Yeah. But he was also over a decade in jail without a trial.
Don't get me worng: The state of justice here is certainly better than in Russia, but we should give ourselves the same scrutiny we give to the Russians. Closing our eyes when we do obvious unlawful things is bad for our rule of law and makes us look like hypocrites when we (rightfully) point out injustices elsewhere.
On the other hand, not even his fellow journalists do anything... They could at least do a weekly article, "assange is still in jail", because in reality, you're either "just a reporter" (who writes articles about what someone, usually from the government, said) or you could actually do some meaningful investigative work, and end up like him. I know that corporate mainstream media reports just what their owners want them to report, but even kevin mitnick had more media support and individuals asking hard questions than assange has now.
If I'd been the editor of the Guardian newspaper on the day the British security services ordered the destruction of the hard drive with the Snowden archives, I would've made the next day's front page almost fully blacked-out, except for perhaps a handful of words across the whole thing reading:
But Snowden still comes across as one of the "good guys", someone who was expecting to get hurt and did his thing anyway because it was the right thing to do, whereas Assange… comes across wanting to be the headline rather than be responsible for the headline.
Well, came across; I've only heard statements about him or on his behalf since he left the embassy, not from his own mouth. But the old reputation stuck.
In my opinion, the major difference between Assange and Snowden is the respective threats they represent: Snowden was a one and done deal. Get the stuff out, blow the whistle, done. Worst case someone might be encouraged to imitate him.
Wikileaks, and Assange as its figurehead, are a different deal. They enable whistleblowing, and as journalists they can report over and over again. Whistleblowers typically whistle only once. Journalists can re-whistle constantly.
Most importantly though, journalists who actually protect their sources (hopefully that’s a tautology) can forward illegally obtained information and shield their sources from any legal repercussions. Kind of the whole point of source protection, but even Western governments don’t like whistleblowers evading the law. They’d rather know who blew the whistle, just to make sure it’s never blown inappropriately. Because inappropriately blown whistles are so much worse than inappropriately unblown whistles I guess?
Let's be honest, unlike Snowden, Assange really come as an asshole, and that really undermined the public opinion.
I know the 'rape' bit was probably political, but he seems like the type of guy who would totally do that, and I think he actually did considering his lawyer responses. The fact that the woman brought it to court however, that's the point that is suspicious to me. A consequent fraction (at least 10% imho) of the male population could be condemned for the same stuff, dirty pigs. And the fact that it was a successful trial. My sister was actually raped by her employer, and advices from both the police and lawyers were "you can't bring that to court, it's a 'he said she said' situation, you should just make a report and 'hope another girl get raped'" (rough translation of what the 'helpful' policeman said).
> we should give ourselves the same scrutiny we give to the Russians
Absolutely. I will never be satisfied with any punishments or justice system, unless and until that system cannot be abused — if it can be used against Team Us by Team Them when Team Them are next in power, it had better be because Team Us actually did something wrong. Even if Team Them today won't abuse the system, it's just waiting for trouble.
That said:
> Yeah. But he was also over a decade in jail without a trial.
He spent most of that decade hiding from an extradition, and is currently refused bail on the grounds that last time he was given it, he jumped. That's very different in important ways.
Now, as demonstrated by the fact that we collectively did, we can spend the entirety of that duration arguing:
(1) if the things he was accused of doing were in fact crimes (they were, but some people at the time were claiming they weren't).
(2) if the women who made the accusations were secret US government plants — they could be, but I doubt based on statements attributed to one of the accusers communicating with the Swedish prosecutor even after Assange had been ejected from the embassy.
(3) if the legal system had pressure put on it to keep him pinned down in one place for the sake of the US investigation — I suspect yes, albeit only at the first stage: the reason I think pressure was put upon the system is that sexual offences are notoriously difficult to prove and accusations normally don't go anywhere, the reason I think "only the first stage" is that he'd already claimed asylum before it got very far. Furthermore, the investigation was re-opened (briefly) after Assange had been ejected from the embassy and the new extradition request from the USA, and the combination is stupid, which is suggestive without being proof (after all, governments do stupid things all the time).
(4) and also if he even did the things he was accused of — I lean towards thinking he did, because (a) sexual offences happen way more than most people realise, and (b) all the people who, upon hearing of the nature of the allegation, argued #1 in the negative, saying something along the lines of "surely that can't be a crime!" or "this is merely rude, not criminal", neither of which is the standard of evidence used in a court case, hence the difficulty of proof that is my reason for thinking pressure was put on the system in #3.
-
Despite all that, the current extradition process to the USA sounds suspect, at the very least.
No, he's someone who is being detained just to make a point and discourage others. Had he really known something of vital importance about the US or any other allied country national security, he'd have been tortured 5 minutes after his arrest.
He was initially detained for extradition to Sweden on sexual offence charges. The security on that was so light he was able to skip his (expensive, donor-paid) bail.
The intelligence people were annoyed with him back then, hence all the claims of even that arrest being "a conspiracy" sounding at least slightly plausible, and yet, even then, they were demonstrably so uninterested that he could walk to an embassy and claim asylum.
He has been denied bail now because he skipped bail then and when doing so specifically said his reason was not wanting to end up in the country who now wants to extradite him.
And to be blunt, saying "as I am afraid of being extradited to the USA, I want to remain in a country that has a history of extraditing people to the USA rather than be extradited to a different country that has a slightly lesser reputation for the same" was one of the things that a decade ago made me think he was fleeing justice for the sexual offences rather than being sincere in (what ought to have been a legitimate) fear of the USA.
Wasn’t there a way for Sweden to promise him not to extradite him to the US?
I’ve heard he wasn’t even heard by Swedish justice, even though he offered to be heard remotely (from England), and such a thing was done in similar cases.
Solving one or the other would have showed with much more certainty whether he was actually trying to flee the sexual charges or not. Though perhaps the Swedish prosecutor just wanted to maximise the chances of having him in Swedish custody.