AIBU that I support Julian Assange‘s quest for asylum?

[deepwatersolo]

I can very well understand that as a feminist one cringes at what transpired about Assange‘s treatment of women, and I would have supported him facing an investigation and potentially a trial in Sweden.
At the same time, I believe he did us a service in revealing all kind of hidden agendas by states and global players, behind the backs of the people. (I absolutely do not buy into the idea that Assange is an agent of Putin - this may be a contentious issue for some here, too). Today it has transpired that Assange has been secretly indicted by the US.
I think of supporting a campaign to secure his asylum. On principle. Even though I don‘t particularly like him. AIBU?

Andrew O’Hagan’s 2014 story of his uncompleted commissioned biography of Assange is fascinating - he had unfettered access to Assange before he landed himself on the unfortunate Ecuadoreans.

Dangerous, vainglorious, irresponsible and deeply unlikable - no, YABU, OP.

Russian stooge. Up there with Farage and Arron Banks.

Sorry for responding late, I managed to wreck a car wheel at the worst moment possible - anyway.
The US indictment is sealed and was apparently leaked inadvertently as some byline of an unrelated document. I find a secret indictment highly problematic, it is clearly secret to weaken any claims that asylum is necessary. I also find an indictment for publishing truth highly problematic, it does look like political prosecution, and to dissuade any future act of that sort. I think our future depends on our ability to hold the powerful to account. Brennan&Co love to make grand claims about how all kinds of leaks by all kinds of whistleblowers caused harm, but could they ever back it up?
It is easy to say WikiLeaks gave us Trump, but nobody forced the DNC to act in the corrupted manner it did. It is not like problems started with Trump, he is just a symptom of all that went wrong. When Trump Bombs, the Democrats criticize him for not bombing harder, how fucked up is that?

That said, on a personal level, I cannot stand Assange, and For the way he behaved towards those women, even if it went down the way he describes it (in dubio pro reo and all), he should get his ass kicked. But for that, not for leaking the information.

Indictment is sealed as it relates to an ongoing case so to unseal would jeopardize that.

He deserves everything coming to him.

The indictment is secret and only inadvertently leaked. You find that worthy of an alleged Democracy? I do not. But I also didn‘t find it worthy of countries that allegedly hold Western freedoms for women so high, to unleash jihadists onto the women in the Middle East, who forced them under the veil (which we know in part courtesy Wikileaks). So there‘s that.

Rapists shouldn't get away scot free because they have done some stuff that some people believe makes them a freedom fighter.

Well Oleanna, surely you don‘t advocate convicting alleged rapists for something totally unrelated instead of having them face the courts and the affected women for the rape?

Well, if it turns out wikileaks were operating a backchannel between Trump and Russia via Roger Stone then, yeah, he's up treasony shit creek.

He's a free man. He's chosing not to face the consequences of his actions....he can come out whenever he wants.

No, deep, I didn't say that

When people are accused of rape they should face a proper judicial process to determine whether they are guilty or not. Not try to hide away and avoid it.

Same with playing fast and loose with national security - if you stand by what you did, have the courage to face up to it, not cower in technical foreign territory

It's the adult equivalent of of a kid in trouble locking himself in the bathroom....

So, journalists should not ‚play fast and loose‘ with national security by only reporting what the respective secret services approve? Interesting view.

As for the hiding away, both leaked documents showing Sweden was pressured by the US to not drop the case and the leaked US indictment now seem to prove Assange’s point that he would have been extradited to the US, had he gone to Sweden for the interview, which Sweden demanded prior to deciding about indicting him (he was never indicted by Sweden).

How did he describe what happened in Sweden?

If he truly had feared, six years ago, that he would be extradited to America then the best thing he could have done was go to Sweden. Sweden is one of the few EU countries which is unlikely to extradite - they explicitly prohibit extradition based on a political offence. By contrast, the UK will extradite anybody to the US based on the US's simple request.

There was also a huge groundswell of support for him six years ago which has now fallen away. I'd have rated his chances very, very highly of being acquitted of the rapes if he'd gone to Sweden in a glorious indignant flounce at the time.

On a personal level, I don't support extradition to the US because I think their criminal justice system falls foul of Article 6, which in the UK is an absolute right (right to a fair trial), but case law here establishes that extradition to the US does not violate Articles 3 or 6. On that basis I can't see that he has a valid claim to asylum.

nasty man lacking in morals who thought he was above the law has done at least two separate things that warrant a criminal investigation. Abuse of power, desire for adulation and misogyny are the themes running through both

The wiki leaks during the election were highly political in timing and nature to damage Hilary. I used to follow wiki leaks and assange on twitter from well before both incidents, I had to stop due to the misogyny.

So no I won't be campaigning for him.

Laura Assange said at the time that he would go to Sweden for the interview, if he got the guarantee not to be extradited to the US. He explicitly did not get this guarantee from Sweden.

So, he might have gone to Sweden, and prosecutors might then have decided not to indict him and directly extradited him to the US.

Regarding UK case law being humm ho about extradition, I am not sure that trumps international law, where political prosecution may be grounds for asylum.

Also, s.8 of Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004* requires a decision maker to disbelieve an applicant who doesn't make his claim at the first opportunity, and he's six years late.

*probably the most sinister sounding name for an act of Parliament I've ever encountered

If you're not American, I can see why some people think it's a matter of the US getting its own back. Never mind that the original CableGate cables included clues to the hunt for OBL, and the never ending fight to keep rogues nukes from exploding....

K, that dramatic. True but a bit over-dramatic.

He promised proof of war crimes. He delivered squilch. Guy walked into an embassy to escape having to answer questions about rape.

That last bit is where I think YABU.

And all that is before he worked with Russians to give us Trump.

If he has a valid asylum claim and is recognised as a refugee, that trumps extradition. However, since the ECtHR didn't find that Abu Hamza's extradition would breach Article 3 despite his disabilities and that he was likely to be imprisoned for life in a supermax facility, I can't see how they would possibly find in favour of Assange.

He couldn't possibly have had a guarantee from Sweden that they wouldn't extradite him to the US when the US had not at the time made a request.

So, journalists should not ‚play fast and loose‘ with national security by only reporting what the respective secret services approve? Interesting view.

Again, that's not what I said

Decent journalists work independently to gather information to support a story and are responsible in how they use it. Where it is likely to directly endanger national security (aka actual people's very lives), there is an even greater onus on them to treat the information with respect. Not just dump it all out there

Wonderbag I think he denied covertly removing the condom during sex, which counts as rape in Sweden (she had by her accounts consented to sex with condom). In the second case (other woman) he denied he started intercourse while she was sleeping (she said she woke up during the act and did not want to cause a fuzz, so went along. they had had sex before and were therefore sleeping in the same bed.) The women realized he had slept with the respective other woman only afterwards. One was worried he might have given her an STD, asked him for a test. he denied. The women went to the police (together I believe) to find out whether he could be forced to make the test, told police what had happened... and the rest is history.

Sleazy as fuck, no doubt.

Whose life was endangered? AFAIK Wikileaks does curation. And the CIA very often shouts ‚lives were in danger‘ without backing it up.

Why could Sweden not have guaranteed him not to extradite for any request related to the Wikileaks publications citing freedom of the press?

Why would they when no requests had been made? That's not how this works.

One of the most egregious examples of Wikileaks endangering lives is their publication of documents containing the names of Afghan civilians who worked with US troops - something that the Taliban (and others in Afghanistan) aren't too keen on, and tend to show that by murdering the civilian and / or their family.

Humanitarian organisations asked Wikileaks to redact the names but a) it's awful that Wikileaks didn't consider doing this in the first place; and b) it's unclear whether they ever did it, even after being asked

Olennas the list also potentially risked both the British and American military personnel who worked with those Afghan civilians, some of whom were still in theatre at the time. Although, I suspect that to some, they would be merely collateral damage and therefore unimportant.