Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndyMcConachie | Hacker News Reader

> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.

Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press. Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner". They've since changed their tune, but it sure took them long enough.

A man is being tortured in plain sight in the UK and no one in the media cares to report on it.

View on HN

A quick search using Google news in the UK shows that all the main broadsheets and many of the tabloids have Assange related stories over the past several days at least. I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the media as disinterested.

None of the homepages I looked at today (Guardian, BBC) has a single mention of Assange. Yes they all had token articles buried somewhere though if you search.

There is only so much space front pages have and much more impacting news events transpiring currently. The aspect as you say that even the Guardian has no mention of this upon its front page, should be testament to that, more so as they would be the first ones in many eyes to jump all over this if it was felt by them to be front page material over other content.

However - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/26/julian-assange... does not appear to be a token article in any way, shape or form. Though if one is to label anything not upon the front page as a token article, then I concede that point from that perspective, albeit I disagree with that assertion given the substance and depth of the article in this instance.

Fair point regarding it perhaps not being a token article. What I was trying to express is the lack of attention the trial is receiving, no one I know has mentioned it because the media has decided not to give it any obvious coverage, obvious in the sense that people realise it is something that is currently happening. The Guardian has chosen many mundane subjects to grace it's homepage that I think most readers would agree are much lower on the importance scale. Someone at the organisations has obviously decided "yes, we need to cover it, but just do the minimum we have to to appear to not be ignoring it"

Agreed, though equally interesting how social media seem to not be picking up upon it either - at least going by Twitter trends in the UK: https://trends24.in/united-kingdom/

Though given those trends, kinda glad the front page is not composed around those trends as a whole and with that, we should be thankful as the news would be a far sadder place if that was the case.

[EDIT ADD] the BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 seems like it could and should traction and if enough people click the link - it would actually make the front page given how the BBC has the top 10 articles being viewed listed upon its front page. So there is some people power input upon this that you can exercise.

The article he linked is in the frontpage of The Guardian right now, under Headlines.

This is correct, I'm now seeing it near the bottom of the homepage.

The decision not to the show it during prime news reading hours in the morning and mid day would have been a conscious decision though I believe. I think there's some apathy towards the case these days.

"decided" versus do give it a different priority then you do.

They are much further away from this story as we are. I can ask plenty of people whats up with assange and they will just not know anything much.

There might be no article from him today but i have read plenty of articles about him the last few weeks. Including the criticisim of how he gets treated.

So what is the real issue? I would say none. Would i say there is some deliberate action going on? Also no.

The Guardian has it on it's UK Politics main page. That's not really buried.

A prominent journalist has been locked up in Belmarsh prison in harsh condition for months. Even if there was some coverage now, it's still massively undercovered. That should have been on the news just about every day or two - as a form of news media self-defense if nothing else. Politicians answer other questions should also have been asked why Assange is in custody.

Not to mention the under-coverage during his years in effective imprisonment by the UK in the Ecuadorian embassy.

> Politicians answer other questions should also have been asked why Assange is in custody.

He's in custody because he's a flight risk. Are there people out there genuinely disputing this?

1. I meant, why is the government pursuing any legal action against him, not why he's in custody vs house arrest.

2. Even the claim that he is a flight risk is disputed. Assange has not ran away or hid anywhere - neither while in Sweden nor in the UK. He asked for political asylum, which is not the same as flight. Not to mention the fact that Assange is in a poor condition, physically and mentally, after years of detention and months of harsh solitary confinement, and if anything, should be transferred to a civilian medical facility for treatment and recuperation.

The UK government are pursuing legal action against him because he is wanted in the US and the US government submitted an extradition request under the US-UK extradition treaty, and Assange is appealing it

... and journalists should be asking why is the UK government helping the US in trying to put a publisher like Assange on trial, rather than repealing the extradition request.

It won't make the US press, because all of that is a pretty typical US jail experience, sadly.

the US has successfully become a 3rd world country.

power in the hands of a few: check corruption at the highest possible level: check a gradually more authoritarian "leader": check a people who support such a leader: check military might used against political opponents: check enormous amounts of poverty cleverly ignored: check

the list goes on. i suppose there is a time for every powerful nation to go into a deep decline that it will never recover from, and such decline usually starts when people ignore what's going on right in front of them. had russia done to assange what the us is doing now all of them EU, US and other hypocrites would be jumping like their arse was burned: but human rights. but torture. but freedom of the press. but this and that. well, enjoy your dystopia.

Yep. This is because of the vicious circle of money capturing power through greater wealth, greater corruption, and greater power. As Chris Hedges calls it: inverted totalitarianism. Autocratic plutocracy by force by other means. It's like how many Americans are chained to their jobs by healthcare and other benefits, but let's not call it slavery or indentured servitude (student loans) because anarcho-capitalism with "no government, no regulations and more greed will solve everything! It will just work itself out magically!"

I think we're more like a first-world banana-republic.

As if any of this is recent. People keep voting for the same crooks, generation after generation. Another election cycle, nobody is talking about the wars, just what benefits the government should pay for.

Nailed it. Just vote harder, amirite? This has come so far from the individual freedom that the bill of rights was envisioned to protect. Now the question is "what is right thing to do for me" rather than "what is the right thing to do."

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - anon

It's crazy. I always speak out about the wars, that's the single most important issue of our day. The government is literally killing people overseas, spending literal trillions of dollars. You would think it's something we can all agree on, but people treat you like a literal crackpot.

Keep spouting off, it's better than being silent about it all

I mean, and this is just my opinion, this decline has been happening for a loooong time. Reagan just made things even worse by the war on drugs. Consolidation is just making things worse. I mean seriously look at the effective tax rate in the US for corporations over time [0]. The US is just making legislation to benefit corporations instead of individuals.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effec...

No, it just has the really high levels of corruption like a 3rd world country.

They still have rather large amounts of both weapons and economic leverage.

the US has been a rich 3rd world country, since Reagan.

From time to times there are detailed articles by writers that happen to have a brush with the US jail and legal system. I can't recall any where they could not shake hand with their lawyer and have their court documents, including privileged communications from their lawyer taken. The typical US jail experience is bad, but I don't think the evidence say it is that bad.

I've personally seen all of that and worse. Anecdotal, of course. It is worth noting that the experience varies wildly in the US. Every city, county, federal, etc, jail has its own set of written and unwritten rules.

Is it typical for the US to jail Australian journalists or publishers in another country in a supermax prison in solitary confinement for almost a year on trumped-up charges to seek extradition for doing their job? You're conflating different entirely situations. The US MSM won't cover it because the powers that be won't let them and the MSM doesn't want to outrage people how publishing and reporting facts has been perverted into a "crime" because it doesn't suit those in power. If you're Jesse Ventura, Cenk Uygur or Phil Donahue, that's off the top of my head who just MSNBC has tried to silence. Chris Hedges - NY Times is another. Please get a clue rather than oversimplifying or rationalizing your lack of big-picture understanding and desensitized lack of empathy.

"You're conflating different entirely situations."

Not really. I'm saying that stories about poor jail conditions, excessive holding cell time, no speedy trial, violations of attorney-client privilege, etc, won't get much air time in the US. It's not newsworthy because it's common. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country, deplorable jail conditions, and nobody cares.

It's not whether I'm conflating. The US public will conflate and think, "yeah, bad jail conditions, poor rights protections, lack of due process, excessive confinement, already knew about that. yawn." Editors are aware, so this won't be big featured news here.

> Still barely any mention of this case in the mainstream American or UK press.

Remember when Assange was a hero to these people when he exposed bush era war crimes?

Isn't it funny how propaganda works. When we think of propaganda, we think of what is being said. But many times propaganda is what is not said. What is covered is just as part of propaganda as what is ignored.

Another interesting aspect is when it comes to superificial issues, the mainstream press can be adversarial. But when it comes to certain issues, they all sing the same tune or are equally quiet.

Why the hysterical focus on the protests in hong kong and not the ones in bolivia? Why the hysterical focus on democracy in hong kong but not bolivia or venezuela? Why the neverending focus on the muslim ughyurs and hardly a peep about the suffering of the muslim yemenis or palestinians?

Why does foxnews/etc and the nytimes/msnbc/cnn appear to be so antagonistic while moving lockstep when it comes these stories? The nytimes/msnbc/cnn claim they care about democracy, but they hardly had anything negative to say about trump's invitation of his hand selected and unelected "president" of venezuela to the state of the union.

It really is a testament to how shitty main stream outlets actually are. To be fair, there are some exceptions, but not that many as it seems.

If they don't feel the need to defend press freedom, it is probably not worth reading their detached antics.

Tortured?

I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured?

Excuse me, solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year is torture, cruel, and unjust for a simple, nonviolent skipping bail charge. This sort of thing should've been 2 months at a minimum security prison in genpop at the most. This is purely political persecution by British toadies of American hegemony. If you can't see any of this, then you are blind.

Thanks for your informative (and measured) response. To clarify, I'm no expert on the Assange case, and was responding to the previous commenter, whose account didn't mention solitary confinement in a supermax prison for almost a year.

If that is indeed the case, I'd agree it sounds pretty awful.

Here's what Nils Melzer the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture had to say:

> Question: At what point does imprisonment become torture?

> Nils Melzer: Julian Assange has been intentionally psychologically tortured by Sweden, Britain, Ecuador and the U.S. First through the highly arbitrary handling of proceedings against him. The way Sweden pursued the case, with active assistance from Britain, was aimed at putting him under pressure and trapping him in the embassy. Sweden was never interested in finding the truth and helping these women, but in pushing Assange into a corner. It has been an abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a person into a position where he is unable to defend himself. On top of that come the surveillance measures, the insults, the indignities and the attacks by politicians from these countries, up to and including death threats. This constant abuse of state power has triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange and has resulted in measurable cognitive and neurological harm. I visited Assange in his cell in London in May 2019 together with two experienced, widely respected doctors who are specialized in the forensic and psychological examination of torture victims. The diagnosis arrived at by the two doctors was clear: Julian Assange displays the typical symptoms of psychological torture. If he doesn’t receive protection soon, a rapid deterioration of his health is likely, and death could be one outcome.

Source: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

And a 3 million euro extortion scheme as a cherry on top. This was for the surveillance videos/audio and stolen medical, legal and personal documents of Julian's that WikiLeaks EIC Kristinn worked with Madrid police to thwart Ecuadorian embassy staff from "selling" back to them. (I take it they claimed some sort of diplomatic immunity because I don't see any news regarding arrests.)

This is how the corrupt elites in power maintain their position, folks; by ordering the political, legal, military, police, judicial establishments to lie, cheat, and steal in order to conduct a sham trial. It's a farce, without legitimacy.

No problem, I can never quite tell how writing comes across to be calibrated reasonably.

In general, I only hope and suggest every individual determines to make themselves more informed (knowledge is literally a prerequisite of power), in depth and breadth, rather than haphazardly absorbing information to a shallow depth that is ambiently shoveled on them by commercial forces.

I'm not a reporter, but I know a little about it:

- Just days before Assange was dragged out from the embassy, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief met with would-be extortionists in Madrid, Spain (unnamed Ecuadorian embassy staff; either intelligence operatives or for personal gain) who suggested a payment of 3 million euros in lieu of releasing months/years of surveillance video & audio and stolen documents covering Julian's daily existence. On top of that, WikiLeaks collaborated with the Madrid police to conduct a sting operation that recorded audio and video of the extortion scheme, and it was referred to the Madrid's prosecutor's office. (I've checked multiple sources and it doesn't seem any of the Ecuadorian embassy staff were arrested, they probably claimed diplomatic immunity?)

- Assange was holding a book, History of The National Security State by Gore Vidal, in his hand when he was being illegally dragged out by British police.

- It is internationally illegal to revoke asylum once granted, unless the statements leading to its granting are disputed by new evidence.

- Julian's parents support him on Twitter quite often, and were at the latest hearing. They had to threaten to walk-out in order to keep Kristinn (WL E-I-C) from being banned for no reason.

- Pamela Anderson has been a vocal supporter. One could surmise that they may have "a thing." I haven't seen her in a while supporting Assange, guess she's too busy marrying and divorcing Jon Peters. ;-)

- Dragging Assange out from the embassy accomplished four goals for Moreno:

1) Silenced a potential embarrassing story from misbehavior of civilian or intelligence service personnel allowing WikiLeaks to make Ecuador look bad.

2) Got rid of "a stone in [his] shoe." (That's a direct quote.)

3) Appeased US interests.

4) Secured the $10.2 billion IMF loan package.

Wikileaks Editor in chief holds press briefing 143K views - Apr 10 2019

https://youtu.be/QFq38d3Q9qY

Spanish police ‘recover Julian Assange surveillance footage’ [and stolen legal and medical documents]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/10/julian-assange...

Assange is not in solitary confinement. This has been confirmed by Nils Melzer himself. Please stop spreading misinformation.

I'd not put a demonstrated and notorious flight risk in minimum security. Low security, yes--not to be allowed freedom of movement until the extradition is decided.

That certainly should have already happened. I don't understand any legitimate reason for the delay.

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession"

Yes, it is exactly torture.

https://apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

Again, probably depends on which aspects of his treatment you're referring to.

The original quote spoke of "twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells" - which is unpleasant treatment, but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners, fairly regularly, within our dehumanising criminal justice system. And I don't think it would constitute torture, per your definition.

That said, as another commenter added, he's apparently been in solitary confinement [for up to 23 hours a day[0] ] in a high category prison for a year. This sounds pretty awful, and much closer to a definition of "torture". That said, it's hard to know: maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh? And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine for prisoners in Belmarsh?

Would be interesting to know why it's taken a year for his case to be heard, though.

[0] https://inews.co.uk/news/julian-assange-solitary-confinement...

I mean they needed to wait for something big enough to bury it (Corona). Now's the perfect chance :kappa:

In all honesty though, there is a bunch of evidence in his US court case that basically frees him of all accusations in his british court case, but the judge refuses to accept it. Although the case is about delivering him to the US. So she denies the rightfulnes of the US court system, but wants to deliver a person to this very system???

And then there is a treaty of denying political extradictions. But then the judge said that she does not care for the treaty and only honors the UK Extraction Act, which does not mention any of it.

> but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners

It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners

> maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh.

Its often used in high-profile cases.

> And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine

It isn't. 60% of the cells at Belmarsh are multi occupancy and inmates at have access to education, workshops and gyms.

You seem to be casting doubt on a lot of claims, without putting in any effort to challenge your own assertions.

> It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners

You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.

Easy. Take any politician involved in embezzlement. Even if they will do decades of jail, during their trial they never wear handcuffs. Yes maybe they are VIPs. But this kind of shows that Assange is treated as an anti-VIP.

If they’re already in custody?

Will not argue that some celebrities / politicians do and should not get special treatment (lead out the back door, not through the media circus), absolutely.

But if you’re already in custody, you’re getting cuffed. Not least for safety/security/risk to yourself/other prisoners.

In all honesty, just because it's common or routine, it can still be torture.

It may not be "enhanced interrogation" but...

> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert [a medical expert accompanying the UN Special Rapporteur on torture Melzer during a visit to Assange] said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

> Until recently Amnesty International refused to even recognize Assange as a political prisoner, and the only thing they had said about him was that he was "not a political prisoner".

That... is saddening. I donate cca 120$ to AI every 6 months believing they would right some wrongs out there where it matters, but I'll strongly consider dropping this.

Maybe they don't have balls to go directly against US government, but then we are talking about huge amount of wrongs that will never be challenged.

As a non-US person, like 95% of the world, I couldn't care less if his actions of revealing massive US war atrocities and breaches of international laws potentially endanger some US spies.

An interesting learning was, how to most effectively frame a person if you want them to lose public support.

They first did the "rapist" framing. Making up a case that never existed and repeating it in the media all the time. Surprisingly, that didn't work as effectivity as expected.

So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing". That seems to have achieved the intended outcome with many previous supporters.

These are not things that "they" did, though. They're things that "he" did.

Well, no. Assange did not accuse himself of rape and then push out a media narrative about it over successive months. "They" (in this case, Swedish and other legal authorities and various news agencies did). And though the question of his level of guilt in those cases remains somewhat ambiguous as far as I know, the now dropped rape cases have the whiff of political smear to them.

Regardless of Assange's merits or failures as an activist or human being, the current conditions he's being subjected to absolutely do indicate a man being made an example of for politically motivated reasons and in violation of basic legal guarantees. That is something that's far more dangerous than anything he himself is likely to be convicted of.

The way the rape case was initially dropped and then picked up again certainly seemed weird, and there may have been political pressure behind it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.

But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge seems strongly biased against him. Does not sound like a fair trial.

In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. He's done things I wholeheartedly support, and things I strongly oppose. I support his early fight against censorship and the release of the collateral murder video. I disagree with releasing all the material concerning sensitive operations unchecked and unedited. I am concerned by the rape stories, strongly oppose his self-centered grandstanding, and my working theory is that he went mad, possibly with power, due to the massive size of the Manning leaks. I supported the rape investigation, but oppose his extradition to the US, because I doubt he's ever going to get a fair trial there. And now it looks like even the extradition trial from the UK is not going to be fair.

He's a complex figure with good and bad sides. His are a bit more extreme than most. I find it hard to form a simple opinion about him, because nothing about this is simple. But it seems obvious to me that both blind support and total condemnation are wrong positions to take in this. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons, and that's very wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean he's entirely innocent either.

> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, disagrees: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

Specifically, this section:

"Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more."

The important part is that the woman would have had consensual sex, then walked away with the condom to use it as evidence for something that didn't happen. This makes it sound like it was planned from the beginning.

"Go figure" seems such an odd phrasing for someone writing an objective investigation on such a serious matter.

I think there's a cake and eat it too. That the rape campaign was an organized smear campaign. That the combined resources of Sweden and the US (and possibly the UK) too's best ability at a smear campaign at someone was "may not have used a condom when he implied he would during a sexual encounter". That's a pretty sad indictment of those intelligence communities (regardless of the merits either way).

The rape case is rather odd to say the least, as posted above by a user you might want to read this article: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on the 21st and only after that did she accuse him of 'rape' (not actually rape, but stealthing).

According to her he had intentionally broken the condom during sex. However the broken condom that was submitted into evidence had no DNA of her, nor of Assange.

Neither woman accused him of anything before headlines were being made apparently.

Not sure what "stealthing" is. I know that in Sweden, having sex with someone in a way they don't want, still counts as rape, and I think that's not unreasonable. It's certainly a different case than violent rape, but that doesn't mean it's 'not actually rape'.

I hadn't heard that the condom contained no DNA. That certainly sounds odd to me, but I'm no forensic expert. If that's sufficient proof that the whole story is a lie, then that's certainly worthy of investigation. False rape allegations are as serious as rape in my opinion.

The page I linked is an interview with a United Nations investigator (Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture). I'm just relaying what was written in a condensed format.

The lady who went to the police to force assange to do an HIV test never accused him of rape, they had unprotected sex and she wanted to ensure that she was safe.[1]

The second lady only accompanied the first. But the article had already been made and she only made a statement the day after. As for the reason to not clasify it as rape, it's probably due to a contradiction in her statement. [2]

Per the article: [1] "S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes."

[2] "... But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. ..."

> That doesn't mean it didn't happen, though.

As you well know, it is usually impossible to prove a negative, especially when it supposedly occurred in a private setting between an accuser and an accused.

> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.

They did not seem very credible. That is, it is credible that they encountered Assange, but the accusations not so much. At any rate, they were not credible enough for the Swedish authorities to decide to indict Assange (which they could have done).

> In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. ... I am concerned by the rape stories. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons ... but that doesn't ... mean he's entirely innocent

Assange's current imprisonment is not about any allegations of sexual misconduct. He is not accused of any of that. Also, be aware that Assange was _made_ controversial by the treatment of those allegations and by the UK's insistence to put Assange in custody. Yet we know that the UK was motivated not by the Swedish affair but by the US, and went as far as to pressure Sweden not to drop their extradition request. So, regardless of whether you are skeptical of Assange's personal/sexual conduct - that matter was cynically used to persecute him politically.

And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.

> And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.

I think this is entirely unfair. There are numerous implications in the parent, and others, posts that they recognize that other things, claims, etc. are going on. The assumption that anyone who fails to discount the other issues has been "manipulated" is bad faith...

... no more than assuming that Craig Murray is an impartial observer of events occurring here too, and not entirely biased as well.

You believe that Assange is both a rapist and a right wing zealot? There is no evidence to support either claim.

As pointed out elsewhere, the rape allegations are credible. And while I'm not calling him a right-wing zealot, and considered him left-libertarian for his dedication to free information and opposition to censorship, he did at some point seem to work with Trump and Russia in order to falsely discredit Clinton and get Trump elected. So again, there is evidence to support it.

How credible is a rape case when the police themselves admitted to altering the reports of the accusers to fit the narrative given to them?

That is pretty curious.

“police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW.”

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... (The report itself)

Is that not tampering with evidence? If true, I'd expect some serious investigation into this.

Yes. The "ohchr.org" is the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights". I would imagine that's enough weight to warrant a local inquiry.

Citation needed.

[1] https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

A source for that statement.

As pointed out by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, they were not, and the Swedish authorities did everything to indicate that they didn't care about Assange's answers, they just wanted to force him out of the embassy.

This is kind of how prosecutors in Sweden think though. They don’t want to ask some questions over the phone, to be answered by someone feeling physically safe. They want to lock you up for a day or two, to shake you up a bit, and then ask you the questions. It’s primitive as fuck, but kind of how it works here.

This isn't the only case that has involved Sweden questioning people in another country, they have a treaty with the UK explicitly setting up a method of questioning people over video link in the UK. This was unacceptable for some reason with Assange.

And I doubt anyone involved thought that Assange has felt physically safe for the past decade.

Muellers report doesn't say so, I've read the whole thing from cover to cover and they do talk about him a lot. Yes, he was useful for Russia, just like he was when the American liberals hailed him as a hero and next Jesus when he was beneficial for them, shat on Bush, leaked Palin's emails etc. All politics are full of hypocritical behavior but Americans sure put it to next level, possibly because of the two party system, but I personally couldn't care less about it. It's sickening and vile.

It should be noted that Mueller's report - the redacted version at least - doesn't contain evidence for any of the claims it does make. So even if Mueller had concluded "Wikileaks was working with Russia", you would not have found any basis for the claim in that report, besides more assertions to that effect.

Propaganda works.

You probably once supported his fight for free speech, until they made up the "Trump supporter" story.

With that, they actually managed to catch many people who previously supported him.

Of course, he was "left" and they told all his friends that he "now supports the enemy".

Was a really clever framing move.

"Made up"? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

Made up how, exactly?

> On Oct. 3, WikiLeaks, writing a day before it was set to announce the release of hacked Democratic emails, wrote to Trump Jr.: "Hiya. It'd be great if you guys could comment on /push this story."

* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

* https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/563996442...

* https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign...

Which aspects of these stories were "made up"?

Further:

In a subsequent message to Trump Jr., WikiLeaks proposes what it acknowledges is "an unusual idea":

"Leak us one or more of your father's tax returns," the message suggests, "Most of the harm has already been done by the nyt [New York Times] and pre-empted by your father (tax writedowns)."

"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality," the message continues. "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing about Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russian' source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."

The rape accusations were credible, he just refused to answer to them. That doesn’t mean they were invalid in the first place, it just means they’ll never be proven in a court of law.

Nope, he did offer to answer to them, repeatedly:

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

This article details more than I could ever have wanted to know about the entire situation. It is an excellent 10,000 ft view.

No, the police in Sweden invented them.

The UN special investigator documented the whole thing pretty thoroughly.

But apparently some people still stick with the lie.

Propaganda is pretty effective.

It was incredibly effective. His support dropped to almost nothing overnight because nobody wanted to be seen supporting a rapist.

It's like straight out of Bolshevik handbook.

If you can catch a person stealing, it's open-shut case. Easy peasy.

If not, try to discredit them (appealing to the morals of the people) -- maybe they cheat on their spouse, or use prostitutes?

If that still doesn't work just try slapping an "enemy of the people" / fascist / reactionary label and see if it sticks.

They also tried to frame him as working for the Russians before and when that did not work as a pedophile:

https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-t...

>So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing".

I don't know who is "they" but the shift in perception didn't need any prompting from anyone. It was Assange that started acting as Russia's stooge.

He "stated acting as Russia's stooge" when the Clinton people decided Russia was to blame for their 2016 elections campaign failing. Then suddenly everybody and their uncle became a Russian asset, Russian stooge, Putin puppet and so on.

Yes yes, we've heard it all before. Over 3 years of this stuff, with no evidence of any stoogery.

I would use more specific facts rather than pronouns. "They" were the Swedish prosecutor clearly acting on orders from their government either a) in furtherance of appeasing the US or b) someone who didn't like or was working for one of Assange's enemies, a con-artist, concocted a story with enough detail to convince an authority that crime potentially occurred.

It is transparent that Assange doesn't belong to either American political party but attempted to parlay the emails* into a hail-mary get-out-of-jail-(but-not-for-)free card by trying to appease Trump. On that, he gambled and lost, and now some idiots on the internet assume idiotic statements like "he's a Ruskie spy," "he loves Trump," or "he's Putin's best friend."

\* The emails were NOT from a Russian operative. Assange stresses this if anyone cares to listen. Furthermore, if someone watched Jimmy Dore, they'd know this is a continuation of anti-Russian conspiracy theories.

That trial may not be unlawful in the U.K. the way it would be in the U.S.

So you're upset that he's NOT being tried in the press, and instead under judicial review in a court of law? I don't see any problem here.

I guess A.I. can say Assange wasn’t a prisoner until he left the embassy, then he was detained and imprisoned.

Never the less, A.I. is probably influenced by politics as much as any other organization. Like the ACLU. Before the 2000s they were more about principles by and large and now it’s become principles+politics.

It’s about funding for amnesty int. On a side note, it can be confusing when you refer to them as AI

If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case.

Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture.

None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.

Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".

Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly.

Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment."

Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status.

(Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)

The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil".

Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...

Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil.

Having said that:

1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".

2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action.

3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.

> 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact

What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance."

So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact".

And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public".

> But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".

Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form.

What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.

The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration.

Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence.

About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted.

> Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form

That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper...

Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.

I'm confused about your understanding of events.

Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition.

Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries.

"At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation."

I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations.

> If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical.

There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf).

It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.

> Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes.

I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.

> Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued.

No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi...

> It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.

Even taking that as an assumption, it is still perfectly ethical to encourage privileged source to leak information about crimes or other information whose publication is of significant public interest.

To be very clear, I entirely agree that it is perfectly ethical for an investigative journalist to encourage a source to whistleblow crimes or information in the public interest.

I also believe that Assange went above and beyond "encouraging" to participating in, and committing of his own accord, crimes intended to either cover tracks or that gained unauthorized access to further information (whose criminality nor public interest was not known).

Cracking or attempting to crack passwords of uninvolved third parties in order to get access to or coverup your unauthorized access to information is unethical at least, illegal at worst, no more than it would be for me to clone your ID card to gain access to your employer.

> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".

We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).

> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up.

1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning.

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made.

And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".

No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave.

Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.

> Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.

Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes".

Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?

> Is there some inherent human right against persecution?

"Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances.

> Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?

1. Assange was not charged with any crimes.

2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.

Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.

> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy

That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further.

> Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.

> Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials? This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.

I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading:

> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.

Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?

There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.

But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:

"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"

is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.

Yes this shows maliciousness, because in normal circumstances when you are sick you spontaneously propose a reschedule.

It was never stated, shown nor implied that no rescheduling was ever offered, attempted, or took place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com