4 ms·

I don't think Assange operated in any kind of self-interest per-se, I think he operated based on a principle of maximum transparency. I definitely don't think

I don't think Assange operated in any kind of self-interest per-se, I think he operated based on a principle of maximum transparency. I definitely don't think that is always a positive thing but I struggle to think of anything which Assange leaked which I really disagree with. Probably some parts of cablegate should not have come out as they were very "inside baseball" talk between diplomats and were too easily construed negatively in the media, though, I think for the most part our allies realized that they said the same things about us in their private communications and there was really no major fallout from it. Now, all that said, Assange did break the law and I don't think there should be no consequences for that but the way the US went about this (across 3 different presidencies) is just terrible. Nudging and cajoling and perhaps berating our Swedish allies to jin up a "rape" case against him so he could be extradited from the UK to Sweden and then obviously to the US, and, denying that we were doing that was just dirty on our part. I'm sure if there is a cablegate 2.0 we'd find we did some fairly terrible stuff to persuade our Swedish allies to prosecute this. Ultimately the simple reason I think there is near positive reaction to this news is that everyone understands that even given what he did, it does not merit almost 15 years of prison in some really terrible conditions. Should he have walked away free? Maybe, maybe not but he should have had a fair trial with fair charges and faced a fair jury and he never got any of that, he was effectively extrajudicially jailed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rudolph9 2y ago
> he should have had a fair trial with fair charges and faced a fair jury and he never got any of that Could he have had that if he turned him self when he was originally charged?
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  He would never receive a "fair" trial in the United States. He was accused of espionage, which is in itself incredibly alarming, given that he's a journalist. The law he's being charged under comes from WWI, which was a low point in the history of freedom of speech in the US, and that law is most likely unconstitutional. The law would not allow Assange to argue any sort of public interest defense. Probability of conviction would be near 100%. The US government conspired to assassinate Assange when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and many American officials, from the president on down, have denounced Assange, called him a terrorist, called for his execution, etc. The United States is claiming the right to prosecute any journalist of any nationality anywhere in the world if they publish information that is classified in the US.
  - Beldin 2y ago
    I mostly agree worth you, except to nuance that it is not about "information that is classified in the US", but about classified US-documents.
qsdf38100 2y ago
Well, maximum transparency on why he never published anything significant on Russia would be great. To me it's a very bad smell when you pretend to fight for press freedom and democratic values, but never say anything bad about regimes where presidents-for-life are extinguishing the free press and poisoning opposition leaders. It's like these all the crazy conspiracy theories that flourished online during the last decade, that are somehow never hurting Russian interests... But I must be paranoid, right?
- jakeinspace 2y ago
  Well, would he still be alive if he’d published similar quantities of info on Russia? That’s a pretty simple explanation, he thought his chances of survival were better with Western leaks.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    I think also you can’t really do reputational damage to an already well-known corrupt pariah state.
    - qsdf38100 2y ago
      It depends, if you can convince people that it's the other way around, with counter-facts, embarrassing leaks and loud speakers... I'm sure you know the rhetoric, in which the US is the actual aggressor, supported by some big names, like Musk, Chomsky, Trump, and others, and then there are martyrs like Snowden and Assange.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        > if you can convince people that it's the other way around The US, the pariah state? In terms of geopolitics? In terms of economy? There's just no argument that could be made that that really is the case. What global players does Russia have any significant influence over? Who do they have substantial leverage over? A best some other pariah states. Now answer the same for the US. Not even in the same league.
CRConrad 2y ago
> Nudging and cajoling and perhaps berating our Swedish allies to jin up a "rape" case against him so he could be extradited from the UK to Sweden and then obviously to the US, and, denying that we were doing that was just dirty on our part. Dunno if there was any "nudging and cajoling and berating", but from all I saw, those Swedish women (yes, plural) seemed to legitimately have a case. As I understood it, the case was dropped only because there seemed no chance to get him to Sweden to stand trial. So whether he should have had no punishment at all, or sixteen consecutive lifetimes of hard labour, for spying, he's sure no saint -- and quite possibly deserved jail time -- in other ways.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them. Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom. However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider). So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal. While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use) I don't think it fits anyones conventional definition of rape and under normal circumstances this would not be an offense that the Swedish government would be extraditing someone for (it's a nominal fine in most cases). Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them. Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom. Prostitutes have nothing to do with it; of the two women who reported him at least one was a political activist who was, AFAICR, originally supposed to guide him around at the organisation(s?) where he was to be a guest speaker, but ended up hosting him in her home. (I got the impression she was, at least originally, pretty much a groupie of the romanticized image of him.) The other one may have been a friend or acquantiance of the first, or otherwise a "similar type". Far from prostitutes. > However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider). > So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal. Been a while since I lived in Sweden, but I go back there every year and nobody I know has ever mentioned any such bizarre law. It would also most likely have been mentioned in news media in neighbouring countries, so I'd probably know about it even without going there, if it existed. > While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use) It doesn't. You have been utterly duped. > Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory. Getting stuff so utterly wrong, it's really rather hard to believe you ever "significantly researched" anything about this, because the picture you're painting has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. (Well OK, sure, for all I know he may have also gone to prostitutes, but that has nothing to do with the rape allegations.) Your "research" sounds as if it must have come directly from some kind of cross between an Assange fan site and Incel HQ. Just try the other Wiki in stead -- -Pedia, not -Leaks. They're usually at least somewhere close to the truth.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rudolph9 2y ago

> he should have had a fair trial with fair charges and faced a fair jury and he never got any of that Could he have had that if he turned him self when he was originally charged?

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
He would never receive a "fair" trial in the United States. He was accused of espionage, which is in itself incredibly alarming, given that he's a journalist. The law he's being charged under comes from WWI, which was a low point in the history of freedom of speech in the US, and that law is most likely unconstitutional. The law would not allow Assange to argue any sort of public interest defense. Probability of conviction would be near 100%. The US government conspired to assassinate Assange when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and many American officials, from the president on down, have denounced Assange, called him a terrorist, called for his execution, etc. The United States is claiming the right to prosecute any journalist of any nationality anywhere in the world if they publish information that is classified in the US.
- Beldin 2y ago
  I mostly agree worth you, except to nuance that it is not about "information that is classified in the US", but about classified US-documents.

qsdf38100 2y ago

Well, maximum transparency on why he never published anything significant on Russia would be great. To me it's a very bad smell when you pretend to fight for press freedom and democratic values, but never say anything bad about regimes where presidents-for-life are extinguishing the free press and poisoning opposition leaders. It's like these all the crazy conspiracy theories that flourished online during the last decade, that are somehow never hurting Russian interests... But I must be paranoid, right?

jakeinspace 2y ago
Well, would he still be alive if he’d published similar quantities of info on Russia? That’s a pretty simple explanation, he thought his chances of survival were better with Western leaks.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  I think also you can’t really do reputational damage to an already well-known corrupt pariah state.
  - qsdf38100 2y ago
    It depends, if you can convince people that it's the other way around, with counter-facts, embarrassing leaks and loud speakers... I'm sure you know the rhetoric, in which the US is the actual aggressor, supported by some big names, like Musk, Chomsky, Trump, and others, and then there are martyrs like Snowden and Assange.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > if you can convince people that it's the other way around The US, the pariah state? In terms of geopolitics? In terms of economy? There's just no argument that could be made that that really is the case. What global players does Russia have any significant influence over? Who do they have substantial leverage over? A best some other pariah states. Now answer the same for the US. Not even in the same league.

CRConrad 2y ago

> Nudging and cajoling and perhaps berating our Swedish allies to jin up a "rape" case against him so he could be extradited from the UK to Sweden and then obviously to the US, and, denying that we were doing that was just dirty on our part. Dunno if there was any "nudging and cajoling and berating", but from all I saw, those Swedish women (yes, plural) seemed to legitimately have a case. As I understood it, the case was dropped only because there seemed no chance to get him to Sweden to stand trial. So whether he should have had no punishment at all, or sixteen consecutive lifetimes of hard labour, for spying, he's sure no saint -- and quite possibly deserved jail time -- in other ways.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them. Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom. However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider). So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal. While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use) I don't think it fits anyones conventional definition of rape and under normal circumstances this would not be an offense that the Swedish government would be extraditing someone for (it's a nominal fine in most cases). Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them. Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom. Prostitutes have nothing to do with it; of the two women who reported him at least one was a political activist who was, AFAICR, originally supposed to guide him around at the organisation(s?) where he was to be a guest speaker, but ended up hosting him in her home. (I got the impression she was, at least originally, pretty much a groupie of the romanticized image of him.) The other one may have been a friend or acquantiance of the first, or otherwise a "similar type". Far from prostitutes. > However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider). > So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal. Been a while since I lived in Sweden, but I go back there every year and nobody I know has ever mentioned any such bizarre law. It would also most likely have been mentioned in news media in neighbouring countries, so I'd probably know about it even without going there, if it existed. > While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use) It doesn't. You have been utterly duped. > Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory. Getting stuff so utterly wrong, it's really rather hard to believe you ever "significantly researched" anything about this, because the picture you're painting has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. (Well OK, sure, for all I know he may have also gone to prostitutes, but that has nothing to do with the rape allegations.) Your "research" sounds as if it must have come directly from some kind of cross between an Assange fan site and Incel HQ. Just try the other Wiki in stead -- -Pedia, not -Leaks. They're usually at least somewhere close to the truth.