These are not things that "they" did, though. They're things that "he" did.
Regardless of Assange's merits or failures as an activist or human being, the current conditions he's being subjected to absolutely do indicate a man being made an example of for politically motivated reasons and in violation of basic legal guarantees. That is something that's far more dangerous than anything he himself is likely to be convicted of.
But I totally agree that this treatment in this extradition case sounds terrible, and the judge seems strongly biased against him. Does not sound like a fair trial.
In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. He's done things I wholeheartedly support, and things I strongly oppose. I support his early fight against censorship and the release of the collateral murder video. I disagree with releasing all the material concerning sensitive operations unchecked and unedited. I am concerned by the rape stories, strongly oppose his self-centered grandstanding, and my working theory is that he went mad, possibly with power, due to the massive size of the Manning leaks. I supported the rape investigation, but oppose his extradition to the US, because I doubt he's ever going to get a fair trial there. And now it looks like even the extradition trial from the UK is not going to be fair.
He's a complex figure with good and bad sides. His are a bit more extreme than most. I find it hard to form a simple opinion about him, because nothing about this is simple. But it seems obvious to me that both blind support and total condemnation are wrong positions to take in this. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons, and that's very wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean he's entirely innocent either.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, disagrees: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...
Specifically, this section:
"Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more."
I think there's a cake and eat it too. That the rape campaign was an organized smear campaign. That the combined resources of Sweden and the US (and possibly the UK) too's best ability at a smear campaign at someone was "may not have used a condom when he implied he would during a sexual encounter". That's a pretty sad indictment of those intelligence communities (regardless of the merits either way).
Basically it comes down to the story not adding up, drummed up charges, testimony that was changed by the police. After the headline was made on August 20th (accusing him of rape) the person that 'accused' him (she hadn't (yet)) was questioned on the 21st and only after that did she accuse him of 'rape' (not actually rape, but stealthing).
According to her he had intentionally broken the condom during sex. However the broken condom that was submitted into evidence had no DNA of her, nor of Assange.
Neither woman accused him of anything before headlines were being made apparently.
I hadn't heard that the condom contained no DNA. That certainly sounds odd to me, but I'm no forensic expert. If that's sufficient proof that the whole story is a lie, then that's certainly worthy of investigation. False rape allegations are as serious as rape in my opinion.
The lady who went to the police to force assange to do an HIV test never accused him of rape, they had unprotected sex and she wanted to ensure that she was safe.[1]
The second lady only accompanied the first. But the article had already been made and she only made a statement the day after. As for the reason to not clasify it as rape, it's probably due to a contradiction in her statement. [2]
Per the article: [1] "S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes."
[2] "... But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. ..."
As you well know, it is usually impossible to prove a negative, especially when it supposedly occurred in a private setting between an accuser and an accused.
> The stories of the women involved seemed very credible, and unlikely to have been made up, considering they were supporters of him.
They did not seem very credible. That is, it is credible that they encountered Assange, but the accusations not so much. At any rate, they were not credible enough for the Swedish authorities to decide to indict Assange (which they could have done).
> In any case, Assange is a controversial figure. ... I am concerned by the rape stories. I agree he's being made an example of for political reasons ... but that doesn't ... mean he's entirely innocent
Assange's current imprisonment is not about any allegations of sexual misconduct. He is not accused of any of that. Also, be aware that Assange was _made_ controversial by the treatment of those allegations and by the UK's insistence to put Assange in custody. Yet we know that the UK was motivated not by the Swedish affair but by the US, and went as far as to pressure Sweden not to drop their extradition request. So, regardless of whether you are skeptical of Assange's personal/sexual conduct - that matter was cynically used to persecute him politically.
And thus IMO you too have been manipulated to effectively support Assange's ordeal, including the extradition possibility, because of your - understandable - concern for possible victims of sexual misconduct.
I think this is entirely unfair. There are numerous implications in the parent, and others, posts that they recognize that other things, claims, etc. are going on. The assumption that anyone who fails to discount the other issues has been "manipulated" is bad faith...
... no more than assuming that Craig Murray is an impartial observer of events occurring here too, and not entirely biased as well.
“police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW.”
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... (The report itself)
A source for that statement.
And I doubt anyone involved thought that Assange has felt physically safe for the past decade.
You probably once supported his fight for free speech, until they made up the "Trump supporter" story.
With that, they actually managed to catch many people who previously supported him.
Of course, he was "left" and they told all his friends that he "now supports the enemy".
Was a really clever framing move.
> On Oct. 3, WikiLeaks, writing a day before it was set to announce the release of hacked Democratic emails, wrote to Trump Jr.: "Hiya. It'd be great if you guys could comment on /push this story."
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
* https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/563996442...
* https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign...
Which aspects of these stories were "made up"?
In a subsequent message to Trump Jr., WikiLeaks proposes what it acknowledges is "an unusual idea":
"Leak us one or more of your father's tax returns," the message suggests, "Most of the harm has already been done by the nyt [New York Times] and pre-empted by your father (tax writedowns)."
"If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality," the message continues. "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing about Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russian' source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."