I find the idea of the threat of prosecution in a free country as a form of "torture" a bit questionable.
It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?
Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone an Australian citizen.
That's not torture.
Solitary confinement is often used during war. That Assange is incarcerated in a civilian prison doesn't necessarily diminish or change the effectiveness and impact.
It is great that people are speaking up about the conditions under which people are punished and the no-win games that put them there. I only wish people could do so when it isn't some high-profile person.
As to why Sweden, who knows why they thought that would be preferable. Maybe just to smear his reputation a bit, to soften the protest at the treatment they want to give him? Very successful if so.
But either way, you're talking about the people who forced down the Bolivian president's plane because they thought Snowden might be hiding in it. When they say "the law only matters when the outcome doesn't", this would be an example of a case where the outcome (stop Wikileaks) mattered.
Sure, because trumped up charges are symptomatic of a working justice system.
It makes no sense if one believes that they were accused of fake charges based on political pressure and are to be judged on a rigged legal system.
It would be like if J.E.Hoover had his eyes on you, had his police build some BS charges, and made sure (whether by police planting evidence, fake testimonies, etc or by having his judge pals on the case too) you'll be convicted.
Would you take your chances to have the case judged?
No, he's already served the time for that. He's held strictly for extradition by now.
In 2016 another group of UN experts found his situation to be "arbitrary detention":
> In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.
> The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
> The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
> The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
> The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
Journalist John Pilger also made the point that Britain and Sweden participated in and have previously supported this UN group:
> The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.
> Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-un...
You write "Should we really accept a case that's made because of the authority making the argument rather than the argument itself?"
What makes you think that Britain and Sweden's refusal to accept the outcome has anything to do with the evidence presented? The UN group found against Britain and Sweden, and they didn't like that outcome. Isn't that a likely explanation?
1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikil...
Here I thought legal factfinding was the purview of a courtroom, rather than the court of public opinion.
But if you run from the law, why should Assange or a human rights expert expect to be handled like in a 5 star hotel?
The free country responsible for the Guantanamo secret prison? We are talking about the same one?
I still consider the US, Sweeden, and the UK "free countries".
As far as "free countries" go, it's really the worst to end up.
Did you seriously forget all the UN reports about human rights issues in the US? Yeah the US ignores them, but the rest of the world knows it. It's really pretty bad.
Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is concerned.
I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a single precedent of someone being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what Assange would be accused of.
Edit: and citations, please!
What measure of proof do you require?
That's oddly specific, but still be careful what you're asking for. "Police torture suspect" gives a lot of results, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge
There's a good chance some of those 200 cases were rape cases.
Then there is also the torture of terrorism suspects, if you wish to take that angle since Assange has repeatedly been labeled a terrorist.
Here's two more Wikipedia articles that may be interesting to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_State...
Especially interesting may be the "Domestic Torture in Modern Times" section if you wish to focus on what happened domestically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techn...
Always worth a read.
- "the field of the sheep" - the field only contains sheep
- "the wool of the sheep" - the wool only belongs to the sheep, not the cows, pigs, goats etc.
In the same way, America belongs to some very free people, and the rest are conned into touting that from under whatever thumb they happen to be.
The alternatives have proven to involve a great deal less freedom.
Freedom is freedom for minority rights and opinions to not be quashed by the majority. Thus the term "the tyranny of the majority"
A majority can "not care" about systematic racial injustice and other inequities. The consent of the majority doesn't make the system "free".
Have you ever stopped to think that there is no such thing as free?