[geofft]

> It makes me profoundly sad how the world (or at least my world, mostly far left, liberal, educated, etc.) has turned so hard against Julian Assange. He's a hero in every sense of the word.

In my world, heroes don't run from sexual assault trials.

Is he afraid of prison, or of the sexual assault prosecution being a sham to punish him for what he published? Chelsea Manning was prosecuted and sentenced and more-or-less tortured for the actual things she leaked. She's a hero - she did the right thing for the country even though she knew what it would cost her. She didn't run. She was sitting in solitary confinement while Assange was tweeting in an embassy and claiming political asylum.

Someone who wants to change the world, who seeks prestige and power, and who gains fame from someone else's sacrifice can be many things (and perhaps many good things) - but I wouldn't call him a hero.

[jexah]

So if you manage to avoid being tortured or killed, then what you did wasn't a sacrifice and wasn't patriotic? Considering the definition of hero goes so far as saving somebody from a burning building and receives minor burns, I think it's rich to say that because that person didn't receive full body 3rd degree burns or die in the fire, that they're not a hero. They risked their life and did their best to avoid or mitigate the damage they caused themselves.

Are you saying that the rescuer who fails to save the person and dies in the fire is more of a hero because they screwed up, or chose to give up and be burned alive? What about the rescuer who saves the person and intentionally runs back into the burning building and dies to gain "hero points"?

Yeah, the case against Assange in Sweden was just to get him to go back so Sweden could extradite him to the US. That is something legitimate to run from. I believe it is foolish to maximise the amount of damage to one's self, for many reasons least of all that it hampers one's ability to achieve their goal.

[Faaak]

If you'd read the article, you'd know that the sexual charge was dismissed

[geofft]

Yes, I did read the article (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it says that the investigation was closed (not that the charge was dismissed), because the prosecutors determined he had successfully run beyond their ability to prosecute them by claiming asylum for years, and they didn't see a point in keeping the case open. That's basically the opposite of justice.

> In May, 2017, Swedish prosecutors announced they were closing their investigation into the sexual assault allegations due to the futility of proceeding in light of Assange’s asylum and the time that has elapsed.

He is still wanted for what the article calls the "minor bail violation" of crossing multiple international borders to flee trial for those charges.

[danso]

The investigation was dropped because Sweden gave up:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosec...

> “In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him. We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued.

> “If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately.”

[pcwalton]

There are lots of reasons why prosecutors dismiss charges unrelated to whether the accused is guilty. "The defendant is currently enjoying the protection of the government of a foreign country" is high among the list of reasons why a prosecutor might choose to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that Assange is a rapist (as well as a useful idiot at best in service of Russia's interests).