4 ms·

Julian Assange is expected to address the world's media at 11:00pm (AEST)

28 points by jfoster 14y ago

btilly 14y ago
Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is NOT politically motivated? Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for it.
- cup 14y ago
  I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio silence. It's very suspect.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their identities are not released because that's Swedish law. Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.
    - Natsu 14y ago
      Their identities are public and have been publicly reported in international media: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28...
    - hammersend 14y ago
      "The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say?" Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.
      - citricsquid 14y ago
        I'll rephrase: What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.
        hammersend 14y ago
        "What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion." Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
  - kevinprince 14y ago
    Most countries prohibit this prior to trial otherwise it will influence the jury pool.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    It's not suspect at all: it's called contempt of court. Journalists really aren't allowed to go around interviewing either plaintiffs or defendants in criminal trials for fairly obvious reasons. Cases all across the world have been undone by press coverage that has contaminated the jury pool. In many countries victims of sexual assault and rape cases are also entitled to have their identities withheld, again for fairly obvious reasons. It is not for the court of public opinion to decide the outcome of a criminal case, although that is certainly how this particular one seems to be playing out (unfortunately).
  - rjsamson 14y ago
    There was actually quite a bit written about them, and their stories, when all this first came out. Some googling should turn up a few stories.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. because no "normal" sexual assault case would have this level of media surrounding it.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    Exactly - you get this sort of level of response from police in high profile cases in the UK, such as those involving murderers or child abuse, where public tension might be high. The key difference is that normally in those cases the media scrum is between the prison and the court. The accused is not normally seeking refuge in an embassy.
- arrrg 14y ago
  I do not believe that this is politically motivated. I just see no evidence for that. Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. That alone can completely explain the behavior of the police in Sweden and the UK. Assange is a self-importent prick, cowardly on the run from pretty serious allegations. He exploits his involvement with Wikileaks to sow doubt. I really think it's as simple as that.
  - Natsu 14y ago
    > I do not believe that this is politically motivated. > Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. For some definitions of "politically motivated," you would have contradicted yourself.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      Sigh. I knew someone would say something stupid like that. We all know what was meant with politically motivated in the comment I was responding to. Don't be a pedantic ass when I was perfectly understandable.
      - Natsu 14y ago
        It's going to be hard to understand what you mean if your definition of "politically motivated" does not include pissing off the authorities.
        arrrg 14y ago
        Politically motivated in this context clearly means related to Wikileaks and nothing else. All I want to say that it isn't. That's why comments like yours are pedantic self-importance that only want to derail the discussion.
        Natsu 14y ago
        Wikileaks itself was flagrant disrespect for the political system, whose secrets it exposed. I don't see how you can say it's this kind of politically motivated but not that. I see that you've retreated with that "and nothing else" part though, admitting that it is, in fact, a factor.
- objclxt 14y ago
  A 'normal' extradition case? Most European Arrest Warrants don't end with the suspect fleeing into a foreign embassy. This case wouldn't be 'normal' regardless of Assange's background. Assange has finished his speech now - he talks about making a stand for the justice system, but doesn't mention at all anything to do with the rape charges* and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process. He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two. * And yes, I'm calling it rape: what he is accused of is rape under Sweden's law, and contrary to what many people are saying, it would be rape under English law as well.
  - tgasson 14y ago
    Please watch this[1]. It's not a rape charge, it's sexual molestation. And it's not being pursued by the victims but by a prosecutor. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...
    - objclxt 14y ago
      If you actually bothered to read the papers Assange's own legal team lodged with the English courts you'd know that both the defence and prosecution accepted what he was accused of would be rape under English law. @tgasson - unfortunately I can't reply to your next message, but with regards to links: you can view most of the case literature at BAILII and the Supreme Court website. Because Assange made numerous appeals his legal filings are numerous. Link here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=assange&method=boolean&highlight=0&mask_path=/ http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&#3... A more succint summary can be found at David Allen Green's blog - Assange's legal team did at first try to argue it wouldn't count as rape, but this was rejected by two courts, and when they subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court his defence accepted the point and dropped the argument: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... Assange's legal defence against the extradition was primarily on a matter of procedural law regarding whether Sweden had the judicial authority to extradite him in the first place. I hope you will forgive my rather blunt tone - I am not a lawyer, but I have the pleasure (perhaps?!) of living with one. As I've said in other posts here, I'm more than happy to believe Assange is the victim of a conspiracy, but I don't think that is an outright certainty. I perhaps naively hold the English legal system in some regard, although I accept others may not!
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Whatever the case about the political motivations, the police presence has nothing to do with it. They're there to manage the crowds.
_gbc 14y ago
If Julian Assange is worried about being extradited to the US (which seems to be his main objection to going to Sweden) why is he in the UK in the first place? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US in place and have extradited several people to the US.
- manuelflara 14y ago
  I think it's because UK can't extradite someone who may face the death penalty (if Assange is charged with treason or espionage he might).
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Sweden also can't.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the CIA for rendition, who were subsequently handed over to the Mubarak regime where they were tortured. The victims had no chance of legal recourse, as the time between being nabbed and handed over was only a few hours. Whether or not Sweden's laws allow it to do this, the fact of the matter is that Sweden has done this. In comparison, the UK has a proven track record of standing up to the US on similar issues, given that it demanded the return of its citizens from gitmo. If extradition was requested in the UK, from past experience Assange would at least have a chance to fight it in the courts, instead of being unceremoniously handed over.
      - arrrg 14y ago
        And it was a scandal. And it happened in secret. And it happened to people no one knew or cared about. It's disgusting shit alright, but that won't happen to Julian Assange. Never ever. That's completely ridicoulos. No one inside the Swedish government can or will want to pull something like this with Assange. I'm not sure how you can even begin to believe that.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
manuelflara 14y ago
The actual speech in "text": Part 1: https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697... Part 2: https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936...
objclxt 14y ago
From his speech: "The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice" I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice. It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2]. [1]:http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador [2]:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2yf8X1FT5_w9UWANn3bjQ?docId=CNG.a24fb352dbca8778c3acc558060f5fa5.311 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...
- hahainternet 14y ago
  You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange! (I obviously don't endorse this but this is the revisionist perspective being used)
  - hammersend 14y ago
    "You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!" I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
    - hahainternet 14y ago
      I don't know what I would do. I would hope that I would face due process and defend myself, but I am not Assange and so cannot answer that question.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere. I say the more we keep talking about Assange the less we're actually using our brains to figure out the fine details of what works and what doesn't work in democracies. For the media, this is becoming a story of drama and conflict. I'd ask them politely to please go peddle it somewhere else. I have no opinion on whether Assange was set up or not, but I will say this: he is purposely using his publicity as a self-aggrandizing tool. He has been doing this since long before the charges were brought. The more we buy into this narrative of one-man causes, the more we harm our ability to make a better world. Instead we just head down the road of civil unrest and conflict. Assange is not my hero, even if there were no criminal charges. The things I believe are more important than one man, and I refuse to have my principles owned by somebody else besides me.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- hammersend 14y ago
  "This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere." If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles coughDanielBMarkhamcough.

28 points by jfoster 14y ago

Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is NOT politically motivated? Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for it.

cup 14y ago
I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio silence. It's very suspect.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their identities are not released because that's Swedish law. Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.
  - Natsu 14y ago
    Their identities are public and have been publicly reported in international media: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28...
  - hammersend 14y ago
    "The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say?" Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      I'll rephrase: What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.
      - hammersend 14y ago
        "What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion." Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
- kevinprince 14y ago
  Most countries prohibit this prior to trial otherwise it will influence the jury pool.
- objclxt 14y ago
  It's not suspect at all: it's called contempt of court. Journalists really aren't allowed to go around interviewing either plaintiffs or defendants in criminal trials for fairly obvious reasons. Cases all across the world have been undone by press coverage that has contaminated the jury pool. In many countries victims of sexual assault and rape cases are also entitled to have their identities withheld, again for fairly obvious reasons. It is not for the court of public opinion to decide the outcome of a criminal case, although that is certainly how this particular one seems to be playing out (unfortunately).
- rjsamson 14y ago
  There was actually quite a bit written about them, and their stories, when all this first came out. Some googling should turn up a few stories.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
citricsquid 14y ago
> In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. because no "normal" sexual assault case would have this level of media surrounding it.
- objclxt 14y ago
  Exactly - you get this sort of level of response from police in high profile cases in the UK, such as those involving murderers or child abuse, where public tension might be high. The key difference is that normally in those cases the media scrum is between the prison and the court. The accused is not normally seeking refuge in an embassy.
arrrg 14y ago
I do not believe that this is politically motivated. I just see no evidence for that. Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. That alone can completely explain the behavior of the police in Sweden and the UK. Assange is a self-importent prick, cowardly on the run from pretty serious allegations. He exploits his involvement with Wikileaks to sow doubt. I really think it's as simple as that.
- Natsu 14y ago
  > I do not believe that this is politically motivated. > Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. For some definitions of "politically motivated," you would have contradicted yourself.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Sigh. I knew someone would say something stupid like that. We all know what was meant with politically motivated in the comment I was responding to. Don't be a pedantic ass when I was perfectly understandable.
    - Natsu 14y ago
      It's going to be hard to understand what you mean if your definition of "politically motivated" does not include pissing off the authorities.
      - arrrg 14y ago
        Politically motivated in this context clearly means related to Wikileaks and nothing else. All I want to say that it isn't. That's why comments like yours are pedantic self-importance that only want to derail the discussion.
        Natsu 14y ago
        Wikileaks itself was flagrant disrespect for the political system, whose secrets it exposed. I don't see how you can say it's this kind of politically motivated but not that. I see that you've retreated with that "and nothing else" part though, admitting that it is, in fact, a factor.
objclxt 14y ago
A 'normal' extradition case? Most European Arrest Warrants don't end with the suspect fleeing into a foreign embassy. This case wouldn't be 'normal' regardless of Assange's background. Assange has finished his speech now - he talks about making a stand for the justice system, but doesn't mention at all anything to do with the rape charges* and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process. He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two. * And yes, I'm calling it rape: what he is accused of is rape under Sweden's law, and contrary to what many people are saying, it would be rape under English law as well.
- tgasson 14y ago
  Please watch this[1]. It's not a rape charge, it's sexual molestation. And it's not being pursued by the victims but by a prosecutor. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...
  - objclxt 14y ago
    If you actually bothered to read the papers Assange's own legal team lodged with the English courts you'd know that both the defence and prosecution accepted what he was accused of would be rape under English law. @tgasson - unfortunately I can't reply to your next message, but with regards to links: you can view most of the case literature at BAILII and the Supreme Court website. Because Assange made numerous appeals his legal filings are numerous. Link here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=assange&method=boolean&highlight=0&mask_path=/ http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&#3... A more succint summary can be found at David Allen Green's blog - Assange's legal team did at first try to argue it wouldn't count as rape, but this was rejected by two courts, and when they subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court his defence accepted the point and dropped the argument: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... Assange's legal defence against the extradition was primarily on a matter of procedural law regarding whether Sweden had the judicial authority to extradite him in the first place. I hope you will forgive my rather blunt tone - I am not a lawyer, but I have the pleasure (perhaps?!) of living with one. As I've said in other posts here, I'm more than happy to believe Assange is the victim of a conspiracy, but I don't think that is an outright certainty. I perhaps naively hold the English legal system in some regard, although I accept others may not!
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Whatever the case about the political motivations, the police presence has nothing to do with it. They're there to manage the crowds.

_gbc 14y ago

If Julian Assange is worried about being extradited to the US (which seems to be his main objection to going to Sweden) why is he in the UK in the first place? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US in place and have extradited several people to the US.

manuelflara 14y ago
I think it's because UK can't extradite someone who may face the death penalty (if Assange is charged with treason or espionage he might).
- arrrg 14y ago
  Sweden also can't.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the CIA for rendition, who were subsequently handed over to the Mubarak regime where they were tortured. The victims had no chance of legal recourse, as the time between being nabbed and handed over was only a few hours. Whether or not Sweden's laws allow it to do this, the fact of the matter is that Sweden has done this. In comparison, the UK has a proven track record of standing up to the US on similar issues, given that it demanded the return of its citizens from gitmo. If extradition was requested in the UK, from past experience Assange would at least have a chance to fight it in the courts, instead of being unceremoniously handed over.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      And it was a scandal. And it happened in secret. And it happened to people no one knew or cared about. It's disgusting shit alright, but that won't happen to Julian Assange. Never ever. That's completely ridicoulos. No one inside the Swedish government can or will want to pull something like this with Assange. I'm not sure how you can even begin to believe that.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

manuelflara 14y ago

The actual speech in "text": Part 1: https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180703266205697... Part 2: https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RTLondonBureau/status/237180872229543936...

objclxt 14y ago

From his speech: "The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice" I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice. It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2]. [1]:http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador [2]:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2yf8X1FT5_w9UWANn3bjQ?docId=CNG.a24fb352dbca8778c3acc558060f5fa5.311 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...

hahainternet 14y ago
You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange! (I obviously don't endorse this but this is the revisionist perspective being used)
- hammersend 14y ago
  "You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!" I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    I don't know what I would do. I would hope that I would face due process and defend myself, but I am not Assange and so cannot answer that question.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere. I say the more we keep talking about Assange the less we're actually using our brains to figure out the fine details of what works and what doesn't work in democracies. For the media, this is becoming a story of drama and conflict. I'd ask them politely to please go peddle it somewhere else. I have no opinion on whether Assange was set up or not, but I will say this: he is purposely using his publicity as a self-aggrandizing tool. He has been doing this since long before the charges were brought. The more we buy into this narrative of one-man causes, the more we harm our ability to make a better world. Instead we just head down the road of civil unrest and conflict. Assange is not my hero, even if there were no criminal charges. The things I believe are more important than one man, and I refuse to have my principles owned by somebody else besides me.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
hammersend 14y ago
"This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere." If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles coughDanielBMarkhamcough.