If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case.
Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture.
None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.
Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".
Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly.
Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment."
Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status.
(Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)
The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil".
Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...
Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil.
Having said that:
1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action.
3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
> 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact
What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance."
So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact".
And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public".
> But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft".
Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form.
What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
The exfiltrated information was from 2007 IIANM. But - you're right, I got the year wrong. So, 9 years after the exfiltration.
Now, as for whether this happened 3 years ago or last year, this depends on what you're counting. The extradition request was filed last year. The secret indictment in itself nefarious; but it "doesn't count", in the sense that no public indictment for 9 years means 9 years of increasing obsolescence.
About the 2012 investigation - that just strengthens my point. An investigation in 2012 did not lead to an indictment. The Trump administration did not suggest, let alone establish, that the investigation was a cover-up or otherwise inappropriately conducted.
> Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" ... in any way shape or form
That's not true. If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical. Not to mention, in many world states, even reporting secret information is a crime. Or even publishing an unauthorized newspaper...
Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes. I mean, they're shaking down Manning for it, but she's resisting.
Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued. These are a necessary precursor for extradition.
Wheels of justice (and let's abstract this for a moment, whether you feel this particular case warrants it or not) turn slowly, especially when they involve classified information and potential defendants in asylum in third party countries.
"At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents, and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation."
I think you're trying to state that he should have been indicted years ago. What would have been the response then? That the US raced to indictment without a complete investigation? I think the general preference is towards more thorough investigations.
> If leaking secret information is a crime, encouraging a source to leak information is perfectly ethical.
There is a difference between: "investigating criminal activities, and encouraging sources to come forth with evidence thereof" and "actively encouraging sources to commit _additional_, _unrelated_ crimes", if not "actively helping them do so" (attempting to crack passwords of third party accounts on their behalf).
It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
> Regardless, the US doesn't have evidence to even prima-facie establish Assange having commited such crimes.
I'd argue that that is entirely false. Chat and email logs between Manning and Assange _repeatedly_ show them talking about covering tracks, and about Assange actively trying, by his own words, to crack passwords for unrelated accounts in classified systems. That is the very definition of _prima facie_.
> Two years after the events (entirely reasonable in the investigation of such a thing), there was indictments being issued.
No. According to this source [1], the Obama administration did not indict Assange, as his known actions did not differ from those of other journalists.
> It's legal and ethical for a journalist to report on crimes. It is not legal, for example, for a journalist to break into a building to steal information on crimes, however valid that information may be.
Even taking that as an assumption, it is still perfectly ethical to encourage privileged source to leak information about crimes or other information whose publication is of significant public interest.
To be very clear, I entirely agree that it is perfectly ethical for an investigative journalist to encourage a source to whistleblow crimes or information in the public interest.
I also believe that Assange went above and beyond "encouraging" to participating in, and committing of his own accord, crimes intended to either cover tracks or that gained unauthorized access to further information (whose criminality nor public interest was not known).
Cracking or attempting to crack passwords of uninvolved third parties in order to get access to or coverup your unauthorized access to information is unethical at least, illegal at worst, no more than it would be for me to clone your ID card to gain access to your employer.
> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".
We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up.
1. We now know it was indeed a setup.
2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning.
He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made.
And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
> He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy
That's propaganda. A lie. Please read the article before you comment further.
> Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.
> Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials?
This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will.
I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading:
> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.
Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?
There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.
But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:
"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"
is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.
No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave.
Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
> Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.
Is there some inherent human right against persecution? Which to be clear in this situation means "being accused of and investigated for additional crimes".
Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
> Is there some inherent human right against persecution?
"Human rights" are a social construct, there's nothing inherent about them. Regardless - Assange was under no obligation towards Sweden given the circumstances.
> Is it "fair" for me to avoid questioning (or consequences of questioning) about crimes of which I'm accused, too?
1. Assange was not charged with any crimes.
2. Assange did not avoid questioning - neither in Sweden nor in Ecuador (= Ecuadorian Embassy). He only avoided exposing himself to US-instigated persecution.
Accused. In intimate crimes, where the only witnesses are the accuser and accused, it is typically extremely rare to charge the accused absent any interview whatsoever, so the "he wasn't charged" doesn't change my point.
Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture.
None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.