger people in the field (eg by releasing details about an undercover operation). But what if your decision on what to publish is partisan or otherwise aimed at achieving a particular end, political or otherwise? Are you still a journalist? Some will argue there are no limits. I don't think that's a reasonable position as it essentially justifies anything as long as you claim to be wearing a journalist's hat. So here are the problems for Assange: 1. He wasn't "passive' with Bradley/Chelsea Manning and provided material aid; 2. The Wikileaks releases were clearly aimed at hurting Hilary Clinton in 2016 (eg the Podesta emails). We can speculate as to why. Personal politics? Maybe Assange thought he'd fare better in a Trump administration? I don't know. 3. Additionally, he's kind of a creepy guy. This isn't material to an espionage case but in the court of public opinion, reputation matters. I would love to know how the incident rose to the level of rape charges that Swedish prosecutors decided to pursue because on the face of it, it just doesn't make sense. Some will argue it was at the behest of the US but I'm not really sure that adds up. Maybe someday we'll know the inside story. I can but hope. Now on the US side, how has this desire to prosecute and to punish Assange by proxy (eg containing him in the Ecuadoran embassy was clearly a "punishment") survived a decade? At the Federal level this has gone through 2 administrations, one of each party, 4 AGs and I'm not sure how many US Attorneys. It's a little strange that the US continues to push this so hard. Is it just about sending a message to any future leakers? For the record, the Obama administration was particularly harsh with leakers so this is possible. Maybe this has just taken on a life of its own and there is no puppet master at the top. Stranger things have happened. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
- colordrops 5y ago
  So by your definition all of FOX news and CNN are not journalists.
alvah 5y ago
"The Trump administration did <x>. The Obama administration did <y>" Why try to shoehorn tribal politics into this? The main argument stands on its own merits. The persecution of Assange spans multiple administrations - has the Biden administration dropped the case?
- harry8 5y ago
  The point being it isn't partisan.
  - alvah 5y ago
    That wasn't the point being made in the article - it was a standard "Trump administration bad, Obama administration good" smear which detracts from the actual argument.
    - harry8 5y ago
      I don't think anyone who cares about whistleblower protection, or the freedom of the press could write "Obama good" or fail to notice the Trump administration is not current.
encryptluks2 5y ago
This is more propaganda touted by the same groups as the ones spewing Setch Rich conspiracy claims. Sigurdur was not a key witness. The indictments do not rely on his evidence. Go look at the FBI statements if you don't believe me. Even if he was a key witness, you don't think law enforcement has ever dealt with a witness retracting a statement that they agreed to in exchange for a plea deal or immunity? It wouldn't simply invalidate their statement. Prosecutors plan ahead for things like witnesses dying during trial. Seriously, I've seen this same propaganda being pushed here already based on the same theory that Siggi was holding the entire case together which is just false. It is actually pretty funny... I imagine prosecutors seeing this laughing, saying.. we should use this tactic more where we make people think the case is falling apart, maybe we can get more evidence of crimes in the process of people letting their guards down.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include it, and more that the prosecution has basically been found to have "paid" a witness to make false testimony.
  - tootie 5y ago
    Making deals to get testimony isn't unprecedented at all. The terms of the deal are disclosed and can be considered as an element of credibility. If this guy recanted to the media he can be put back under oath and admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      This sounds great if you assume the DoJ was unaware he was lying when they made the deal. Given his past with the FBI and the other public abuses of justice in.this case, I find that unlikely. >admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record. So his options are admit that he lied and face perjury charges or admit that he lied and walk away free? Tough choice.
the_optimist 5y ago
Which US organizations are mostly strongly advocating for justice in this case? Where can I go to support those organizations? I want my children to know I was on the right side of this.
justinclift 5y ago
> Australian MPs are campaigning for Assange’s release in unprecedented numbers. They are? My impression is that he's not even on their radar.
- sjy 5y ago
  The unprecedented number is 11. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-mps-call-on-us-president-biden-to-drop-charges-against-assange-20210629-p585a1.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-mps-call-...
  - freeflight 5y ago
    I guess the rest of the Australian MP's were too busy lobbying UNESCO not to give the Grand Barrier Reef a "in danger" tag.
- vermilingua 5y ago
  Certainly if they are, they aren’t making it known. Which is a shame, because that might persuade me to vote for some of them.
KingOfCoders 5y ago
"A is a serial liar, dont believe him! A says he didn't do it, believe him!" A is always lying but he is not lying when he says the things we believe.

444 points by thinkingemote 5y ago

Listen up peasants, this is a prime example of why you can't trust the government. For all of you leftists out there, I hope you get the same treatment or worse as Assange got for voting in authoritarianism.

Natsu 5y ago

I think a document was leaked somewhere that said they'd move him from country to country to face charges, making the process itself the punishment rather than letting the cases conclude. I doubt he'll ever be free again.

landemva 5y ago
Much like USA does in federal prison to harass certain inmates. This was named "diesel therapy." https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-prisoner-transit-system-aka-diesel-therapy-is-hell https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-pr...

theknocker 5y ago

If you agree with the treatment of Assange, it's because you're either a literal fascist or because you let fascists tell you what to think. Those are the options.

holoduke 5y ago
Nah. Ignorance is what it is. The US is a lying country with lots of hidden agendas. Not sure there are better alternatives.
- landemva 5y ago
  A good start would be to defund 1/2 the federal government. They have too much money, so they create worldwide problems.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Those are the options No, they’re not. One can disagree with his treatment and disagree with his conduct.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  He never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with his conduct. I disagree with his conduct but I could never condone his treatment because yes, fundamentally the actions of the US government here are as close to fascism as we see in the modern age. It's putting international justice to shame. If they don't have a sound case then he shouldn't be persecuted until such time they do. If he truly committed a crime there must be evidence, they should find it and bring proceedings against him in a fair manner. Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest the US government is interested in a fair trial and much more that they are just being punitive to trying make an example of him. It's disgraceful and we should demand better.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I guess for me, I have a hard time judging it as an unfair trial when there hasn't even been a trial. If the trial happens and it's unfair, then I think we discuss that. Right now it seems as if we're discussing how it is unfair for them to indict him and seek extradition to conduct the trial. At least for how I understand the US justice system as an American, if I'm indicted, even if I think it's a sham indictment, I don't think I can fight it at the indictment phase. I fight it at trial. Now, if I think the trial won't even be fair, then I'd probably flee, but now I'm a fugitive in the eyes of the law and it doesn't seem to give the trial a chance to be fair. So I'm confused, what should we demand better of? That the government shows more evidence to the indictment in order to gain the right for a trial? How much evidence needs to be shown before trial vs during the trial? *edit: deleted duplicate sentence
- christophilus 5y ago
  Agreed. I have no opinion on his conduct, but his treatment is appalling— criminal, even— by any reasonable standard.

lhnz 5y ago

What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? Presumably they will find another unreliable witness to lie for them? It's incredibly worrying that this he has been trapped in this situation for so many years, with the prosecution seemingly having the upper hand despite supporting their case with lies.

supergirl 5y ago
the CIA probably has a deck of "witnesses". I bet next theme of accusations will be something related to Russia
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? He walks a free man. Problematic as the American justice system is, Assange’s isolation was a function of his fugitive status. Nothing about U.S. detention per se. It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court. This is one of those positions that is designed to sound reasonable by appealing to "the middle ground" for its own sake. It's not time for both sides to be heard in court. It never was. To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first I’m not a fan of our espionage laws. But they are, indisputably, laws. There has been a lot of evaluation of the questions of jurisdiction and standing. Barring wild, new evidence, I don’t see good reason to question that string of precedence.

supergirl 5y ago

Assange will die in prison. it's ridiculous that he is still in prison waiting for US to appeal. the previous trial was in his favor but he is still in prison awaiting the US gov to appeal. it's like the US typed in cheat codes.

shapefrog 5y ago
He did skip out on bail the last time he was released. Fool me once ...
- lielielielie 5y ago
  Oh yes because the reason Assange gave for not going to Sweden was to avoid extradition to the US, something HN said was 'conspiracy theory', now proven conspiracy fact. These people know nothing of justice, only power and violence.
- pydry 5y ago
  Remember when he repeatedly said he'd happily face the charges if he could be given assurances he wouldn't be extradited to the US for spying once he got there? And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" and the media made fun of him for being paranoid and delusional. Correa gave him asylum for a reason. It's too bad Moreno decided to cancel the asylum to score some points with the US.
  - 0110101001 5y ago
    Sweden was actually like "our law requires us to consider extradition requests on their own merits." I don't know if he knew that or not, but it's kinda weird he didn't flea to the embassy until his extradition to Sweden was imminent. The UK could've arrested him for extradition to the US any day he was out on bail.
    - pydry 5y ago
      The US had to actually submit the extradition request first. There were no public charges made at that point. It's a lot easier to fight an extradition as a free man... even if that freedom is notional (being holed up in an embassy).

firebaze 5y ago

German press stays silent on this, again. Even magazines known for investigative stories just don't mention Assange in the context of the recent developments ([1], [2], [3]). This is so frustrating. [1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Aspiegel.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Asp... [2] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Azeit.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Aze... [3] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ataz.de+assange https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ata...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> German press stays silent on this, again It’s not pertinent. The journalistic draw of a years-old case and judicial mechanics. Everyone has a pet agenda that seems irresponsibly ignored by the media and the public. Procedural developments are rarely big news.
- firebaze 5y ago
  Just focusing on Assange alone, it's not pertinent, sure. But Assange (and wikileaks, and anything behind it) in this (my?) frame of reference is not an individual, but serves as a pars pro toto for the freedom of press and the judicial system as a whole. To me, the coverage he gets in the far-reaching magazines is a little bit underrepresented, to stay polite. This includes U.S. press, UK press and german press.
- pydry 5y ago
  They thought Navalny's 45th birthday was news. They'd probably have thought a key witness who turned out to be a liar and a rapist of underage boys who was given immunity was a little bit newsworthy if it happened during the trial to, say, lock Navalny up. Just not when it's Assange, I suppose. Sometimes media outlets have an agenda.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > Sometimes media outlets have an agenda. No. They always have an agenda. And that agenda, overwhelmingly, is pro status quo. Not left, not right, not up or down. Just "things are basically OK except for a few problems here and there which we'll tell you about, though not in much depth".

supergirl 5y ago

shameful that his home country is doing nothing for him. imagine he was a US citizen who leaked Australia's dirty doings. he would be free after 1 month.

morelieslies 5y ago
Yeah because Snowden and Chelsea Manning are free US citizens... People on HN are so full of propaganda and lies, it's shameful. Delete me, you're all empty slaves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 0110101001 5y ago
  Chelsea Manning is indeed a free US citizen.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    In some sense, so is Snowden.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Also, if Snowden had only revealed details about ASIO rather than the NSA, he might not have had to flee to Moscow.
      - polytely 5y ago
        He didn't really flee to russia, he was on his way to Ecuador, when the US cancelled his traveling documents trapping him in Russia because it's way easier to discredit him while he is residing in Russia
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        I think technically the problem wasn't that the US had cancelled his travel documents, as the Ecuadorian government could grant the necessary document to a refugee (which is almost what happened[0]), but rather that he was worried the US would force his plane to land in a country where he could be arrested. That fear was well-founded, given what later happened to Bolivian president Evo Morales when the US suspected he might be transporting Snowden out of Russia[1], even though forcing planes to land to capture political prisoners is more fitting for a dictatorship than a democracy[2], but I suspect that Russia made it a condition of Snowden's safety that he not attempt to travel to any other country. Of course I'm not saying I would have done anything differently were I in Snowden's position, but it is worth noting that he could in principle have avoided US and NATO airspace by travelling from Russia to Shenzhen to Johannesburg[3] to São Paulo[4] to Ecuador. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/30/how_edward_snowden_avoided_extradition_to https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/30/how_edward_snowden_av... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4978 [3] https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-szx-to-jnb https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-szx-to-jnb [4] https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-jnb-to-gru https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-jnb-to-gru

lmilcin 5y ago

The point isn't really to have a believable case. The point is to use legal system to ruin one person to scare any people from running similar actions against US government. US is loosing more and more of its standing when it comes to "spreading" democracy. You can't go and try to preach democratic values to, say, Belarus, and then do exactly the same in your own country. Principles aren't really principles if they are being tossed aside when they become uncomfortable.

bamboozled 5y ago
It’s funny, when it comes to something like, vaccines, we’re supposed to trust “government institutions”. Then I wake up to this and I wonder, why should I t trust the government ?
- lmilcin 5y ago
  When it comes to vaccines, you don't necessarily have to trust government institutions. If you are normal, adult, educated person you don't need to "trust" the government for everything. You should hopefully be able to think for yourself and be able to evaluate when the story checks out and where it doesn't. Trust knowledge that has been gathered over decades, statistics and research that has been gathered by many research institutions (unless you can claim all of them are in collusion). Vaccines do work and we desperately need everybody to get vaccinated. Every country that has implemented vaccinations vigorously has seen immediate, large drop in cases. People who are going to hospital at the moment are almost exclusively unvaccinated. A person or institution or government that shows it is not trustworthy in one area undermines itself in other areas and so it is understandable that it may sow confusion. But you should still have ability to think for yourself and use it to make rational decisons.
  - version_five 5y ago
    There are two separate ideas here. Believing in the concept of a vaccine as an effective disease prevention mechanism, and believing the current narrative that all demographics need a covid vaccine, the risk reward calculus always shows it does more good than harm, etc (I'm not trying to faithfully summarize, but more make the point that there is a distinct and political covid vaccine push that's not the same as just saying a vaccine works) I personally had to suspend my mistrust of the government in order to decide it was worth getting vaccinated. A good rule of thumb is that the more someone tries to push you to do something, the more you should question their motives. And governments that have mismanaged and lied about everything else they do, like you say, have no reason to be trusted on this one thing, even if its generally popular. So it's not surprising that people who do believe that vaccines work (which is really not up for debate) may not agree with the putative urgency of getting this vaccine. Should just add that I don't really think there is anything we can do about this mistrust this time around. You get credibility by acting like you have people's interests in mind, and like you know what you're doing, so it would take a long spell of that before folks have any real reason to take what we are told at face value.

hkt 5y ago

I really wish the West wasn't so hypocritical. Between Assange, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, we show all the wrong people what to do. A pity and a shame. I hope Assange is freed soon and can get on with his life.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Evidently there are problems with incompetence in leadership and that encompasses orientation and strategy of agencies responsible for security.
- hkt 5y ago
  It isn't incompetence. The security establishment across the west don't share democratic values. The politicians are too weak or distracted to fight them even when they're inclined to, which seems relatively rare. A sad state of affairs.

ttctciyf 5y ago

Two somewhat related pieces of recent UK news: > How a proposed secrecy law would recast journalism as spying[1] (20/07/21, Guardian) > The Home Office now wants harder and more extensive secrecy laws that would have the effect of deterring sources, editors and reporters, making them potentially subject to uncontrolled official bans not approved by a court, and punished much more severely if they do not comply. In noisy political times, a government consultation issued two months ago has had worryingly little attention. Although portrayed as countering hostile activity by state actors, the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest. > Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”. > Calling for parliament to consider “increased maximum sentences”, the Home Office claims that there is now not necessarily a “distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”, including “onward disclosure” in the press. Journalism could even create “far more serious damage” than a spy. Yet the 66-page document does not mention “journalism” once, and refers only to “onward disclosure … without authorisation”. ----- > Priti Patel is urged to spare a billionaire dubbed 'Britain's Bill Gates' from a 'grotesque and unjust' extradition to US[2] (25/7/21, Mail Online) Interesting for the plea made by Conservative ex-cabinet-minister David Davis on behalf of the beset billionaire, in terms which (though he would never allow it) could just as well be applied to Assange: > America has a ferocious legal system with a 97 per cent conviction rate, where prosecutors, not judges, set the sentences. Defendants, too, are subjected to coercive plea bargaining. For example, people are encouraged to admit an offence and get a lesser jail sentence rather than continue to plead innocence and, if convicted, get a much longer term. and later: > He ended up in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a Pennsylvania penitentiary, without a clock and thus unable to know what time of day or night it was. > He and his co-charged were treated like criminals long before any trial began – placed in chains, frog-marched and strip-searched. > It is now up to the Home Secretary to decide whether Dr Lynch should stay in this country or be sent to a US cell. > I, and many others, urge Priti Patel not to submit to this grotesque and unjust process. She must wait for the outcome of a separate High Court trial examining the fraud allegations against Dr Lynch. I'd love to see just one member of the British Government stand up for Assange like that, but I guessing he is lacking the £8B collateral of Dr. Lynch. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/proposed-secrecy-law-journalism-spying-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/propos... 2: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822229/Priti-Patel-urged-spare-billionaire-dubbed-Britains-Bill-Gates-extradition-US.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822229/Priti-Patel...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I, for one, disagree that it has been a travesty of justice. The only travesty is that Assange has not stood trial.

simion314 5y ago
Yes, when US fabricate crimes,witnesses should you: - A try to find asylum and fight to bring to light the truth - B be a retard and trust in the justice system that fabricated the crimes and evidence - C kill yourself I understand you prefer Assange should ahve chose B, would you also chose the same if it were you?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Which alleged crimes were fabricated? Cite some sources if you could
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
- tootie 5y ago
  James Risen of the NY Times exposed 10x more salient and embarrassing abuses of power than Assange and Snowden combined. When he was prosecuted to reveal his sources he stayed in the US, attended every hearing, continued reporting and was eventually cleared.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    > continued reporting and was eventually cleared Comparing these two cases is not as simple as that. Risen refused to name sources for his book and did so till the end. The only reason it didn't go further, and he didn't go to jail, was because of an arbitrary decision further up the chain that was already publicly signaled ahead of the hearing [0] Assagne is spending time in jail right now, for years he was in a self-imposed jail over fabricated accusations, with the US actively violating his rights in every way they could, down to violation the client-attorney privilege. Nothing out of the US signals that he will get a fair trail, everything suggests he would most likely be made out as a an political example, as he has been and currently is. [0] https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/holder-sees-resolution-in-risen-case-197829 https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/holde...

markx2 5y ago

The Guardian (UK), which made much of Assange's revelations currently has these two phrases as part of it's campaign to raise funds. "With the funding of more than 1.5 million readers in 180 countries, the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth." (Front page promo) "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders. And because we are reader-funded we have been able to keep our journalism open for all to read, so when important stories like this come along, everyone gets to read them." Katherine Viner - Editor-in-Chief Katherine Viner is a liar.

mandmandam 5y ago
Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds those taglines galling. Lost my last shred of respect/hope for the Guardian when they did their level best to smear Corbyn in favour of BJ. Around 2015 they got suddenly and noticably (even) worse, axing Pilger and others like him. Even before that, their ME coverage was savagely lacking.
brokenengineer 5y ago
>Katherine Viner is a liar. Am I missing something here? After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but that's another matter) to the link. Could you please elaborate?
- contingencies 5y ago
  Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.
- markx2 5y ago
  The Guardian promoted everything Assange said / did. Then all of a sudden The Guardian forget all about Julian. Their coverage has been pathetic. Why? Because the UK Govt will have told them to Shut Up. And it's not just The Guardian. It's the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Sun, Mail and more. So when Katherine Viner spouts forth that: "the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth" That is bollocks. "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders." Also bollocks. Viner lies.

sebow 5y ago

The damage has been already done, when "push came to shove", the 'MSM & buddies' were covering for the exposed governments(might aswell call them 'globalists' since we're talking about 4 continents or more) and the people swallowed it down pretty effortlessly. Despite appearances, the world is very, very different from ~10 years ago, and I'm personally sure it's for worse.I doubt people will get the courage and guts to make some noise and raise their voices, there are systems that can be tyrannical as they are "useful" for whatever minuscule concern the citizens have disguised as public/nation safety.

cletus 5y ago

There is a fundamental question here: what are the limits of journalism? So you receive classified information and publish it. In the US at least there are is some precedent for journalistic protection here. Think the Pentagon Papers [1]. Let's take it a step further: what if instead of simply receiving classified information you provide material aid to whoever is stealing it? What if you're directing the thief on what to steal? Are you still a journalist? Let's take it in another direction: how do you choose what to publish? Generally reputable news organizations will redact things that aren't newsworthy or might, say, endanger people in the field (eg by releasing details about an undercover operation). But what if your decision on what to publish is partisan or otherwise aimed at achieving a particular end, political or otherwise? Are you still a journalist? Some will argue there are no limits. I don't think that's a reasonable position as it essentially justifies anything as long as you claim to be wearing a journalist's hat. So here are the problems for Assange: 1. He wasn't "passive' with Bradley/Chelsea Manning and provided material aid; 2. The Wikileaks releases were clearly aimed at hurting Hilary Clinton in 2016 (eg the Podesta emails). We can speculate as to why. Personal politics? Maybe Assange thought he'd fare better in a Trump administration? I don't know. 3. Additionally, he's kind of a creepy guy. This isn't material to an espionage case but in the court of public opinion, reputation matters. I would love to know how the incident rose to the level of rape charges that Swedish prosecutors decided to pursue because on the face of it, it just doesn't make sense. Some will argue it was at the behest of the US but I'm not really sure that adds up. Maybe someday we'll know the inside story. I can but hope. Now on the US side, how has this desire to prosecute and to punish Assange by proxy (eg containing him in the Ecuadoran embassy was clearly a "punishment") survived a decade? At the Federal level this has gone through 2 administrations, one of each party, 4 AGs and I'm not sure how many US Attorneys. It's a little strange that the US continues to push this so hard. Is it just about sending a message to any future leakers? For the record, the Obama administration was particularly harsh with leakers so this is possible. Maybe this has just taken on a life of its own and there is no puppet master at the top. Stranger things have happened. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

colordrops 5y ago
So by your definition all of FOX news and CNN are not journalists.

alvah 5y ago

"The Trump administration did <x>. The Obama administration did <y>" Why try to shoehorn tribal politics into this? The main argument stands on its own merits. The persecution of Assange spans multiple administrations - has the Biden administration dropped the case?

harry8 5y ago
The point being it isn't partisan.
- alvah 5y ago
  That wasn't the point being made in the article - it was a standard "Trump administration bad, Obama administration good" smear which detracts from the actual argument.
  - harry8 5y ago
    I don't think anyone who cares about whistleblower protection, or the freedom of the press could write "Obama good" or fail to notice the Trump administration is not current.

encryptluks2 5y ago

This is more propaganda touted by the same groups as the ones spewing Setch Rich conspiracy claims. Sigurdur was not a key witness. The indictments do not rely on his evidence. Go look at the FBI statements if you don't believe me. Even if he was a key witness, you don't think law enforcement has ever dealt with a witness retracting a statement that they agreed to in exchange for a plea deal or immunity? It wouldn't simply invalidate their statement. Prosecutors plan ahead for things like witnesses dying during trial. Seriously, I've seen this same propaganda being pushed here already based on the same theory that Siggi was holding the entire case together which is just false. It is actually pretty funny... I imagine prosecutors seeing this laughing, saying.. we should use this tactic more where we make people think the case is falling apart, maybe we can get more evidence of crimes in the process of people letting their guards down.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include it, and more that the prosecution has basically been found to have "paid" a witness to make false testimony.
- tootie 5y ago
  Making deals to get testimony isn't unprecedented at all. The terms of the deal are disclosed and can be considered as an element of credibility. If this guy recanted to the media he can be put back under oath and admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    This sounds great if you assume the DoJ was unaware he was lying when they made the deal. Given his past with the FBI and the other public abuses of justice in.this case, I find that unlikely. >admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record. So his options are admit that he lied and face perjury charges or admit that he lied and walk away free? Tough choice.

the_optimist 5y ago

Which US organizations are mostly strongly advocating for justice in this case? Where can I go to support those organizations? I want my children to know I was on the right side of this.

justinclift 5y ago

> Australian MPs are campaigning for Assange’s release in unprecedented numbers. They are? My impression is that he's not even on their radar.

sjy 5y ago
The unprecedented number is 11. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-mps-call-on-us-president-biden-to-drop-charges-against-assange-20210629-p585a1.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-mps-call-...
- freeflight 5y ago
  I guess the rest of the Australian MP's were too busy lobbying UNESCO not to give the Grand Barrier Reef a "in danger" tag.
vermilingua 5y ago
Certainly if they are, they aren’t making it known. Which is a shame, because that might persuade me to vote for some of them.

KingOfCoders 5y ago

"A is a serial liar, dont believe him! A says he didn't do it, believe him!" A is always lying but he is not lying when he says the things we believe.