It is the same conventional wisdom that held that the Swedish state prosecutor would never break Swedish laws in order to keep a prosecution indefinitely ongoing. Naturally the US had no plan to charge Assange the same day that the Swedish state prosecutor had to drop. Then a higher court actually found the state prosecutor breaking Swedish law, because as a state prosecutor is not legally allowed in Sweden to keep a prosecution going indefinitely. Conventional wisdom among Swedish legal professors at universities held that the behavior of the state prosecutor was a bit odd given that they know from a very early on that the whole deal was illegal.
It is very strange. I wonder if it possible could have something to do with foreign affairs, which a state prosecutor is by law very much forbidden to take instructions from. That would be in defiance of the rule of law, but then, they were already in defiance of the rule of law.
Surely you don't need any conspiracy for the US to charge him at the same time as the Swedish prosecutor drops charges? That can be done unilaterally by the US prosecutor.
If the Swedish prosecutor had dropped charges before the US got around to charging him, Julian would have walked free. So it's awfully convenient that the charges were "substituted", so to speak, on the same day.
Hm, I just looked up the timeline, and I don't see any conincidence. It's like:
6 March 2018, a U.S. grand jury charges Assange, but it is secret.
11 April 2019, Ecuador expels him from the embassy, the UK arrests him for skipping bail.
11 April 2019, the U.S. unseals the charges and asks for him to be extradited.
13 May 2019, Sweden re-opens the rape investigation because he is now potentially available to be extradicted again.
19 November 2019, Sweden closes the investigation because the evidence is too old.
There is no "same day" coincidence at all, and Assange was never free to walk because he would always face criminal prosecution in Britain for skipping bail.
The conspiracy is in the coordination of charges to facilitate extradition to the United States. And it turned out there was in fact a sealed indictment in the United States this whole time.
I guess that is one way of attempting to rehabilitate arguments, often made here on HN, that Assange would never ever under any circumstances be extradited and had no reason to fear extradition.
Reframing that as being not merely about being extradited but being disappeared helps shift emphasis away from the other 90% of the conversation surrounding extradition fears, that proved in the end to be true.
Edit: The fears about harsh treatment were legitimate as well. Look at what happened to Chelsea Manning, charged with similar crimes. Chelsea Manning was subjected to 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, put on suicide watch, checked on every 5 minutes, forced to be "visible" at all times while sleeping, and ultimately their treatment was investigated U.N. and condemned as inhumane.
I don't understand what's so unreasonable about suspecting Assange would be subjected to harsh treatment when that's exactly what happened in the closest comparable case.
It's hard to tell what your actual point is, but "the US" is not one singular entity with one singular purpose that never changes. Perhaps the thing you say was true for some people in the administration at some point, but not always true for all people.
> In May, two judges on the High Court said he could have a full hearing on whether he would be discriminated against in the U.S. because he is a foreign national. A hearing on the issue of Assange's free speech rights had been scheduled for July 9-10.
At the risk of sounding a tad conspiratorial, it's possible the U.S. agreed to this deal specifically to avoid the upcoming trial. As I understand it, there remains an open question of whether (or to what extent) the US constitution applies to non-citizens and it's conceivably in the government's interests if that thread isn't pulled by foreign courts and in such a public fashion.
To clarify: I don't believe the US was ever going to "disappear" him or whatever he and others hypothesized. Even outside that context, there's an interesting question of why the US suddenly decided to wrap this up after a decade of seemingly-relentless pursuit.
I like how you think!
I think it’s some combination of this and very recent bipartisan Australian sentiment to end it that combined into enough people having a slight shift culminating in “the system” deciding to let him go
It makes more sense that they agreed to the deal because Assange has spent 5 years in prison, which approaches or exceeds the likely sentence he would have received (even after applying the "TOP SECRET" sentence modifier) for a conspiracy liability charge. At some point there's no longer any purpose in pursuing the case.
Later
Moreso: assume Assange spends another year or two in UK prison, and then is extradited; the trial is complicated (for the same reason the Florida documents trial is complicated: because it involves evidence that has to be cleared for and during trial) and could easily run over a year, longer if Assange wanted to --- you're now running up to the maximum possible guideline sentence even if the prosecution could establish that he led the conspiracy, rather than just participating.
There was a mood change in Australia, with all sides of politics wanting Assange's case to be closed [1]. Consequently in the last 12 months there has been pressure from Australia, on its "five eyes" US and UK partners, to close the case.
I'm not sure that the US gives too many fucks about Australian public opinion, or what Albanese says. I think it has more to do with US politics and the upcoming election.
But whatever, I'm glad he's free and is not being extradited to whatever hellhole the US had planned for him. I hope he's able to get a beer and a swim and put his life back together.
I'm not so pessimistic. Each country will put their own interests first, but they do work together. Pursuing Assange isn't central to the US/UK national interest. Part of the reason Assange languished so long was because the Australian government didn't stick up for him earlier.
As an Australian, I would be blown away if our government ever tried to stand against the USA in that way. We rely too much on our alliance for defence; there's no way Australia can stand on its own militarily. So there's a lot we would tolerate to keep that relationship stable.
That isn't really true. There is no concrete threat to Australia for the foreseeable decades, and the US cannot afford to lose influence in the Pacific, so the US will be compelled to act either way much before a threat ever comes to Australia.
When you compare the relationship that Australia has to the US compared to non-EU, non-NATO US allies in Europe and Asia, it's plain to see that Australia is far, far more deferential to the US than it has to be, as nations much more vulnerable and much less valuable tolerate far less.
As expected, nothing in your link details the threat to Australia, it's just about the size of the Chinese military. The problem that no one in mainstream Australian media talks about is that there is not much China can do to Australia now it couldn't before. China's buildup is centered around invading a small island 70km away, and as of today may not be sufficient for that. To go from that to a serious threat to a continent 5000km away has zero credibility.
I think you have serious misunderstanding of what a concrete military threat is. China is 6000km away from Australia by sea, and to get there it has to get rather close to US bases. There is no way that China can do anything beyond standoff strikes to Australia without a crippling cost in the next 20-30+ years. There is absolutely no military threat to the Australian mainland. Conversely, there is very little US submarine bases in Australia do against standoff strikes, so clearly that's not what Australia or the US are worried about (nor should they). In any case any naval power or sustained air power would have to defeat the US first, ally or not, to get to Australia. And if the US can indeed be defeated, then what?
Australia is not meaningfully more threatened by China than, say Brazil. That's just how the geography works out. However, Australia is lot more useful if your goal is to block shipping to and from China, as it is not so far from the straits of Malacca and a good base to contest the island chains (and is, as we've said before, itself very secure).
Unless you think Canada is somehow under a severe Chinese threat, neither is Australia. Australia is far more useful offensively against Chinese shipping, hence why the US will never ever drop it as a basing location unless it really has to.
This, so much. There's so much discussion of "the Chinese threat", but it's just not credible.
The only thing that China would want to invade Australia for is our resources, and they can just buy those. There is at least one mining operation in WA that is Chinese-owned, Chinese-run, entirely staffed by Chinese folks flown in direct from China, and exports the mined resources only to China. They just pay some taxes and royalties to Australia. That is vastly cheaper than any military solution for obtaining the same resources.
I think there's a section of Aussie society that would like China to be a credible threat so that it justifies more military and more fear. But it's just not.
> I'm not sure that the US gives too many fucks about Australian public opinion
Public opinion, maybe. And not comparing the two in size, etc., but Australia holds a bit of a privileged place in terms of some of the US resources: Pine Gap and a lot of the classified NRO/NSA equipment, deep space and classified military satellite comms, and then one of the major relays / radio systems for US submarine communications.
"Conventional wisdom" is just wrong. "The US" isn't a monolithic entity; the Obama administration explicitly refused to charge him, and he wasn't charged until the Trump administration. The Trump administration tried to strike a deal way back when, which was ruined by Assange doing the Vault 7 leaks in the middle of that, after which they were fuck you and all. There's a lot of inertia to these things after the ball gets rolling.
Well the territory that he will be tried under is a hair better than continental USA from this perspective, but extraordinary rendition would still be a concern.
And haven't they broken his brain anyway with all the solitary confinement...
Ah, Western Democracy and the rule of law and humane treatment of prisoners, how we love thee. That sounds like I'm pro-Russia or China, but no, I don't like them either.
The kind of imprisonment that Assange was subjected to is unambiguously torture, and was unambiguously administered for the purpose of revenge.
There is no natural "need" for the conditions he was subjected to (e.g. the cost of a larger cell is negligible), and no natural purpose other than to punish.
I am deliberately ignoring the question of guilt here, because I don't believe that we should torture _anyone_, regardless of the crime. The fact that we do this is a giant ugly stain on civilisation.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted, your comment is spot on. The way this man has been treated should be an embarrassment to all the leaders of the so-called free world.
Assange wasn't really a threat on his own. He was merely an outlet for others (Chelsea Manning, Russian propagandists). The question was whether he encouraged others.
Snowden showed that leakers didn't need Wikileaks for Chelsea Manning-like releases and the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter.
>the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter.
Or more frequently just making shit up. Enough people will believe it anyway if they're politically inclined to do so, plausible details are not a required element.
No, governments have just realized leaks don't matter. The age of conspiracies is over; the public no longer distinguishes fact from BS so it doesn't matter what is and isn't out there on TikTok.
Part of that statement is public knowledge. Wikileaks was a trusted entity who you could release documents to that would publish and keep you private. That reputation and threat has disappeared making wikileaks a tainted brand. Assange is also tainted and has lost power. The deal he signed also restricts him.
I'm not even sure it's a conspiracy anymore as each legal procedure by nation states played out in public.
The conspiracy in principle is always a layer deeper than public view.
What's the conspiracy? He was a known whistleblower and the U.S. was upset that he assisted in the acquisition of certain documents. All of the motivations have been quite open.
It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to decide which whistleblowers to release for.
The reason he was charged by the US is because rather than just being a recipient of leaked documents he took an active part in helping an insider obtain them by breaking internal security controls. That's crossing a line and is something journalists are careful to never do.
A google search defines "whistleblower" as a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. I fail to see the material difference. He was also a journalist.
There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition.
When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak documents from there he went far beyond what any professional journalist would do and lost the associated protections.
Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower.
> went far beyond what any professional journalist would do
A useless statement without contextualization, but you can spare the contextualization because it's a moot point; Assange, running his own outfit, is free to decide for himself what kind of journalist he wishes to be. He doesn't have to follow CNN's playbook because he doesn't work for CNN.
I'm not defending the lack of censorship which may have put lives at immediate risk, but that's also not the basis on which the US government has sought his extradition. The basis of their argument had to do with the act of allegedly providing Manning the means of acquiring the data.
> lost the associated protections
You're downplaying the significance of the Cablegate leaks. The US went to great lengths to prosecute and get revenge on everyone involved, including Manning.
I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, as you're shifting goalposts.
> Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower.
1) You're coming off as pretty darn patronizing yourself, too, so stones and glass houses.
2) Dunno about "the" definition of whistleblower; in your GP you said you got it off Google. They're (so far) not King of the English Language, AFAIK. No that I am, either, but the connotations I've picked up wherever I've heard or read the term usually include that "a whistleblower" is someone on the inside dishing the dirt on their own organisation. Which isn't what Assange did.
(So by the general consensus usage, the only WikiLeaks whistleblower would be that German guy who wrote the book that showed what a general asshole Assange is.)
Just because you call yourself a journalist it doesn’t mean you’re free to do whatever you want and still claim journalism protections.
It doesn’t matter where you are, journalism does not include hacking into or otherwise intentionally and actively stealing information. Doing that rightfully opens you up to criminal charges.
The problem with the initial response and why it was basically bad faith is that the definition of the word "whistleblower" can be broad, and it also is fairly unrelated to the central point.
So when the other person brought that up, as well as when you are arguing about it, what you are doing is being both wrong on the point and pendant in a way that is irrelevant to the central thesis.
Instead of trying to claim that someone was wrong about 1 single word, the good faith way of approaching the argument would be to talk about the thesis, which was that it wasn't really a "conspiracy" when the US government absolutely had strong motivation to go after him.
The word "whistleblower" which has multiple meaning is basically irrelevant.
And his original justification, of using a Google search definition, is absolutely valid.
Or, it is at least valid enough that I don't think you are justified in being upset about a perfectly normal way of using a word.
Especially when the use of the word, that is supported by Google, is irrelevant to the thesis statement.
It's well established [0] that the CIA director asked for options for assassinating Julian Assange around 2017. That the US government ultimately did not do that does not exonerate them, or refute people who feared things like this.
- "This Yahoo News investigation, based on conversations with more than 30 former U.S. officials — eight of whom described details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange — reveals for the first time one of the most contentious intelligence debates of the Trump presidency and exposes new details about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks. It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo that bent important legal strictures, potentially jeopardized the Justice Department’s work toward prosecuting Assange, and risked a damaging episode in the United Kingdom, the United States’ closest ally."
- "The CIA declined to comment. Pompeo did not respond to requests for comment."
Style tip: You claimed "options for assassination", linked to an article presumably backing that claim up, and then quoted a part of that article that does not mention "assassination", but only the much weaker "abduction". I did eventually skim the article, and indeed it does contain the stronger "assassination" claim, but I very nearly didn't bother because, from your choice of quote, I was almost certain that you were merely wildly extrapolating from "abduction" to "assassination".
Pretty lousy comment after the person has been outrageously persecuted for over a decade now, including spending the last five years in prison without being convicted of anything.
Assange was blatantly targeted by a US intelligence conspiracy against him and it's blindingly obvious that Sweden wouldn't have had an arrest warrant against him without their meddling. The US also brazenly suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the GWOT and was absolutely indefinitely detaining people. The secret CIA black sites that were part of the same GWOT were also very well covered. Beyond what others have said, it's already public knowledge that the possibility of assassinating Assange was discussed by US officials.
I'm not saying this would have been Assange's fate, I would expect things to play out more like the Manning case. Still if somebody makes themselves an extremely prominent enemy of US intelligence, regardless of if you're an islamic terrorist or a whistleblowing journalist, it's very reasonable to theorise that there might be a conspiracy against them.
Usually the problem with conspiracy theories and why they're so mad is they presume thousands of actors act in concert with no clear motive to do so and all can keep a secret. This is a conspiracy which didn't really need to be kept all that secret, with a pretty blatant unifying motive - taking down Assange meant stemming leaks both directly and by making an example of him.
> it's blindingly obvious that Sweden wouldn't have had an arrest warrant against him without their meddling.
No, that isn't "obvious" at all.
> Still if somebody makes themselves an extremely prominent enemy of US intelligence, regardless of if you're an islamic terrorist or a whistleblowing journalist, it's very reasonable to theorise that there might be a conspiracy against them.
Not that this has anything to do with anything, since Assange has never been neither a whistleblower nor a journalist.
is this supposed to read "_wasn't that_ the US was going to bring any charges at all?" Either way, I don't follow, but at least it would grammatically make more sense.
In response to the last thread I participated on about Assange, 3 months ago, in which I predicted this outcome (which was easy to do, since it's been in the offing for like 6-9 months now), I was told that all these plea agreements were just a trick to get Assange onto US soil so they could execute him. Hey, maybe that could still be the case! They're flying him to the Northern Mariana Islands for the hearing, prior to releasing him in Australia. That could be where the disappearing happens.
I don't know what this link is supposed to represent, beyond the fact that I've never been a supporter of Assange's, since long before the 2016 election shenanigans that cost him so much of his support among American nerds. I'm sure at some point I've said I didn't buy that he was a major prosecution target --- that was before I read the indictment that spelled out his conspiracy liability for computer intrusions, which, as it turns out, does make sense: you can't safely instruct people to hack into DoD computers any more than you can safely instruct henchmen to murder people in America. I'm not a lawyer, I read some stuff, I updated my take.
Could you maybe provide a more specific search through my comment history to make whatever point you're trying to make? Because "tptacek assange" isn't nearly enough, and I'm not going to do your archival research for you.
Your response is extraordinarily obnoxious given the actual search results, which include tptacek talking about charges being possible nine years ago and about him not being certain.
Your lack of integrity indicates that you should be ignored on all topics for all time.
I don’t know what your issue is, but you are extraordinarily dishonest.
