Hacker News Reader

Comment by colejohnson66 | Hacker News Reader

Ah, the old “he was free to leave anytime” argument. No. He wasn’t. Yes, technically, he was free to leave, but arguing that is ignoring the fact that leaving would mean jail.

It’s victim blaming. Would you say a victim of Stockholm Syndrome is “free to leave at any time”? No, because that’s a ridiculous argument. Would you say Snowden is “free to leave [Russia] at any time”? No!

So why is it an acceptable argument when it’s Assange? Because he possibly committed a crime in Sweden? Because he indiscriminately blew the whistle on the US government’s crimes?

Sure, he’s a puppet of Russia, but to say he doesn’t deserve the same protections as the rest of us is to argue for tyranny.

View on HN

But that line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me …

Just for the sake of argument, say you are a bank robber who successfully barricaded yourself somewhere (really uncomfortable) where police cannot reach you. You are then free to leave at any time, but would be arrested as soon as you did.

Would you really argue that police would have to drop the case to avoid torturing you?

Your line of thinking seems to presuppose that the threat of arrest was somehow unjust, but you never really argue for that point.

I’m not arguing that the case is unjust. I’m refuting the argument that he was free to leave at any time. I see where the two cross, so I’ll argue the former here:

He’s wanted because he embarrassed the United States government. Espionage laws are a horrible attack on free speech and freedom of the press and I’m appalled the Supreme Court previously ruled they’re constitutional.

I think that’s a much more coherent argument, especially if you factor in a fear of disproportionate punishment.

For example, in the case of the bank robber I would actually agree that it would amount to torture if police were clearly communicating to the bank robber that they were intent on killing them as soon as they showed up, no matter what they did.

So there is nuance to this and I don’t think that nuance ever gets you around to actually arguing the case and the facts of the case.

The espionage act is a horrible piece of legislation. So challenge it. Go fight the charges. Take the spotlight and let everyone see how unjust the law is.

Fleeing from the law made Assange seem like a coward, which worked against his cause. There is no better way to seem guilty than to run from a legal process that most people feel is fair, even if you personally think otherwise.

> Fleeing from the law made Assange seem like a coward, which worked against his cause. There is no better way to seem guilty than to run from a legal process that most people feel is fair, even if you personally think otherwise.

This comment comes up a lot in regards to Snowden too. I'm not a huge fan of Assange, but my feeling is that the people who whistleblow on corrupt governments at great personal risk don't owe you their martyrdom as well. It's very easy to claim that other people should be sacrificial lambs, but typically that argument falls apart once it gets personal -- if the government was attacking people in this forum right now, we wouldn't see so many people arguing that they had a duty to allow themselves to be used as an example of the potential harm.

I believe people like Snowden have the right to try and protect themselves from unjust systems, and fleeing from said systems is a particularly harmless measure with very few problematic knock-on effects.

Snowden hasn't, I don't believe, ever claimed that the law he broke was particularly unjust or that he'd be unfairly persecuted should he return to the US. He just felt that breaking the law was worth it, and importantly was and is comfortable living with the consequences.

Assange didn't do that. He just claims unfair persecution.

Snowden's been pretty explicit that he would be willing to return to the US if he was guaranteed a free trial, and that he believes the Espionage Act would deprive him of that trial.

> They want to use special procedures they want to be able to close the courtroom, they want the public not to be able to go, know what's going on. And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations.[0]

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/edward-snowden-nsa-cbs-this-mor...

Ah, but that's the issue. As currently constructed, the espionage act cannot be challenged in court.

Assange would want to argue that he isn't a spy, but a whistleblower. The argument would be that he willingly broke a law in order to expose more illegal behavior by the government. In order to make that argument, he has to be allowed to talk about what the government does.

Under the espionage act, though, the government can say that the details of their activities are classified, and therefore are not admissable evidence in a public trial. Therefore, their guilt cannot be proven because any claim of illegal behavior could not be backed by evidence.

This is plainly false. The judge is the one who decides if the actions of the government bare relevant. If the judge believes they are, they will be admitted, and parts of the trial will be closed, but other parts will remain open.

I would urge you to do research to confirm your assertion here. What I described is not a fringe view, it's literally a summary of the Criticism section in the Wikipedia entry for the law in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticis...

And the response is simple and straightforward: civil disobedience doesn't result in an immunity to consequences.

No one is saying that civil disobedience should be consequence-less. We’re arguing over the legality of the laws one would be breaking and whether they’re just.

I believe that it is better to be free and seem like a coward than be punished via a process which I believe is unfair and spend the rest of my life in jail or worse.

He is not a US citizen. Fighting US laws is neither his right nor obligation.

> So challenge it. Go fight the charges. Take the spotlight and let everyone see how unjust the law is.

Easy to nominate someone else for martyrdom.

In your example, the bank robber was free to leave a prison of their own making for the confines of another prison, or perhaps be shot and die.

That was Assange's choice: a prison in the UK, or a prison in the USA. He didn't feel that the USA would either be safe or provide a fair trial, and so he stayed put.

"Yes, technically, he was free to leave, but arguing that is ignoring the fact that leaving would mean jail."

Didn't it mean he would be free to stand trial for the rape allegations?

Do those women not have a right to have their case heard?

>Didn't it mean he would be free to stand trial for the rape allegations?

No, there were never any charges filed against Julian Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for "questioning" by a Swedish prosecutor in a case that has now been entirely dropped due to a complete lack of substance. Assange's assertion was that this Swedish investigation was created entirely as a pretense to seize him and ship him to the United States for his activities as a publisher (an assertion that has proven to be true given his current status). There was nothing preventing the Swedish prosecutor from questioning Assange in the UK - they have traveled abroad to question subjects of other investigations in the past.

They do. He should stand trial for that. However, I’m talking about the US case where he is being charged with espionage. In other words: exposing the US government’s illegal doings. He should not have to stand trial for that.

> . He should not have to stand trial for that.

The Trump administration pushed the pedal on it.

And to think that Assange was scared as hell of Hillary Clinton, which actually would be a much better option for him now, imagine Hillary forgiving Assange, she had a lot to gain from it, Trump doesn't care, he just really doesn't.

Yep. If Assange were betting a Trump administration would pardon him, he didn't do his homework on Trump.

I assume he did his homework on Clinton. Whatever else one thinks of Assange, he must have known what skeletons were in her closet.

We're off in speculation territory, but I think it's unlikely the situation would have been worse for him than it is now (unless one buys into the ridiculous "The Clintons have people killed" conspiracy theory, in which case I have the basement of a pizza parlor to sell if anyone's buying. ;) ).

which to me, implies that Assange bought into that theory in 2016. Which given his situation, makes me think that 'rediculous' might not be the best descriptor.

You'd think someone such as him with so much access to information would be less susceptible to repeatedly-debunked conspiracy theories.

Then again, such theories seem to have blossomed in the information age, so perhaps not.

and yet all his worst fear have materialized now.

Okay, but then any criminal on the lamb is being tortured? If someone jumps bail, we should just leave them alone, so we don't traumatize then? All criminals are being tortured (these same things happen in prison). I don't agree with how all this was handled, but I think we're being a bit rediculous here.

>> All criminals are being tortured (these same things happen in prison)

If you are talking about US Prisions then there is a Good Case to be made that is true. The Treatment of Prisioners in the US is abhorrent

He could have made this point to the British legal system in an effort to avoid deportation. But instead he fled that process and doomed himself by biasing the entire British legal system against him.

I actually agree. I wouldn't be so sure this is just an American thing though. I wasn't happy to see my country on locked up abroad; but so is France.

There's no argument over that. The argument is that if his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy was akin to prolonged "psychological torture", he could have surrendered himself to British authorities and received the same treatment as any other prisoner. The strongest case you could make is that his life at the embassy was akin to living in prison.

So he was free to leave, but would then face Swedish justice, which is the 4th best in the world [0], just behind Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

[0] http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#

After which he would be extradited to the US...

Why the charade of Sweden? Why not extradite him direct from the UK, which is far further down the list of good justice systems

Snowden's case is different, if I'm not mistaken, since the US suspended his passport. Meaning he cannot travel anywhere else (unless he's got a Russian passport, which I doubt).

Russians could grant him citizenship pretty easily though. I still think he would get picked up by interpol or CIA though if he went to the wrong countries or unescorted/unprotected by the country he traveled to.

> but arguing that is ignoring the fact that leaving would mean jail. > It’s victim blaming

Yeah, but the victim is the woman he raped and that will not see any justice, because he ran...

He did not rape anyone nor did anyone accused him of rape. He is being accused of a very specific thing which at best might be classified as sexual misconduct.

> He did not rape anyone nor did anyone accused him of rape

That's false.

> He is being accused of a very specific thing which at best might be classified as sexual misconduct.

it's rape in Sweden.

I don't know why you split hairs on this simple fact.

I will quote Stallman on that: "I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in"

What he did does not fall within the definition of rape, please do not accuse him of doing a much worse thing than he did.

Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.

He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.

If you rape a girl the fact that in some country she is of legal age and in others she's not, it doesn't change the fact.

It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.

Please accept it, because it's what happened.

> Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.

> He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.

It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.

> It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.

He did not force her though. He had consent to have sex with her. It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards.

> It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.

No, he wasn't defending Minsky, please stop saying that!

He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.

That shouldn't change the definition of rape.

> It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards

That's not what she says.

I was not there, did you?

I tend not to believe to a man that has at least 4 children with 4 women and he "prefers them virgins so he can be the first one to impregnate them" when it's about using condoms.

https://gawker.com/5757325/julian-assange-has-at-least-four-...

BUT we're seriously OT here.

> please stop saying that

This is the first time that I said that...

> He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.

Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality. Same thing applies here. Just because the Swedish law calls it rape it does not mean that it really is rape.

> That's not what she says.

This is what Guardian says https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... - can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?

> This is the first time that I said that...

many have done before you, and still doing it.

So, please stop.

It never happened.

> Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality

Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.

He was talking about Minsky, who he was not defending.

> can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?

Here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

> Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.

Stallman was replying to "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Isiands." with "Does it really? I think it is moraily absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. i think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexuai assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone."

> https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

They use rape as to include breaking a condom -- which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious (or a much more serious) offence, because it confuses people.

> They use rape as to include breaking a condom

They use any definition their law uses to define rape.

If it is rape for them and you do it in their country, it is rape.

> which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious

I don't think you and Stallman agreee at all.

Stallman was against using "sexual assault", because it can be conflated with opinions like "assault means using violence" while it's not necessary to be sexual assault.

Stallman was in fact in favour of using "statutory rape" which is not ambiguous.

Wait. If someone consents to sex with a condom, then the condom is tampered with, that violates the consent.

If I, a man, agree to have sex with a woman after we both agree to use a condom, but I find out that she knowingly punctured the condom, I didn't consent to that.

Sure, and it should be illegal (especially if she knows that she has a sexually transmitted disease), but it is far from rape.

If you consent to have sex with a woman as long as she promises to not cheat on you and she breaks that promise, is that rape? I would claim that it is not.

Why not? It not being rape is based on having consent. If the consent was not there, it is rape. Also, if she was sleeping, they couldn't discuss consent vis a vis the condom.

> the woman he raped and that will not see any justice

Presumption of innocence is a basic concept in law, and an international human right.

We don't know at this point if he raped, assaulted, grabbed by some part of the body, or did anything to any woman. There was not a trial, no judge, no proofs, no videos.

What we know is that Wikileaks most probably contributed to save lots of women from being massively raped. There was a global sense of impunity for armies before and a totally different situation after Assange. Soldiers were allowed to do anything they pleased with civils including children and women. Not so easy anymore

This argument seems a bit silly. The rescuing circumstance for the argument is that whatever legal process he would face in the US might not be described as predicatble or maybe not even just.

But in general, the arument is flawed. If I rob a bank and barricade myself in my basement when the police shows up I'm not being subjected to torture because I'll face jail for my bank robbery if I leave the basement. Not after one day nor after ten years.

So this would be like mudering a bunch of people, hiding in cave to avoid prosecution and then claim that you are being tortured?

That's a bit silly in my view.

Either there's a rule of law or there's not. You can't hide from the police and then claim that the very act of hiding is an act of torture enacted on you by the police.

You're assuming he had a lot of choice in the matter and that the UN didn't take that into account. Nils Melzer when asked about it responded: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." - https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1134400849097220102

Also, as far as I'm aware, Assange didn't claim he was tortured, the UN experts on torture came to that conclusion.

The "rule of law" isn't about individual citizens submitting to the system.

It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power and who's being charged.

The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by that system.

I didn't claim Assange was breaching the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that individuals are accountable for their actions. A court of law is usually the correct way to determine accountability. The state is obligated to protect individuals (in this case the women who were allegedly raped) via the justice system.

The idea that having to flee charges is tantamount to being tortured implies the state does not have that right. If there is to be the rule of law, the state has not only the right but the obligation.

The rule of law is followed to the letter by state actors as everyone knows...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com