I don't really want to talk about the details and hijack the thread, but there's something Kafkaesque about how thing shave been handled. The terrifying thing about the case is people are ready to hate him because of flimsy rape allegations, even on Hacker News!
Anyway, I guess the point of this post is Assange isn't all that obnoxious if you ignore the rape media circus. Maybe he is egotistical but most important hackers are.
If Assange had just gone to Sweden like he was expected to then nothing would have happened with the police, if any high value media personality was wanted on an international arrest warrant and sought refuge in an embassy like Assange has done it would have warranted the same media attention and thus the same police presence.
The Assange case may be full of suspicious circumstances, but I don't think the heavy police presence at the embassy is anything other than the result of the media circus surrounding the situation (which is of Assange's own creation).
- "The world is watching, so we better not let him get away."
- "If he uses the embassy to avoid charges in such a public manner, could set a 'dangerous' precedent."
- "The UK will have 'egg on its face' if they let him use this to get away."
- "We need to save face, the world is watching."
- "This guy is pissing me off. I normally wouldn't care too much, but he is flaunting his situation to the media, so I can't back down now."
- etc...
No one is saying that "The Media" specifically called for this sort of action. It's the "eyes of the world" that limit options. If this wasn't all over the news, it would be more likely that they might just let him go, but with the world watching "THEY ARE LETTING A CRIMINAL GET AWAY!!!" would be the next headline were they to let this slide.
Does that sound like standard operating procedure to you?
And what's this "If Assange had gone to Sweden" nonsense. He was in Sweden, in fact he prolonged his stay for a month and a half longer trying to talk to police. They did not even want to interview him.
Now months later they're trying to extradite him back into country.
If you don't find this all suspicious, then you aren't paying attention.
If it is a conspiracy, then I would say that the point is to discredit him and to tie him up dealing with these charges, rather than talking to the media about WikiLeaks.
Sweden has cooperated with handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA, knowing they would be sent back to Egypt to be tortured, in blatant violation of Swedish law and international obligations. Wikileaks published documents showing that years after CIA rendition flights had supposedly stopped, the US ambassador had been officially summoned to receive a complaint after Swedish military intelligence had uncovered that they were still happening, with the knowledge of airport staff.
Meanwhile, in the UK, there are extradition cases that have gone on for a decade with no resolution, as UK courts take this very seriously, and a substantial portion of extradition requests from the US are refused.
To add on to that, consider the behaviour of the Swedish police and prosecutors. Maybe they are just inept. Maybe there are other motives for how they've acted. But if you're someone like Assange, who has seen several US politicians calling for him to be executed, coupled with past illegal handovers from Sweden to the CIA, it wouldn't be that strange to get a bit paranoid about things such as why the case was reopened after it had been closed, and why the prosecutors categorically refuse to interview him abroad, when they've done that for substantially more serious crimes.
Personally I think that the most likely explanation is not US involvement, but "just" political point-scoring by the prosecutor and appointed lawyer for the alleged victims, both of whom have a history of trying to get support for making Swedish laws regarding rape substantially stricter.
Swedens defenses against CIA/NSA operatives, actively operating in their country, are likely to be more penetrable than those of the UK, or at least more malleable to the CIA's needs.
Myself, I think its less likely that the CIA can do a body-switch when Assange is in the embassy, than on the plane to Sweden .. but thats just pure fantasy of course. The CIA would never do a body-switch to take out a political target ..
There is at least one politician, who's name completely escapes me at the moment but she was either a rep in the EU parliament or the swedish one, who confirmed that extradition to the US from Sweden was the entire point of the circus.
And Bradley Manning is still being tortured in military prison right now.
I haven't seen anything to make this seem ridiculous or even unlikely. If he was convicted of treason, as he would be, I can't imagine being public would mean anything other than more media attention.
edit: as pyre pointed out by torture i mean extended solitary confinement. I call it torture because everyone who studies it calls it so. However it is true that people think the hypothetical Joe "ignorant american voter stereotype" Average disagrees. If you feel my use of the word "torture" was unfounded then do look at the literature and read the statements of people who have experienced both extended solitary confinement/sensory deprivation and physical torture. I am very certain you will agree with me afterwards.
> Bradley Manning is still being tortured in
> military prison right now.
This was according to the New York Times[1] in March of 2011 and it took place at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va.
Might not be torture by most standards (though personally I think solitary confinement is torture) but I would hardly consider it proper conduct.
Also, who can say what really happens at Guantanamo...
I'd venture that the internal monologue goes something like:
" Tortured? He's just left in a birthday suit for a bit,
and doesn't get to socialize. How bad could that be?
Jack Bauer resists being beaten while tied to a chair
every other episode, and still has the strength to
save that day! This Bradley Manning guy is just a
pussy. "That's friendly considering the later reports. According to the UN special rapporteur on torture he was kept in solitary 23 hours a day for 11 months.
No one expects Obama to defend your civil liberties. He's invisible most of the time. A middle man to the oligarchy. Some say he is a great "centerist", but I say he's a man with no morals.
I'm just not convinced that this is a shift in terms of the "US government have been doing whatever the hell they want lately, civil liberties and public opinions be damned" statement. The specifics are different now and the tools for manufacturing consent or controversy are always shifting but the lack of concern for civil liberties or public opinion (beyond what's necessary for horse-race politics) seems like a "new boss, same as the old boss" type thing to me.
Later Wikileaks released documents that showed that years after this had supposedly been stopped, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights were still ongoing, with the cooperation of Swedish airport staff.
So there might not be much for Assange to worry about legally, but that doesn't say much.
He might very well be paranoid, but Sweden hasn't exactly acted in a way that does anything to give someone in his position reasons to trust they'll even follow their own laws.
There are thousands of political activists in third world countries, who take much greater risk of bodily harm for themselves and their families every single day, without the perks like having a platform to portray themselves as a "civil rights hero" in the world media, or receiving donations for "legal defense and bail money", or being able to sleep with several groupies on a short Sweden trip.
Grandstanding speeches in the media combined with cowardly behavior is not something I can admire...
There are so many myths arround Assange, we might never really know whats going on. Afterall sexual molestation claims could be true, could be black helicoptor crew or even just a piss of lady.
What I would say, and what angers me about him is how any message about freedom of information has been utterly lost. He has shacked up with someone who directly opposes his (former?) cause, all I see now is a self publishing type hiding in the shadows.
Don't really like his novels (subtlety is French to them) but his speeches are great.
You just don't hear him being accused of raping anyone, that's all.
Any insight on how one might route around the upcoming internet control battle that will take place in the UN? Or the neverending stream of [RI|MP]AA-written laws that congress tries to pass?
Linus Torvalds is pretty universally regarded as a nice person, and very important to open source. Same with a lot of the earlier Bell Labs UNIX people, and computer scientists like Knuth, Ritchie, etc.
Within the startup world, it's even easier -- most of the well respected early angel investors, founders, etc. are decent people.
Every EFF employee that I've spent time with has been great, and a lot of them (Seth Schoen; Wendy Seltzer come to mind) are really important. Same with Prof Zittrain, Lessig, etc.
Even in computer security -- Jon Callas, Bruce Schneier, Ian Goldberg, Hugh Daniels, John Gilmore, Ben and Adam Laurie, Nicko and Alex van Someren, etc.
[0] http://youtu.be/sKOk4Y4inVY [1] http://youtu.be/qRiY9tkdkV8 [2] http://youtu.be/i7JVzN3dM34 (in french)
If you only read the headlines you are better off not reading news at all.