"The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy."
I agree. He doesn't have a letter from mummy saying that he can't be arrested today because he's hurt his foot. He hasn't been "involuntarily detained" or "under house arrest" - he went into the embassy to evade arrest. This is not complicated.
"In September 2014, Mr Assange - who has been living in the embassy for more than three years - complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.
Then be arrested and face trial like everyone else, you berk.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942
So what gives him special privilege to avoid facing trial in Sweden ?
ReplyDeleteSend that traitor back to Sweden to face the music. He's no saint in my book. He stole information and published what he stole. That is illegal. Then you get to his "other" illegal acts, in Sweden, and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. #byebyeJulian.
ReplyDeleteFor what I've read, the Swedish accusations are pretty suspicious, and look like an excuse to throw him in the US more than anything. I am wary of what I read nowadays, though the timing is pretty suspicious.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how he is a traitor, though. He published info that hurt the US - or at least parts of the US, but he never swore anything to those, and isn't even a US citizen. That's no more being a traitor than if a US citizen published compromising data on the Swedish government.
Similarly, 'illegal' is relative: note how Sweden isn't talking about compromising data (or even data theft, that he technically didn't commit - he only published it) in their accusation. It is illegal only if, as a non-US citizen, he is somewhere directly falling under US jurisdiction. Which is why there is suspicion of the whole thing being a pretext for that (regardless of whether the Swedish accusation is legitimate).
Whether it is immoral is yet another problem, and a more complicated one. Remember that he owes nothing more to the US than is justified by their effect on the world at large.
So it comes down to whether the ideals of transparency and accountability he defends, and the uncovering of unsavoury truths, are worth more than the possible net positive effects to the world that were lost with the US losing status and advantages.
I feel that, with their current dominant position, it didn't cause a big enough destabilization to counter the purely idealistic justification, but then again I'm not the most qualified person there.
Also, if they did cook this accusation in the first place, as cynical, disgusting and immoral as it is, they are actually showing restraint.
ReplyDeleteNo killer drones. No deniable assassins. No 'accidental' gas leak. No polonium poisoning.
Progress, I suppose.
Arien Hellboy I know the difference between Assange and Snowden. Snowden is no hero and neither is Assange. Both got information from a place that they had no right to take from. You forget, wikileaks published Snowden's stolen information. That makes him (Assange) guilty of espionage and Snowden guilty of treason.
ReplyDeleteI see Snowden and Assange very differently. Snowden as a virtuous idealist who exposed the truth that the US and other governments are spying on their own people. That the information was stolen becomes irrelevant to me : spying on one's own citizens is a far greater crime, and it wouldn't have been uncovered otherwise. You have a right to know when the government is behaving illegally, or as the old cliche goes, "The people should not be afraid of their government. The government should be afraid of the people." Whereas I see Assange as a self-serving egomaniac. But then, no-one's accusing Snowden of rape.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess this all comes down to whether you think there's an substance in the accusations of the Swedish or not. No such charge was levelled against Snowden to bring him to the US. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just feel - and it is only a feeling, I am have no rational basis for it - that Assange is simply trying to avoid justice. I think he's avoiding trial because he's guilty, not because he's afraid of being extradited to the US for some much less morally dubious activities there.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I still think the UN's ruling is a bit mad. He chose to go into the embassy and stay there to avoid a lawful arrest. No-one is detaining him.
Ian Rawlings I have my own handgun and if someone; who I didn't know; pulled a gun, well, they would be on the ground before they could think. I carry, even in my own apt. I have very little trust in others. Besides, I live alone No family around.
ReplyDeleteRemember government shills, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
ReplyDeleteAt least I didn't steal anything that wasn't mine. Ian Rawlings Plus, I put the miscreant out of their misery. #justiceserved
ReplyDeleteMark Ruhland But the government already stole all your personal data. They had no right to it. Snowden "stole" the fact that they were stealing from you. Would you not like to know if you've been robbed ?
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to resolve this would be with an epic rap battle.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.epicrapbattlesofhistory.com/
Sadly they haven't done Assange vs Snowden.
Rhys Taylor Have known about the gov't meddling. But, Snowden didn't have any right to take what was not his to take. The thing is the information was not his to disseminate.
ReplyDeleteI know what the gov't has on me, due to the Freedom of Information Act requests.
Snowden meddled into things that were above his pay grade and security clearance.
BupSahn Sunim I have a gun, because I live alone, and am disabled (paralyzed from mid chest), my hands and arms work. I can't chase a miscreant around.
ReplyDeleteI live alone because I went thru a divorce, not because of any issue regarding my handgun. That's just your liberal lunatic mind thinking that all people should be unarmed... except the criminals, of course.
Mark Ruhland I disagree. If the government is behaving illegally, that should be exposed. By definition the government will never authorise release of information relating to activities it carried out which are illegal. I don't see exposing that as theft.
ReplyDeleteThe government should not be free to do as it pleases and then slap, "classified" on things it's not supposed to be doing. There are many legitimate reasons for secret information but acting illegally automatically voids the right to secrecy.
Suppose I steal a wadge of banknotes. For some reason - Lord knows why - someone decides to rummage through my stuff and finds the stolen money. OK, they shouldn't have been going through my things, but shouldn't they expose the fact that I'm a thief ? And if it happens to be their money, and they were searching my stuff on suspicion that I was a criminal, then isn't that justice ?
Rhys Taylor That Snowden wasn't accused of anything else is probably irrelevant, as they already have accusations against him, as a US citizen.
ReplyDeleteIf the article of BupSahn Sunim is to be trusted, Assange's accusations are ballooned - which is to say, Sources plz?
As for the UN ruling, it may be that they judged the Swedish accusations to be too inconsistent to be taken seriously enough by the UK for extradition.
Or it may be Iran and others saying "Ha ha who looks bad now ha ha"
Arien Hellboy That article, IMHO, makes it abundantly clear that the charges are neither BS nor trumped up.
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking with my gut on this one, irrational as that may be. I cannot help shake the feeling that everything that comes out of Assange's mouth is for the sole purpose of boosting his own massive ego. Perhaps that's a silly reason to believe he might actually be guilty of rape, but there we go. Snowden, on the other hand, comes across as sincere and self-sacrificing.
Yes, I am acutely aware that I'm being very irrational on this, and God knows my gut feelings are a ridiculous way to judge guilt. But I'm sticking with it regardless.
The real question here: what's a 'berk' ?
ReplyDeleteSwedish dogs: "Bork, bork, bork!"
ReplyDeleteYou're berking up the wrong tree...
ReplyDeletehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/berk
Rhys Taylor Well, fair enough. My gut feeling tells me that those are trumped up charges. But I could obviously be wrong. I promise to do my best to be impartial and objective if I ever end up in a Swedish jury about it!
ReplyDeleteSomething that bugs me, though, is Assange's alleged ego. I've heard about it for a long time, but I have yet to see actual examples of it.
(Not counting The Fifth Estate, as I've heard it's a Zero Dark Thirty-level propaganda film. Then again, I only heard about it.)
I'm curious about the origin of the image, not calling it a lie, there.
That said, a government that is too afraid of its people ends up not doing anything, including the unpopular but necessary reforms. As always, just a bit of moderation :)