5 ms·

A lot of the questions and opinions about Assange came up when Ecuador granted him asylum (eg [1]) as I'm sure they come up every time Wikileaks or Assange make

by cletus 14y ago

A lot of the questions and opinions about Assange came up when Ecuador granted him asylum (eg [1]) as I'm sure they come up every time Wikileaks or Assange makes the news. I just can't escape the opinion that something about Assange is just off. Don't get me wrong: something is very strange about the way Swedish prosecutors are acting. But think about this: if these charges were exactly what they appeared to be and there was no US involvement, claiming a US conspiracy sure could be an effective defence in the court of public opinion. Some commenters point out that there's no evidence the US government put the two women up to this so there's no US involvement. This is a false dichotomy. Personally I believe that the initial interview and prosecutorial involvement was innocent enough but probably what happened is that the US got wind of it and saw it as a way to get Assange to Sweden. I expect the reports are true that the US has a sealed indictment against Assange. I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing. The question of why not extradite from the UK is also unresolved. It's clear that it is easier to extradite from the Sweden (ie "temporary surrender"). Perhaps the US doesn't want to give the UK the political headache of having to deal with this and having it drag out in the courts. It also seems like the Swedish government does't have the legal authority to guarantee non-extradition to the US. Overall it's very strange and very disturbing. EDIT: another possibility: the Swedish police and duty prosecutor misinterpreted and/or overreacteed, a more senior prosecutor acted more rationally but then it went further up and may not been at the behest of the US at all but simply could've been the government or even some lackey just being eager to please. If nothing else, Sweden really should have to come clean on who made the decisions regarding Assange's arrest warrant (after giving him clearance to leave) and the Interpol "Red Notice". [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390885 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4390885

rmc 14y ago
The one reason you know that something is weird is because courts/police/governments usually don't try to prosecute rapists this way. Usually rape victims are ignored. Seems the only way to get the state and police to really care, is if your rapist is an enemy of the state. Also the UK will not extradite murderous dictators if they don't want to. (e.g. Augusto Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... ). It's very fishy, but that doesn't mean Assange has immunity.
magoon 14y ago
> I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing. Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets. Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist" to simply release the verbatim private conversations of others. I have no intention of debating the right or wrong of Wikileaks or what they've done.
- Tycho 14y ago
  Well in the era of Watergate it wasn't like dumping the information onto bit-torrent was a viable option for the investigative journalists. They had to write it up in article form just to communicate their findings.
  - magoon 14y ago
    Interesting point, however I am having a hard time coming up with another journalist in this era who reports their findings by dumping information onto bit-torrent.
    - glesica 14y ago
      So what? Seriously, why does it matter even one iota if there are others doing the same thing? Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense, it doesn't follow the conventions of journalism that you are comfortable with. But that's just how new things work, they're different because they're new and innovative. Unless you have a better reason than "it's different and weird", your objections are just like those of a grumpy old man complaining about the music the youngsters listen to these days.
    - magoon 14y ago
      > Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense I'm not objecting to Wikileaks, I'm objecting to Assange calling it journalism. I've gotten downvoted simply because people are emotional over this -- as if I'm attacking them.
frankydp 14y ago
I do not see the point in actively chasing a pawn. Assange was nothing more than a middle man for the crimes committed. Other than putting charges against him in the US as an administrative posture, I do not see the justification for the loss of any political currency in getting him extradited. He is simply not worth it. There is no public opinion win for the the US government in that play, except for maybe we got the guy there were charges against. He has no access to anything. He is no different to a person looking to leak information, than a non-US news agency. It would also make him a martyr which is worse than a publisher. edit to remove thread hijack cause
- kungfooguru 14y ago
  Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger. The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.
  - drone 14y ago
    Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government." You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."
    - kungfooguru 14y ago
      You do realize that our intelligence agencies have linked 0 deaths to these leaks... The very people who want Wikileaks shutdown can't provide accounts of harm done.
    - throwMeAway576 14y ago
      You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents ONLY when The Guardian - by accident - had published the password to the archive in a book.
philwelch 14y ago
Extra public attention alone will sometimes move prosecutors from ignoring a case to pursuing it, if only because of the spotlight. Consider the case of George Zimmerman, for example.

by cletus 14y ago

rmc 14y ago

The one reason you know that something is weird is because courts/police/governments usually don't try to prosecute rapists this way. Usually rape victims are ignored. Seems the only way to get the state and police to really care, is if your rapist is an enemy of the state. Also the UK will not extradite murderous dictators if they don't want to. (e.g. Augusto Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August... ). It's very fishy, but that doesn't mean Assange has immunity.

magoon 14y ago

> I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing. Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets. Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist" to simply release the verbatim private conversations of others. I have no intention of debating the right or wrong of Wikileaks or what they've done.

Tycho 14y ago
Well in the era of Watergate it wasn't like dumping the information onto bit-torrent was a viable option for the investigative journalists. They had to write it up in article form just to communicate their findings.
- magoon 14y ago
  Interesting point, however I am having a hard time coming up with another journalist in this era who reports their findings by dumping information onto bit-torrent.
  - glesica 14y ago
    So what? Seriously, why does it matter even one iota if there are others doing the same thing? Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense, it doesn't follow the conventions of journalism that you are comfortable with. But that's just how new things work, they're different because they're new and innovative. Unless you have a better reason than "it's different and weird", your objections are just like those of a grumpy old man complaining about the music the youngsters listen to these days.
  - magoon 14y ago
    > Your entire objection to Wikileaks seems to be that it is unconventional in a literal sense I'm not objecting to Wikileaks, I'm objecting to Assange calling it journalism. I've gotten downvoted simply because people are emotional over this -- as if I'm attacking them.

frankydp 14y ago

I do not see the point in actively chasing a pawn. Assange was nothing more than a middle man for the crimes committed. Other than putting charges against him in the US as an administrative posture, I do not see the justification for the loss of any political currency in getting him extradited. He is simply not worth it. There is no public opinion win for the the US government in that play, except for maybe we got the guy there were charges against. He has no access to anything. He is no different to a person looking to leak information, than a non-US news agency. It would also make him a martyr which is worse than a publisher. edit to remove thread hijack cause

kungfooguru 14y ago
Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger. The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.
- drone 14y ago
  Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government." You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."
  - kungfooguru 14y ago
    You do realize that our intelligence agencies have linked 0 deaths to these leaks... The very people who want Wikileaks shutdown can't provide accounts of harm done.
  - throwMeAway576 14y ago
    You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents ONLY when The Guardian - by accident - had published the password to the archive in a book.

philwelch 14y ago

Extra public attention alone will sometimes move prosecutors from ignoring a case to pursuing it, if only because of the spotlight. Consider the case of George Zimmerman, for example.