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?

I appreciate that Sweden wouldn’t guarantee not to extradite him. I still think he should have gone to Sweden and fought the extradition charges had they happened. That would have been the right thing to do.

However I don’t see how that makes it ok for the US to charge him in secret with a (presumably) separate crime.

And if the leaks revealed corruption in the Democratic Party then as far as I’m concerned the people to blame for that are the Democratic Party and nobody else.

In 2016, Assange released the names and credit card numbers of donors to the Democratic Party. The credit card numbers.

When asked why he released such sensitive information, he mumble mumbled about not have the resources to redact, plus "it's important for history"

FYI: There is a federal law stating the names of donors donating a certain amount have to be made public. Several websites are already dedicated to doing so, and none of them include credit card numbers.

Curation my ass. IMO people were not killed after the cables because the US military got a lot of them out.

WL is a data dump organization, not journalism.

Melanippe if I wanted justice for a rape victim and not be instrumentalized by a greater power for political reasons, that is what I as a state would do. ‚That is not how it works‘ doesn‘t cut it. It works how I as a state decide it works.

So, is there evidence lives were put at risk / lost by Wikileaks? Surely the CIA would only be too eager to share, if this was the case.

Releasing credit card info is clearly a national security risk and puts lives in danger. Didn‘t know Assange was still so involved in deciding this stuff in 2016.

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

a) because a state cannot generally bind itself as to future unknown actions

b) because Sweden would have no way of knowing if this was a ploy from JA knowing that actually he was wanted for something else - or whether if they did this for him, another person would use the same tactic to avoid merited extradition

c) because this is not how it works: the question has to be (i) whether the requesting state has a good case (which cannot be known if there is no request) and (ii) whether the resulting treatment arising from extradition would breach the ECHR (which cannot be known if the request is not known)

d) because it would set a terrible precedent

e) because Sweden already protects from political extradition to the USA, so there would be no need to go further

f) (possibly the crucial one) because he actually abandoned this ground of appeal against extradition to Sweden and only pursued one ground to the Supreme Court, which was a technicality about the meaning of "judicial authority" www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html

That is not how it works‘ doesn‘t cut it. It works how I as a state decide it works.

Not when it comes to the European Arrest Warrant - it works as the Member States jointly decide it works, or it doesn't work at all.

Indeed, Melanippe. I'd have hoped that anyone who thought that US and British army personnel were fair game would have drawn the line at the Afghan civvies, but there are some real tossers out there

It is indicative of the sloppy ass stuff Assange puts out there and y'all sigh and pat his head as the big brave boy.

And yes, the generals (not CIA) have gone to Congress to testify how many they moved.

Only damn thing he did of value was the original video tape of an assassination and killing of an AP reporter, but since the thing was stolen from an army lawyer's desk while the guy was negotiating a wrongful death payment to the widow (ie, the US had admitted culpability), it had very little value other than increasing that payment.

Corruption in the D party? No. You had one candidate everyone except one dude had stepped aside for, and that one dude whining about how it was rigged because that one candidate was also the one raising money. A bunch of silliness thinking Bernie is all that.

As for indicting the man, the US is within its rights to indict for espionnage. Whether or not you believe the indictment pages is not up to you. It's up to a grand jury, and even with an indictment he's still innocent until proven guilty.

Let's see whether he can make the case his involvement with Trump and Putin's buddy Roger Stone was all coinky dink.

So it would seem Olennas

Why does the CIA keep getting mentioned? I and pretty much everyone else is talking about the military, which is a whole different thing. I get that everyone loves their pet misogynist, but I don't think you can make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that is Assange.

I agree with LauraMipsum and for the same reasons she's stated. The whole thing reeks of conspiracy theory - his supporters circulate the idea that the US somehow cooked up the rape charges so that he could be extradited to Sweden and from there to the US. That makes no sense whatsoever - why not simply extradite him straight from the UK (which has an extremely friendly relationship and permissive extradition arrangement) rather than from Sweden? (In April 2013, the Washington Post a US Justice Department spokesperson saying, "Espionage is considered a ‘political offense’ that, therefore, falls outside the scope of Sweden’s extradition treaty" - www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/woman-indicted-in-cuba-spy-case-is-in-sweden-and-out-of-us-reach/2013/04/25/de27da3c-ade7-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e64c53d9417 . So if Assange were to be extradited to the US, he would have had to be charged with a non-political offence - how on earth could Sweden be expected to be guarantee that it wouldn't extradite him for non-political offences? And if the theory is that he was going to subject to extraordinary rendition - well, that's ludicrous in such a high-profile case, and the only two known examples of such extraordinary rendition from Sweden took place at the height of the war on terror and have been completely repudiated by the government.)

I have absolutely no sympathy for him. He should stand trial for all the things he is accused of.

And the poor cat should be rehomed with someone who isn't a self-absorbed arsehole.

Oh, and his behaviour towards the Ecuadorians is like the worst kind of cocklodger behaviour. If they posted in relationships we'd all be telling them to LTB, except they can't.

Saskia My thoughts exactly.
And really. What a prat. How long does he plan to stay in his self imposed prison?
He would probably have more protection if he'd faced the music in Sweden than he'll end up getting when he finally leaves his safe place. And I feel so sorry for the embassy workers. He must be a massive pain to have around. By all accounts it's quite a small building and his presence is a real imposition.

Yes, YABU. How many other good deeds cancel out a rape? How many for multiple rapes?

None, is the answer. There is nothing that he could do that would make it OK for him to be aided in escaping rape charges by a government offering him asylum.

Also, some of the information he was responsible for leaking put innocent people (some of them activists) in danger. He is not a hero.

He has never been charged for rape Angry and Sweden does, rightly or wrongly, not consider it any more. So that ship has sailed no matter what.

He's taken the Polanski approach really. This idea that if you avoid arrest for long enough then it will "go away".

What was baffling was when ?the UN or someone said the UK was keepign him illegally imprisoned or something. They seemed to miss the bit where he was hiding so he woudn't be arrested.

I feel for the Ecuadoran (ian?) embassy workers TBF

And his cat

There was a woman on MN ages ago who knew him and said he was creepy as all fuck so I also feel for lots of the women who have met him up to and incluidng the Swedish women who he is accused of attacking.

When it comes to sex offences, how famous does a man need to be before he can act with impunity? Happens all the time drives me mad.

I'm not saying he should be let off any crimes (or even bad behaviour)he truly committed, but it would be very easy indeed for powerful people he has annoyed with his leaks to smear him in this way and make him lose any public support so they can whisk him off for trial over his political actions. That is why I would want to see him have a 100% fair trial for each individual crime and not trust anything I had read about him online.

I'm in the snivelling little shit camp.
He's living a pretty miserable existence and I have no sympathy.

He's the only person that ensured he didn't have a fair trial for rape.

I feel sorry for the workers in the Embassy and also annoyed that him massively outstaying his welcome will make other embassies think twice before offering someone asylum in the future

Revisiting this. My impression from this thread is that a lot of how people judge this depends on whether they think the leaking Assange faciliated and amplified via wikileaks was a service to society or a traiterous/dangerous/wrong act. While this is surely a discussion worth having, it distracts from what was my primary, general (possibly too implicit) question.

So, I'd like to broaden this (if anyone is listening) and ask: Suppose you think someone did something you consider supremely important, but that same person is shitty/misogynist on a personal level, what would you do?

Like, there was a solid left wing politician (not in the UK) who also has good policies regarding women's rights, and now it turns out he groped some rightwing woman on some conference. (Or drunkenly leaned into/almost fell onto her. There were witnesses). Would you elect him again?
Or, say, hypothetically, if a politician was personally the way Trump is (grab her by the p... and all that), but had policies that are good for women and made world peace (hypothetically!!!), would you support him?
This question has been arising quite often for me in the course of my life (great cause versus personal crappyness), so I just wondered, how you see this.

What would happen if someone pulled a fire alarm? just askin

So, I'd like to broaden this (if anyone is listening) and ask: Suppose you think someone did something you consider supremely important, but that same person is shitty/misogynist on a personal level, what would you do?

A rapist? There's no excuse no. A serial cheating sleaze bag, maybe. Someone who groped women, or touched them without permission or anything like that, no.

Call me cynical but it turned out all a little bit convenient for the American establishment that he had consensual sex with a woman but he then allegedly removed the condom during sex which is a claim that hasn't be proven or disproven.

I'd support Assange.

The kitten thing, well, sure he should give it to someone with an outdoor space, but DP had an "indoor" tabby cat and he is the biggest cat lover ever. Tabby cats can enjoy a very fulfilled life staying inside.

Melanippe Fri 16-Nov-18 18:05:55

Assange was always going to be indicted by the US, he put service personnel in immediate danger which makes the US a wee bit cross. How many US personnel were killed by Wikileaks, erm, leaks? Zero.

How many Saudi journalists were killed by the CIA not warning Jamal Khashoggi that he was a target of his own country? Only Jamal Khashoggi, who went into a consulate for a wedding licence and came out in pieces. Literally, as they dismembered him.

I don't defend what Assange has done, but telling the truth should never be the basis for sending anybody overseas to potentially spend the rest of their life in prison.

Unless it's Mohammed bin Salman for admitting to ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Serfisafleur the issue with the cat is not that it lives indoors (plenty of cats do that very happily), it's that he doesn't take care of it, so the embassy staff have to.