6 ms·

Assange himself and the rape charges have been politicized to such an extent that I find it essentially meaningless to pontificate about what may or may not hav

• nvarsj 7y ago
  Exactly. There is almost certainly an organized government sponsored campaign to discredit him in every way possible. That means the things we read in the media about him need to be considered very critically.
  • scoot_718 7y ago
    I agree. Except he's the one running the campaign to discredit himself. Wikileaks has done the damage to his own reputation, all sponsored by Russia. He's actively hurt the goal of radical transparency with his antics. Actual people with principles abandoned Wikileaks a decade ago.
• tdcbfdct3 7y ago
  Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange himself continuously calling them a government conspiracy against him? The Swedish government doesn't discuss them (which is what's allowed Assange's version of events to get so popular). The US hasn't mentioned it. The UK gave him a fair trial based on them.
  • trevelyan 7y ago
    The UK trial was not on the rape charges (there was no permitted discussion of the evidence or total lack of it). The ruling was over whether the UK was bound to extradite given the Swedish government's refusal to interview Assange in England or indict him in Sweden. The tortured legal conclusion was basically that the UK couldn't definitively conclude the Swedes were acting in bad faith, and they couldn't be entirely sure that Assange was only being extradited for questioning (technically illegal). As far as the Swedes go, the Swedish government discussed the case when it closed it for the first time. If the government hasn't been public about the case since it was re-opened by a political appointee, perhaps it is because there is zero evidence against Assange. We know this because the pretext for re-opening the case was the "discovery" of new physical evidence (a broken condom) that lacked any of Assange's DNA. This is all public knowledge, btw. Funny how it isn't discussed much in the press.
    • trevelyan 7y ago
      Thanks for the downvote whoever it was. History is not going to be kind to those unaware of basic facts however, in this case the fact that the Assange case was re-opened in 2010 on the basis of fabricated evidence: https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--... https://www.rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/ https://www.rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/ Assume that people can get their hands on the UK high court ruling. It takes only a bit of reading to confirm the complete accuracy of the statements above.
  • viraptor 7y ago
    > Who's politicized the rape charges other than Assange Swedish LE when they refused to hear the case with Assange in the embassy. Whether he's guilty or innocent, I can't take it as anything other than "we don't care about the case or the victims, we just wanted the extradition".
    • dogma1138 7y ago
      Or they don’t want to set a precedent that you can hide out of reach of justice just because you are famous? What’s next should you be able get trial over FaceTime while evading the police without any consequences?
      • belorn 7y ago
        The Swedish courts disagree. They said that the prosecutor must use all available methods to progress the case, and if the objective is to interview a person of interest who is yet to be official charged then that is what the law say they should do. The law do not give an exception that it may give a precedent that people suspected of a crime may seek political asylum in a embassy and that the interview is then located there. But let say this did create a precedent that you can dictate where the interview is located by seeking political asylum. Is that bad? In the US you can escape the reach of justice by just being pardoned by the president. Apple to apple comparison, the situation with political asylum seem like a better precedent.
      • viraptor 7y ago
        I'm not sure what the issue is. If you are already hiding in a place unreachable by the Swedish LE, you don't have to take part in anything. If you agree to take part in the investigation over internet anyway, that's still better for the victims. (verdict, potential damages from any sources the LE can take over, public acknowledgement of guilt, etc.)
        • dogma1138 7y ago
          For the same reason you don't usually negotiate with terrorists? Or any other behaviour you don't condone, right or wrong the guy made a mockery of Swedish LE if nothing else he should be charged with obstruction for going AWOL after agreeing to come for an interview and then skipped the country a day before.
• vl 7y ago
  If we ever saw a successful CIA operation this is it. I bet in twenty years we'll be reading how it was all organized.
  • tutfbhuf 7y ago
    It usually takes longer on average until closed CIA documents gets released to public (if ever). There are still some unreleased JFK files.
• pvg 7y ago
  They're striking graphics but that is an Assange advocacy account. A bunch of these things weren't 'revealed' by Wikileaks, the most famous one being the incident at the heart of their 'Collateral Murder' video.
  • tptacek 7y ago
    Indeed, worth remembering that (Reuters, I think?) published a scene-by-scene account of the tape in "Collateral Murder" before Wikileaks ever did.
    • wiz21c 7y ago
      That's a rather myth busting information I wasn't aware of. Do you have any link/source ?
      • pvg 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#2007%E2%80%932009_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri... Reuters editors saw parts of the footage within a couple of weeks of the event. Two of the people killed in the strike were working for Reuters.
• scoot_718 7y ago
  He certainly would love everyone to believe he's a man of principles, unfortunately his actions over past decades don't work in his favour.