The Assange case is collapsing but it remains a travesty of justice | Hacker News Reader

The Assange case is collapsing but it remains a travesty of justice

tribunemag.co.uk

444 pointsthinkingemote324 comments

The point isn't really to have a believable case.

The point is to use legal system to ruin one person to scare any people from running similar actions against US government.

US is loosing more and more of its standing when it comes to "spreading" democracy. You can't go and try to preach democratic values to, say, Belarus, and then do exactly the same in your own country.

Principles aren't really principles if they are being tossed aside when they become uncomfortable.

Given the thousands of US Mil installations all across the globe, foreign intervention and police actions, geopolitical intrigue, etc it is unfortunately looking more and more like a Pax Romana -- a troubling sign, depending on your perspective.

Yes even going back to Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt rewrote his drafts of his speech to obscure the fact that the Philippines, a major site of the attack, was also a US colony.

"How to Hide an Empire", Daniel Immerwahr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaKOOqXDnqA

Interesting, thanks.

I just read this post on Popehat[0] recounting an event while Ken White was working for an LA federal judge back in the day. He was brought to a ceremony conducted by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew where numerous, VERY elderly Filipino WW2 veterans were granted US Citizenship. This was promised to them in addition to veteran's benefits by FDR in exchange for recruitment into the war effort, and after the war quietly swept under the rug by the congress.

[0] - https://www.popehat.com/2020/07/04/the-fourth-of-july-rerun/

I was really surprised to find out, as an american, standing with feet on the ground in Manila, near age 30, having grown up in the US and gone to public schools, that the Philippines had been a US Territory off and on, on par with Puerto Rico, for about 50 years starting around 1898. There's even a big obelisk in the center of Union Square in San Francisco commemorating this event, it turns out.

None of this was ever covered in public schools. I realize there's a lot of history to cover and kids can only absorb so much, but when people talk about "only focusing on europe and the middle east" it's good to have a couple of concrete examples. The Philippines actually has a larger english speaking population than the UK. Anyways, it always seemed that the Philippines got conveniently swept under the rug when discussing things like WW2 and American Imperialism.

Yes certainly. I recently started listening to the audiobook A Peoples History of the United States and there is a LOT of history we don't cover. Right now I am listening to a talk by Noam Chomsky about inequality and it's remarkable that the top % of the wealthy that have control over the country also do not go to public schools. It's as if we have a second school system for the subservient class.

Why do you think they are cancelling AP classes in San Francisco and California under the guise of social justice? It's to further weaken the underclass since the rich don't even go to public school.

Having gone to high school in California, we never covered Mexican-american or Spanish-american wars, civil war focused almost exclusively on slavery. 90% of WW2 was about Japanese internment or how racist nuking Japan was. History of Communism was never mentioned for obvious reasons.

> Why do you think they are cancelling AP classes in San Francisco and California under the guise of social justice?

Can you document this? I'm a southern California resident, and I keep hearing stuff like this from people online, but I know no local examples of this at all.

https://edsource.org/2021/california-math-guidance-sparks-ne...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/why-univer...

I read the first link and some supporting links like “a pathway to equitable math instruction”:

https://equitablemath.org/

This is…. Reprehensible

In what way?

As sibling wrote very well:

“ Equal opportunity is a universal value that everyone can agree to strive for.

Equalized outcomes is a dystopian nightmare (equity).”

Quite dystopian.

Equal opportunity is a universal value that everyone can agree to strive for.

Equalized outcomes is a dystopian nightmare (equity).

The move to blur the lines between these two concepts is disturbing.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/01/24/42658513/seattle...

Public schools in some districts are terrible. If you can afford to send your children to private school, that’s an easier option than changing the entire public school system in your district (unless you’re Bill Gates).

Both you and the person you are replying to are correct. I don't know if you were trying to refute their claim.

Gates sent his kids to local private schools.

And went on to try to change the education system?

Of course it goes without saying that even the public schools in Medina, WA (home of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos) are some of the best in the nation.

The public schools (at least in Washington State) are run by the teachers' union, which is the most powerful political entity in the state.

The teacher's union does not dictate the curriculum.

Typically the state legislatures dictate what is in the curriculum broadly, sometimes extra specifically, and the administrators and teachers create their lessons to satisfy the legislation.

How does the teacher's union suppress subject matters in the history department?

> the state legislatures dictate

It's very hard to get elected in this state without a teachers' union endorsement.

It doesn't follow that they suppress Filipino colonization, is there some example of teachers union demanding of legislators that they pass laws like that?

It's also hard to get elected without people voting for you, or funding for political campaigns.

The Army ran out of Native Americans to massacre, so they arranged another indigenous group to terrorize for the next several decades. (It really was the same racist officers doing the same racist shit.) Some Filipinos had thought USA military would join them in overthrowing Spanish tyranny, but they soon discovered the actual intent was to replace Spain. Decent Americans like Mark Twain were horrified, but the war media was full of lies about subhuman savages who needed American government so most Americans had no idea. Plus ça change...

In this context should point to the War Prayer https://warprayer.org/ which Twain probably wrote in response to the Spanish-American war.

Hmm, don’t know what school you went to, but in my American public school they certainly covered the Spanish-American war, and the consequent status of the Philippines. Spanish colony, turned over to the U.S., taken over by Japan, independant after WWII ended.

An excellent source for USA/Philippine history, and other history is Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts. This one in particular for that topic: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-49-the-am...

But all his podcasts are phenomenal

> Given the thousands of US Mil installations all across the globe

There are only 750-800 US military installations around the world. Most of these are small. This number has been reduced by about 1000 since the peak in the 1980s (cold war era). The majority of large installations are in the US.

"only" is an interesting choice of word. Which other countries have comparably sized deployments (with numbers)?

>Which other countries have comparably sized deployments (with numbers)

"only" was used because the op said "thousands".

Well, that we know of. It's not that unlikely that there are a few hundred more that we don't know about.

We know - they're on strava

This Wikipedia article claims “ there are "around" 5,000 bases total, with "around" 600 of them overseas”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...

>This Wikipedia article claims “ there are "around" 5,000 bases total

There are 326 bases in the US. https://militarybase.net/u-s-military-bases/ (see the CSV list at the bottom). The US has a total of 50 states and 6 protectorates (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc...). There's no where near 80 bases per state unless you count National Guard Armories (parking lots with a gym in most cases) and recruiting offices. The US has a big military, yes, but not that big.

I did not say military bases, I said installations, which I understand to mean permanent, semi-permanent, or maintained presences of materiel or infrastructure supporting military or reconnaissance.

In retrospect, you are a bit right here. Pardon the bike shedding, but maybe that is not a precise definition due to the vagaries of what "military", "base" and "installation" means. Does room 641a count? I'm not sure. The US Military has its own very special definition, but the general public would know its own.

Under this expanded rubric, National Guard, Coast Guard and Reservist armories would definitely count, CIA black sites[0] would certainly qualify as well (and they are not in your list to be sure), in addition to listening posts, air fields, possibly also foreign naval supply points if they meet some of those continually manned criteria (and hell, why not? Its in the spirit of this thing, we'll just consider them 3/5ths an installation for the purposes of statistics), some forward operating bases if they are continually manned and resupplied for, lets just hand-wave 11 months. Also, private contractors are definitely in this if they have their own separate facilities and especially if they conduct military operations such as "security forces" in Iraq. Now that I'm thinking about it, air craft carriers should be included as well if they are on deployment ... I know, I know, thats pretty rare.

But you are right if you point out that this isn't a precise measure, that it changes continually, and that I don't actually know how many there are--it could easily be tens of thousands! Just scale the definition until it feels most comfortable for you.

That is the real point, anyhow.

[0] - https://prisonphotography.org/2010/03/30/extraordinary-rendi...

It's amazing to me that you prefaced "750-800" with "only".

Again, that is because the op used thousands.

Indeed the whole point of principles is that you keep them when it isn't to your immediate benefit.

That's why "Corporate Values" are so empty. They get tossed as soon as they conflict with the profit motive. Google's "don't be evil" being the classic example.

It is a universal law, known and understood subconsciously in many different ways.

Here in Poland we have a saying "you get to know a real friend in bad (times)" (Prawdziwego przyjaciela poznaje się w biedzie).

When you feel the values or friendship will not stand the test you will not invest yourself in it and it becomes empty words.

Just as democratic values that are set aside when it doesn't exactly align with profit or power goals.

People will not stand for something they believe to just be empty words and that's why things like Assange case are so damaging to democracy.

Chinese has the same saying as "you get to know a real friend in bad (times)" "患难见真情"

It's interesting when something almost identical appear in different cultures.

And in the US "a friend in need is a friend indeed".

And the UK also, although I think you need commas to make the meaning clear:

A friend, in need, is a friend indeed.

Also the english term "fair-weather friend" for friends who aren't around when times are difficult.

Italian too, "gli amici si vedono nel momento del bisogno" - you see real friends in the hour of need.

French (at least in France): "c'est dans le besoin que l'on reconnaît ses amis" (nearest well-known English saying: 'A friend in need is a friend indeed').

I spent time thinking about this.

I think this is the closest to "absolute moral truths". People discover these because these are not some arbitrary rules, the are actually absolute, universal laws.

People understand subconsciously, for example, than a person that does good for no reason expresses higher form of being good that a person that does good in exchange for some kind of benefit.

It doesn't mean that mutually beneficial relations are not good, the society is basically built on spoken or unspoken contracts.

But we understand that a person that does good altruistically, not expecting any benefit for it, is much more likely to be trustworthy in all situation. And a person that does good expecting benefits may (not must, just may) turn on you when they stop seeing benefits.

And I think the same goes for countries.

When we see US performing their foreign relations game but only ever putting their weight when we can later find they were expecting some kind of benefit, and almost never for countries that have nothing to offer, it becomes transparent to us that US is basically much less likely to be trustworthy than if it did its actions based on principles.

In Germany we have the same saying.

> Einen guten Freund erkennt man in der Not (A good friend is recognized in times of need).

Edit: Formatting

>The point is to use legal system to ruin one person to scare any people from running similar actions against US government.

Source please?

Would you like me to find a link where US Government officially admits to pressuring foreign countries and abusing justice system to prevent people from publishing materials showing US Government wrongdoing?

Unlikely but that doesn't make your claim true.

Tangentially- what do you think about whistleblower protections where you are protected by law for reporting govt wrongdoing?

They are as good as separation between judicial and executive branches.

When your judicial branch does what executive wants then there is no protection

Those are all fine and good when you're an employee. When you're not affiliated directly with the United States at all, and we're a means to an end though is where the consternation comes in, and where the U.S. really gave themselves a black eye with Assange.

I was getting at the fact that these two things don't square. The US govt provides whistle blower protection but the parent also claims the US abuses the justice system to:

>prevent people from publishing materials showing US Government wrongdoing?

So the US govt provides whistle blower protections but it is also abusing the justice dept? The govt publishes materials all the time that makes it look bad:

https://www.gao.gov/

Whistleblower protections, where they exist, a) don't guarantee that they are applied fairly, b) tend to come with all kinds of "did you do the proper process" restrictions and c) apply to specific groups of people (i.e. people speaking about things they legitimately become aware of due to their work). It very easily squares that whistleblower protections exist and at the same time they want to limit their use and come down hard on anyone falling outside of them. (Some details on how it works in US national security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_th... note fun parts like "needs to escalate internally" while at the same time "internal retaliation isn't forbidden and can't be sued against")

People like Assange aren't whistleblowers, so those protections don't apply to them.

I didn't say Assange could take advantage of whistle blower protections. Just that it's weird that the govt provides whistle blower protections at the same time that it "abuses the justice system to stop the publication of embarrassing information"

The US Govt publishes embarrassing information almost daily. The issue is more complicated than this forum leads on but its clear to me which side of the issue you all fall on judging by all my downvotes.

Then ignore that line, the rest is nevertheless relevant.

Every link pointing to the story of any USA whistleblower

Nope.

here is an article in German with Nils Melzer, who was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, and who was fired for his assessment of the confinement of Assange as torture. He is also stating that the whole case is about setting a deterring example. (also posted this link here, in another thread)

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wochenende/interview-un-sond...

https://www.prisonerresource.com/prison-reform/the-purpose-o...

As per the article, prison has three functions: punish, deter, and reform the prisoner. In regards to the deter function: any attempt to imprison a person can be viewed as an attempt to "ruin them" (through loss of freedom and through the scarlet letter of a felony conviction) in order to "scare... people from running similar actions."

The question in this case is: why is the U.S. trying so hard to extradite Assange? If it is because they don't want a repeat of wikileaks, then the grandparent statement is very reasonable. And I suppose another reference would be the U.S. relationship with whistleblowers. I don't have the energy to do the research myself, but I too have heard they come down on whistleblowers like a ton of bricks. But maybe someone else can supply that reference.

If Assange is found guilty on most charges, it will effectively work as case law banning the publication of classified documents. The indictment alone shows this is part of their goal.

> US is loosing more and more of its standing when it comes to "spreading" democracy. You can't go and try to preach democratic values to, say, Belarus, and then do exactly the same in your own country.

Is there any indication that stuff like this happens _more_ than in the past? Or have the world's standards just risen?

Or access to information increased?

Or I’ve gotten older and more sour on this type of stuff?

Honestly I feel like the change has been, for me, more awareness and less attachement to the narrative forced down my throat. I also don’t believe it to be (as a native US citizen) a US thing. I see it in a huge swing in many countries towards authoritarianism in many ways and towards many goals. It isn’t so much a left or right thing (although I believe it to be more right leaning) but just a greater willingness to use power structures to control others.

> Is there any indication that stuff like this happens _more_ than in the past? Or have the world's standards just risen?

Oh, so it is fine to sin against democracy as long as you are not sinning more than in the past?

It doesn't matter if it is happening more or less. The goal is to always be improving.

Values is about what you believe in and strive for, and when you don't reach the standards you set for yourself, you figure out why, and adjust to be inline with your beliefs and goals.

> It doesn't matter if it is happening more or less. The goal is to always be improving.

I'm not sure what you think "mattering" means, but I was responding to a comment that said "the US is loosing[sic] more and more of its standing". I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the relative decline of the US's reputation shouldn't be talked about, but it's pretty bizarre behavior to insert yourself into a conversation about it and assert so.

> It doesn't matter if it is happening more or less. The goal is to always be improving.

These two statements seem to be at odds. In order to know if we're improving, we have to know if the behavior is becoming more frequent or less.

That's a good point. I meant that we don't want to only look at the past and compare if we are better or worse, but rather focus on always improving.

Neither. The concept of "spreading democracy" has always been propaganda, and the US has not faced harsher standards.

I mean ok, but the parent commenter's claim is that the US is _losing_ standing as a spreader of democracy. This is the premise of my question, and I'm not really interested in a random third-party's view that the premise is wrong, especially when it's as trite a view as this one.

You are asking if people think the propaganda has become less true. It's a nonsense question, as if people ever think the US is/was spreading democracy the propaganda has worked.

The US brought democracy to Germany and Japan after WW2.

Germany was a republic with a constitution and elected leaders after 1918.

Kaiser Wilhelm II took power after Bismark, and abdicated at the end of the first war. Wilhelm died in 1941.

Bismarck unified Germany in the latter 1800's as a constitutional federation with suffrage and elected legislatures, I don't know the fine details except it was some form of confederation and is considered a constitutional monarchy with elected legislature.

Germany had 12 years of dictatorship from 1933 to 1945.

And most elements of the regime, excluding a few people at the very top, remained in place after 1945. Like the judiciary, municipal authorities, government bureaucracies etc. - and of course the large company owners.

For a guy who can cite names and dates you show very weak understanding of history.

Technically both Belarus and Russia area also democratic countries. Both countries have this written in their constitutions.

That is true and one of the few successful examples. I wonder if the cold war played a role here, there was an honest ambition not to let Germany fall to the communits.

The US propped up a war criminal in Japan ensuring fifty years of one party rule.

It is often worse than just hypocrisy. If the US hasn’t hand picked a foreign regime and someone wins the democratic election which the US doesn’t agree with the US can just label them a terrorist organization if it is deemed politically necessary.

I am no fan of the Taliban or Hammas - and US probably correctly labeled them terrorist organizations - but it must also be acknowledge they are also “political parties” that have won democratic elections.

... but that would mean acknowledging the non-dichotomy between states and terrorist organizations. States carry out the most terror, but they (mostly) get a free pass. The US (and many other world states) would not want to undermine this situation and make their own actions legitimate targets of the question: "Is this a form of terror?".

"... The point is to use legal system to ruin one person to scare any people from running similar actions ..."

+100

There’s a large (the vast majority), who think what is happening to Assange is a travesty.

Many of those same people don’t do anything about it. They still vote the same exact way they have for 15-20 years, they don’t get active and write anyone, etc.

The real travesty about Assange is that he’s not even a US citizen. He tried to reach out to the state department to redact sections and they refused to respond. Then they go after him for publishing what some other person leaked. Not only that, but the leaker had a publicly funded transition and a short prison sentence. Assange is charged and has endured much worse.

My principles (and many others) still stand. But our “deep state” doesn’t represent the majority.

> There’s a large (the vast majority), who think what is happening to Assange is a travesty.

Not sure that's true, go to reddit for example, and you'll see the majority are already brainwashed into thinking Assange is a Russian asset. US mainstream media is working on it overtime.

And Reddit is usually on the more "enlightened" end on such topics, at least used to be.

Ask some random person on the street about Assange and the best they can come up with is probably something about fleeing from the Swedish police for rape, something Russian agent, maybe something about how he treats his cat horribly or doesn't clean his toilet properly.

The Five Eyed propaganda machine [0] was very effective in smearing him, and even Snowden, among the general public in these past years.

[0] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

I’ve watched Reddit devolve into mostly bots with shills these days...

First they banned many communities and users who was right leaning or even moderate in the past two years.

Then you just have an echo chamber plus propaganda and bots are everywhere.

Finally, Reddit is the whole world, not the US. Many of the US specific boards were more right leaning and have been banned.

"Right leaning", really? Or far-right extremists who conspire to support or defend attempts of coup d'état?

most were already banned at this point

The Viking really seems to have caused some traumata.

If that is your excuse to compromise on freedom of expression, than you don't support it in the first place. Just be honest with it then.

Have you completely forgotten 2020? After a year in which forcefully occupying government buildings was regarded as legitimate protest; a year with over 500 riots, for which arrested rioters were generally not prosecuted; Democrats have no credibility when they complain about the right occupying one government building.

What you've done there is pure partisanship: defining "the other side" by the worst among them while ignoring the behavior of the worst among your own side.

Reddit is definitely not the whole world. It's heavily dominated by people from the US and western europe, and heavily biased towards the the mainstream western propaganda narrative. Reddit is an active target for propagandists (i.e. intelligence communities). Votes and recommendations for news articles are not at all based purely on interest and activity, it's being pushed by actors with various agendas.

> They still vote the same exact way they have for 15-20 years, they don’t get active and write anyone, etc.

It seems impossible to fix this (or even improve the situation) with voting. Both parties seem to be in agreement on how they would treat Assange. They only differ on unrelated hot button issues.

Yes, I think that non-profits like Amnesty International or Electronic Frontier Foundation is the answer on what to do here.

How can you vote differently when you always get two nearly identical candidates and the system has been engineered from the late 1800s to only accept two parties (the last real third party being parts of the populist movement)?

To be frank, I think we have a one party state with a global military dictatorship.

Not an American,but born and raised in Germany. For about 20 years now, I have gotten used to a motto (see below).

I had this motto in mind after I once witnessed how political decisions were made within one of the youth organizations of one of the two mainstream parties here in Germany and was disgusted by it.

> The parliament is the theater, which is performed, so that the citizen believes to live in a democracy. While the actual power is exercised elsewhere.

I agree, so do many Americans.

That’s what elected trump btw... a populist movement effectively trying to take over the Republican Party.

In my opinion, it’s also why the corporate media then attacked him (who btw I think is an idiot and don’t support)

I think it becomes more and more obvious by the day you’re correct. I honestly didn’t see it this way until some of the stuff in 2021.

Case in point So... 12 / 18 people in the michigan plot to capture the governor and stormed the court house were feds (FBI agents or informants directed by FBI).

From the buzzfeed news article...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-k...

> Panic rising, Dan slipped away from the group for a moment and spoke into the recording device he was carrying, which he knew was being monitored live by his FBI handlers. The Watchmen, he said, were preparing to breach the Capitol. The agents couldn’t speak back to him, but he hoped they could at least warn the police about what was coming.

> Then something surprising happened. The Michigan State Police stood down and let the protesters — including those in full tactical gear — enter the building unopposed. They could even bring their guns, so long as they submitted to a temperature check for COVID-19.

Media goes wild and blames Trump few weeks pre-election. In reality, the documents filed in court make it look like the fbi entrapped people (remains to be seen in court).

Well, you could do one of (at least) one of two things:

1. Be active in campaigns to boycott the vote. This can be presented both as a permanent stance against the regime in the US, or against the two-party duopoly; but it can also be presented as "I am withholding my vote from party X because it currently has unacceptable positions on issue Y - and I would like them to be punished by losing elections and know that they lost because of Y". If your choice is the deeper/more permanent one, you would likely to try invest effort in non-party organizational forms such as local popular committees, labor unions, protest movements etc.

2. You could join and support one of the existing third parties. Currently, the most viable seem to be: The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the recent initiative of the People's Party. The last one is new and is of particular interest, as the other two have been beset by internal trouble for many years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_a_People%27s_Part...

Yeah justice is kinda meaningless when you've been locked up for 10 years.

Don't fuck with America she doesn't forget and never forgives.

I'm not really sure how to feel about this sort of criticism because you could apply it to basically any court case. The goal for any defendant/prosecutor isn't to have a believable case it's to have a legally sufficient one.

I'm genuinely curious: what does US democracy have to do with Assange?

Like I'm deeply sympathetic to what has happened to Assange. But I don't see how it has anything to do with democracy, given that he's not a US citizen, and US law rarely applies to non-US citizens outside of US borders.

A functional legal system is one of the qualifier for being a democracy. Without a working legal system you can't have a functional society. Without society you can't have a democracy.

When a nations legal system is manufacturing false evidence, the target of that become irrelevant. A legal system can't manufacturing false evidence, against anyone, and still be trusted.

> A functional legal system is one of the qualifier for being a democracy.

While it is true (that you need a functioning legal system), it is also worth mentioning that a lot of regimes have excellently efficient legal systems and judicial branch that put any democratic system to shame.

The issue is what regulations you put in, how independent the judicial branch is and whether it is corrupt or not.

My theory is that the progressive loss of the US' soft power is fueling the growth of emerging internal extremist groups.

This topic being another shard of the US' soft-power armour lost.

The more it appears that the US reached and maintains it's global superpower status with force, coercion, underhanded tactics, and other abhorrent behaviors that contravene the Geneva Convention (which are handily side-stepped by conducting these behaviors in countries that don't adhere to such laws), it only works to justify extremists groups to use whatever means they consider necessary to achieve their own manifest destiny.

In that context, almost anything becomes justified - which is nightmare fuel for the moderate middle majority.

> In that context, almost anything becomes justified - which is nightmare fuel for the moderate middle majority.

So, if they are a majority, why don't their values dominate?

They do dominate, quietly. Because:

1: Moderate doesn't sell eyeballs and clicks, so extremism gets the attention, which is what it wants because it will attract more of the "curious disillusioned" for potential indoctrination

2: Until unknown critical mass of perceived-threat-paranoia, there's no need to publicise / protest / soapbox one's moderate-ness because it can be relatively assumed. ie. I don't need to explain that I'm not one of those nutjobs.

If you're asking "why don't their values dominate" on a foreign policy level, well, I'm unqualified to answer that, except to say that realpolitik is far removed from most citizens' day to day lives (the conundrum semi-explored by A Few Good Men seems appropriate to mention here).

The turning point regarding the US' stance on democracy and human rights has been, IMO, GW Bush's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court.

There we were, in a world where USSR had collapsed, China not risen yet, with a USA as the uncontested dominant power. It has the unique chance in history to steer the world in one direction or the other.

Building international legal standards, multi-lateral cooperation, ensuring that whoever had the most power at one point would be limited by the world community, was something within US reach, and was a realistic hope. As a bonus, the first thing the community would work on would be tackling the climate change, as it was an obvious field where every country of planet earth had a common interest.

Instead, because of a few hundred "miscounted" votes in Florida, the US president was a zealous anti-intellectual evangelist, who decided that US interests trumps human rights, that denying climate change was a respectable political stance, and instead of spending a mountain of dollars on research, energy transition, diseases eradication, social net improvements, he spent it on invading 2 countries despite experts warning that it would not solve any problem.

> International Criminal Court

Really?

Do you really think any international body would hold Saudi Arabia, China to account?

He who holds the purse, makes the rules. And they hold a pretty big purse.

Eventually, yes, of course. The America will just benefit again being a leader.

The EU + USA together hold a much bigger purse so...

No. The point was to draw a line between the countries who respect humans rights and are willing to be judged and punished when they don't and the countries that did not.

Of course China and KSA would never join. And that would give other countries a clear and objective criterion to apply sanctions and international pressure.

Instead, judging what sanction a country deserves is an arbitrary exercise of executive power.

North Korea, China, KSA, are easy cases, but what do you know of Moldova? Of Hungary? Of Malaysia? Knowing that a country is held to some international standards judged independently would be a huge progress for human rights globally.

There is no such thing as countries spreading democracy and I am not aware of any country that has ever went to war to spread democracy. The only time the US attempted to "spread democracy" is when their influence over a foreign country was being challenged by anti-imperialist entities. At this point they invade to make sure the country transitions to a democracy, which when it comes to a poor country with little international clout, democracy amounts to it being very susceptible to foreign interference. And of course the US also invades actual democracies when they elect anti-imperialists that challenge US interests in the region.

You spread democracy by showing it is better system.

A lot of countries that converted to democracy did this because their populations looked up to US and wanted to have better lief.

You also put pressure on other countries when they claim are democratic but fail to do this in practice (which is the case of Belarus or Poland where I live).

US does this actively and frequently in many forms, by voicing "concerns" or putting embargoes on countries that break their own rules.

Obviously, that pressure is much less effective when you do same things you try to pressure other countries to not do.

I am not sure it is always a better system in all situations. Democracies are very easily corrupted by foreign influence. This is one of the reasons rich western countries love to "export democracy". One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism. In that situation it is not even clear you can have a functioning democracy, and then the choice is between a puppet of foreign interests or a strongman.

There exists no system that is best in all situations.

Case in point, a system that does not care about rights of their inhabitants is usually much more effective at running large scale projects. For example, China just deciding to shut down everybody in their houses in Wuhan and shoot if you don't comply. And just like that they got their pandemic under control.

> One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism

No, they rise because they can.

And not just in third world countries. Germany was definitely not a third world country when it allowed Hitler to rise and start a global war. What about Putin?

We see these guys mostly in third world countries now mainly because without democracy it is difficult to keep up with democracies without some special situation (like Saudi Arabia being gifted with huge oil reserves).

In non-democracies normal people have trouble preserving their wealth over long periods of time. You need to be "in favours" of the ruling entity to be wealthy and the wealth vanishes if you fall out of it.

Democracies are on the other hand, by definition, people ruling themselves, and this should in theory mean a lot of focus is on personal security and freedom. This should mean it is safer to conduct business over long periods of time, accumulate wealth and generally contribute to GDP.

Go visit Japan, South Korea, Germany.

I am the first one to be vocal of US imperialism, but you can't deny that it is US influence that caused several modern countries to be democratic.

But my point is their intention is to exploit the weakness of the democracy they enforce on the target country. And that is assuming this is a situation where they are exporting democracy. There are also the opposite situations where they declare democratic outcomes invalid because they don't bow down to US interests. They happily support dictators in that case.

People really over sell the spread of democracy in these places. By US design, Japan was a one party state until after the Cold War, with ~six years of opposition party rule total. Similar happened in South Korea, who considers it's first free election in ~2000, and even then one of their few elections saw intelligence agencies ensure the win of their former dictator's daughter. And Germany had a history of democracy without US influence.

Coming out of the 1st and then 2nd World wars the US seemed to be the voice of reason and alongside Britain (and possibly France) had a strong desire to make the world a better place and not repeat the mistakes of the past - which were all around to see.

But I feel after the 1960's the US has slowly lost that ideal, and the visionary leaders (Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt or Eisenhower) are no longer anywhere to be found (whether the electorate don't tolerate or desire them I'm not sure).

I think you've got an overly rosy view of pre-1960's history. Post WWI saw all three of those powers continue their colonialist land grabs, and post WWII saw all three commit many atrocities in the effort to check Russian advances.

Both the Japanese and Korean antidemocratic moves took place in that pre 1960 era for example.

There's no way a Democrat president would make US personnel subject to an international court either. If there ever were any prosecutions it would cause a political meltdown. Unilateralism and exceptionalism run deep in the US.

Bill Clinton signed the treaty that made the US join the ICC. GWB withdrew that signature.

People have been used to so many cynicism that they have forgotten that countries doing the good thing is a possibility.

I see how you can think GW's withdrawal was a turning point, but honestly it was a drop in the bucket. I've spent a long time trying to trace the origins of the current policy, and I mostly lay it at Woodrow Wilsons feet (and his handlers). Handlers being a key word. Do you not think Bush had them? The real power players in DC exist through multiple presidencies. This idea of POTUS being king-like (and therefor X is POTUS fault) is so unrealistic and a very sophmoric analysis of the real power dynamics at that level.

ps. What most people mean when they say "democracy" is "IMF conditionalities", et similar.

> and was a realistic hope

It never was. If we want to talk about the powerful being held to account by the international community, realise that at some point that means canvassing the idea of invading China/India/the United States/Europe when they get out of line. That isn't an option. That would potentially reduce big chunks of the world to sand and anything less can't constrain the powerful. WWII alone levelled an entire continent, and that was with primitive weaponry compared to what is available now.

Trade sanctions aren't effective at changing behaviour and it isn't obvious if they would do more good or more harm if deployed against a superpower. Note that most superpowers' economic problems were due to internal not external policy.

Trade sanction ARE effective and are arguably much more effective than military operations at changing a country's behavior. The main negotiation leverage in talks with Donbass forces or Iran government is the suspension or extension of sanctions. It made Iraq and Libya abandon their WMD programs. Iraq's invasion, on the other hand justified North Korea in not abandoning theirs.

> US is loosing more and more of its standing when it comes to "spreading" democracy.

The US was only ever seen as a spreader of democracy in contrast to the Soviet Union/Fascist Europe/European Empires. And it was, but no one knowledgable of the US thought it was an unmitigated assessment! You can definitely compare the US favorably to China in regards to democracy and freedom but no one should be fooled that we don't have perpetual work to make a more perfect union.

There is nothing out of line here. Democracy is not "morality" - it's purely a means by which the majority enforces its decisions onto the minority. In fact democracy is one of the "best" ways for achieving "group irresponsibility" and allows us to do atrocious things with no-one in particular to blame afterwards.

Democracy's list of atrocities is still very small compared to any other form of governance.

Depending on how low you put your bar for what passes for "democracy", I would very much disagree. Countries like Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea etc all had/have elections. Of course, you can argue that this does not qualify for a democracy, but then one can argue that neither did the "bad" monarchies in history qualify for proper "monarchies".

To me democracy is also the failed form of it, you cannot just pretend that democracy is that part which you like. And also, you have to consider what better things it prevents us from having. Also, you cannot compare things out of their historical context. Of course democracy is not very bad when we have food and iphones, but you don't have to look very far (North Korea, Venezuela, Africa - you will be surprised how "good" democracy some of these countries have, yet they do not prosper) to see what happens when we don't have them.

One good book on the topic is "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It goes into massive amount of details and is not a pleasant read. Still, probably the best book in existence, for someone to understand what is wrong with our world.

If you argue North Korea to be a democracy, that is a whole different vocabulary, not changing any bar. In that case you are correct I guess.

On the contrary I think Hoppes criticism falls apart at empirical evidence like the cases you mentioned and his ideas of freedom will inevitably result in feudalism, not even a monarchy because the ruler would lack legitimacy and would face constant challenges. Monarchs as government can only exist if constituents can live completely removed from state influence. But that isn't possible in the world of today.

Elections != democracy. In particular, elections where only one party can run do not make a democracy. Elections where only one party can campaign do not make a democracy. And elections where only one party can win (because of who counts the votes) do not make a democracy.

"Having an election" does not make it a democracy. The people choose who rules makes it a democracy.

Yeah, it's much better when one party pretends to be 2 parties and practically nothing changes regardless if you choose one or the other. I am sure people in the US choose who rules - that's a REAL democracy.

German press stays silent on this, again. Even magazines known for investigative stories just don't mention Assange in the context of the recent developments ([1], [2], [3]). This is so frustrating.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Asp...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Aze...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ata...

> German press stays silent on this, again

It’s not pertinent. The journalistic draw of a years-old case and judicial mechanics. Everyone has a pet agenda that seems irresponsibly ignored by the media and the public. Procedural developments are rarely big news.

Just focusing on Assange alone, it's not pertinent, sure. But Assange (and wikileaks, and anything behind it) in this (my?) frame of reference is not an individual, but serves as a pars pro toto for the freedom of press and the judicial system as a whole.

To me, the coverage he gets in the far-reaching magazines is a little bit underrepresented, to stay polite. This includes U.S. press, UK press and german press.

They thought Navalny's 45th birthday was news.

They'd probably have thought a key witness who turned out to be a liar and a rapist of underage boys who was given immunity was a little bit newsworthy if it happened during the trial to, say, lock Navalny up.

Just not when it's Assange, I suppose.

Sometimes media outlets have an agenda.

> Sometimes media outlets have an agenda.

No. They always have an agenda. And that agenda, overwhelmingly, is pro status quo. Not left, not right, not up or down. Just "things are basically OK except for a few problems here and there which we'll tell you about, though not in much depth".

Looking at the media, it's hard to agree with your claim that it's pro status quo. See any incendiary topic where the media can take opposing sides. Surely two diametrically opposed opinions can't be status quo biased.

Chomsky once said that the way to keep a population passive and obedient was to place strict limits on the range of acceptable debate but encourage very lively debate within that range.

The world's most powerful country that constantly trumpets freedom and free speech, and regularly trashes China and other places for lack of press freedoms locks up a journalist for exposing US corruption.

This is hugely important and not a pet agenda.

DW was the most mainstream coverage I saw: https://www.dw.com/de/hoffnungsschimmer-f%C3%BCr-julian-assa...

Yes, DW is among the few who mostly report fairly. On the other hand, DW in germany is almost non-existent for ~95% of the populace.

I still don't really get what the point of DW is. German news for non-german speakers? But they also have German-language content?

German-perspective news for an international audience (including Germans living elsewhere) about international topics in a large number of languages. Or, to quote the law creating it, its programs

> [...] should provide a forum for German and other perspectives on important topics, predominantly in politics, culture and economy, both in Europe and in other continents, with the aim to foster understanding and exchange between cultures and people. While doing so, it especially supports the German language. (my off-the-cuff translation, but should capture the gist of it I hope)

I've been disappointed with DW for a long time. One of their ostensible goals is to promote the German language (see the Deutsche Welle Act, which governs it). Finding a live stream in German on their site is near impossible. I expect it's due to agreements with US cable companies, but I haven't been able to confirm that. I can't think of another reason for them to display "Es gab ein Problem Zugang zu dem geschützten Inhalt herzustellen" whenever I attempt to view live German content. Fortunately, some of it is available on YouTube.

For future reference, I did confirm from a support person that live streams are not offered in the US "due to legal reasons". You can only receive it through select cable, satellite, and other operators. Sad.

It's the German state broadcasting agency producing content in many languages for Germans abroad and an international audience. For anti-propaganda reasons they are not allowed to broadcast in Germany. This is in contrast with the German public broadcasting agencies which have a compulsory fee, but are not directly paid by the state. DW have some really good and interesting reporting off the mainstream but should be consumed with care as they are effectively controlled by the German state. Recently they are set to become a sort of counter to Russia Today meant to counter fake news. A friend of mine works at DW and frequently rants about higher-ups revising or canceling reporting because it doesn't fit the desired angle.

Not that surprising. The German mainstream news landscape is dominated by transatlantic interests.

Pretty much all German politicians, and journalists, of "relevance" are members in some pro-US NGO [0] or another, often even several of them.

Der Spiegel used to be one of thew few wider reaching left-leaning exceptions, they even published Snowden's first interview internationally back in 2013.

But over the years they went trough a slow transformation; They've become noticeably less critical of the US, completely ignoring any further developments around Snowden or Assagne, while ramping up on anti-Russian news.

Why is nobody there reaching out to people like Nils Melzer, as Swiss Republik.ch did? [1]

If Der Spiegel would have published something like that, it would have reached a far wider audience, could maybe even made some actual waves.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Br%C3%BCcke

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

The Berliner Zeitung has had an interesting interview with Nils Melzer, who was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, and who was fired for his assessment of the confinement of Assange as torture. He is also stating that the whole case is about setting a deterring example.

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wochenende/interview-un-sond...

also see this coverage:

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/julian-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Melzer#Assessment_on_the_...

Interesting that the BZ used to be a little bit more liberal than the mainstream press, even back when it was published in East Germany under Socialism ;-)

Do you have a source for him being fired? Wikipedia doesn't mention Melzer being fired and Google searches for him being fired don't produce any hits.

quote from the linked interview (my translation followed by the original)

Q: Your job was to reveal cases of torture and mistreatment by states. Do governments exert a lot of pressure?

A: I have been always in respect of all of the regulations, and I have to admit that I could always proceed freely with my work. However one is risking his carreer, if one is stepping to much on the feet of the permanent members of the UN security council. I was told informally, that I would have to pay a political price, but I am accepting this (reality).

Original:

Ihre Aufgabe ist das Aufdecken von Folterungen und Misshandlungen durch Staaten. Gibt es da nicht viel Druck von den Regierungen?

Ich habe immer darauf geachtet, dass ich nach den Vorschriften handle. Und ich kann sagen, dass ich meine Arbeit wirklich frei machen konnte. Allerdings riskiert man schon seine Karriere, wenn man den permanenten Mitgliedern des UN-Sicherheitsrats allzu sehr auf die Füße steigt. Man hat mir informell mitgeteilt, dass ich einen politischen Preis zu bezahlen haben werde. Aber das nehme ich in Kauf.

That doesn't say he got fired. But why let facts get in the way of a good story.

There are several ways to get fired, in my book this qualifies as one of them. In addition to that he had his funding slashed by various governments, in addition to having received these 'hints',

The Guardian (UK), which made much of Assange's revelations currently has these two phrases as part of it's campaign to raise funds.

"With the funding of more than 1.5 million readers in 180 countries, the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth." (Front page promo)

"Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders. And because we are reader-funded we have been able to keep our journalism open for all to read, so when important stories like this come along, everyone gets to read them." Katherine Viner - Editor-in-Chief

Katherine Viner is a liar.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds those taglines galling.

Lost my last shred of respect/hope for the Guardian when they did their level best to smear Corbyn in favour of BJ.

Around 2015 they got suddenly and noticably (even) worse, axing Pilger and others like him.

Even before that, their ME coverage was savagely lacking.

>Katherine Viner is a liar.

Am I missing something here?

After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but that's another matter) to the link.

Could you please elaborate?

Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.

The Guardian promoted everything Assange said / did.

Then all of a sudden The Guardian forget all about Julian.

Their coverage has been pathetic.

Why?

Because the UK Govt will have told them to Shut Up.

And it's not just The Guardian.

It's the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Sun, Mail and more.

So when Katherine Viner spouts forth that:

"the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth"

That is bollocks.

"Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders."

Also bollocks.

Viner lies.

I think it's more likely that in light of the #MeToo movement, it became untenable for them to defend an accused rapist, regardless of if he was innocent or not.

That should not be happening in a healthy, democratic society.

If it does then it means anyone can be silenced based solely on an accusation of an action highly despised and criminalized by society.

That sounds like a load of baseless accusations. Printing WikiLeaks leaks doesn't mean they have to defend Assange for his behavior. Assange is also a well established liar.

The Guardian posted this article, claiming WikiLeaks released the entire cache of cables unredacted: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publ...

This was true but revealed in a way that was purposely misleading and to deflect from the Guardian's role in putting intelligence workers at risk. That is, the Guardian's poor OpSec had made all those cables available to anyone without any kind of protections in place. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wik...)

The Guardian does not protect it's sources. The Guardian does not own up to it's mistakes. The Grauniad does not spellcheck.

Minor, but since you did it twice and criticize the Guardian's spelling .. https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/

They continue to employ Luke Harding which seems mystifying.

Maybe it's a really subtle false flag? The spooks have them where they want them so they can't publish the truth meaning they have to publish ridiculous lies which get publicised, then fall over due to contrary evidence and so actually undermine the state's case while seeming to support it? This comically bad example they haven't even bothered to try and salvage their reputation with corrections. Merely added "sources say" in a submarine edit to the headline.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses? Presumably they will find another unreliable witness to lie for them?

It's incredibly worrying that this he has been trapped in this situation for so many years, with the prosecution seemingly having the upper hand despite supporting their case with lies.

the CIA probably has a deck of "witnesses". I bet next theme of accusations will be something related to Russia

> What happens when the US government's whole case against Assange collapses?

He walks a free man. Problematic as the American justice system is, Assange’s isolation was a function of his fugitive status. Nothing about U.S. detention per se.

It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.

> It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.

This is one of those positions that is designed to sound reasonable by appealing to "the middle ground" for its own sake.

It's not time for both sides to be heard in court. It never was. To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first.

> To bring someone into court, you need to make the case that they did something wrong first

I’m not a fan of our espionage laws. But they are, indisputably, laws. There has been a lot of evaluation of the questions of jurisdiction and standing. Barring wild, new evidence, I don’t see good reason to question that string of precedence.

It is a little awkward that your "espionage" laws give free reign to the state to punish journalists in a different country for doing journalism.

The laws that do this are indisputably laws, as you say.

As far as I understood what was happening is that he may have broken the law by how he got the information, not by releasing the info. I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info.

I haven't followed the case too closely so maybe I'm wrong on that. But if that's what they're accusing him of doing, I struggle to see how that's just doing journalism. Maybe journalistic methods to extract info aren't so black and white and some do similar things and yet I imagine there is a line where that info gathering becomes illegal.

> I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info.

He told Manning "curious eyes never run dry," but more importantly that is one of the eighteen charges he faces. The others are all for publishing classified documents.

If he only faced that one charge, I'd still disagree that it matters but I would understand your point of view. As is, they're using that charge to justify an attack on the free press.

No, he broke the espionage law by releasing the info. It is ludicrously broad.

It's the same reason Snowden refuses to come home. He's repeatedly promised to come home if they tighten the definition of the espionage to include, y'know, just espionage. Congress refuses.

I just looked into the indictment and the laws he's accused of breaking and yeah, they're all in the espionage section. It does seem quite broad to me. I also think way too much stuff is classified these days. At the same time, I guess I'm confused at what a government should do. The way I read the US code title 18 793 is that it's basically illegal to access and disseminate classified information. If that isn't a law, what's the point of having classified information? Shouldn't it be illegal? How could the law be tightened? I'm open for ideas, just not seeing how to tighten it.

Snowden had a specific proposal IIRC. i think it was basically an exception for public interest.

It is only bad when China does it.

Espionage laws are void (per the first amendment), and hence not relevant to legitimate court cases (regardless of how much existing practice fails to respect that). One could perhaps argue that he incited Manning to violate employment-related nondiclosure agreements, but in addition to being iffy on the face of it, AFAIK no has actually made such a argument separately from the anti-free-press-laws argument.

> Espionage laws are void (per the first amendment)

Putting aside Internet commenters who aspire to usurp the Supreme Court, no, the laws of this land stand.

When half the USSC judges are parachuted political operatives, the average HN commentator's opinion on the law is about as persuasive.

Do the laws of Saudi Arabia or China stand for people who are not citizen nor residents of those countries?

Well, that too, but even ignoring the inalienable rights angle and focusing purely on what's legal, the constitution supersedes congressional law by design.

I am not following this case to the tiniest detail but I remember, when Assange was originally extracted from the embassy it was advertised that primary charges are around some sexual assault - if I remember correctly these charges had been dropped..

I can recommend reading this interview [0] with Niels Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

It gives a pretty good run-down of what happened, by somebody who's impartial, qualified, and actually had access to a lot of evidence and official documentation around the case.

A somewhat long read, but absolutely worth it in terms of what it reveals. Case in point: Assange was never even accused by anybody of sexual assault or rape, Swedish police changed witness testimonies to fabricate that claim, then leaked it the same night to Swedish press.

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

Espionage is a political crime, so it is not a valid justification for extradition from a civilized nation.

So you agree with him staying in the UK and being charged under the Official Secrets Act for leaking GCHQ documents?

Wikileaks has leaked documents from the US, UK, Australia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, European Union, and United Nations. He could hang out in Asia or Russia, but would anywhere else be subject to local laws.

If the UK prosecutors think they have a case, they should file it. They're not subject to a statute of limitations, but justice would be served by not dragging the process out any longer.

Should you be extradited to Saudi Arabia for having drunk alcohol or having had sex outside marriage?

AFAIK, in the US, the government can bring criminal trials based on indictments either by prosecutorial discretion or by grand jury, both of which require a belief that there is enough evidence to convict but neither having to prove the guilt before the case.

I'm not sure what counts in the Assange case as it relates to someone outside of the US, however I believe many people have been tried in US courts for hacking into American companies from overseas. I don't believe one has to physically be in the US to break American laws and be tried for them, just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR.

> just as a company doesn't have to be in Europe to violate GDPR.

What a fallacious comparison.

I'm confused why you see it as fallacious. My logic was comparing the jurisdiction to charge a person for a crime they committed digitally upon a geographic region without having to be in that geographic region.

Could you say more why you see it as a fallacious comparison?

GDPR fines companies that operate in the EU. If you don't operate in the EU, you don't have to comply. The only penalty possible in that case is that your operations that are in the EU will be fined. You won't be deported, and also it applies to corporations, not individuals.

I think the analogy is still apt for having laws that charge someone outside of one's geographic region or citizenship. I do agree with you that the analogy does not go much further than that, as GDPR is not for individuals, does not have incarceration as a punishment, and does not have extradition to seek that punishment.

I guess my analogy was specifically targeting whether one government could have a law governing someone's behavior outside of that region, because I was responding to the assumption that he hasn't done anything wrong, and I think in regard to the current laws of the US government, he may have.

His current isolation has nothing to do with being a fugitive and everything to do with the US extradition request.

>It’s high time, either way, for both sides to be heard in court.

As most of the charges against Assange are related to espionage, it's very likely he will not even be presented an opportunity to defend himself in court, like what happened with Ellsberg. It's nice to think that the courts might ultimately make a fair ruling, but the amount of government misconduct means that will never happen.

They've already compromised the attorney-client privlage, a fair case is already impossible.

This travesty of a case prooves that his reasons for fleeing were entirely valid.

In an unjust system, it's naive to say he should just face the courts and there will be justice.

I think a document was leaked somewhere that said they'd move him from country to country to face charges, making the process itself the punishment rather than letting the cases conclude. I doubt he'll ever be free again.

Much like USA does in federal prison to harass certain inmates. This was named "diesel therapy." https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-pr...

I really wish the West wasn't so hypocritical. Between Assange, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, we show all the wrong people what to do. A pity and a shame. I hope Assange is freed soon and can get on with his life.

Evidently there are problems with incompetence in leadership and that encompasses orientation and strategy of agencies responsible for security.

It isn't incompetence. The security establishment across the west don't share democratic values. The politicians are too weak or distracted to fight them even when they're inclined to, which seems relatively rare. A sad state of affairs.

Which US organizations are mostly strongly advocating for justice in this case? Where can I go to support those organizations?

I want my children to know I was on the right side of this.

> Australian MPs are campaigning for Assange’s release in unprecedented numbers.

They are? My impression is that he's not even on their radar.

The unprecedented number is 11. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-mps-call-...

I guess the rest of the Australian MP's were too busy lobbying UNESCO not to give the Grand Barrier Reef a "in danger" tag.

Certainly if they are, they aren’t making it known. Which is a shame, because that might persuade me to vote for some of them.

"A is a serial liar, dont believe him! A says he didn't do it, believe him!"

A is always lying but he is not lying when he says the things we believe.

Two somewhat related pieces of recent UK news:

> How a proposed secrecy law would recast journalism as spying[1] (20/07/21, Guardian)

> The Home Office now wants harder and more extensive secrecy laws that would have the effect of deterring sources, editors and reporters, making them potentially subject to uncontrolled official bans not approved by a court, and punished much more severely if they do not comply. In noisy political times, a government consultation issued two months ago has had worryingly little attention. Although portrayed as countering hostile activity by state actors, the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest.

> Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”.

> Calling for parliament to consider “increased maximum sentences”, the Home Office claims that there is now not necessarily a “distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”, including “onward disclosure” in the press. Journalism could even create “far more serious damage” than a spy. Yet the 66-page document does not mention “journalism” once, and refers only to “onward disclosure … without authorisation”.

-----

> Priti Patel is urged to spare a billionaire dubbed 'Britain's Bill Gates' from a 'grotesque and unjust' extradition to US[2] (25/7/21, Mail Online)

Interesting for the plea made by Conservative ex-cabinet-minister David Davis on behalf of the beset billionaire, in terms which (though he would never allow it) could just as well be applied to Assange:

> America has a ferocious legal system with a 97 per cent conviction rate, where prosecutors, not judges, set the sentences. Defendants, too, are subjected to coercive plea bargaining. For example, people are encouraged to admit an offence and get a lesser jail sentence rather than continue to plead innocence and, if convicted, get a much longer term.

and later:

> He ended up in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a Pennsylvania penitentiary, without a clock and thus unable to know what time of day or night it was.

> He and his co-charged were treated like criminals long before any trial began – placed in chains, frog-marched and strip-searched.

> It is now up to the Home Secretary to decide whether Dr Lynch should stay in this country or be sent to a US cell.

> I, and many others, urge Priti Patel not to submit to this grotesque and unjust process. She must wait for the outcome of a separate High Court trial examining the fraud allegations against Dr Lynch.

I'd love to see just one member of the British Government stand up for Assange like that, but I guessing he is lacking the £8B collateral of Dr. Lynch.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/propos...

2: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822229/Priti-Patel...

Assange will die in prison. it's ridiculous that he is still in prison waiting for US to appeal. the previous trial was in his favor but he is still in prison awaiting the US gov to appeal. it's like the US typed in cheat codes.

He did skip out on bail the last time he was released. Fool me once ...

Remember when he repeatedly said he'd happily face the charges if he could be given assurances he wouldn't be extradited to the US for spying once he got there?

And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open" and the media made fun of him for being paranoid and delusional.

Correa gave him asylum for a reason. It's too bad Moreno decided to cancel the asylum to score some points with the US.

Sweden was actually like "our law requires us to consider extradition requests on their own merits."

I don't know if he knew that or not, but it's kinda weird he didn't flea to the embassy until his extradition to Sweden was imminent. The UK could've arrested him for extradition to the US any day he was out on bail.

The US had to actually submit the extradition request first. There were no public charges made at that point.

It's a lot easier to fight an extradition as a free man... even if that freedom is notional (being holed up in an embassy).

> And Sweden was like "uhmmmm.... nope, we need to leave that option open"

Because the prosecutor can't give any such blanket guarantees. That would be illegal.

Assange obviously knew this and tried to play the media, which failed.

Offering to not be extradited to a specific third country on a specific charge would be the furthest possible thing from a blanket guarantee.

It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all.

It is similarly "illegal" for many other countries to offer any guarantees that the suspect wont face torture.

> It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all.

If Assange wanted to have a guarantee of not being extradited he should have submitted an application for this to the Swedish justice department and have it reviewed. That's what the law require. The prosecutor or politicians cannot offer any guarantees and trying to bypass the procedure would be breaking the law.

So no, it's not their prerogative. Stop spreading misinformation, it's tiresome.

It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee.

Or, they can choose to undermine their credibility as a champion of human rights by providing no guarantees of humane treatment to any person under extradition.

Many countries opt to follow this route (not nice countries, mind) and thus voluntarily "fail" to extradite a great number of guilty people as a result. Refusal to respect human rights often comes at a cost.

Sweden's hands were not tied on this issue and it was a reasonable request. The reasonableness and the apparent politically motivated intransigence of the Swedish justice system (something noted by eagle eyed GCHQ employees in leaked emails) is a large part of why the application for asylum was approved.

This is also probably why he made the offer ~30 times.

> It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee.

By breaking the law? You can't just request something from a prosecutor. You have to follow the process for these kinds of things. The prosecutor has no right to grant what he requested, so how do you propose he would do it?

The prosecutor who was in close contact with politicia s passes it up the chain of command.

The prosecutors may have made a show of being apolitical but they made a lot of unprecedented exceptions for this case.

> The prosecutor who was in close contact with politicia s passes it up the chain of command.

There's no one up the chain of command who is allowed to make the decision. The justice department or the politicians does not have the rights to grant this. You would know this if you had basic knowledge about how Sweden is governed.

It is funny how you claim that there wee unprecedented exceptions for this case when you clearly know zero on the topic. It's an embarrassing read, honestly.

Plea bargain does not exist in the Swedish legal system.

"The Trump administration did <x>. The Obama administration did <y>"

Why try to shoehorn tribal politics into this? The main argument stands on its own merits. The persecution of Assange spans multiple administrations - has the Biden administration dropped the case?

The point being it isn't partisan.

That wasn't the point being made in the article - it was a standard "Trump administration bad, Obama administration good" smear which detracts from the actual argument.

I don't think anyone who cares about whistleblower protection, or the freedom of the press could write "Obama good" or fail to notice the Trump administration is not current.

shameful that his home country is doing nothing for him. imagine he was a US citizen who leaked Australia's dirty doings. he would be free after 1 month.

There is a fundamental question here: what are the limits of journalism?

So you receive classified information and publish it. In the US at least there are is some precedent for journalistic protection here. Think the Pentagon Papers [1].

Let's take it a step further: what if instead of simply receiving classified information you provide material aid to whoever is stealing it? What if you're directing the thief on what to steal? Are you still a journalist?

Let's take it in another direction: how do you choose what to publish? Generally reputable news organizations will redact things that aren't newsworthy or might, say, endanger people in the field (eg by releasing details about an undercover operation).

But what if your decision on what to publish is partisan or otherwise aimed at achieving a particular end, political or otherwise? Are you still a journalist?

Some will argue there are no limits. I don't think that's a reasonable position as it essentially justifies anything as long as you claim to be wearing a journalist's hat.

So here are the problems for Assange:

1. He wasn't "passive' with Bradley/Chelsea Manning and provided material aid;

2. The Wikileaks releases were clearly aimed at hurting Hilary Clinton in 2016 (eg the Podesta emails). We can speculate as to why. Personal politics? Maybe Assange thought he'd fare better in a Trump administration? I don't know.

3. Additionally, he's kind of a creepy guy. This isn't material to an espionage case but in the court of public opinion, reputation matters. I would love to know how the incident rose to the level of rape charges that Swedish prosecutors decided to pursue because on the face of it, it just doesn't make sense. Some will argue it was at the behest of the US but I'm not really sure that adds up. Maybe someday we'll know the inside story. I can but hope.

Now on the US side, how has this desire to prosecute and to punish Assange by proxy (eg containing him in the Ecuadoran embassy was clearly a "punishment") survived a decade? At the Federal level this has gone through 2 administrations, one of each party, 4 AGs and I'm not sure how many US Attorneys.

It's a little strange that the US continues to push this so hard. Is it just about sending a message to any future leakers? For the record, the Obama administration was particularly harsh with leakers so this is possible.

Maybe this has just taken on a life of its own and there is no puppet master at the top. Stranger things have happened.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

So by your definition all of FOX news and CNN are not journalists.

I, for one, disagree that it has been a travesty of justice. The only travesty is that Assange has not stood trial.

Yes, when US fabricate crimes,witnesses should you:

- A try to find asylum and fight to bring to light the truth

- B be a retard and trust in the justice system that fabricated the crimes and evidence

- C kill yourself

I understand you prefer Assange should ahve chose B, would you also chose the same if it were you?

Which alleged crimes were fabricated? Cite some sources if you could

https://stundin.is/grein/13627/

James Risen of the NY Times exposed 10x more salient and embarrassing abuses of power than Assange and Snowden combined. When he was prosecuted to reveal his sources he stayed in the US, attended every hearing, continued reporting and was eventually cleared.

> continued reporting and was eventually cleared

Comparing these two cases is not as simple as that. Risen refused to name sources for his book and did so till the end.

The only reason it didn't go further, and he didn't go to jail, was because of an arbitrary decision further up the chain that was already publicly signaled ahead of the hearing [0]

Assagne is spending time in jail right now, for years he was in a self-imposed jail over fabricated accusations, with the US actively violating his rights in every way they could, down to violation the client-attorney privilege.

Nothing out of the US signals that he will get a fair trail, everything suggests he would most likely be made out as a an political example, as he has been and currently is.

[0] https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/holde...

Assange is not accused of exposing stuff, some other crimes were fabricated, get familiar with the fake rape accusations where US got involved outside their jurisdiction, then get familiar with the recent fake witnesses. In fact the leaks where the names of agents were not redacted was done by some other guy.

This is more propaganda touted by the same groups as the ones spewing Setch Rich conspiracy claims. Sigurdur was not a key witness. The indictments do not rely on his evidence. Go look at the FBI statements if you don't believe me. Even if he was a key witness, you don't think law enforcement has ever dealt with a witness retracting a statement that they agreed to in exchange for a plea deal or immunity? It wouldn't simply invalidate their statement. Prosecutors plan ahead for things like witnesses dying during trial. Seriously, I've seen this same propaganda being pushed here already based on the same theory that Siggi was holding the entire case together which is just false. It is actually pretty funny... I imagine prosecutors seeing this laughing, saying.. we should use this tactic more where we make people think the case is falling apart, maybe we can get more evidence of crimes in the process of people letting their guards down.

It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include it, and more that the prosecution has basically been found to have "paid" a witness to make false testimony.

Making deals to get testimony isn't unprecedented at all. The terms of the deal are disclosed and can be considered as an element of credibility. If this guy recanted to the media he can be put back under oath and admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.

This sounds great if you assume the DoJ was unaware he was lying when they made the deal. Given his past with the FBI and the other public abuses of justice in.this case, I find that unlikely.

>admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.

So his options are admit that he lied and face perjury charges or admit that he lied and walk away free? Tough choice.

I haven't seen any critic of the USA "security" state mention Seth Rich in years, yet as seen here he is regularly cited by fans of the authoritarian status quo. Are you guys feeling guilty about something?

> Are you guys feeling guilty about something?

What are you even talking about? Are you trying to imply that I'm somehow a member of US intelligence, and trying to spread a conspiracy while simultaneously denying that you are doing so?

Julian Assange was spreading Seth Rich conspiracies in 2016.. to pretend that it was just a one time occurrence and that his supporters stopped "believing" in the conspiracy is just denialism.

Dude you brought him up. If you really care about the happiness and privacy of the Rich family, you shouldn't have done that.

At the following page, my comment above is listed. Every other comment is from an Assange critic, beating this dead horse:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

The same family that has been caught up in litigation from prominent Assange supporters for spreading false narratives:

https://trackingmeroz.wordpress.com/2021/07/25/traducers-the...

Yet somehow you think they wouldn't want people bringing up how conspiracies, like those Assange spread, hurt the family the most. Assange supporters, mainly now alt-right types and bots posing as being on the opposite side oh politics--like you saw with Cambridge Analytica--are still spreading the same conspiracy far and wide today hoping to catch people during a mental break to recruit them into their cults.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com