Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Julian Assange's Arrest and Charges
    • and prayers

      (Lol)

      My feelings for Assange are the same of how I feel about Snowden. I'll forever promote information to be known for the people and though he really isn't a journalist, a lot of Improtant and pertinent information came from Wikileaks. Granted, the timing and how the info was received is something I frown upon as it is led through bias and power.

      I'm also facinated by his well dressed cat that I jus learned about. Julian will be alright and might serve a couple of years and will give a great ted talk in a decade or so.
      [Error 404 - No Signature Here You Big Dummy]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aquamentus ().

    • Julian Assange seems like a case of someone being able to coincidentally contribute something positive to society while also being a trash person. Not even bringing the multiple rape accusations into it, apparently the Ecuadorian Embassy eventually kicked him out because he was threatening staff, accusing them of being spies, going weeks without showering and walking around the embassy in his underwear, skateboarding around the embassy, and on at least one occasion scrawling his own poop on the wall when he didn't get his way. He seems like a nightmare narcissist by all accounts.
    • Lucretia wrote:

      yo thoughts on assange?
      It's complicated, on one hand his current situation feels self-inflicted because it appears he squandered the goodwill of the Ecuadorian government (though Ecuador's new administration no doubt wants better relations with the US and Assange is definitely an obstacle to that) but the actual charges he faces from the US are bullshit. Attempted hacking?? It's such a frivolous charge.

      He made a terrible miscalculation in assuming that a Trump administration would be more kind to him than a Clinton one, even though I don't think he should be handed over to the US I also don't feel a ton of sympathy for him at the same time. He did some good work in 2010 but he's no hero.

      And yes there are the rape accusations which, to be honest and fair, many people here on ZU seemed to doubt at the time (if I recall correctly) and I was one of them. At least knowing what I know now, there's a good chance that the charges are true based on rape statistics regarding false accusations. It did feel like the charges were used as a political tool, but that doesn't necessarily make them false - they can be true and also used for political ends, and we should be careful not to doubt survivors when it's politically convenient.



      The post was edited 2 times, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • like i get he's total trash and that he is also a real fucking idiot to have squandered his asylum, but also ecuador has committed an incredibly grave breach of human rights and we should all be concerned about that.

      i heard people saying that ecaudor would ber blackballed internationally for this, but that such bullshit. asylum should be inalienable, but it's one of the least protected and enjpoyed rights in the world. most states would have done the same in all honesty, and that is worrisome. this was a big blow to the norms of asylum.
    • But torture and the death penalty aren't on the table for him.

      I mean, yes, either Ecuador was lying when they first granted him asylum or they're lying now (or, I suppose, the situation has changed enough that they no longer think what they did years ago), but Assange was never at risk for the death penalty, and is high-profile enough that torture wasn't going to happen (plus, he's white).

      Edit: Is the implication here that any country with an extradition treaty with the US is violating basic human rights?

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • John wrote:

      But torture and the death penalty aren't on the table for him.

      I mean, yes, either Ecuador was lying when they first granted him asylum or they're lying now (or, I suppose, the situation has changed enough that they no longer think what they did years ago), but Assange was never at risk for the death penalty, and is high-profile enough that torture wasn't going to happen (plus, he's white).

      Edit: Is the implication here that any country with an extradition treaty with the US is violating basic human rights?
      Being white isn't actually a criteria for immunity to torture; it just changes what torture is allowed against you (just ask Chelsea Manning). Torture immunity has more to do with relative likelihood of there being a political backlash and exactly how angry someone high-up in command is. Someone like, say, Al Sharpton or a street musician who unwittingly revealed a classified military op would not be in much danger of it; someone like Assange would be in high danger of it.

      The only reason Chelsea Manning has any protection at all is being trans and now-publicly known as such.

      Incidentally, Chelsea Manning is also in jail because of Assange's arrest. They basically intend to either force Manning to testify, or make the rest of Manning's life unbearable in vengeance.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest ().

    • doesn't it just depend on where the case is launched from whether or not death is present?

      chelsea manning is white and she's been tortured through extended solitary confinement. looking at how inhumanely she has been treated is evidence enough of the type of treatment that Assange will receive.

      no that is not necessarily the implication, albeit it is something that is often used when it comes to middle-eastern countries.

      primarily my issue with the breach of article 33 of the OHCHR:

      Article 33 - Prohibition of expulsion or return ("refoulement")
      1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

      2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.


      Article 32 makes a case for how this could be done:

      Article 32 - Expulsion
      1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

      2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.

      3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.


      and ultimately Ecuador could have won a court case through it's own courts arguing that holding Assange was a national security issue (maybe), but that is not what was done. the process for this was not followed, it was merely a political decision to deny Assange his right to not be refouled to the UK.

      it doesn't matter if the situation has changed, once Assange became a refugee, he had a right to stay in Ecaudor, pending a legal process to expulse him, and that was not followed. It is absolutely a human rights issue.


      why else would Amnesty International come out with:

      “Amnesty International calls on the UK to refuse to extradite or send in any other manner Julian Assange to the USA where there is a very real risk that he could face human rights violations, including detention conditions that would violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and an unfair trial followed by possible execution, due to his work with Wikileaks."
    • Lucretia wrote:

      yo thoughts on assange?
      Garbage person who shouldn't be extradited to the US.

      Assange did a lot of good by releasing the Chelsea Manning leak (as well as helping Edward Snowden after he released his leaks.) But then when he was in the Ecuadorean embassy he teamed up with Roger Stone to help Donald Trump get elected (presumably because he thought he might get a pardon out of it.) This clear help included releasing the DNC emails about half an hour after the Access Hollywood tape dropped, for the maximum partisan effect or containing the effect of the tape while hurting Clinton. (all throughout Stone was tweeting about how wikileaks had something big and Assange was going to release it at a time of his choosing.)

      Also I just want to say this because I was clear throughout that if Assange left the embassy he would be extradited to the US (this was called a conspiracy theory by the media and some ZU members.) Which has been definitively proven false and now the media is acting like "well of course he's being extradited".

      bbc.com/news/uk-47910820

      Should be extradited to Sweden though to have his day in court and defend himself against the rape cases that he maintained all along were a plot by the US and would gladly defend against if he were guaranteed to not be sent to the US.
    • In my opinion, they are ok in their decision to do this. They had several rules he continued to break, including staying in touch with WIkiLeaks to interfere in other country's politics. They took away his internet but he still had his cellar phone, he disabled security cameras inside the agency, hacked into the embassy's files, refused to take care of his personal hygiene and continually threatened guards. I believe the last straw was him meeting with people before and after the Vatican hack, showing that he was still directly involved in WikiLeaks.

      Lucretia wrote:

      but he applied for asylum with ecuador, which means ecuador reasonably believed that arrest in the UK could lead to extradition to the USA, where because of torture and the death penalty, means that releasing him to the UK violates the principle of non-refoulment.

      the USA has put in an extradition request as a result
      theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/a…adorian-embassy-wikileaks
      In the video released by the Ecuadorean president (?), he explains that part of the caveat of his release that Britain agreed to not extradite him to any country where he could even possibly face the death penalty or torture, so that kind of rules out extradition to the USA.
    • yeah we'll see if that is respected, i mean ecuador violated article 32 in the manner in which they expulsed him, I dont have much trust that the UK willl respect the spirit of that message. They'll probably note that he has an extradition request for hacking and not espionage and it'll probably come from a state without the death penalty. All in all i dont trust any of them to uphold his human rights.


      Which should worry us all, if Assange, a high profile, white, rich, well connected cisman cannot have his rights respected what hope is there for the refugees in illegal internment camps around the world?

      Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere
    • Assanges days of were always kind of numbered. As a free agent, he was useful for countries that wanted to expose the crimes of the US but he adheres to no loyalty that would stay him from airing out their own dirty laundry.

      I want to say that he will become less relevant to history. I want to say that the panopticon effect of the age of information will force governments to focus on preventing scandal or dealing with it honestly and justly to maintain good faith with their respective publics. But that’s naive. They find it easier to regress to a less transparent era via the destruction of Net Neutrality or murking the truth with fake news.