"The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice"
I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice.
It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2].
The US has committed atrocity's just as bad as most countries. EX: Slavery, Bio warfare vs American Indians along with the 'trail of tears' etc. (Many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokeehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears) The Atlantic Slave Trade actually killed ~16 million which is several times more people than all the Nazi concentration camps put together.
But, IMO it's not meaningful to look at a country and say their good or evil. You look at individual acts and say that's good or that's evil.
"You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!"
I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.
It's worth considering the wider context of Ecuadorian politics, media and power before immediately signing on to the "Assange is a hypocrite, Correa is a Dictator" line that is clearly being sung from many media sheets.
The private media's relationship to foreign power, interests that align with financial elites, and hostility to policies which prioritise the public good mean any politician who is trying to diminish the influence of media owners will be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'.
If Obama revisited the legislation that allowed the truthiness of Fox News to flourish, he would also be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'. The problem with concentrated private media ownership is that it's a special type of free speech, curated and promoted by a handful of special-interest media owners, like our very own Rupert Murdoch.
Correa talks about this in his interview with Assange, mentioning that 4 of the 5 private media owners are bankers, and that it makes it incredibly difficult to pass financial legislation that benefits Ecuador at the expense of financial interests.
From the tidbits I've heard of his policies:
* striving for a mix of 30% private media, 30% government, and 30% local / non-profit is a far more balanced media mix than many Western countries.
* requiring media organisations not to have other interests is just a sane way to ensure conflicted situations in reporting don't arise.
However I'd agree with you that there are definitely elements that paint a picture of a typical politician rather than a shining free speech advocate: see treatment of indigenous people opposing mining developments, his actions against publication of a book revealing contracts his brother has etc.
Even considering this, much of the international reporting criticising Correa conflates his actions which clearly do involve improving the Ecuadorian media environment with actions which are clearly about suppressing dissent.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that this is NOT politically motivated?
Take a look at how many policemen are standing guard in that picture. In a normal sexual assault extradition case, you would never get that level of response from local police. No matter how much Sweden might have begged for it.
A 'normal' extradition case? Most European Arrest Warrants don't end with the suspect fleeing into a foreign embassy. This case wouldn't be 'normal' regardless of Assange's background.
Assange has finished his speech now - he talks about making a stand for the justice system, but doesn't mention at all anything to do with the rape charges* and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process.
He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two.
* And yes, I'm calling it rape: what he is accused of is rape under Sweden's law, and contrary to what many people are saying, it would be rape under English law as well.
Don't forget Sweden itself is depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process, having been offered numerous options of interviewing Assange, both in the UK and within Sweden itself.
It's also worth pointing out that:
* Sweden initially dropped the case: senior prosecutor Eva Finné reversed the arrest order and found there were no grounds for the 'rape' allegations. [1]
* Assange was questioned by police in Sweden 10 days later
* Assange spent weeks in Sweden after the accusations
* the case was picked up again two weeks later by prosecutor Marianne Ny
* Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition not to charge him (as some articles and commentators suggest as a matter of Swedish law) but merely to question him.
* the Swedish Supreme Court has ruled that it is appropriate to conduct a videoconference with a suspect who is co-operative and abroad. The same ruling stated that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute. [2]
It's a case that's so transparently political that arguing against it is nothing more than wilful ignorance of readily available facts.
Rape accusations make a convenient ad hominem. Oh, he doesn't deserve to be listened to, he's an accused rapist. He doesn't even care about the women. What a jerk!
There is nothing wrong or sinister about an accused person taking every legal step to defend himself, including seeking asylum. This is the whole point of a justice system. Assange is not depriving anyone of due process by defending himself. Due process is to protect the accused, not the accusers.
If you actually bothered to read the papers Assange's own legal team lodged with the English courts you'd know that both the defence and prosecution accepted what he was accused of would be rape under English law.
@tgasson - unfortunately I can't reply to your next message, but with regards to links: you can view most of the case literature at BAILII and the Supreme Court website. Because Assange made numerous appeals his legal filings are numerous. Link here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank...
A more succint summary can be found at David Allen Green's blog - Assange's legal team did at first try to argue it wouldn't count as rape, but this was rejected by two courts, and when they subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court his defence accepted the point and dropped the argument: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat...
Assange's legal defence against the extradition was primarily on a matter of procedural law regarding whether Sweden had the judicial authority to extradite him in the first place.
I hope you will forgive my rather blunt tone - I am not a lawyer, but I have the pleasure (perhaps?!) of living with one. As I've said in other posts here, I'm more than happy to believe Assange is the victim of a conspiracy, but I don't think that is an outright certainty. I perhaps naively hold the English legal system in some regard, although I accept others may not!
Sorry I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link? Best I can find is [1] which states
In respect of Offence 4, Mr Assange contended that whilst rape was a Framework Offence and therefore didn't require dual criminality, the conduct described in the EAW was not fairly and accurately described and that if it had it would not be rape.
"and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process"
By definition, only the arbiters of the legal system itself, i.e., the government can deprive someone of due process. The fact that Sweden and the UK are making a sincere effort to extradite Assange is, at this point, all the "due process" the women are entitled to. Assange's actions have nothing to do with it.
"He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two."
Buying the argument that the charges are politically motivated, the fact that they are attacking Assange due to his association with wikileaks mean that wikileaks is under attack. If this sets a precedent that high profile persons leading the push for the release of extremely sensitive information can be rubbed out so easily puts a chilling effect on whoever steps into Assange's place. And that's assuming anyone really can just step up as Assange didn't just start with wikileaks. He's been involved in uncovering suppressed information since he was a kid growing up in Australia and even co-wrote the Rubberhose deniable encryption program.
It's telling that someone like Assange who is undergoing such a massive level of scrutiny that these rape allegations are the best they can do. The guy must practically be a saint.
Look, I generally buy into the theory that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely.
I am more than happy to concede that maybe these charges are politically motivated, and they are complete and utter trash: if that's the case, then clearly you could argue Assange is totally right to seek asylum. Good on him.
However, there is a chance these charges are genuine. I really hope nobody would try to argue otherwise. I don't pretend to know how large or small this chance is. As long as there is a chance I think Assange's actions do nobody any favors whatsoever.
I do not believe that this is politically motivated. I just see no evidence for that.
Justice systems are allergic to public disrespect. That alone can completely explain the behavior of the police in Sweden and the UK.
Assange is a self-importent prick, cowardly on the run from pretty serious allegations. He exploits his involvement with Wikileaks to sow doubt. I really think it's as simple as that.
- Sweden refused to promise Ecuador that he would not be extradited to the US
- Sweden issued police alerts more befitting of an international terrorist suspect
- Assange was hit by these charges coincidentally just at the the time when he'd provoked the wrath of the US
- the charge they'd managed to conjure up is one for which there can be basically no exhonerating witnesses and no physical evidence, so they simply 'must' question him in person
- the supposed victims were tweeting about how excited they were to be with Assange seemingly after the alleged crime and also did not report it until later as if they were prompted by some other motivation
I'd put the odds of this being a legitimate criminal case at something like 0.0000034%
Just one thing. no country will promise not to extradite someone. They can't. It's just not possible to promise something like that. How is that supposed to work? If (hypothetically) the US were to request Assange's extradition and if they had (hypothetically) evidence and valid reasons for doing so, Sweden would have to break their treaty.
Why do you believe it's possible to promise something like that? That's crazy.
Pretty simple, they ask the US if they wish to have Assange extradited or not. If they don't, then Sweden can say to Ecuador that Assange will not face extradition to the US for anything he has hitherto committed. If they do, then Sweden should just fucking admit it.
Politics isn't as clear cut as you are making it. What treaty (specifically) are you referring to? Its extradition treaty? Well yeah, it'd need to break that.
Simple, really. They don't want to respond to Assange's every whim. You can't expect governments to respond to every stupid request. Do you really think Sweden would break an extradition treaty over one person? Most certainly not. They can't predict the future, they won't make promises like that.
The four other points are valid defense arguments - something which were probably brought up at the UK extradition hearing and would be brought up in a Swedish trial.
However, the allegation of the charge being 'conjured up' would require that both the UK and Swedish judicial systems be severely compromised. That would be an extraordinary conspiracy, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence. The four points mentioned simply don't meet that standard in my opinion.
Extraordinary claims... A meme that has never made much sense to me. Anyway:
Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
I think Assange is a self-important twit. I have no knowledge of what happened so I have no idea whether he is really guilty or now.
I also think he's right to be afraid. The two pieces of evidence that make me fill that way are, first, that the prosecutor that wants the questioning is not the prosecutor that spoke with the women and, second, they won't question him anywhere but Sweden, even though Sweden has done remote interviews in the past. Couple this with one of the accusers refusing to sign her statement and it gets very fishy.
Agreed. Assange's ego and self importance have really hurt what wikileaks was supposed to be about. By all accounts the guy is a scumbag on a personal level and he is unjustly trying to use wikileaks as a shield.
This is so ridiculously absurd and easily rebutted by there just being one account of him not being a "scumbag" that I wonder why you would even bother typing such a transparent ad hominem in the first place.
Wikileaks itself was flagrant disrespect for the political system, whose secrets it exposed. I don't see how you can say it's this kind of politically motivated but not that.
I see that you've retreated with that "and nothing else" part though, admitting that it is, in fact, a factor.
The British justice system is motivated to get him because he is behaving like a prick in public and managed to escape them. That's all. Not really politically motivated at all.
The "and nothing else" part was a direct quote from your post as of the time I read it. If there have been edits, I have yet to notice them.
I believe the distinction you are trying to draw lacks a difference. You may consider that pedantry, but being able to communicate precisely what you mean is important, particularly on a story like this where tensions run high.
Exactly - you get this sort of level of response from police in high profile cases in the UK, such as those involving murderers or child abuse, where public tension might be high. The key difference is that normally in those cases the media scrum is between the prison and the court. The accused is not normally seeking refuge in an embassy.
I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio silence.
It's not suspect at all: it's called contempt of court.
Journalists really aren't allowed to go around interviewing either plaintiffs or defendants in criminal trials for fairly obvious reasons. Cases all across the world have been undone by press coverage that has contaminated the jury pool. In many countries victims of sexual assault and rape cases are also entitled to have their identities withheld, again for fairly obvious reasons.
It is not for the court of public opinion to decide the outcome of a criminal case, although that is certainly how this particular one seems to be playing out (unfortunately).
What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their identities are not released because that's Swedish law.
Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.
What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.
"What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion."
Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
If Julian Assange is worried about being extradited to the US (which seems to be his main objection to going to Sweden) why is he in the UK in the first place? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US in place and have extradited several people to the US.
Sounds reasonable, but at the same time, Sweden's stated aim and actions haven't been consistent. They claim they only want to interview Assange, but (IIRC) he offered to be interviewed by Swedish police in the UK.
Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the CIA for rendition, who were subsequently handed over to the Mubarak regime where they were tortured. The victims had no chance of legal recourse, as the time between being nabbed and handed over was only a few hours. Whether or not Sweden's laws allow it to do this, the fact of the matter is that Sweden has done this.
In comparison, the UK has a proven track record of standing up to the US on similar issues, given that it demanded the return of its citizens from gitmo. If extradition was requested in the UK, from past experience Assange would at least have a chance to fight it in the courts, instead of being unceremoniously handed over.
They definitely couldn't do it secretly, but why couldn't they pull it off? Sure there would be outrage, but governments have faced that before over issues much larger than this. (eg. decisions to go to war and such)
Why not? They hate the guy. Can he really bet his life that they wouldn't go "oops, it happened again."? The fact that they've done this before makes it far more likely that they will do it again. That's how track records work.
It's unlikely to happen to him now, but if he hadn't've made a fuss and drawn so much media there wouldn't be such a spotlight on them.
As someone else said on this issue: it's safe for you to say 'it wouldn't happen'. If you're wrong, nothing happens to you. You get to shrug and say 'hey, I was wrong', and then only if you're feeling magnanimous.
And even then, even if Sweden were to do it by the book, it may just be that it's easier to fight extradition in the UK than in Sweden, just like certain courts are more favourable to business in the US.
This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere.
I say the more we keep talking about Assange the less we're actually using our brains to figure out the fine details of what works and what doesn't work in democracies. For the media, this is becoming a story of drama and conflict. I'd ask them politely to please go peddle it somewhere else.
I have no opinion on whether Assange was set up or not, but I will say this: he is purposely using his publicity as a self-aggrandizing tool. He has been doing this since long before the charges were brought. The more we buy into this narrative of one-man causes, the more we harm our ability to make a better world. Instead we just head down the road of civil unrest and conflict. Assange is not my hero, even if there were no criminal charges. The things I believe are more important than one man, and I refuse to have my principles owned by somebody else besides me.
"This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere."
If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles coughDanielBMarkhamcough.
"The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice"
I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice.
It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2].
[1]:http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador [2]:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...