BBC:
The UN's special rapporteur on torture said that Assange had been subjected to sustained collective persecution - including threatening statements and incitement to violence against him.
"I've worked in many areas of war in my life, in situations of violence, and I've talked to victims of persecution around the world and I've seen very serious atrocities," Mr Melzer told the BBC.
"But [what] I have never seen is that a single person has been deliberately isolated and, I would say, persecuted - not prosecuted, but persecuted - by several democratic states in a concerted effort to eventually break his will."
He added that he believes Assange "has a very strong case, and a very reasonable fear, that if he gets extradited to the Unites States he has no chance to get a fair trial with the level of public and official prejudice that exists there for him".
Mr Melzer added that, because of his treatment, his health was at serious risk.
"We could see that Assange showed all the symptoms that are typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture," he said.
Assange, he said, needs access to a psychiatrist who is "not part of the prison service - someone he can fully trust" - to avoid his health deteriorating further.
UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commisioner
"In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law," Melzer said. "The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!"
"Physically there were ailments but that side of things are being addressed by the prison health service and there was nothing urgent or dangerous in that way," Melzer said.
"What was worrying was the psychological side and his constant anxiety. It was perceptible that he had a sense of being under threat from everyone. He understood what my function was but it's more that he was extremely agitated and busy with his own thoughts. It was difficult to have a very structured conversation with him."
...
The lawyer, who receives 10 to 15 requests each day from sources asking for him to get involved, said that his office had been approached by Assange's lawyers in December. But he said that he was initially reluctant to do so, admitting he was affected by what he called the "prejudice" around the case.However, he began looking into the case again in March and, earlier this week, wrote letters to the foreign ministers of the US, the UK and Sweden.
"In the course of the past nine years, Mr Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination," Melzer will say on Friday.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:18PM (78 children)
Free housing, free food.
I know, I know -- three hots and a cot == jail, or in this case gaol.
However, I note that Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy voluntarily. He was not chased by the police or anything. In fact he jumped bail instead of facing his accusers (both in Sweden -- which may well have been a trumped up charge, and in the US -- where his actions are not actually a crime), which seems more like the actions of a coward than that of a principled journalist, unlike Judith Miller [wikipedia.org].
I find it interesting that Michael Reyes [pix11.com] got away free and clear (and for a much more serious offense), yet he (at age 21) seems to have more intestinal fortitude than Assange, as he returned to the US to face the consequences of his own actions.
What's even more moronic is that even if Assange can be convicted in a US court (that's still an open question), he would almost certainly already be out of prison by now. as Chelsea Manning was until Assange fucked her over *again*.
Manning, in case you aren't aware, has been incarcerated again [gizmodo.com] for refusing to testify before a grand jury.
If Assange had the courage of his supposed convictions, they both would be getting on with their lives now, especially since Assange likely did not commit any provable crime (a journalist receiving classified information is *not* a crime in the US).
Any "torture" that Assange supposedly experienced was entirely of his own making.
The cowardly bastard continues to fuck other people over in his vain effort to save his own ass from a trial that would likely end in a not guilty verdict. I have no sympathy for him.
I'm not saying that the US government is blameless here, as they've pushed this vendetta pretty hard, despite the fact that Assange will likely be acquitted of any espionage charges. That just smacks of sour grapes and a desire to frighten the press.
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:41PM (31 children)
How is this a troll?
I stated facts, although certainly with my own biases and point of view.
What is a troll post? It's a post designed to elicit strong emotional reactions without actually advancing a discussion. What I wrote certainly wasn't that. While it may elicit a strong emotional reaction, I made specific and verifiable arguments that can be challenged, debated and discussed. If you disagree, instead of modding me 'troll' ('flamebait', maybe, but 'troll'?), why don't you make some arguments that refute mine? Which makes me wonder why you're unable or unwilling to do so.
I gave specific details to support my arguments and made reasonable comparisons to Assange's situation.
If you don't like what I have to say, refute it with facts, logic and argument. Simply modding it 'troll' is a weak cop-out.
Do you have anything to say that refutes *any* of the points I made, or are you just upset that I'm not lining up to suck Assange's cock?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:22PM (22 children)
Because it's deliberately missing the point, he's effectively been a prisoner for years without any sort of shot at a fair trial. This is psychological abuse for embarrassing various Democratic nations.
Just because it's possible to reframe things in a deceptive manner doesn't mean their true.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:29PM (19 children)
Says who? I have no doubt that during any trial, the US and global press will be all over this like white on rice and will make sure that any irregularities are loudly broadcast to the world.
What's more, no journalist has *ever* been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 [wikipedia.org]. This likely won't be the first time either. Your tinfoil hat seems a little tight, friend.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:41PM (14 children)
Says Assange, and that is why he's been hiding out in the embassy. It really doesn't matter what we think, because our freedom isn't on the line. It's what Assange believes.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:56PM (13 children)
And Assange is wrong. As he (and you) will find out.
Assuming that dissemination of classified material is the "crime" for which he will be tried, it's highly unlikely that he will be convicted.
What's more, *even if* he might have been convicted (and that's a very big "if") and incarcerated of such a "crime," he'd have been out years ago.
As I mentioned in another comment, if fear of a court of law absolved you of being charged and tried, no one would *ever* be charged or tried.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jasassin on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:16PM (7 children)
Look at what they did to Kevin Mitnick. He was incarcerated for five years without a trial. You talk like a man with a sandpapered ass.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:18PM (6 children)
And Assange imprisoned *himself* without trial for nine years.
Your point?
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:26PM (5 children)
Though I have never been in an embassy, I highly doubt it's anything like a prison.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:30PM (4 children)
Huh? I don't understand. I thought Assange has been *tortured* for the last nine years?
Torture is much worse than incarceration, no?
So which is it? You can't eat your cake and have it too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:20AM
There, in TFS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday June 02 2019, @06:41AM (2 children)
Torture need not be physical but can also be mental. Physical torture (waterboarding, detention without trial, etc) can leave both mental and physical scars, and the same can be said for mental torture. Not only can it leave in the subject a long lasting or even permanent paranoia, but it can leave physical traits in the form of illness and stress related diseases.
It doesn't matter whether you or I think torture has occurred or not - the panel of experts have reached that conclusion and it can only be countered by others who have similar qualifications in this field. Both the UK and the Swedish governments will have to tread carefully if they wish to remain compliant with the international agreements and obligations to which that they have committed themselves.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 03 2019, @09:46AM (1 child)
Torture could be being trapped in an Ecuadorian Embassy for Nine years, or it could be having all your submissions to SoylentNews rejected for two + years. Not to draw any false equivalencies, but just saying, for a friend.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by janrinok on Monday June 03 2019, @01:34PM
You might have a point if you can show me someone who has had all his submissions rejected for two + years.
The ball's in your court.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:18AM (4 children)
Why table an assumption you know from the start is wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:01AM (3 children)
Because it ain't. As the US Department of Justice says [justice.gov]:
It's not the only charge, but he's been charged with disclosing and publishing (dissemination is a synonym for both) classified information.
And so I ask you, why are you talking out of your ass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:42AM (2 children)
Disclose != disseminate. Get a dictionary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @11:37AM
Okay.
Disseminate, v. [dictionary.com]:
Disclose, v. [dictionary.com]:
Now you can argue with Dictionary.com about how they are wrong.
Moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @11:37AM
Okay.
Disseminate, v. [dictionary.com]:
Disclose, v. [dictionary.com]:
Now you can argue with Dictionary.com about how they are wrong.
Moron.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:05PM (3 children)
That's Racist!
Way to erase and further marginalize brown rice [wikipedia.org], black rice [wikipedia.org], and other rices of color [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:19PM (1 child)
I've got your golden rice right here, boyo!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:32PM
Robust reply.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:51AM
> That's Racist!
That's Rice-ist!
ftfy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:55AM (1 child)
Who here is naive enough to think that "Democracy" is more than just circus for the masses?
Embaress Democracic Nations? AHAHAHAHAHA, no.
If Democracy worked as advertised it would be THE LEAST effective form of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @11:40AM
Actually, Democracy is the worst form of government... [winstonchurchill.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:26PM (6 children)
These are opinions:
These are unsubstantiated speculation about whether or not Assange would face some punishment in the US. Remember Al Capone, they don't care what they get you on.
And mere claims without reference are questionable -- you should back those with cites if you have them otherwise, skepticism is in order:
Verdict: Troll Mod Fair and you need to reducate yourself on the meaning of fact.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @09:19PM (5 children)
I never said there wasn't opinion or bias in my post. In fact, I stated exactly that here [soylentnews.org]
However, I did provide facts to support my opinions and argument.
Facts:
Journalists disseminating classified information is not a crime. [findlaw.com] The First Amendment protects journalists who publish classified information. This has been proven again and again in the courts.
No journalist has ever been convicted of espionage for disseminating classified material
Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy voluntarily.
[Assange] jumped bail instead of facing his accusers
Michael Reyes got away free...[and] returned to the US to face the consequences of his own actions.
Manning, in case you aren't aware, has been incarcerated again for refusing to testify before a grand jury.
A mediocre attempt, but I congratulate you for trying. Keep working on it. I'm sure you can do better. I have faith in you, friend.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:03PM (1 child)
No, he didn't. He chose to go there because he thought the least bad option open to him. If he had freedom of choice I'm fairly certain he would have chosen a different residence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:36AM
Your words, not mine.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:59AM
The Espionage Act has a particularly egregious history. Would you expect to be imprisoned because you signed a petition against a governor's policy and threatened to vote him out of office? Happened. Went all the way to the Supreme Court which was going to affirm. The Defendant got lucky and a lone justice proposed a scathing dissent, some politics happened, and the prosecution was dropped. Now you may me see this as a victory -- it isn't. It's mere luck. Not to mention, the process itself is punishment and quite often, you sit in prison while waiting to be exonerated. That's not winning.
That same justice did vote to convict on the following facts which are only slightly different, at least from a 1A perspective:
And lastly, a person cannot get a fair trial under the Espionage Act -- the rules are different. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act [theguardian.com] You act like the law is some magic bullet to end corruption and further justice. It is in fact, the tool most used by the corrupt to cause injustice. _IF_ you win, that comes after spending time in prison, going bankrupt, and being deprived of any hope of a future while the case is pending.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:24AM (1 child)
Irrelevant, Assange is not charged with dissemination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:02AM
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment [justice.gov]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:04AM
Troll mod fixed, because the post IS interesting. I'm an Assange supporter, but your points are on target. At every step along the way, Julian made decisions with which he was going to have to live. Even when he allowed two different women to seduce him, he made decisions, the consequences of which might affect him for the rest of his life.
None of that changes the fact that the bastards in Washington really are out to get him. None of that changes the fact that the bitch prosecutor in Sweden went way overboard to accomodate the US government. Assange is being persecuted.
However, there is a huge contingent of people who give emotional importance to this saga. They've chosen sides, and that's where they stand. For you to present any facts they don't like can only be the act of a troll.
Get used to it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:21PM (3 children)
The people in Guantanamo Julian sacrificed his freedom to tell you about were also fed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:31PM
There. FTFY.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:10PM (1 child)
Cock meat sandwiches.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:43PM
Because you can't have the cockmeat without the cockcheese!
Make sure you rmeal is always balanced with both the meat and the dairy!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:34PM (12 children)
Assange was never in the US, so he's got no reason to hand himself over to them. The US is on a witch hunt for the man. He dared to draw attention to the fact that they were engaged in despicable and illegal actions, so they threw a tantrum and started strong-arming other countries to help them get their hands on him so they could make an example of him. Typical bully actions.
Handing yourself over to a bully after publicly humiliating him, knowing that he absolutely will beat the crap out of you, isn't intestinal fortitude, it's incredible stupidity.
The fucking over of Manning is entirely on the US. They couldn't get their hands on Assange, so they tortured the person they had access to: the person whose conscience couldn't let them keep quiet and covering up for the US military's illegal actions.
The re-fucking over of Manning is entirely on the US government. One of their "allies" has shown sufficient spinelessness that they have a chance to get their mitts on Assange and they want their scapegoat to publicly dance to their tune, denouncing him. She refused, once again making the bully look bad, so back in the pokey she went.
Assange may not be a paragon of virtue, but he had the balls to show the world the truth about a massive bully: the US government and their enforcement thugs.
The only one looking good in the whole fiasco is Manning, first for not rolling over like her co-minions by covering up the wrong-doings of her employer despite knowing she would be persecuted when eventually caught, then for not breaking under her employer's illegal torture, then once again for not rolling over when they tried to trot her out as a puppet once Assange was accessible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:50PM (2 children)
I don't fault Assange for releasing the documents *illegally* obtained by Chelsea Manning. And I don't think Assange has committed any crime associated with that.
That the US government made extradition requests (which are done all the time for all sorts of folks) isn't surprising. That the US government thinks it can convict Assange is a pretty big reach, given that no journalist has *ever* been convicted of disseminating classified information in the US.
I don't disagree with Manning's actions either. I'm glad she released those documents. However, as a member of the US military on active duty, she was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) [wikipedia.org].
Under the UCMJ, obtaining and disseminating classified documents without authorization is a crime. Whether or not the results were justified (as I said, I'm glad she did what she did), she deliberately contravened the law and has paid for it (oh, and by the way, incarceration is not torture, whether such incarceration is justified or not).
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please explain how detention in advance of court proceedings and incarceration after conviction is "torture."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:20PM
We agree though that Metallica and Britney Spears is torture.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/dec/10/stop-the-music-torture-initiative [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:30AM
If it mattered where a person committed what is a crime in the US, General Noriega would have stayed in Panama. And what is interesting -- the putative reason for the invasion (harassing three US soldiers at a checkpoint and two civilian witnesses) was not what he was charged with. He was tried and convicted on drug and drug related charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Genesis [wikipedia.org]
Not for lack of trying. You know the only reason Ellsberg's trial was dismissed was due to government misconduct (burglary, wiretapping, that sort of misconduct): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_dismissal [wikipedia.org]
Secondly, you ignore indirect conviction. Someone above mentioned Judith Miller I think: "Under the George W. Bush administration, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail on contempt of court charges for refusing to testify about the identity of a source." https://cpj.org/blog/2017/05/how-us-espionage-act-can-be-used-against-journalis.php [cpj.org] Now, 85 days isn't the end of the world once it is all over, but contempt can go on and on and while you are sitting in jail, you have no idea if or when you will be released. This tool is there to be used to a greater or lesser degree at the whim of the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:44PM (6 children)
He also has no reason to be protected by the US' 1st Amendment. Can't have it both ways ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:29AM
Amendments don't work that way, hon.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:19AM (4 children)
The constitution and it's amendments restrict the federal government's authority. It doesn't specify that the feds have more authority outside the US, nor does it grant the government more authority when dealing with foreign nationals. Our government has no authority over the press - end of story. That isn't trying to have it "both ways".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @05:10AM (3 children)
Tell this to those specially rendition-ed or killed by drones. I think they would (if they could) find that the US Constitution is irrelevant for such cases.
Funny enough, that seems to be the Assange's case as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @05:21AM (1 child)
Not irrelevant. The problem is, too many people just ignore the constitution. People like Bush and Cheney for instance.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @05:35AM
That's exactly what makes it irrelevant.
And Obama [wikipedia.org] and Trump [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:22PM
No problem, just send me their email addresses and I'll get right on it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:10PM (1 child)
I'd have cared if he did not become a puppet of Russia. When he crossed that line, he lost all credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @07:15AM
But this thread isn't about Trump.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:14PM
Yes, kind of like mafia gives you options and it's all voluntery if you choose not to pay what you don't have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mer on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:09PM (11 children)
How is it relevant that facing trial would be a show of "intestinal fortitude"? Assange's righteousness of character is pretty secondary to an imminent threat of high profile conspirators plotting him harm while corrupting the meaning of the law.
As a non-us citizen, not on us soil his extradition shouldn't even be on the table. Treason and classified laws only allow extra-legal action on the subjects of the relevant nation: the us citizens. And yet, after all the arguing that it was paranoia and he wasn't sure it would happen, like clockwork it's on the table as soon as he's out of the embassy.
It would be pretty idiotic playing "fair" when the game is rigged from the start, and all the recent events seem to vindicate him in his prediction that the game is rigged.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:59PM (10 children)
AC you're replying to here. Those are excellent points.
As I've repeatedly said here, I don't believe that Assange has committed any crime in disseminating the documents received from Chelsea Manning.
My issue with Assange isn't about his actions WRT the documents released by Wikileaks. Rather, it's the idea that he was somehow "tortured." Assange was not tortured by anyone.
The reprehensible actions of the US government (and I am a US citizen) are absolutely capricious and in bad faith. Attempting to prosecute a journalist for journalism is contrary to the ideals embodied in the US Constitution [wikipedia.org].
What's more, especially by now, Assange's actions in publishing those documents aren't relevant or even particularly interesting.
Assange's nearly decade-long nose-thumbing at the UK and Swedish governments, is and always was going to be self-defeating. As it stands now (which is where it stood nine years ago), the UK will accede to the US extradition request (as they are bound by treaty to do) and Assange will be brought to the United States, detained and eventually tried. Which will almost certainly result in an acquittal. Because charges that a journalist disseminating stolen government documents is "espionage" is ridiculous on its face.
However, given the high profile nature of the case and the implications for freedom of the press and expression, the case will be monitored closely and, in all likelihood, Assange will be acquitted of any espionage charges against him. And that's what would have happened nine years ago too.
As for a non-citizen being charged with espionage, even if they are not on the soil of that nation, that happens all the time. The difference here is that since Assange was not a spy and wasn't committing espionage, in any way, for any particular government, there was no nation to put him beyond the reach of the US government on a permanent basis. By comparison, Ed Snowden (whose actions I also applaud) actually did commit espionage against the US is beyond the reach of the US government.
While there may well have been some specific animus against Assange in the aftermath of the Wikileaks release of Manning's stolen documents, any action now is strictly an attempt to cow the press and chill free speech.
As soon as Assange skipped bail in the UK, this result was inevitable. Assange chose to prolong this.
The US government should never have tried to prosecute Assange and they are absolutely in the wrong. However, Assange's experiences between the time he was released on bail and when he was arrested for jumping bail are all on him. As such, claiming that he was imprisoned or tortured during that time is disingenuous at best.
What's more, Assange will almost certainly be acquitted of "espionage" for disseminating the Manning documents. Why do I say that? Because no journalist in the US ever has been, nor has the US government ever been able to make the case that doing so is a crime, or even inappropriate -- cf. The Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org]. In that case, even the "leaker" (Daniel Ellsberg [wikipedia.org] wasn't convicted, as Chelsea Manning was.
Folks can complain about malicious prosecution and vendettas by the US government all day long and they won't get an argument from me. At the same time, Assange's trials and tribulations over the past nine years were the result of *his* choices.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:31AM (3 children)
I wouldn't have thought SN was big enough to attract a paid shill, are you doing this for fun on your free time?
The espionage charges will obviously be defeated in court. They are simply there to bulk up the list of charges and make handing him over look more reasonable. The USA will send him to prison for a long time on the CFAA and conspiracy charges. They don't care what specific charges he goes to prison for, just so long as he goes.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:41AM (1 child)
Why is it obvious that the espionage charges will fail in court?
Other journalists are publicly concerned that given the state of US law and the mood of its enforcers, they could be imprisoned for publishing classified material.
The 1971 Pentagon Papers case threw out a preliminary injunction but didn't declare the law unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:24AM
Exactly because of that. They are a distraction to divert attention. All the 'real' journalists go "Oh No! You can't charge him for that!! Free Speech!! First Amendment!! Rah, Rah, Rah!". Then when those charges are dismissed or dropped they all celebrate that, while he goes to jail on the CFAA charges, having meanwhile used up most of what public support he had.
Expect a lot of mainstream pro-establishment pieces and editorials pointing out that:
(a) he's an alleged sex criminal and therefore a dirty pervert, and
(b) that it's not about free speech, he will be convicted of hacking into computers
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @11:48AM
You underestimate the importance of this site. We're watching you. And you will pay for your insolence when scum like you are up against the wall. Don't bother looking over your shoulder, it will happen when you least expect it.
It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:28AM (5 children)
You're doing a great job here - but I need to point out that Manning was never a journalist. Manning was properly convicted for having betrayed the trust of the government, when Manning was trained and paid to perform the duties of an analyst in the military. I offer no support for Manning for various reasons, beginning with motives.
Again, with Snowden. I support Snowden, just as much as I support Assange. But, Snowden DID betray the trust the government put in him. He can be properly convicted, if he ever returns to the US.
Assange has never enlisted, been commissioned, or otherwise contracted with the US military. Assange is most definitely a journalist, with protections that neither Manning or Snowden enjoyed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:50AM (4 children)
Huh? When did I say that Manning was a journalist? In fact, I said [soylentnews.org]:
And WRT to Snowden I said [soylentnews.org]:
Not trying to give you a hard time, just not clear on where you got the idea that I disagree with your assessment.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @03:02AM (3 children)
You didn't claim Manning to be a journalist. I just felt that it should be pointed out. Many people put Manning, Assange, and Snowden on the same pedestal - or target stand, depending on their inclination.
To be clear:
I support Assange, primarily becasue he is a journalist.
I support Snowden, for his principled approach to everything he did.
I do not support Manning due to his motivations when he committed his acts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @03:08AM
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:31AM (1 child)
I'd also like to point out that journalists do not, and should not, enjoy extra protections with regards to free speech.
As soon as you start down that path, you end up with licensing journalists, followed by restricting everyone else's rights.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @09:06AM
Very true. I can't dispute that, even a little bit. However, it has been traditional that journalists have "credentials". If/when the powers that be decide that the public must be evacuated, or simply kept out of an area, journalists have often times been allowed to enter and/or remain in that area. Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes are good examples. If you have a news agency ID to display, you get in, if you have no credentials, the cops insist that you leave. Rightly or wrongly, a credentialed jounalist enjoys some privileges that a member of the public does not enjoy.
Wrongly, it would seem, those credentials, or lack of credentials, apparently make a difference in court, when the government is attempting to censor someone, or to punish them for reporting.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:29PM (2 children)
Ah, there you are. Of course you would praise Judith Miller, one of the two pieces of slime that permanently broke the integrity of the Gray Lady [wikipedia.org] by carrying water for Bush & Cheney's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" hoax.
Out of curiosity, is it out of pure venomous boredom that you impugn people like Assange and Snowden? Or is it curdled self-loathing as you carry out your work as a "consular officer," processing paperwork in triplicate for extraordinary renditions and arranging flights to black sites for "enhanced interrogation?"
The stench of moral turpitude clings to your words. Have you realized yet that your masters are never going to love you, no matter how many times you twist yourself inside out?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:25PM (1 child)
I'm not saying that Judith Miller is a saint. Nor am I saying that she shouldn't have dug harder to find out that she was being used as a conduit for disinformation.
I'm talking about her willingness to go to jail for the principle of protecting her sources. [wikipedia.org]
It's telling that you ignored the link I posted (I posted it again for your benefit, honey! And you're welcome!).
Where did I say anything about Snowden except:
1. Applauding the fact that he released all those documents;
2. Pointing out that stealing classified documents is espionage
3. Further pointing out that Snowden is beyond the reach of the US government
I have no specific love (or desire for love from) the US government. Nor have I *ever* said anything of the sort. In fact, I've gone out of my way in *every single comment* I've made on this thread to castigate the US government for their activities in relation to Assange.
Perhaps you're projecting your own self-loathing? Perhaps because of all those Clinton Death Squads you served in back in the day? In fact, you make a point of telling everyone (even though we don't care) how close you were to the Clintons. I'm sure all those people you've murdered in their name weighs heavily on your conscience.
See. I can spew ridiculous bullshit about someone I know little (you know nothing about me) about, too. But please, don't stop. I could use another good laugh at your expense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:47PM
Depends on the source. If the source is a misinformation campaign and then when exposure is on the table they up the ante with mafia style death threats, then it is far safer to just keep quiet and spend some time in jail while the political machinations lose their steam.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:08PM (12 children)
You choose to eschew a number of facts:
1. there's no evidence that US will treat Assange as a journalist. On the contrary, I would say.
2. even if they do, there's no precedent of US refraining themselves in applying the "journalism is protected" argument for citizens of other nations, on the contrary (see Guantanamo bay). It is likely that they'll apply the "US constitution doesn't apply to foreigners".
3. if *dissemination*, as you say, would have been what the US is targeting, then there wouldn't be any espionage charges tabled in the extradition request. As such, your "dissemination is not punishable" is a "sleight of hand" to divert the attention - and, in my opinion, this is trolling when you employ the technique willingly.
The above refutes your "Assange's fear of being unfairly convicted in a US court is baseless". In fact, the "fear of unfair treatment for the sake of making an example" is the very base of what the UN rapporteur considers "psychological torture" (and there goes your "cowardly bastard" argument)
To add to the list of facts that you omit:
4. numerous occasions in which assassination by using US state means (CIA, drones, etc) were requested by public US political figures.
Try living for years with the fear of being assassinated and then come back to make "Assange is not psychologically tortured, but a coward" argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:40PM (6 children)
I'm gong to give you the benefit of the doubt since you're not an American and explain.
Assange will be tried in an Article III court [wikipedia.org], where *everyone*, citizen or foreign national has all the constitutional rights afforded to citizens and all other persons on the US.
I'm not going to defend the US government against every fucked-up thing they've ever done. Besides not having several years to do so, I believe that folks should act ethically and more than a few folks who are/were in the US government should rot in jail until they die and putrefy on the floors of their cells. Bad faith, unethical behavior and outright criminality shouldn't be defended and I certainly won't be the one to do so.
Like Assange, you seem to think that he, as an individual has some specific significance here. That may have been true in the immediate aftermath of the Manning document releases, but nowadays he's just the pointy end of the stick that's trying to skewer and emasculate the free press.
Don't like the US government's heavy-handed tactics over the past century and a half or so? Join the club.
But from a practical perspective, there's no way the US government could disappear Assange or stick him in Gitmo as an 'enemy combatant'. As such, the only alternative is to try him in an Article III court. And if/when they do, the US government will get smacked down. Hard.
You heard it here first. And you're welcome.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:04AM (5 children)
Since "bad faith, unethical behavior and outright criminality" from the US govt has impact on far more many people than whatever Assange has done, why don't you start with fixing that?
You know, Assange himself may help.
If I talked about droning Julian Assange, "it would have been a joke." [twitter.com] says the comedian who ran the "We came, we saw, he died" MAFIA humor.
It only takes a "change of law" (as Mitch McConnell suggested) to classify Assange a combatant enemy and have him dealt accordingly [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:35AM (4 children)
I try. By complaining loudly and every single time I vote.
Are you suggesting I take up arms against my government? Sorry, no can do. You see, I have an addiction to breathing and a 50+ year, Cal Ripken-like [history.com] streak of never going to jail working.
Any other helpful suggestions, friend?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:46AM (3 children)
As a matter of fact, I do. How about you stop calling people coward, for a start? Stones/glasshouse something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:07AM (2 children)
And that will make a difference exactly how. I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
I'm an Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:39AM (1 child)
To others, none. You'll benefit from it the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:24PM
Okay. Fuck you, coward.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:06AM (4 children)
There's no evidence that they won't. Despite your contrary *opinion*, Mary.
If that were the case, there would be no indictment. Not a fact. Again, your opinion. And as I've kept saying, you'll see how that goes soon enough.
Nope. Again, just your opinion. Mine rests on the *fact* that no journalist has *ever* been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 [wikipedia.org], which is the law under which Assange has been charged. Where is your opinion based? I thought so.
Where did I say that "Assange's fear of being unfairly convicted was baseless?" I didn't. I said that I find the idea quite unlikely, since no journalist has *ever* been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (see link above).
So your opinion plus that of a UN bureaucrat == fact? Nope. Just two opinions.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If Assange is assassinated, I'll buy you a pint, mate. I know you're not honorable enough to do the same, so I won't ask.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:57AM (3 children)
I don't see your proof that they will. So, opinion against opinion - but I'll come later to the matter of whose opinion count (hint: doesn't seem to be yours)
Here are the basis for my opinion:
1. The head of the CIA lumped WikiLeaks with al Qaeda and the Islamic State and said his agency is working toward reducing the “enormous threat” posed by each of them. [washingtontimes.com].
2. McConnell: WikiLeaks founder 'a high-tech terrorist' [thehill.com]
The assistant attorney for national security, John Demers, declared: “Julian Assange is no journalist.” [theguardian.com]
I said "Dissemination is irrelevant to the case, because Assange is not charged with dissemination." - is this not a fact?
As for "no journalist ever was convicted":
1. see above the "Assange not journalist" opinion of bloody assistant attorney for national security and admit already that's your opinion against DoJ opinion.
2. the fact that it didn't happen in the past is NOT a guarantee it won't happen in the future (yeah, right, "special conditions make this case different from precedents", etc)
When you call Assange a coward, you imply his fear is unjustified. Yes, of course, your opinion and you are entitled to one.
But:
1. is a fact that CIA consider Wikileaks a "non-state intelligence organization posing an enormous threat"
2. is also a fact that the assistant attorney for national security considers Julian Assange not a journalist.
You are asking me to take your opinion at higher value than CIA's and DoJ opinions.
You will pardon me for finding your proposition hard to accept and thus refusing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:12AM (2 children)
cf. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31895&page=1&cid=850352#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:16AM (1 child)
I hope you don't blame me for the fact that you can't follow your own resolutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:36AM
cf. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31895&page=1&cid=850352#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ilPapa on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:30PM (61 children)
Is it really "arbitrary confinement" if Assange could have walked out of the Ecuadorian embassy any time he wanted?
His confinement was entirely voluntary. Dodging police who have a warrant for you is not the same as being confined involuntarily.
Karma is a bitch.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:44PM (8 children)
Wow. Someone is either abusing the 'troll' mod or doesn't understand what a 'troll' is.
More's the pity. Apparently, whoever it is either can't (or won't) discuss why they think anything other than "Assange is a hero" is a troll.
Unlike Assange, why don't you have the courage of your convictions and actually *discuss* why you think AC and IlPapa are wrong?
Is that too much to ask on a discussion site? Sigh.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:33PM (7 children)
Whining about a single troll mod is a waste of finger movements. And look, it was corrected.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:52PM (6 children)
Actually, it was two (and now two plus a 'redundant' mod).
As for a waste of finger movements, as Arlo Guthrie said [youtu.be] in a different context, "I'm not proud. Or tired."
To elucidate, for me it's not really about the downmods (and yes, they were corrected), it's about substituting downmods for argument, facts, logic and discussion on a discussion site.
That's what I was complaining about, not specific downmods.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:59PM (5 children)
Get over it. It happens, but doesn't seem to happen as much on this site. When it does, people correct it, like myself. I modded you underrated to push you up past zero, which AC only deserves if they've earned it. Somebody modded you interesting, so I'll help you get a 1 - Interesting.
As for the trolling, I'm not sure how that can be legitimate. I'm sure it does trigger people (me a tiny little bit) because it seemingly, and completely, discounts the kind of psychological pressure that can be experienced from bad governments when you embarrass the powers that be. Just because the discussion is unpleasant doesn't mean (to me at least) that you were deliberately trolling for a negative response. I believe your arguments are sincere and should be responded to with something other than a troll mod, which is effectively the middle finger.
I'll grant you there are far more impressive and well principled champions for journalism that were brave and met this "beast" as it were head on. Larry Flint comes to mind as someone that suffered for journalism. Your points about principles and bravery are not really relevant. Those are opinions, but the discussion really is about whether Assange suffered pyschological torture, and to what degree was it caused because of politics, corruption, and national security theater?
Assange may be an asshole, and he may be cowardly, but can you really say it was purely voluntary? That's like saying you voluntarily sought higher ground during a flood. For Assange, the floors outside the embassy may well have been actual lava. Also remember, you had people high up in the US government (Hillary) that joked about sending a cruise missile. Plenty histrionically argued it as a catastrophic blow to our national security and Assange should be legitimately targeted for execution. Remember who he embarrassed here.
I'm not so sure voluntary is a good way to describe it, and that can entirely assign the blame to Assange for the whole thing.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @09:33PM
Thank you.
You have elucidated my point better than I could have.
My complaint wasn't that I was being downmodded (that happens all the time, as I'm definitely an asshole). Rather, it was that someone (and the same someone, in fact) troll-modded both my post and one that had similar sentiment rather than posting their own arguments as to why I was wrong.
So it wasn't the downmod that was the problem (I wouldn't have said a word if they'd modded 'flamebait' or 'disagree') in my mind. My posts about it were more to push that person to *discuss* why they thought I was wrong rather than just doing a drive-by 'troll' mod.
As to your points, I have no doubt that Assange was fearful of what might happen if the US government got their greasy little paws on him. When the government of a global superpower wants to eat you for lunch, that is definitely scary.
And yes, I did pepper my comment with opinion and (absolutely) biased statements. No one (except me) can really know why I did so, but given the *other* facts and statements that I made, I thought it was pretty clear that while I was being provocative, that it was to spark discussion and make people think rather than just making knee-jerk responses like 'troll' mods.
That's not to say that I don't actually think that Assange didn't have a hand in his own "incarceration" at the Ecuadorian embassy. He absolutely did.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful and coherent comments and analysis. I, for one, appreciate it a great deal.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:08PM (3 children)
Ah edIII, you're playing right into this cretin's hands. Everything he's doing here is right out of the JTRIG playbook Snowden revealed (if you haven't read those documents, you should). They come to forums like this to disrupt and weaken the formation of social consensus. They are at permanent war with freedom and democracy, and we ought to show them all the door immediately.
Yes, scumbags like this one (I call him "Belial") exist. They are so obvious, too. They carry a miasma of moral turpitude around with them, such that children and small dogs recoil from them instinctively. They get bored with torturing innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq, so they take breaks to toy with others in the West. It's all a game to them, and they think we are their playthings.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:32PM (2 children)
That's right. And when the time comes you'll be the first one to suffer the fate that befalls all the worms like you.
There's a new order coming, Phoenix. You can either part of it or you can be stepped on.
We are everywhere. And we will destroy you. We won't even kill you. We won't give you the sweet release of death.
We'll just take everything that matters to you and force you to watch it burn!
And when you think you have nothing left, we'll take your mind and make you just like us.
There is no escape. There is no justice. No mercy. No last minute reprieves. In the end you will destroy everything you love. And when you do, we will be there. Laughing. At you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:03PM
Lol
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday June 03 2019, @12:39AM
+1 Evil Monologue
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:45PM (29 children)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Despite what tools and shills wish, the United Nations Office of the High Commisioner, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decided otherwise [ohchr.org]. Their position, since the end of 2015, almost four years ago, has been that he has been arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As we see, the threat of extradition to the US was an actual concern.
The timing of his eviction was such that it was a day before the doctors were to examine him for physical and psychological damage as the result of that illegal detention. He was examined the other day by the UN's special rapporeteur on torture along with some doctors, who assessed that Julian Assange shows all the symptoms of psychological torture [cnn.com]. Even the eviction itself was illegal.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Saturday June 01 2019, @05:50PM (19 children)
Then I've been arbitrarily detained by my wife for decades now.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:11PM (12 children)
I suspect there are other factors, as that is usually the case.
Things like who gets what if you leave: house, furniture, cars, etc. Kids: trauma, visitation, child support, etc. Family/community reaction: rumors/gossip, approval/disapproval, family complexities with relating to offspring, etc. Lawyers: costs, risks of damage to one's own circumstance from them. And so on.
The point being made WRT Assange — valid or not — is that there are more factors in play here than the choice itself. That's where the issue seems to lie, at least to me.
Also, I think it's worth considering the fact that when a bogus charge is made by a corrupt power structure, the obligation to play the game using that power structure's rules goes "poof", other than as a matter of purest coercion by actual wrongdoers.
The law is at times wrong, even profoundly wrong, and when it is wrong, it not only can be disregarded, it should be disregarded. Here's someone who backs me up on that:
--
Reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:19PM (10 children)
That there are consequences to leaving a marriage makes the analogy even more apt, IMHO.
Given that no journalist has *ever* been convicted in a US court for disseminating classified material, it seems really unlikely that Assange would be.
No one is calling him an "enemy combatant" or trying spirit him off to a black site. Rather, the US government is attempting to curtail free speech and the free press. Both the US courts and the US population take a *very* dim view of such things.
This all would have been over years ago and Assange could have been back to fucking Swedish girls bareback [wikipedia.org] a long time ago.
It was Assange's choice not to do so.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:38PM (9 children)
It would appear that you're not clear about the habits that prosecutors driving the US (in)justice system have WRT layering on various and sundry other charges so they almost always get a conviction, or at least a plea bargain — disseminating classified material does not represent the entire charge picture here; [justice.gov] and in addition to whatever the sum of US charges end up being once this finally reaches the courts, there is also the threat of being called on the carpet for what may also be a trumped-up charge in Sweden. Right now, he's dealing with a layer of charges from the English system as well. It's a pretty big mess.
It's very difficult to know someone else's mind, especially someone who is, by your own evaluation, facing improper prosecution. What you might do in that circumstance is not necessarily what someone else would do, nor is it certain to be either right for them or based on the correct assumptions in re guilt/non-guilt.
--
No, I didn't trip. That was a random gravity check.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:08PM
I am aware that Assange has also been charged with aiding Chelsea Manning in illegally obtaining the documents released.
Which is why I have been very careful to say that in *disseminating* those documents, Assange committed no crime.
Given that it's quite unlikely that Assange (unlike most criminal defendants who do not have the resources that Assange does) will take a plea deal, the US government will need to prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* that Assange assisted Manning in breaching military servers and absconding with data. Unless Manning testifies to this (which she seems unwilling to do), it's nearly impossible to prove.
As to prosecutors (and not just US government prosecutors, but state and local ones too) filling up charge sheets to force plea deals, I agree that it's an appalling abuse. I believe that no one should be convicted without trial or without conviction by a jury. Ever. For any reason.
That would force prosecutors to be much less cavalier about bringing criminal charges and should be part of any real criminal justice reforms.
I'll say it again, any actual crimes (in this case, under the CFAA [wikipedia.org]) that *might* have been committed by Assange will be nearly impossible to prove without corroboration by Manning. Since that seems unlikely, Assange will almost certainly be acquitted of any charges for which he might be tried.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:43PM (7 children)
Yes, exactly. This AC is both naive about the US justice system as it actually works, not as a theoretical construct, and cavalier about what Assange has decided to do when it's not his own neck on the line.
The AC is bloviating about what Assange should have done if he were courageous, when the guy, whatever his foibles might be, did an intensely courageous thing by exposing the crimes of the US government to the world, while he himself can't even summon the wherewithal to post non-anonymously. It's absurd.
You are far more charitable than I am to even entertain this poltroon's sophistry.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:23AM (5 children)
No, he's not naive, he's disingenuous.
He's pushing the "trust us/US, there will be a fair trial" agenda - real-politik in action, get control at first, we'll deal with the rest later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:46AM (2 children)
I'm not saying that anyone should be trusted, least of all the US government.
However, given the implications for a free press, there will be many, many eyes on this case.
You keep blathering on about systems and processes with which you are unfamiliar.
I'm not going to continue to try to educate you. I'll let how this plays out do so for me. Let's have this conversation again after Assange gives his post-acquittal news conference.
Until then, sweet boy.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:57AM (1 child)
When I look from outside what are the results of those systems and processes, I can not blame Assange for being afraid of unfair threaten.
I'm not a medical expert either, so that I'm not familiar what systems and processes are involved in cancer; I just know enough I don't want to take my chances with one.
Good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:01AM
s/unfair threaten/unfair treatment/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:42AM (1 child)
He's pushing the "trust us/US, there will be a fair trial" agenda - real-politik in action, get control at first, we'll deal with the rest later.
It looks like those backing Qanon [scoop.co.nz] have turned up at SN to manipulate some of the weaker minds, or pick up some fellow trolls along for the ride. "trust the plan, do nothing" [medium.com] is a mantra of theirs. It looks like several accounts here are supporting that or at least pretending to play along.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 02 2019, @11:58AM
Yes, and that should tell all Soylentils all they really need to know about how truly insecure they are. They like to puff and posture about how they "know things you don't know," but the reality is they're deathly afraid of us, the public, and sit in the dark chewing their fingernails to the quick and peeking nervously between their drapes at us while at play and at work. Why else would they come to our happy little corner of heaven to peddle their base filth?
His name is Belial:
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:35PM
Assange was just a tool. To get you morons all up in arms.
He's served his purpose and will be discarded like all useless objects.
And when you see his brains splatter, you will realize that you've already lost.
There is no hope. There is no chance at renewal or redemption.
You will suffer and we will revel in drinking your salty tears!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:29PM
That may be true, but this is an odd context to bring it up in. The UK government are the lawbreakers here, are you saying they were right to break their own laws? The goal of discouraging journalism is important enough to justify violating the law, is that your argument?
What a strange track your thoughts took there.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:15PM (5 children)
You can leave your wife without fear of an unknown period of incarceration in a pound you in the ass federal prison.
I have little doubt Assange would be convicted, look at the shit they have pulled to try to get their hands on him!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:24PM (4 children)
Given that no journalist has *ever* been convicted of the "crime" claimed by the US government, your assertion is seriously flawed. Don't forget that we have jury trials in the US and the defense has wide latitude in rejecting potential jurors (I was just rejected as a juror a couple weeks ago, in fact).
This isn't Turkey, Russia or Singapore.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @08:33PM (2 children)
How many foreign private jets flying foreign leaders were forcefully landed in a friendly foreign country to be searched for catching a whistleblower [wikipedia.org]?
You have harped about "it has never happened before" all over the comments. It is not a good point to bring as much as you would like to think it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @09:04PM (1 child)
I didn't realize that searching a plane was a criminal trial. My bad.
Talk about moving the goal posts! You've taken them out of the stadium and moved them five miles down the road to the K-Mart. Geez, Louise!
I don't condone the US government's actions and they will likely, as they should be, be slapped down hard at trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @09:07AM
> I didn't realize that searching a plane was a criminal trial. My bad.
Lol? Searching a plane like that is much stronger action than taking someone to trial. Searching a plane like that is how someone gets disappeared.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday June 02 2019, @05:37AM
You don't know my wife.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @06:10PM (7 children)
Yep. That's true.
And that's the *opinion* of some UN functionaries. They (and you) are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
Here's a fact for you. Until nine days ago, no journalist — self-described or otherwise — had ever been criminally charged for disclosing government secrets. [washingtonpost.com]
Which is, IMHO (see, this is opinion now), why the US government has seriously overreached here and will likely be slapped down in the courts for it.
We Americans are quite protective of our free speech and free press protections. which is why Assange will (if he ever goes to trial) likely be acquitted of any espionage charge for releasing the documents Chelsea Manning provided to Wikileaks.
How many of those UN functionaries examined Assange? How many of them are trained medical professionals?
I'd also point out that psychological damage from running away in fear of a court of law isn't a justification to be above the law. If it were, there wouldn't be anyone in any prison anywhere.
Assange's actions (unless there's some evidence we haven't heard about) were not criminal and a trial will make that quite clear. You may disagree with the US government's pursuit of Assange (I certainly do), but any psychological damage done to Assange was all of his own making.
Assange decided to jump bail. Assange decided to run away and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange decided to stay there instead of vigorously defending himself. Assange decided to flout the legal processes of at least three nations.
I'm sure it really sucked for Assange to be cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy for years. But as I previously pointed out [soylentnews.org], even in the (unlikely) event that Assange was convicted (no one else ever has been), he'd almost certainly already be out and getting on with his life.
That's why I think Assange is a coward. I have no particular axe to grind with Assange, nor am I a big fan of the US government -- especially given their actions in Assange's case -- which are obviously designed to cow the free press. Given the anti-free expression bent of the orange-asshole-in-chief, it's not so surprising.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @07:12PM (4 children)
Oh, so back to modding me down because you are unable or unwilling to make arguments or provide facts to counter mine.
Be careful, you might be getting close to being considered a mod bomber. [soylentnews.org]
Why don't we have a discussion instead?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 02 2019, @07:04AM (3 children)
People are not modding you down because they necessarily disagree with what you say, but because when logical argument is presented to you that refutes your case you simply refuse to re-evaluate your position. You are still making the very same claims that you started out with despite others pointing out where those claims are on very shaky ground, and in some cases where the US Government has clearly gone beyond what you are claiming to ensure that Assange ends up in the US courts come what may.
The only way you can advance is by disproving their counter arguments - not repeating your initial position repeatedly in the hope that others will get bored and you can view yourself the winner!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @07:57AM
cf. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31895&page=1&cid=850352#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(grin)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @09:10AM (1 child)
Oh look the troll replied to you by trolling...
You Soylentils are being super kind to this person. If this person showed up at a party and acted like this, they'd get tossed at best, and roughed more likely. They're not participating in civil discourse, they're just wasting our time. It's kinda gross, like someone intentionally sneezing into their hand then shaking yours. They're posting in bad faith.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:54PM
Consider that the charges are not just for publishing of secrets. He will be charged with breaking and entering to get those secrets, as some communication with Manning shows. If that flies, he'd get at least as much as Manning got.
But I agree that 9 years in the embassy was a bad idea. He just wasted those years - and burned his political capital in the process.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:36AM
Get you facts right.
Assange decided to ask protection [wikipedia.org] under the right of political asylum [wikipedia.org], having reasons to believe his life is in danger from political enemies.
His request was judged as holding merit and the political asylum was granted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:38AM
Can't argue the facts, as you present them. It would be nice, though, if some more respectable organization than the UN had made these proclamations. Or, some more relevant organization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @10:22PM (1 child)
I'm sure he felt absolutely free to exit the embassy. Right? I mean what's the worst thing that could happen.
Pick up the gun. Pick up the gun. *BLAM*. You all saw it. He had a gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:38PM
Which is what you'll get. We know who you are. We know where you live.
We are your doom. And you will know pain. And you will know fear. And then you will die.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:40PM (19 children)
Would you get out of anywhere you are if you have MAFIA on your tail?
Here [wikileaks.org]
A selection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 01 2019, @11:46PM (18 children)
And every single one of those folks will be sitting in the jury box during a trial too, right?
No. It will be a bunch of random schmucks who haven't picked up a newspaper in a decade [wikipedia.org], and aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:00AM (4 children)
Trial? If those makes a reality what they have in their mind, there will be no trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:34AM (3 children)
Despite what you or L'Orange think, summary execution isn't part of the playbook in the US civilian world.
In fact, Assange has already been indicted [justice.gov] and, assuming he is extradited to the US, will be tried here [uscourts.gov] (specifically, here [openstreetmap.org]).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:45AM (2 children)
And you want me to believe that it will go all well and civilized (as in "pertaining to civilian world") when you don't trust the US govt yourself?
Others would disagree [wikipedia.org] if they were still alive, but they where killed by the orders of various US presidents (both Obama and Trump), even one 8yo [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:52AM
Too bad for you. My tour [xkcd.com] is over.
It's all gone to hell c0lo, you're on your own. [kayshapero.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:46PM
No. Of course it won't. Assange will die as he's outlived his usefulness. We used him and Manning And Snowden. And so many others. As we will use you.
You are going to be under our boot heels, forced to watch as we take everything that matters to you and burn it to the ground.
And you will do our bidding then have a quick death, or you will die slowly and painfully, humiliated in front of your loved ones.
We are powerful. We are legion. We are the future. You don't know us yet. But you're gonna find out, real soon now.
Be seein' ya.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:43AM (12 children)
Wait, wait, wait!!
Do you seriously think the jury box won't be stacked? Assange's fate will be decided long before he arrives in court for his first hearing. If successfully extradited, I'm sure his fate will include several years in prison. And, no one is going to pardon him, either. I'm convinced that Assange's only hope is to beat the extradition process. If he does beat it, he had better never step foot on any US territory or possession, nor in any war zone in which the US has an interest. Basically, Assange needs to restrict himself to a small number of nations that have little respect for US power and law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @03:20AM (11 children)
Voir Dire [wikipedia.org] (that's cheese-eating-surrender-monkey-ese for picking a jury).
Assuming Assange has a decent defense lawyer (and I'm sure they'll be stacked up five deep to represent him), there will be no jury stacking.
This isn't 1940s Mississippi in a the trial of a black man for raping a white girl.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:12AM (10 children)
Jury selection from a pool of potential jurors already pre-screened by Uncle Sam.
Twice, I've been notified to report for jury duty. Twice, I've responded to the summons. Twice, I've been notified that I didn't have to report for duty after all. Maybe I was de-selected because I'm deemed far too understanding of criminals? Maybe I'm not liberal enough? Maybe I'm not conservative enough?
Seriously, having had years to prepare for this prosecution, I don't think that Uncle has left a lot of good choices for the defense. They know all potential jurors are going to side with gubbermint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:27AM (9 children)
Loosen up that tinfoil hat Runaway.
Federal courts always have you call the night before. This is because they have to line up jurors in advance to make sure there will be enough.
If they don't need more jurors, they tell you not to come. That's happened to me more than once with the Federal court.
Prosecutors only have the information from the jury questionnaire you fill out and nothing else. As such they have very little idea who you are and, in fact, are barred from doing exactly what you suggest.
Which really doesn't matter since they ask lots of questions during voir dire and *both* sides can reject jurors for almost any reason (and a bunch for no reason at all).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @04:38AM (8 children)
Computers.
It's entirely possible, in today's society, with today's computer networks, that gubbermint might abide by all the rules regarding jury selection - but at the some time, an unrelated agency tracks things. Government knows who I am. Government knows who we all are. Given that the Justice department summons us for jury duty, some agency may well check up on us in response to the summons. That agency could easily send alerts to someone within Justice, warning them that our selection for jury duty might jeopardize government's case.
Not saying that it's happening, I'm only saying it's possible. It's at least as possible as Trump's supposed collusion with Russia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @07:52AM (7 children)
Except the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch. So no. The DOJ doesn't issue jury summonses, it's the District courts themselves [uscourts.gov] that do that.
So, no. You're flat wrong. And you were doing so well today, Runaway. :(
I'm disappointed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @09:10AM (5 children)
Definitions. Switch words around as you choose. Some agency, within the executive branch, has a line into the court system. They do the checking, then channel whatever they have discovered back to the courts. The tech exists to do this, so it's only a question of putting the right people in the right positions to perform the tasks. Good enough? Government has the tools at it's disposal to do an end run around the defense' jury selection choices.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @09:58AM (4 children)
I think it's only fitting that Runaway explains us the Runaway jury [wikipedia.org] plot opening.
Afterall, he's at least half way expert on the matter.
(friendly grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @10:40AM (3 children)
No opinion on the movie. But a runaway jury is a jury that pays little attention to "instructions to the jury". Those "instructions" can be, and have been, used to prevent justice being served. If they have dragged your ass into doing duty to determine what is just, then it is your obligation to determine what real justice is. Sitting on your thumb, and accepting everything that the prosecutor and the judge tell you is dereliction of duty.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:09PM (2 children)
Have you watched it? The first part of the plot is based on gaming the jury selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 02 2019, @01:01PM (1 child)
No, I've never watched it. I presume, however, that it has some basis in fact - maybe on the famous tobacco trials?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 02 2019, @02:52PM
Nah - gun manufacturer. And bad-boys-been-taught-a-lesson feel-good fiction. After a novel by John Grisham.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02 2019, @08:12PM
As are we all. Just when it seemed like he was getting better, many more things that Runaway does not know emerged, and his mind clowned back over.