Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
bbc.com
bbc.com
> “It was obvious that Mr. Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years,” the expert said. “Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
This article by the UN expert is also well worth reading:
Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
> “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.“
That quote lacked information on who was exposing him and what that exposure actually was, so I followed your source. That source elaborates as follows:
> “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.”
Apart from the last item, that all sounds either like hyberbole ("systematic judicial persecution" -- unless he is above the justice system, that's the system at work), or self-inflicted.
Did you miss the part where Assange went through all this trouble to not go to Sweden because there was the POSSIBILITY of him being extradited to the US end ending up in that prison system?
Yes he could have also done nothing and run the very real risk of ultimately getting the worst treatment that you enact upon your brothers and sisters. But that is the whole thing he was trying to avoid.
If in the process of that, he was exposed to "severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture", which MAY or MAY NOT be worse than the US prison system (which is a pretty low bar to clear and pretty bad either way), then yeah he pretty certainly has a case to be made in the parts of the world where we pretend to treat human beings with dignity.
The entire point was to not end up in the clutches of the US, so if your point was "if you think that's bad, look at the US", then here's a big WELL DUH for you ...
IMHO you should all be ashamed. The very fact that even in a normal adult conversation, an American can gleefully make a remark about anal rape and how they wish it upon whatever criminal. Sexual violence in your prison system has become so normalized that it's gotten its own little disgusting euphemism in your language: "pick up the soap". Even in polite company, use that little phrase and it's suddenly a-okay to joke about rape.
It's very simple. If it's that normal, that expected, that people in prison become victims of sexual violence. Then that is what you're sentencing them to. Which is corporeal punishment. Which is barbaric.
So think about that next time someone jokes about someone going to "federal pound em in the ass prison", what they are in fact advocating is that they deserve corporeal punishment by anal rape. There's something to be said about the countries where they give you beatings or lashings, they do it publicly so at least it functions as a deterrent. You hide it and pretend it's a joke because lol buttrape.
So no, don't EVER bring up the American prison/jail system as some sort of "example" for how to treat criminals .. and maybe check yourself if you DON'T find it disturbing and inhumane.
...brothers and sisters
It is a foreign power putting diplomatic pressure on the Swedish government to put pressure on a man who has embarrassed them.
It's not the only thing in the Assange case which is blatantly political persecution. You got to wonder how most of the press can keep pretending it's not.
And calling systemic judicial prosecution "torture" is most certainly hyperbole. It's the job of the judicial system to prosecute people who break the law, and it's definitely better if they do so in a systemic rather than arbitrary way.
So while it's entirely possible that Assange shows symptoms of torture, the question remains who tortured him. For a long time, by his own choice, it was only the Ecuadorian embassy that had access to him.
Not only hyperbole, but it's entirely self-imposed. He wasn't confined to the embassy, he chose to stay there rather than face trial. He chose "deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over defending himself against the accusations.
The US was once a great defender of liberty and democrac, but when you talk to its average citizen nowaday you start to get truely weimarian vibes.
This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
It's not a stretch that he preferred ""deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation" over what the US would do to him.
Doesn't mean that's fair or just. Just that he chose something less inhumane than the US.
He stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. His conditions are self-imposed.
It's something, but i'm not sure I agree with calling that torture.
Is his only current crime skipping bail on charges he believed were fake?
Clearly, facing deportation to the US is problematic for a number of reasons, mostly that it's impossible for even Snowden to get a fair trial there, let alone an Australian citizen.
No, he's already served the time for that. He's held strictly for extradition by now.
That's not torture.
The free country responsible for the Guantanamo secret prison? We are talking about the same one?
I still consider the US, Sweeden, and the UK "free countries".
As far as "free countries" go, it's really the worst to end up.
Did you seriously forget all the UN reports about human rights issues in the US? Yeah the US ignores them, but the rest of the world knows it. It's really pretty bad.
Yeah, it's funny how HN typically goes evidence-free where pet politics is concerned.
I'll eat my hat if someone on here can name a single precedent of someone being tortured in the U.S. before being tried for a crime similar to what Assange would be accused of.
Edit: and citations, please!
That's oddly specific, but still be careful what you're asking for. "Police torture suspect" gives a lot of results, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge
There's a good chance some of those 200 cases were rape cases.
Then there is also the torture of terrorism suspects, if you wish to take that angle since Assange has repeatedly been labeled a terrorist.
Here's two more Wikipedia articles that may be interesting to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_State...
Especially interesting may be the "Domestic Torture in Modern Times" section if you wish to focus on what happened domestically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techn...
Always worth a read.
What measure of proof do you require?
- "the field of the sheep" - the field only contains sheep
- "the wool of the sheep" - the wool only belongs to the sheep, not the cows, pigs, goats etc.
In the same way, America belongs to some very free people, and the rest are conned into touting that from under whatever thumb they happen to be.
By subjecting himself to probably worse injustice. Torture A over torture B is hardly a choice.
The US and A isn't in the business of assassinating visible targets. There's plenty of people who believe they are, but there's plenty of evidence they aren't. If they were, Manning wouldn't still be breathing.
Ridiculous for the UN to qualify this as the UK state torturing him - it denigrates the reputation of the UN.
the reputation of the UN??? go learn about the un before you defend a corrupt system that acts just like any other foundation. United Nations pays its employees an average of $82,397 a year. and every peacekeeper is paid $1,428/month.
THE UN:
"Charity sex scandal: UN staff ‘responsible for 60,000 rapes in a decade’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/un-staff-responsible-for-...
And thats just ONE of their thousands of scandals.
---
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/world/un-details-its-fail...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/car-up-to-100...
http://theconversation.com/when-un-peacekeepers-commit-atroc...
"Peacekeepers have been accused of sexually exploiting women in the Congo, being involved in sex trafficking in Bosnia and Kosovo, child abuse in Côte d'Ivoire and Haiti, as well as corruption, stealing, drink-driving and manslaughter.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/16746-...
Due to recent imprisonment or is this due to living for so long in a tiny "dorm room" in the Ecuadorian embassy?
No joke I think that could easily drive someone insane given enough time.
Let me correct that: Mr Assange’s health has been seriously affected by the environment that he exposed himself to
(Edit: I’m talking about the embassy episode here, not his more recent incarceration)
Fuck you.
Did you miss what happened to him when he was arrested? He's now being tortured even more. He put himself there, for his safety, and to think he did it 'just because' is wildly ridiculous.
The take away here is stay anonymous when whistle blowing or handling leaks. Don't talk to anyone, don't say anything just take a USB stick to an Internet cafe while disguised and host a torrent.
Then email the press the magnet link using a throw away email service.
The same Adrian Lamo who told Chelsea Manning that he'd treat what she told him as a confession (he was an ordained minister and the implication was that he'd never tell anybody) to gain her trust[1].
Let's not forget Kevin Poulsen's complicity in this.
The hacker community is not your friend, and you need to assume that members will sell you out for glory or to save their own asses.
I've never celebrated the death of anybody, but I did feel the world was a better place after Adrian Lamo died.
[1] https://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html
Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.
It gets so much harder to pretend that they are bringing freedom to the Iraqis. I'm sure the poor government had to double its spending on pro-military propaganda because of this evil spiteful security leak.
If you throw that away and want to talk about probabilities - that's ok too - but then you need to add the probability that the global super power put pressure on people to drum up baloney charges.
Presumption of innocence in criminal cases has value because the state has all the power (including the monopoly on violence), so if they are to use their monopoly on violence to deprive anyone of their freedoms, the burden of proof should be extremely high to offset the inherent power imbalance. In other words, even if all other things are equal, we should make the state's job harder because if the state is "cheating" to get a conviction it's a lot likelier they will succeed than the individual.
As a larger philosophical principle, assumption of innocence isn't really proven out. Iterated prisoner's dilemma solutions suggest trust followed by tit-for-tat (i.e. presume innocence until someone shows they're willing to screw you over, then assume they're likely to continue screwing you over rather than assuming that was a one-off; this is a policy the law notably excludes, as past unrelated felony convictions aren't admissible evidence in a trial). I'm not saying we should toss presumption of innocence in the bin; merely that I'm skeptical of it as a deep true virtue to build one's values upon.
He did many bad things (especially uncovering the name of sources, not redacting the cables in the cablegate) but like he said, it is interesting to see how censorship works in a democracy.
I also like how no one is talking about the (probably externally provoked) internal drama at wikileaks that led to the destruction of the Bank of America files that they had.
I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
This is a copy of a dead comment. Not mine.
I really, really want to be mean to you, but I'll copy and paste the second and third sentences from the article.
Assange, who denies the accusation, has avoided extradition to Sweden for seven years after seeking refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.
The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/22/nils_melzer_julian_a...
This could not possibly be a problem anymore?
A statue of limitations serves a few purposes.
1. At some point closure is better than justice, or at least, that's a theory. Better to get a crime on record because the committer of it confesses to it than not. The idea being that after, say, 10 years, the odds that the criminal would get caught have drifted off to as near to 0 as can be.
2. Records eventually get shredded if you wait long enough; eyewitness recollections in particular slowly mutate into conjecture (whilst said eyewitnesses will believe what they remember is accurate, there's plenty of proof out there that given enough time what they remember is not at all accurate and it gets worse over time). This makes it easier to accidentally convict on flawed evidence, and makes it harder for the defendant to defend themselves.
It was just lawfare all along.
If they had obtained internal first-person memos discussion the reasons for dropping the case, then you could probably assume those would be credible.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/19/sweden-withdraws-arrest-...
Could be wrong though...
Does anyone have some news from back then?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
It sounds like the women didn't really want to pursue the case (which is not at all uncommon in sexual assault cases!), they just wanted to track down Assange and make him take an STD test after he had unprotected sex with them, and the police said, well now that you've told us this, we're going to tell the prosecutor.
(One plausible interpretation is that the assaults did in fact happen as described and that the Swedish justice system was pressured by the US to prosecute it aggressively with the goal of getting him into US custody - the two are not necessarily contradictory.)
At the same time I suspect the oddities in how the case was pursued is more likely to simply have been about domestic Swedish politics - both the prosecutor and one of the lawyers involved are known to have favoured a stricter handling of rape cases, and it's plausible they saw Assange as someone getting away with something they wanted to make an example of.
So he may well have been genuinely worried for all the wrong reasons.
Of course this is just a hypothesis.
> Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
> Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Yes, but is also a case of "your word against mine" unless supported by verifiable data.
Ever heard someone say this..
I didn't want to go to school but I did.
It's like saying I didn't want to kill that person. It is an unfinished statement to what the final decision is. It could be: So I did or so I didn't.
Most people who have had long term sexual partners have had a time or two where they "didn't really want to participate" but did anyway without much/any complaining for the sake of their partner. Are all all those instances "basically sexual assault"?
Watering down the definition of sexual assault to include instances where nobody felt assaulted in any way does not result in it being taken more seriously.
AFAIK, the sexual interactions where consensual as they occurred. But the two woman withdrew consent after the fact as they learned he hadn’t been wearing a condom (and they discovered he’d been with both of them).
If true, his attitude reminds me of Jeff Epstein's plan to "seed the human race with his DNA" by impregnanting a bunch of women on a ranch he owned. These people see their own supposed genius as justification for violating moral norms.
You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda.
You provide zero evidence for that naked assertion.
> it's not all propaganda.
If it has no evidnce and no substance as it seems no to, the rationale behind it is of academic interest alone. Maybe it's pure malice? Maybe it's jealous rage? Maybe it's delusional? Maybe it's propaganda? Maybe it's just not interesting what caused it - it shouldn't be to the legal process. Substance is everything. What seems like a strong lack of it here, stinks.
This isn't Richard Stallman 2.0. Assange told you something that nobody denies is true. He's not head of GNU, let the rape allegations be dealt with by the appropriate people. Your job as somebody talking about Assange is to say, "yea, that shit he told us was terrible, something should be done." Not "he might take his fucking condoms off".
Prosecutors will wait until the end of time and still trot out memory-based testimony (as long as it still supports their case), so I think the claim about why they dropped the case is specious.
In any case, this was always the most likely outcome: very few sexual assault cases ever make it to court in Sweden.
Rape without physical violence like this rely entirely on the victim testimony and even if there is a record and everything that will weaken the case terribly if the victim is no longer on board.
Stay safe Snowden and all you other possible whistleblowers/leakers out there!
To people downvoting me - check out the vox article on this earlier this year.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-ass...
The women were "vehement" about restarting the case. Reportedly were "willing to do whatever it takes to force case to be re-opened" The statute of limitations is August,2020.
But suddenly it doesn't matter according to sweden
If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying.
Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.
The hard truth is that Assange won't be free nor safe anywhere in Europe. The tactical and propagandistic value of detaining and punishing him is so high, the US won't have any qualms black-opping him out of any EU country like they did with Abu Omar in Italy; and his freedom is not valued highly enough by any EU country to stop this from happening.
The only places where he could safely stay in the long term, at the moment, are Russia and Venezuela. Even Cuba has enough problems that they won't dare adding another one to the pile just out of spite; and that goes for most South-American states in general. China stands for everything he despises, so that's another hard no. Places like Japan or South Korea, so deeply embedded in the US military stance, are extremely unlikely too.
Assange must hope the current administration is replaced by someone so firebrand-y, s/he'd be willing to make a grand gesture of reconciliation. Snowden comes before him in the list though, and doesn't carry the baggage that Julian does, so chances of that are very low too.
Sadly, this is a round that the Galactic Empire has won. The only satisfaction Julian might get, will come from history books.
You are wrong on both points. Poland cooperated fully with EU's investigation of so called black sites (CIA "facilities") and the only thing that saved the people that used to rule Poland when those black sites were operational was lack of evidence of torture. How's that unconditional love for the American administration look in light of that? It is true that Poles want to have US troops on its territory(regardless of who currently rules the country), but let's not kid ourselves that US would "deal with Russia". All Us troops that ever were permanently stationed in Poland were always in the Western part. If Russia wanted to fuck with Poland they would sent their little green men into the North-East. Also it is common knowledge other NATO countries (perhaps including US) wouldn't respond to a Russian attack sooner than in 2 weeks so if Russia attacked Baltic countries Poland would have to respond on its own for first 2 weeks.
>This is particularly true now that their executive carries a certain disdain for the legislative branch and the rule of law.
The executive doesn't carry any disdain for the legislative branch. The main political party has absolute majority in the legislature, they have a president from same party and the government. Why would a government have any disdain for the legislative branch that is from the same party? You must be thinking about UK not Poland.
There is however pretty sizable disdain for the judiciary.This is not only on part of the ruling party, but also a huge majority of people. The rule of law in Poland is seen as being for everyone, but corrupt judges. There many examples of judges of all levels including high court judges committing crimes (from petty theft caught on CCTV, killing a pedestrian while drunk driving, being recorded on the phone while openly discussing bribes) and nothing happens to them. Their colleagues always rule in their favor.
At the same time there are situations like this where there was a huge property extortion scandal in Warsaw that had some of the city's government involved, politicians and corrupt judges which accepted faked power of attorney documents etc. In process of this thousands of people were evicted illegally. There was a parliament special commission established with members of all political parties that over years found evidence of those crimes. All members of that commission agreed regarding its findings of crimes despite their political differences. As part of their proceedings they ruled certain properties should be returned. One of the people affected was a daughter of a woman who was killed(burned alive) by members of the criminal organisation because she started to make information about their crimes public. The property she was living in was supposed to be returned to the city's ownership, but the city still governed by the same party that participated in the original criminality appealed. Then the case got to a judge whose dad was a known communist secret police member. The judge found some technicality based on which he could deny the property retrieval and when asked why he is committing such injustice he actually laughed in the face of the woman that is the daughter of the victim I mentioned before.
The biggest problem with judiciary in Poland is that, after communism ended no one kicked out judges that were corrupt. Germany had its Nuremburg after Hitler lost - this cleansed it somewhat. Polish judiciary is a direct descendant of communist apparatchiks. Even though many people involved are younger and perhaps their intentions weer good when they were joining, they developed in the organisation that didn't change one bit since communist times.
Until this is resolved there will be no true rule of law in Poland.
US has a lot power over UK and Sweden, what makes u think western Europe is different?
That relies on his Australian passport being valid and not being cancelled by a US-friendly Australian government - the relevant Minister has the right to cancel a passport if the person is subejct to a foreign arrest warrant. [1] It would likely also rely on the EU member state being convinced that Assange was only visiting the EU for 90 days and had the intention to leave, thus qualifying for the Schenghen Visa Waiver for Australians. The border officers in France (or wherever the ferry lands) can reject him at the border before he has a chance to travel elsewhere if they aren’t convinced he is legit.
He might want to wear a shawl or similar, but I don't think there will be a problem unless he is deliberately tracked and intercepted.
will not easily extradite own citizens but less care is given for foreigners.
My thought was the judge gave him a year to give him a chance to fight the extradition.
Without that - he possibly would have been snapped up pretty quickly.
Apparently, "The Commonwealth will not extradite or deport a prisoner to another jurisdiction if they might face the death penalty"
The UK is in the Commonwealth and has the same stricture. None of the extradition charges carry the death penalty.
So how is this relevant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Australi...
> None of the extradition charges carry the death penalty.
I 'm not sure about that, the UN seems to be concerned:
https://www.ft.com/content/c3d35d24-82ec-11e9-b592-5fe435b57...
Sweden’s involvement in the extrajudicial persecution of Assange is downright shameful.
> 404 Not Found
I used to think Sweden was "woke" and progressive but I was mistaken. A statement like this by law enforcement in California would be unacceptable.
> "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation."
Did Ms Persson also clarify that a lack of evidence suggests that the state consider that Assange may be the injured party. Presuming the accuser injured seems to deprive Assange of an assumption of innocence (not sure if applicable there).
Were Assange's statements not coherent, extensive, and detailed? If so, why favor the accuser? Why deprive Assange of fair treatment?
Evidence is material. A lack of evidence by definition is not material.
What those secrets were and if Assange is a journalist or publisher or rapist or saint or martyr or useful idiot is all moot.
The guy is going to spend time in a US prison at some point unless he dies or flees. If he doesn't go via Sweden is almost immaterial (unless you're a rape victim wanting their day in court).
What exactly is it about Assange that says he should be immune from prosecution and what other loopholes exist to the rule of law?
This is bullshit. Either they had real evidence or not. Evidence does not "weaken" with time. The truth is they never had evidence because the charges were BS in the first place. The only thing that has weakened is the fact that that the U.S. and other powers that want him dead already have him... so they no longer need trumped up charges to snare him.
He should be freed immediately and damages should be paid to him by all those involved in his illegal detention.
It might be a bit foreign, but it does help with some cases, like partner violence, where the victim might not want to press charges against a violent partner. Under this model, if the police learns of the crime, they are obliged to prosecute it if possible.
So state prosecutor can simply drop the charges if she feels like it?
in usa people have the right to jury trial. Seems really unfair that prosecutor can unilaterally simply drop your case, wonder why its that way.
Prosecutors are generally not independent, but work for some arm of the justice ministry and as government officials are subject to abuse of power laws, so they can be punished for mishandling cases.
That’s the theory, at least. In practise, it’s not always that transparent what’s going on.
You can file a civil suit to get a judge to make declarations of fact in some cases, but I don’t believe there is any criminal equivalent of that.
The accused has the right to a jury trial. An alleged victim has no such right.
what does 'accused' mean here? I assumed accused = pressed charges.
edit: oh i see wht you mean. thanks.
The accusations might very well be true, but the Swedish prosecutions actions and statements has baffled me from day one.
His legal representation acted quite strange too. I read some court proceedings from some of the UK hearings, among other things the lawyer had called witnesses that had no business being there, it was rather embarrassing to read.
Still a couple of months to go (April + 50 weeks = ~March).
I know that this is an ultra liberal community and I will get downvoted and flagged within a few minutes. But if someone is too scared to even lose a worthless website account to say what he sees as the right opinion, he should not live anyway.
It isn't. HN is actually very far from even a mildly liberal community in the correct sense of the word.
Unless you use the word in the same way people from rural Kansas do when what they actually mean is a leftist.
I also have no trouble believing the testimony that he sexually assaulted someone.
I’m not sure how those things are at odds.
They were responding to a valid extradition request by Sweden. How does the US factor in here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
It’s victim blaming. Would you say a victim of Stockholm Syndrome is “free to leave at any time”? No, because that’s a ridiculous argument. Would you say Snowden is “free to leave [Russia] at any time”? No!
So why is it an acceptable argument when it’s Assange? Because he possibly committed a crime in Sweden? Because he indiscriminately blew the whistle on the US government’s crimes?
Sure, he’s a puppet of Russia, but to say he doesn’t deserve the same protections as the rest of us is to argue for tyranny.
Just for the sake of argument, say you are a bank robber who successfully barricaded yourself somewhere (really uncomfortable) where police cannot reach you. You are then free to leave at any time, but would be arrested as soon as you did.
Would you really argue that police would have to drop the case to avoid torturing you?
Your line of thinking seems to presuppose that the threat of arrest was somehow unjust, but you never really argue for that point.
He’s wanted because he embarrassed the United States government. Espionage laws are a horrible attack on free speech and freedom of the press and I’m appalled the Supreme Court previously ruled they’re constitutional.
That was Assange's choice: a prison in the UK, or a prison in the USA. He didn't feel that the USA would either be safe or provide a fair trial, and so he stayed put.
Didn't it mean he would be free to stand trial for the rape allegations?
Do those women not have a right to have their case heard?
No, there were never any charges filed against Julian Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for "questioning" by a Swedish prosecutor in a case that has now been entirely dropped due to a complete lack of substance. Assange's assertion was that this Swedish investigation was created entirely as a pretense to seize him and ship him to the United States for his activities as a publisher (an assertion that has proven to be true given his current status). There was nothing preventing the Swedish prosecutor from questioning Assange in the UK - they have traveled abroad to question subjects of other investigations in the past.
If you are talking about US Prisions then there is a Good Case to be made that is true. The Treatment of Prisioners in the US is abhorrent
Yeah, but the victim is the woman he raped and that will not see any justice, because he ran...
Presumption of innocence is a basic concept in law, and an international human right.
We don't know at this point if he raped, assaulted, grabbed by some part of the body, or did anything to any woman. There was not a trial, no judge, no proofs, no videos.
What we know is that Wikileaks most probably contributed to save lots of women from being massively raped. There was a global sense of impunity for armies before and a totally different situation after Assange. Soldiers were allowed to do anything they pleased with civils including children and women. Not so easy anymore
But in general, the arument is flawed. If I rob a bank and barricade myself in my basement when the police shows up I'm not being subjected to torture because I'll face jail for my bank robbery if I leave the basement. Not after one day nor after ten years.
That's a bit silly in my view.
Also, as far as I'm aware, Assange didn't claim he was tortured, the UN experts on torture came to that conclusion.
It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power and who's being charged.
The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by that system.
However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations.
This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
Are you saying we should take your word over theirs?
Saying "he could have left" in this situation, after being shown exactly how that would have/did go down, is like camping out in front of your ex-girlfriend's house with a baseball bat, then telling the officer you didn't beat her and thus did nothing wrong. Except the whole world can see you totally did beat her when she finally left the house.
The U.S. does have the death penalty, and it would be on the table if the U.S. didn't tell the U.K. he won't get it. It's still possible that the U.S. lied of course.
Either way, he'll likely be put in prison in the U.S. for the rest of his life.