Edit: To clarify my own frustration, I see Snowden as more of a true whistleblower, and Assange as more of a fame-seeking middleman willing to promise or withhold information based on his own self-interest.
Its totally possible that he’s a massive rapist, and its a great cover to be a known enemy to governments with your journalistic endeavours.
But its terribly convenient for the US government that the circumstances landed where they did, and it was even told to us that it would land this way and those saying it were branded as conspiracy theorists.
One might consider that Snowden went in knowing exactly what was possible, came prepared was completely “clean”, additionally he has not had a particularly difficult living situation. Yet even he is able to get massacred by certain sections of the media. Assange is living in (self-imposed, sure) exile and doesnt have the luxury of maintaining a lifestyle that promotes mental well-being, and the media are very quick to jump on his transgressions and blow them to insane proportions. Please keep that in mind when talking about him.
This is the first time I've ever seen anyone defining "being in prison" as "self-imposed exile".
Assange has been in an English prison for 4 years now. The only thing for which he was actually convicted (skipping bail during extradition proceedings) accounts for only 1 of those.
My information is a few years out of date but I've been assured that at least he is only being extradited to Sweden for wild sex crimes and not the United States! Now let me check the Wikipedia arti... oh, turns out he is being extradited to the United States. A lot of people didn't see that coming (never really understood why not, but that is people for you).
The situation is in this awkward position where there was an obvious conspiracy to get Assange and making predictions on the assumption of a conspiracy has had great predictive power. The only change is it is isn't a conspiracy any more because everything is playing out publicly in British courts.
So while Assange is certainly being subjected to a lot of usual processes, the usual processes are being turned on him because he embarrassed the US government by bringing its activities to light. I have no doubt that is illegal. If I was a government, I too would want to criminalise people trying to hold me accountable. The issue is that punishing people for encouraging transparency is an inescapably political act.
And Assange is on the right side of history on this one. It is easy to see him as a footnote in every textbook one day as "and this was the moment when people started to find out what was going on".
Because people very strongly said this was only about accusations of sex crimes and the US would never lay charges for publishing - because that would mean what the New York Times does is illegal, we were told.
I do not remember him being alleged to be a massive rapist. Certainly, one charge of any kind of rape should be enough to have him brought to the jurisdiction where the charge is made.
It wasn't for any of Epsteins clients.
> But its terribly convenient for the US government that the circumstances landed where they did, and it was even told to us that it would land this way and those saying it were branded as conspiracy theorists.
I wonder if its both. He could be a massive rapist who would have gone unnoticed without us gov involvement. I imagine if you want to discredit someone it is much easier to find their real sins than to make something up wholesale.
Of course if that's true it still doesn't really matter how it was dragged to the light, he would still be a dirt bag.
Also why the hell did he go to the Ecuadorian embassy without an exit plan?
He has spent more than 10 years in prison and self-imprisonment. And for what? That helicopter combat footage? Is that it? Sure - it doesn't look good, but...that's Tuesday for the Russians in Ukraine.
Currently the extradition of Assange has been refused on humanitarian grounds, as the US can't guarantee that they won't stick him in an ultramax facility and/or drive him to suicide. It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite.
I believe historically Sweden has been more willing to ignore such concerns when dealing with the US, which is why there would have been an incentive to fake charges that could get him moved to Swedish custody.
Extradition has actually been approved by all relevant UK authorities, after formal reassurance from the US about his treatment. Assange is appealing that decision, arguing then-Home Secretary Priti Patel was an id-- could not seriously accept some meaningless words that they can renege a minute after getting him.
Meanwhile, the Australian government is trying to vaguely save face by making some noise, probably to extract some extra money from Biden to just shut up.
The US is trying to set the precedent that if you air our dirty laundry, we can go after you, wherever you are in the world. Not in the US? No problem. Not an American? No problem.
But collateral damage is something else: if I blow up a house with a terrorist leader in it, weil the debris kill a bystander? It happens in every war and it’s the main reason why a ‘just war’ still can’t be fought without tainting conscience.
Not to mention a completely unnecessary war sold using lies, and launched in violation of international law (not in self-defense, no UN Security Council authorization).
I disagree. Maybe a court should decide?
What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers (IE; to Australia in this case) are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US supreme court it could easily take a decade, even two. What the US has proposed is a formula to keep Assange in prison effectively for the rest of his life, and in a US prison.
So - 5 years. Fewer than Assange spent in the embassy.
They can't increase your sentence anyway.
My understanding is that Assange:
1) Isn't a US citizen
2) Had never set foot within the United States
3) Committed no acts that could be construed (even to idiots) as violating US law
It makes it a little difficult to genuinely extradite. More than likely there was a plan to use extraordinary rendition once he was off UK soil, but before he had arrived in Sweden.
Not a citizen of the US? No problem-actually, all the better since it doesn’t have to follow “…”.
The US pretends that its law extends and applies everywhere when it says so, damn the rules or consequences.
He wasn't incoherent when the charges were filed.
Assange's argument against going to Sweden should've logically also applied to the UK, where he physically was while trying to make the argument to avoid extradition to Sweden, as demonstrated by the UK not even bothering to inform the Swedish authorities when they finally did arrest Assange.
Just picking a nit here, but IIRC Assange was not arrested by UK authorities to be extradited to the US (that's just a "bonus" for the US), but because he broke UK law by "jumping bail,"[0] which is a crime in the UK.
There are a raft of other details/issues around Assange and his Swedish/British/Ecuadorian odyssey, and those have been endlessly discusssed/litigated in the press.
I won't address those issues, as I don't think it would add productively to this discussion.
Assange did violate the terms of his bail in the UK and was convicted and sentenced accordingly, regardless of other issues.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_in_the_United_Kingdom
Edit: Clarified my thoughts.
Ok, fair. My recollection was that they did both at about the same time, though subsequent focus on the (clearly motivated) US extradition rather overshadow the Swedish issues (which don't look politically motivated to me; though obviously that's what they want me to think :P).
That the UK didn't bother to tell Sweden is even more egregious given what you say.
The suspiciously flimsy case had been dropped already.
Even if he were guilty of some information crime, the level of persecution against him by the US government is way overboard and not in proportion to the supposed offense.
But it is clear to me and many others that what he was doing was journalism, even if you don't like his message and methods. He should be protected at all costs.
This kinda feels like the same thing, but politically. “You…” … “so we” … “and it’s gonna be ‘proportional’. Sorry-not-sorry.”
let's focus on the crimes they both uncovered. please.
Well, since you phrase it that way, sure:
* Snowden uncovered mass-surveillance programs and intelligence agencies lying to congress.
* Manning uncovered Iraq War records, such as a helicopter attacking civilians.
* Assange uncovered... What? What pieces of information do you specifically credit to Assange which puts him in the same position as those first two whistleblowers?
According to The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL, Assange exposed the corruption of the US State Department. This is apart from his exposing the war crimes committed by the US military in Iraq [1].
"Cable gate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US State Department disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale." [0]
[0] https://www.nytco.com/press/an-open-letter-from-editors-and-...
Maybe I wasn't explicit enough: Assange is categorically not a whistleblower, but rather a publicist at best, figurehead at worst. Other people did the important uncovering, putting themselves in far more legal jeopardy.
I have to disagree. The US govt and its national security state have done a pretty good job of persecuting Manning, Assange and Snowden alike albeit in differing ways.
perhaps snowden flew to moscow once his passport was cancelled, with help from china, as part of a diversion
Flying to Berlin doesn't make sense. Germany is a NATO member and a US ally. He'd be extradited ASAP.
You're saying the US government helped Snowden cover up his plans?
That's some lizard people level conspiracy theory you got there.
Russia has also shown that they're not interfering with him as long as he doesn't speak about anything Russia is doing.
Contrast that with his destination countries that he originally wanted to go to, all of which are also of course "enemies of the US" (which is the only reason he's safe there), one of which has been strongarmed by the US directly (Bolivian prime minister forced to land and be searched, breaking international law[0]) and one of which has already permitted one of it's refugees to be captured on sovereign soil.
I should also add that a lot of countries would not grant asylum to a person who is in what they would consider a safe country. I know for instance it's a point of much contention in the UK that an asylum seeker must stop in the first safe country.
Additionally, since Putin's "special military action" (invasion of another sovereign country) there actually are a lot of restrictions for Russian citizens travelling, both outbound and inbound. -- and even if you manage to wave away all of that: he isn't in a better position anywhere else and he still has to travel over US Allied countries to get there.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Back to what you said:
> those stories about him "being stranded" are bullshit
He really really was stranded. He had no passport, and the only place he could go without one would send him directly to prison without even a right to raise his defence of "public good" in his trial.
So unless you're saying "he wasn't stranded, he could choose to go to prison forever", that's not really true.
And as we later found out, the US would force even diplomatic planes to land and be searched for Snowden.
Sweden was playing US lapdog with Assange, so presumably would be the case for Finland too, even if not NATO at the time.
And he will be handed over to the USA sooner or later. The UK has already approved the extradition.
Ftfy