Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not things that "they" did, though. They're things that "he" did.
Propaganda works. You probably once supported his fight for free speech, until they made up the "Trump supporter" story. With that, they actually managed to catch many people who previously supported him. Of course, he was "left" and they told all his friends that he "now supports the enemy". Was a really clever framing move.
Assange Hearing Day 2
231–240 of 298 posts
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#232I think there is an important point missing in the debate. This is an extradition hearing. It doesn't matter whether Assange is guilty of the alleged crimes the US has come up with or not, what matters is whether he is expected to receive a fair trial in the US and whether the potential sentences in the US would be roughly on a par with what he'd expect for the same alleged crimes in the UK. For all I can see, this i…
> As another example, a prison in Illinois was under 23 years of permanent lockdown, meaning that all inmates were in isolation for 23 years. You do refer to USP Marion, Illinois, which was the US's Supermax prison during that time. They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons. [1] I spent a year there after they downgraded it to a medium security facility…
> They held the most dangerous, violent prisoners, and of course, kept them locked down for security reasons.
How valid is that argument? It seems like you could use it to justify doing anything to them.
The link you gave specifies:
> Norman Carlson, director of the Bureau of Prisons at the time of the Marion incident, said that ordering the permanent lockdown was the only way to deal with "a very small subset of the inmate population who show absolutely no concern for human life."
Do I understand that everyone was potentially added 23 years to their sentence because of a few inmates they had nothing to do with? And the justification you give is that they're all dangerous, so it's ok?
I imagine that seeing them as dangerous and violent comes from the crimes they committed that put them there. Is there no expectation at all that they would rehabilitate with their time there?
I wonder how the US compares on these matters (especially the public expectation of rehabilitation) with other countries (re: "US justice system has serious flaws" as jonathanstrange put it).
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting learning was, how to most effectively frame a person if you want them to lose public support. They first did the "rapist" framing. Making up a case that never existed and repeating it in the media all the time. Surprisingly, that didn't work as effectivity as expected. So they switched the framing from "rapist" to "right wing". That seems to have achieved the intended outcome with many previous support…
It's like straight out of Bolshevik handbook. If you can catch a person stealing, it's open-shut case. Easy peasy. If not, try to discredit them (appealing to the morals of the people) -- maybe they cheat on their spouse, or use prostitutes? If that still doesn't work just try slapping an "enemy of the people" / fascist / reactionary label and see if it sticks.
They also tried to frame him as working for the Russians before and when that did not work as a pedophile:
https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-t...
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
As pointed out by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, they were not, and the Swedish authorities did everything to indicate that they didn't care about Assange's answers, they just wanted to force him out of the embassy.
This is kind of how prosecutors in Sweden think though. They don’t want to ask some questions over the phone, to be answered by someone feeling physically safe. They want to lock you up for a day or two, to shake you up a bit, and then ask you the questions. It’s primitive as fuck, but kind of how it works here.
This isn't the only case that has involved Sweden questioning people in another country, they have a treaty with the UK explicitly setting up a method of questioning people over video link in the UK. This was unacceptable for some reason with Assange.
And I doubt anyone involved thought that Assange has felt physically safe for the past decade.
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, probably depends on which aspects of his treatment you're referring to. The original quote spoke of "twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells" - which is unpleasant treatment, but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners, fairly regularly, within our dehumanising criminal justice system. And I don't…
> but probably not hugely different from the treatment of many prisoners It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners > maybe prisoners of his nature are routinely interned in Belmarsh. Its often used in high-profile cases. > And maybe being in your cell for 23 hours a day is routine It isn't. 60% of the cells at Belmarsh are multi occupancy and inmates at have access to education, workshops and gyms. You seem to be…
> It is, particularly for non-violent prisoners
You're going to need to show that "non violent prisoners" are not searched, nor handcuffed and uncuffed probably multiple times a day in the process of moving them from prison to court holding cells to court to court holding cells back to prison.
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case. Assange is n…
Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK…
> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home".
We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s perhaps not called extradition within the EU, but Sweden sought the “extradition” of Assange without even formally charging him with a crime.
It is extradition. They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him. He suggested a questioning in the Ecuadorian embassy but they refused.
> They demanded he be extradited to Sweden to question him
This was all for show. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
More information on the piece of shit Judge https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
> world socialist website Doesn't exactly seem to be impartial either.
It is public knowledge who the judge is married to, and what Wikileaks has published about him. The world socialist website's bias can further sensationalize the story, but the conflict of interest is undisputable.
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK…
> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it w…
> We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up.
1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
Re: Assange Hearing Day 2
#240> Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. Still barely any mention of t…
Tortured? I mean, some of what you describe is unpalatable, unpleasant, and maybe (IANAL) contrary to expected standards of the treatment of prisoners... but tortured ?
> “The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” the expert [a medical expert accompanying the UN Special Rapporteur on torture Melzer during a visit to Assange] said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...