Far more important, however, in converting Assange from being portrayed as a heroic fighter against state secrecy into a figure beyond the pale, were the allegations of rape made against him in Sweden in 2010.
It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.
Rape allegations are the ideal way to slander any man. As they hinge on the alleged victim's consent, which resides entirely within their mind, they are near impossible to disprove when thrown by a determined, malicious opponent. Even when they are indeed disproved, they still leave a long lasting stain.
Whether Assange committed a sexual crime or not, it is incontrovertible that accusing him of one was the most effective and least risky way to discrete him. It wouldn't even have required any lying accuser either; manipulating a pissed off lover into reframing their relationship with him as less consensual than it was at the time would be a rather simple exercise for a spymaster.
Some presidents seem to have done ok, even with some pretty damn horrible accusations (much much much worse than the ridiculous crime that Assange was accused of).
No threats, coercion, or violence need to be involved. You must have explicit consent for every sexual encounter. Not just intercourse.
So, if you do something sexual but you failed to get her to sign a contract. She later reports the sexual encounter as not having the signed contract. You are a rapist going to prison.
> the police went around to make those allegations
I'm not sure I follow this. It seems like there were two complaints, one of them was clearly a complaint of rape (I'm not saying a rape definitively occurred, but the accusation was intentionally breaking a condom and not using protection against the wishes of a partner is considered rape in Sweden) and one was a potential claim of rape (it is unclear in the other complaint if the preference for protection was a retroactive regret or something established before sex). Anything that transpired after that, no matter how shady, is irrelevant to the initial allegations. There were obviously people who wanted to use those allegations to achieve some political end. However that doesn't invalidate the accusations which deserve to be evaluated on their own merits.
What I want to know is how exactly could any of this be successfully prosecuted, save for explicit admission from the alleged perpetrator? Would a valid Assange defense be simply "She said to not wear a condom"?
It is often incredibly difficult to prosecute sexual crimes like this that don't involve a violent struggle. There is almost never any evidence that can distinguish beyond a reasonable doubt non-consensual sex from consensual sex. It is almost always the word of one party against the word of another. However, like the previous examples of police impropriety, that has no bearing on the validity of the accusations. Victims should feel welcome to come forward with their experiences regardless of the likelihood of their accusations resulting in a conviction.
Absolutely agree with the last statement, I was mostly thinking from a prosecutors perspective. Is there any other crime that can only be prosecuted by the criminal admitting what they did?
Suspiciously timed in terms of raising and dropping, let alone the actual detail of the accusations (not apparently made in those terms by the alleged victims) which trivialise the awful trauma of actual rape.
Inherently, nothing, but allegations do not equal guilt. However in Assange's case, the allegation was taken as fact before the evidence was investigated. Upon investigation of these allegations the case was dropped because the evidence was not strong enough. Witnesses memories had faded after 10 years.
Assange being in the Ecuadorian embassy would not have prevented Sweden from building a case and charging him.
The UK urged Swedish prosecutors not to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy,[1] though Swedish prosecutors eventually did so. When Swedish prosecutors wanted to drop the investigation, British officials urged them to continue it:[2]
> Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!
But immediately after the US began extradition hearings against Assange in London, and there was a debate over whether to give the Swedish or American request priority, Sweden dropped the case.
Just to top it off, Swedish prosecutors altered witness testimony[3] and UK prosecutors deleted emails relating to the case.[1]
The investigation was dropped because it had already served its purpose.
A more minor detail of the piece: “The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, says that non-Americans like Assange do not enjoy First Amendment rights to free expression.”
This is used to imply that the US does not respect press freedom. While that might be true (personally don’t think it particularly is), non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution. There are different laws in different places. Assange should enjoy the British Rights to freedom of the press/expression, whatever those are (or the rights relevant to wherever he was).
That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. If I look at the text of the first amendment, for example:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This doesn't say anything about whose freedom of speech, only that Congress may not abridge it. The existence of the freedom of speech is taken as a given, regardless of whose speech it is. The restriction is on Congress to not be able to abridge that freedom of speech, no matter who holds it.
> That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case.
Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ?
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.
Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?
Becuase much of the document is there to limit the powers of the government. It doesn't grant rights to people, it acknowleges that people have those rights whether the constitution exists or not, and then proceeds to grant rights to the government
The preamble is who authored the constitution
Article 1 is all about how congress works
Article 2 about the president
Aritcle 3 about the courts
Article 4 about the states
Article 5 about the constitution
Article 6 about which laws are important
The Bill of rights further limits the power of government
Nothing specifically is about the people. The clause you state limits the powers of the state to take rights away from people.
The Constitution does not grant rights to people - because people (all people, globally) have all the rights by default. It does grant rights to government to do certain things, and it specifically limits the power of government to take away rights from people.
It is by no means settled that "the people of the United States" is explicitly and specifically citizenry and not aliens currently in the country for clauses not so specifying "citizens".
Ah, I understand now. Thanks. A quick Google search returns accounts of many debates about it (I should have mentioned I am not a US citizen, nor am I living in the US. I usually do, my bad).
well at the time that was written only certain people were actually allowed to sit in government or vote, so it would seem those are the people who should have the rights outlined by the constitution, but it seems that the constitution at its formation did allow freedom of religion for women, who at the time were not allowed to vote. So it seems that there might be some leeway.
There was at one time the argument that the bill of rights codified some of the natural rights that were inherent in humans, to protect against government encroachment, as per The Rights of Man theory of natural rights https://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-04.htm but this is no longer the popular interpretation, generally theories that prevent power from being asserted will lose popularity, at least among the powerful.
The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.
> abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people
That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.
I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.
> There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer
Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.
Yet non-Americans do seem to enjoy being prosecuted for breaking USA laws. Looks like the USA has unilaterally decided that it is now the One World Government we've all been dying for. We should also prosecute China for breaking our federal minimum wage laws.
Extradition treaties are voluntarily agreed to by both countries. If you are British or American and don’t like the consequences of this treaty, I encourage you to contact relevant politicians and tell them to renegotiate the treaty.
Reminds me of the recent U.S. diplomat’s wife that got away with murder in Britain and several other such cases(U.S murderers not being prosecuted). The extradation treaties do not work the way you think they do. They big guy always has the last say regardless of what the treaty says.
I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them.
You can’t make it too easy to extradite, but you also don’t want it to be too hard.
I’m not sure what the right carve out would be to avoid extradition of journalists for comparatively trivial charges. A full blown journalistic exception seems too far, but I don’t know what the right line is instead.
>> I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them.
Not really. If it were the other way around the murderer would have been in police custody regardless of its status(i.e the wife of a diplomat). It just that the small guy cherises the relationship with the big guy too much to upset it.
The US-UK extradition treaty doesn't need to be renegotiated. It just needs to be enforced. The treaty makes it very clear that Assange cannot be extradited:
> extradition shall not be
granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request
was politically motivated.
The only question is whether the UK government will breach the treaty in order to please its American allies.
> non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution
This is a very common misconception. In most cases, the Bill of Rights protects any person anywhere from the US government.
There's no mention of citizenship in the Bill of Rights, and the 1st Amendment forbids the federal government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." There's no geographic or citizenship qualification.
It doesn't specify either way, that's the problem. It's not a modern legal document with precise terms defined, it's written in sometimes intentionally vague 18th century prose, so either interpretation is equally valid as far as the text alone is concerned.
If it says "citizen" in one place, and "person" in another where it could as easily have said "citizen", elementary logic dictates that "person" does not imply "citizen". Saying otherwise is a brazen attempt to muddy clear water.
The framers were not stupid. They knew what they were writing. If they had meant "citizen", they knew how to write it.
"The framers weren't stupid lol" isn't a compelling argument.
Show me documentary evidence or legal precedent from the time demonstrating that intent on the part of the framers, or else you're just projecting.
After all, apparently everyone was wrong about what "well regulated militia" actually meant until 2008. So it must not all be as crystal clear and elementary as you claim.
Muddying the water has been a successful strategy for lawyers for millennia. That does not make it less reprehensible to do, nor justify being fooled by it.
The Constitution binds the US government in all cases. It does not cease to apply when the US government deals with foreigners. If the Constitution places an unqualified restriction on the US government, that restriction applies in all circumstances. The free speech clause does not have any qualification about only applying inside the borders of the US or to citizens.
It would be absurd for the US government to claim that Assange is bound by US law, and can therefore be charged under US statutes, but that the Constitution does not apply to him.
A better question is: why is the media telling you that the media is ignoring it?
In addition to this link, Google news is showing me[0] these headlines:
• “My ringside view in the case of Julian Assange” - Evening Standard, 1 day ago
• “George Christensen calls on Australia to lodge formal protest over treatment of Julian Assange” - The Guardian, 1 day ago
• “Julian Assange will spend Christmas in prison as judge will decide on January 4 whether to extradite WikiLeaks found to the US on espionage charges” - Daily Mail, 1 day ago
• “Assange ‘forced’ those behind war crimes ‘to look in the mirror,’ now faces revenge, John Pilger tells RT” - RT, today
• “Julian Assange 'acutely troubled' that unredacted documents made public, court hears” - Press Gazette, 3 days ago
• “Shooting of unarmed civilians in Iraq 'would have remained a secret but for Julian Assange'” - Evening Standard, 3 days ago
• “US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told” - The Guardian, 2 days ago
And that’s just the first page of results; subsequent pages show it being covered by The Intercept, The Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Sky News, Deutsche Welle, and a lot more I’ve never heard of.
[0] caveat: I’m in Berlin and explicitly chose UK results, because The Independent is a UK newspaper; choosing USA results gives me a differently list of recent results from a different set of publishers, but the point is the same
This isn’t enough information to decide if the media is ignoring the story. Back in the age of print newspapers a common trick was front page above the fold story on Monday morning that was not true followed up by a one paragraph retraction on page 14 in Saturday’s paper.
The modern day digital equivalent is harder to determine and I am not aware of any service attempting to do so. The news companies have solid analytics on how their websites are used. For each of those articles linked were they on the front page? Did the user have to scroll down to a section where stories are only clicked on by 2% of users? Did the story remain linked on the front page of the website for 1 hour or for 2 days? Is the contents of the link the same as the contents was when it was first published?
It’s entirely possible that the reach of all of those articles you linked above could be measured in the 10’s of people rather than the millions.
Most people don’t search for news on a topic. They visit Fox/CNN or whatever their preferred source is and consume what is presented to them.
I worry that this is an "ignoring of the gaps", if you will. There's always going to be something an outlet could have done to further emphasize a story, no matter how much they focus on it.
Perhaps it is because many people expect their public officials to echo the stories in the media, and the silence of those leaders is percieved as a media silence.
Not at all. Pro-profit media is simply reporting, as is profitable, that there's no mention or arguments from the media anymore about the issues regarding war crimes, without explaining why.
They aren't, media industry organizations have been hyping this story. And media outlets have been full of hyperventilating editorial and opinion articles on it.
And, weirdly, also pushing the “the media is ignoring it” narrative, which as bizarre self-referential media metanarratives go, is a doozy.
> I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side.
Wikileaks had very little support outside of the far left fringe even before they became overtly part of the Russian influence operation in 2016 so, yeah, when they became a tool of the Russians supporting the American hard right they lost a lot of that; the mainstream media, of any leaning, never really supported them but is, nevertheless, hyping the media freedom angle in the Assange case.
They didn't lose the Left by publishing Hillary and the DNC's dirty laundry. The Left was pissed off about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie, and the leaked emails confirmed their suspicions. But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats - particularly those on the right of the party who favored Hillary. A lot of people mistake "the Democratic party" for "the Left."
> But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats
They never had any tangible support among mainstream Democrats, even of the progressive faction, so they had nothing to lose there; the only thing they had to lose—and contrary to your claims they did lose some (but not all, the left fringe isn't a unitary hive mind) was on the left fringe. I suppose you are probably mistaking concern for the content of the early leaks with support for Wikileaks, but those aren't even approximately the same thing.
I agree. This is the answer to the question posed in the title of the article.
Assange pissed off the American left when he gave the appearance of supporting Trump. I would guess he pissed off a lot of people outside of America because most liberal leaning people seem to dislike Trump. Those same people are the ones that would normally be outraged by something like this but don't care anymore.
I was among those who lost respect for him at that time. It was clear to me that he was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly. He and many of his followers were probably swept up in that wave of stupid male insecurity bullshit that 4chan shat out starting in 2012.
Fascism and totalitarian Communism are the two great utopian death cults of the 20th century. Anyone who supports either of these in any serious and substantial way should absolutely be “cancelled.”
I agree that there has been more attention toward cancelling the fascist side, but that is because they were ascendant. Those who actually believe in freedom generally find themselves opposing the totalitarian left or the totalitarian right depending on which side is presenting a threat at a given time. If the totalitarian left rises again, then the focus will have to change to destroying that.
I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along.
Libertarianism is the party supporting rule by the biggest corporation. Any rhetoric is wholly incidental, and purely a distraction, because it has no effect on policy: under libertarian government, you have rights to the exact extent that you can enforce them against Apple and Exxon by the strength of your own arm.
Europeans have "Democratic Libertarianism" which is almost, but not quite, wholly unlike the American libertarianism I refer to. All American libertarians will echo you, but never have any way to avoid the described outcome.
Let me split hairs. I am not convinced that Assange deserves everything he is getting, but it is really hard for me to care. The parent post was about why nobody cares, and I answered it truthfully.
> I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along.
I definitely end up this way talking to friends. My politics are always othered for not parroting their party line, generally whatever nascent groupthink is setting the stage for some future corporate-totalitarian push.
But you've seriously got to apply this insight to your own lead off assertion:
> It was clear to me that he [Assange] was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly
Your claim that the right-totalitarian side was ascendant in the "early to mid teens" has more to do with your own perspective, seemingly ignoring the overarching societal tone of left authoritarianism (led by the White House). IMO the rise in red flavored thinking was driven by dissent, and I say this as someone with generally blue biases.
"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, […]. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. […] If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. […] The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon […]. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. […] They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, journalist for The New York Times, 1880
Assange is being charged under a century-old law passed in order to criminalize dissent to US participation in WWI. I came across this randomly during my pandemic reading (The Great Influenza, about the Spanish Flu of 1918). It was really shocking to read how thoroughly the US government suppressed speech during WWI - it's not something I was at all aware of before.
The Espionage Act is almost certainly unconstitutional, though it's still on the books. Ever since the Vietnam War, there's been a tacit understanding that the government will only use the law to go after government employees who leak information, but that the government won't prosecute the people who publish the information. With this prosecution, the Trump administration is breaking that understanding. The precedent is being set that whenever a newspaper publishes, "Sources tell us..." or "According to documents viewed by...," they're opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.
The American press is ignoring this story because it's not a political hot button for either side of the political aisle. Wikileaks helped Trump tremendously during his election by releasing info on Hillary. And now the Trump administration is pursuing this prosecution.
I'm no media expert but this seems like a plausible explanation. Increasingly the American press seems to be less about "disclosing important news to people so they can judge what is happening in the world" as the article says and more about monetizing echo-chambers.
But American outlets have been covering in the story, in the sense that they're writing articles about it and assigning reporters to follow its progress. And many of those outlets have gone on record saying Assange is being treated badly and shouldn't be prosecuted.
It seems to me that the only thing the American press disagrees with the author on is the degree of hype that's warranted. They think the case is worth covering, but disagree that it's "an unprecedented attack on press freedom", "a crucial tipping point", "their future is wrapped up in his fate".
The plan to prosecute Assange began before Trump was elected. We all know that the majority of people working in government now are from prior administrations. If Trump directly tried to stop it, then he'd have to weather more inconvenient headlines about Trump-Russia conspiracy. If he indirectly tried to stop it, then we'd have more anonymously sourced leaks and whistleblowers. Either approach would lead to the house Democrats demanding another investigation. The American people would be embroiled in another impeachment debate. Biden and Harris would be making hardline statements about severe punishment for Assange, and it would hurt the Trump campaign goal of being the "Law & Order" side. The least risky thing Trump can do is allow the government to proceed with the prosecution & then try to get a deal in for him.
It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.