4 ms·

No. Assange didn't commit a crime, and was still forced by the Brits to confess in order to be released. Snowdens situation is completely different. His only

No. Assange didn't commit a crime, and was still forced by the Brits to confess in order to be released. Snowdens situation is completely different. His only hope was a much wider view of the legality of the acts he'd taken to be considered, taking into account the legality and constitutionality of what he released information about, and there was and is no chance of that.

slg 13d ago
>Assange didn't commit a crime Assange literally pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act. And if we're going to pretend that plea deals are coercion than we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works.
- impossiblefork 13d ago
  Yes, that he was forced to do so by the Brits in order to be release is what I referred to, so of course it is coercion. He is of not American and has no duty to be loyal to the US or to refrain from committing espionage against it.
  - slg 12d ago
    Your objection isn't to just Assange's case. It's with over 90% of criminal cases in the US. I was talking about a particular situation, so I'm not going to have the debate you seemingly want to have.
    - impossiblefork 12d ago
      My objection is absolutely with Assange's case. I don't particularly approve of the idea of these sorts of plea deals, but they are not the core problem. The core problem is that Britain pressured Assange to enter into a US plea deal over something which it was entirely legal for him to do, seeing as he was in Iceland when the acts were committed. Seeing as part of the information obtained related to black sites at which there is reason to believe that people were killed (we know that that a person released from the Polish black site were almost killed, so we can be fairly sure that a bunch of people died there), and Iceland has a law making it legally mandatory to help people who are in danger; and I think there's good reason to believe that he had reason to believe that the information would reveal such things, so that it wasn't just him doing good, but him doing his legal duty, once he had reason to believe that people were in danger. So my concern has very little to do with plea agreements. They have to do with Britain.
      - slg 12d ago
        >we know that that a person released from the Polish black site were almost killed, so we can be fairly sure that a bunch of people died there This is the kind of statement that just completely undermines any possible conversation we could have about the law. Can you seriously not take a step back and realize the jump in logic you made here from one person was almost killed and that being evidence of "a bunch of people" being killed? Because this discussion is not worth having with someone who genuinely believes this jump in logic is reasonable.
        impossiblefork 12d ago
        No, it does not. There's a guy from Lebanon who ended up moving to Germany called Khaled El-Masri who got seized in Macedonia by the US and who got sent around a bunch of US black sites. Eventually people figured out he wasn't Khalid Al-Masri and started treating him better, but he still almost died. Consequently, the people who weren't treated better almost certainly did. This can't really be disputed. The US certainly killed people at these black sites. The obvious danger El-Masri was in makes that clear. There is a screw-up in my previous comment since I say Poland rather than Macedonia or Afghanistan, but there's reason to think that the Polish black site is iffier than the others because of how the investigation of the location was performed.
- kelnos 12d ago
  > And if we're going to pretend that plea deals are coercion Many absolutely are coercion, not sure why you'd think otherwise.
  - slg 12d ago
    I guess "we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works." The guy living in exile seems like a silly place to start that conversation rather than the millions of Americans currently in prison for agreeing to plea deals.
- ninalanyon 12d ago
  > pretend that plea deals are coercion That's exactly what they are.
youngtaff 12d ago
We don’t know whether Assange committed a crime because he refused to go to Sweden to face the rape charges He did of course commit several crimes under UK law by absconding to the Ecuadorian Embassy
- sensanaty 12d ago
  You mean the rape charges that were dropped? Incredible that people still tout this obvious psyop. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792
  - kotaKat 12d ago
    "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation." They only dropped the case because he hid for so long. He still did it, bro.
    - amiga386 12d ago
      He likely did do what he was accused of, with two well-meaning (and now presumably former) fans of his (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Background_and_accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...), though it's his right to argue against that. It does not seem like a "honeypot" trap, these were genuine supporters. The trouble, though, was that the Swedish prosecutors had absolutely no way to process this alleged crime except to take him into their custody. They couldn't even begin to investigate without first locking him up and making him their possession, free to transfer to the US at any time. They chose not to make any exceptions or diplomatic guarantees. I don't think it was ever going to be the case that if he surrendered himself to Sweden, they'd merely prosecute him for his alleged sexual crimes and if found guilty he'd be fined or jailed for that alone and eventually released. It seemed much more likely that the moment Sweden got him, he'd be immediately extradicted to the USA, Sweden would get a nice pat on the head from the USA for furthering their geopolitical hegemony, and the Swedish crime would never be looked at again. Maybe Sweden might change their process and interview him as soon as he was in a US prison instead, just to rub salt into the wound. You never know. Once his Equadorian political asylum was removed, we saw it happen; the UK police immediately arrested for breach of bail conditions... and because the US wanted him. Even the diplomatically brokered solution had him plea guilty to breaching the US's laws. The US simply had to have him and make an example of him.
blitzar 12d ago
> Assange didn't commit a crime Smearing your own faeces on the wall isnt a crime - but breach of bail is
- masfuerte 12d ago
  He'd served his time for that.
  - blitzar 12d ago
    didn't commit a crime - or - committed a crime and served his time one is true and one is false

slg 13d ago

>Assange didn't commit a crime Assange literally pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act. And if we're going to pretend that plea deals are coercion than we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works.

impossiblefork 13d ago
Yes, that he was forced to do so by the Brits in order to be release is what I referred to, so of course it is coercion. He is of not American and has no duty to be loyal to the US or to refrain from committing espionage against it.
- slg 12d ago
  Your objection isn't to just Assange's case. It's with over 90% of criminal cases in the US. I was talking about a particular situation, so I'm not going to have the debate you seemingly want to have.
  - impossiblefork 12d ago
    My objection is absolutely with Assange's case. I don't particularly approve of the idea of these sorts of plea deals, but they are not the core problem. The core problem is that Britain pressured Assange to enter into a US plea deal over something which it was entirely legal for him to do, seeing as he was in Iceland when the acts were committed. Seeing as part of the information obtained related to black sites at which there is reason to believe that people were killed (we know that that a person released from the Polish black site were almost killed, so we can be fairly sure that a bunch of people died there), and Iceland has a law making it legally mandatory to help people who are in danger; and I think there's good reason to believe that he had reason to believe that the information would reveal such things, so that it wasn't just him doing good, but him doing his legal duty, once he had reason to believe that people were in danger. So my concern has very little to do with plea agreements. They have to do with Britain.
    - slg 12d ago
      >we know that that a person released from the Polish black site were almost killed, so we can be fairly sure that a bunch of people died there This is the kind of statement that just completely undermines any possible conversation we could have about the law. Can you seriously not take a step back and realize the jump in logic you made here from one person was almost killed and that being evidence of "a bunch of people" being killed? Because this discussion is not worth having with someone who genuinely believes this jump in logic is reasonable.
      - impossiblefork 12d ago
        No, it does not. There's a guy from Lebanon who ended up moving to Germany called Khaled El-Masri who got seized in Macedonia by the US and who got sent around a bunch of US black sites. Eventually people figured out he wasn't Khalid Al-Masri and started treating him better, but he still almost died. Consequently, the people who weren't treated better almost certainly did. This can't really be disputed. The US certainly killed people at these black sites. The obvious danger El-Masri was in makes that clear. There is a screw-up in my previous comment since I say Poland rather than Macedonia or Afghanistan, but there's reason to think that the Polish black site is iffier than the others because of how the investigation of the location was performed.
kelnos 12d ago
> And if we're going to pretend that plea deals are coercion Many absolutely are coercion, not sure why you'd think otherwise.
- slg 12d ago
  I guess "we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works." The guy living in exile seems like a silly place to start that conversation rather than the millions of Americans currently in prison for agreeing to plea deals.
ninalanyon 12d ago
> pretend that plea deals are coercion That's exactly what they are.

youngtaff 12d ago

We don’t know whether Assange committed a crime because he refused to go to Sweden to face the rape charges He did of course commit several crimes under UK law by absconding to the Ecuadorian Embassy

sensanaty 12d ago
You mean the rape charges that were dropped? Incredible that people still tout this obvious psyop. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792
- kotaKat 12d ago
  "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation." They only dropped the case because he hid for so long. He still did it, bro.
  - amiga386 12d ago
    He likely did do what he was accused of, with two well-meaning (and now presumably former) fans of his (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Background_and_accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...), though it's his right to argue against that. It does not seem like a "honeypot" trap, these were genuine supporters. The trouble, though, was that the Swedish prosecutors had absolutely no way to process this alleged crime except to take him into their custody. They couldn't even begin to investigate without first locking him up and making him their possession, free to transfer to the US at any time. They chose not to make any exceptions or diplomatic guarantees. I don't think it was ever going to be the case that if he surrendered himself to Sweden, they'd merely prosecute him for his alleged sexual crimes and if found guilty he'd be fined or jailed for that alone and eventually released. It seemed much more likely that the moment Sweden got him, he'd be immediately extradicted to the USA, Sweden would get a nice pat on the head from the USA for furthering their geopolitical hegemony, and the Swedish crime would never be looked at again. Maybe Sweden might change their process and interview him as soon as he was in a US prison instead, just to rub salt into the wound. You never know. Once his Equadorian political asylum was removed, we saw it happen; the UK police immediately arrested for breach of bail conditions... and because the US wanted him. Even the diplomatically brokered solution had him plea guilty to breaching the US's laws. The US simply had to have him and make an example of him.

blitzar 12d ago

> Assange didn't commit a crime Smearing your own faeces on the wall isnt a crime - but breach of bail is

masfuerte 12d ago
He'd served his time for that.
- blitzar 12d ago
  didn't commit a crime - or - committed a crime and served his time one is true and one is false