• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hodgman

It's official: western citizen granted asylum from western tyrants

72 posts in this topic

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345138120' post='4970252']
Ok. The only thing we know for certain is that he is avoiding being questioned in an investigation of his rape of two women regardless of how guilty he may be.
[/quote]

Or is he really?
It would seem that he was granted leave to exit the country and has offered to allow himself to be questioned either at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link back in Nov 18th 2010 - this was BEFORE the international arrest warrant was issued.

Which raises the question of why did they let him leave in the first place if this was an on going investigation and why are they so insistant on him coming back when they could have conducted interviews at other locations, including Swedish soil in London?

Note to mention that it is almost unheard of for rape trials in Sweden to be held in public - so why the massive public viewing on this one?

The whole thing, frankly, stinks of a stich up and I don't blame him for not wanting to go back...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345138120' post='4970252']
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1345137022' post='4970243']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345134008' post='4970225']
The only thing we know for certain is that he is avoiding being tried on charges of rape regardless of how guilty he might be.
[/quote]
Not being tried, questioning.
No charges have been brought against him at this time.
[/quote]

Ok. The only thing we know for certain is that he is avoiding being questioned in an investigation of his rape of two women regardless of how guilty he may be.
[/quote]

Although I believe he [i]has [/i]agreed to:[list]
[*]Be interviewed in Sweden previously
[*]Be interviewed inside the Ecuadorian embassy now
[*]Voluntarily go to Sweden if they will guarantee not to ship him on to the US to face unrelated charges there
[*]Voluntarily go to Sweden if the US will guarantee not to prosecute him
[/list]
And these offers were all rejected, which could be even more telling than his apparent reluctance to be questioned.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='WavyVirus' timestamp='1345141825' post='4970284']
Although I believe he [i]has [/i]agreed to:[list]
[*]Be interviewed in Sweden previously
[*]Be interviewed inside the Ecuadorian embassy now
[*]Voluntarily go to Sweden if they will guarantee not to ship him on to the US to face unrelated charges there
[*]Voluntarily go to Sweden if the US will guarantee not to prosecute him
[/list]
And these offers were all rejected, which could be even more telling than his apparent reluctance to be questioned.
[/quote]

Sweden neither the US warranted him that they would not prosecute him.

The topic went way off-topic and turned out to be a fight about which country is most soberan and powerful and etc.
The real deal behind all this is that he represents something everyone wishes for but is too afraid to admit. He represents an act of exposing the truth behind governments that anyone should have the right to know.

The governments (like the US) pledge that this info is too sensitive and would cause great harm. But as Hodgman cited great revolutions were based on exposures like this one.
People that say "Politics is not for me" or "I read some stuff on the web but I don't give a shit" are just too selfish and have never had to worry about been pursued and prosecuted unfairly by a government. Since you are too comfort in the position your grandparents and ancestors gave to you, you don't give a shit for those things ... which is very sad.

I think everyone here need to go back to the videostore and rent the movie "V for Vendetta". It brings a great analogy to this situation and shows how an idea can grow up to something huge and valuable.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys too many nations out there don't play by the rules. All nations have a secret service ad they certainly do not play by the rules. When I did a research on the Chinese foreign policy they often did not play by the the rules(long story short I took a degree in China studies back then). Name one nation that play the international game by the rule and where human rights and democracy are top priority over everything else. Name one nation where freedom of speech even within secret service is allowed.

You see what I do not get here is that people are so surprised about this issue. What happens if a worker in one game company reveals all the secrets to the other competing game company? I mean why be angry about this guy is getting sued and perhaps even put in jail?

Now what is happening now is not something I like but also please keep in mind that no government will sit quiet by while some organization without any armed division or political power or even a seat in UN, just reveals all its embarrassing details.

Also to cure illness is not the same as cure mans lust for power and domination of resources and territory. One of the things I have learned by studying Organization theory and sociology(minor in the degree mention above) is that the people who work for the governments all over the world think differently and act differently. I do not get how people can be so shocked about this. Surely most of you would have seen this coming.

None of us can change that system unless we change the way other nations play all over the world. The internet is simply not powerful enough for that. The secret service also utilize the internet. How did it go with Egypt? Yaa people talk about Syria and say that the internet had something to do with it. Did anyone consider that each time a new elite steps into the position of power they also become the one they fought(remember the words about fighting monsters and becoming one?? )?

The truth is that most of you do not see what it takes to be in the position of power. Running a nation or dealing with nations who are not playing by the rules is not done by being naive and stick to the rules all the time. That is why we have departments of intelligence and that is why some stuff should not come up to the surface.

So do I find this good? No, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that many seem to be upset or shock about this wikileak incident where he might end up being handed over to US. Come on guys we all know that US gov would like to prosecute him.

Also just complaining on the net is no good if no actions are taken. So you think this is bad, well then help him or else encourage to help or accept what is happening. Just whining about how bad this is, really does not help much. This is the real life game and not about making games, in this game you can lose your save life if you step wrong and not just some money.

Also I point to the very fact that wikileak should have been analyzing the outcome of their actions a little more before they did what they did as revealing the secrets of a gov is never for free. Is that so hard to understand?

Also democracy is a great thing but that is often is put in the background when the sentence "for the safety of the nation" bumps up. Angry? Well go out and pick your fight as we have a whole world of govs who do not value the people's voice unless a selection is up or they revolt. Remember all you see is the smiles on TV and not all the bad stuff under the hood and that is why most govs dislike wikileaks.

Now before you jump up from your sofa and scream "viva la revolution!" then remember this:
You have no army
You do not have a national bank to fund your plans
You do not have a huge army of propaganda writers
You did notice that wikileaks got all it's accounts closed did you not?

Guys give up or spend all your time doing this and not hanging around here doing nothing. International politics is a full time business and many lose... Else the talk here is really not productive --- back to work -----

Over and out [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwarf King, I don't think that everybody is as naive as you suggest, or particularly surprised that governments are willing to do this sort of thing. But that doesn't mean that people cannot express their outrage or call people out - even when they know that it is probably futile to do so.

What is perhaps surprising is the brazen and public way in which the UK government is threatening to take the largely unprecedented step of revoking an embassy's diplomatic status. We all know about illegal renditions/abductions, detention without trial, torture etc which have taken place in the past, but this sort of thing is usually conducted with a bit more secrecy.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I think gov'ts should be expected to play by the rules is that they need to set an example. When the power that a gov't or any leader possesses is from the trust placed upon them by the people that they are supposed to represent, anything that erodes that trust subsequently erodes their right to wield that power.

That being said, it seems to me that so far all the rules are indeed being followed. Painfully so. That's why this whole thing is taking so long and people are exploring every tactic and loophole that they can think of to accomplish their interests. All sides are doing this. And you can bet that every player in some way has something that they feel they can gain from the stance that they're taking. An unprecedented can of worms has been opened here. In any case, I'm sure, that this Australian gentleman will inevitably be a prisoner in one way or another the remainder of his life and he knows it. Edited by kseh
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345124310' post='4970162']
According to the (non-american-owned) reporting here, he's only wanted for questioning (not trial) over "rape". And that it's not even "rape" as in "forced sex acts", but a weird Swedish law that allows adult consensual-sex to be deemed inappropriate after the fact (such as having sex with a minor - it's not ok even when consensual) -- where the prosecutor has decided that the women's consent at the time was obtained through "inappropriate seduction" and that because it was a short-term relationship, they should have used a condom, therefore it is "rape".
[/quote]

Do you have a source for details of the specific allegations against Assange? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information floating about.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345127433' post='4970185']
[quote name='FLeBlanc' timestamp='1345126563' post='4970180']
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345125421' post='4970170']
... though I never bother paying attention to political drama any more.
[/quote]

This is actually kind of a big part of the problem, right here. I don't know the truth regarding Assange one way or the other, but the thing is, from where I sit it seems as if we are letting certain people act with impunity and do whatever the hell they want, simply because we as a nation can't be arsed to pay attention, give issues the proper impartial coverage they require, or hold those certain people accountable for their actions. We, simply, don't give a shit, and giving a shit is the only way that the rules of due process and the preservation of civil rights and liberties will be fairly observed by those in power.

Please, people, start giving a shit.
[/quote]

Name something that can be done, that actually [b]WORKS[/b] .

Voting? - Nope, both parties don't care about anything but power
Protest? - Waste of time
Blogging? - No one cares about blogs any more
Talking About It ? - Waste of air
Communicating To Politicians? - ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


So I reaffirm my stance of not caring about political drama any more.
[/quote]

3 of those items seemed to work really well with Egypt, luckily they didn't carry the same attitude you harbor.

And in regards to the situation with Julian Assange, of course some of the documents he leaked could of led to unwanted tensions between countries, but if they weren't doing anything wrong in the first place it wouldn't of been an issue. I dont think this is something I or any other civilians of the said nations should be okay with allowing! this is just the start of things to come, once someone starts pushing the envelope they are going to keep doing so to see how far they can push it, and people having a defeatist attitude of "I cant do anything about it" is exactly what is going to give them the power to abuse our rights and the laws. Edited by The_Neverending_Loop
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sooo... let me get this straight. Sweden issues an international arrest warrant because of a crime that the police here in sweden usually wouldn't even bother to even [i]start [/i]an investigation on.. and this causes Britain to threaten to violate the Vienna convention, to catch this this guy so he can be brought to Sweden for questioning. All for this investigation that already has been closed down once and lacks evidence, and has a high chance of being closed down again...

Nope, nothing fishy going on here....
</Irony>

[quote name='The_Neverending_Loop' timestamp='1345148625' post='4970323']
...and people having a defeatist attitude of "I cant do anything about it" is exactly what is going to give them the power to abuse our rights and the laws.
[/quote]
^ This ...is almost exactly what I was going to write [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/happy.png[/img]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is true that every human institution since, well... forever, has been afflicted by some form of corruption. Organizations will war, they will send secret forces to do the deeds they don't want anyone to know about, they will lie and cheat and steal.. Corporations do the same. Corruption runs all the way down, even to the intimate, interpersonal relationships in our day to day lives. This is a fact of human nature. But, [i]that does not mean we have to just roll over and accept it[/i]. Yes, it is difficult to bring the kind of reform that is needed, and yes every effort of ours is, ultimately, doomed to failure. But the moment we stop trying to be better, the moment we just roll over and let our governments and our institutions do what they do unchallenged and unchecked, is the moment that we lose. Idealism might not be realistic, but it is the only driving force we have to stand counter to the things we perceive to be wrong, the injustices that occur every day. Yeah, maybe you'll be a single voice drowned out in a chorus, but that doesn't mean you should just shut up and not say anything.

If there is solid evidence of wrongdoing against Assange, then of course there needs to be justice. But if, as seems to be apparent, the whole noise and tumult is merely about trumped up charges meant to bring Assange into the grasp of people bent not on justice, but on revenge for airing their dirty laundry, then this is wrong, and Ecuador is to be applauded for standing up for the guy. But it really is not surprising that, in the climate of fear and intimidation that darken today's world, he would be unwilling to deliver himself into the hands of people who wish him ill and have the political clout to bring him to harm.

Now, I do have friends and family currently serving in the US military, and I do understand that leaks on the scale of what occurred do have repercussions that can affect even the lives of those friends and family. That bothers me, a lot. But what also bothers me is that deception and intimidation are relied upon so heavily in this matter, rather than reasonable due process. It's the misinformation that bothers me the most; how difficult it is to get the straight facts, not just about this story, but about so many others. So many lies, so much hatred, so many people following their particular personal interests, rather than remembering things such as simple human compassion. But the only way real change will ever be effected, is if those changes occur first at the lowest levels, at the level of people dealing with people. It certainly won't be effected if you just say, "gosh, politics is just so darn political. Everyone is a liar, nobody is honest, so I'll just ignore it and let them be what they are." The only thing that lies down that road is more and more of the same kind of madness that we already have.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345125421' post='4970170']
[b] @ Hodgman[/b]

"My Media" .... The US doesn't have 1 or 2 media outlets, so I can literally get any side of the story I wish from thousands of sources
[/quote]

Almost all of them owned by 1 or 2 big media conglomerates.

[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345125421' post='4970170']

... though I never bother paying attention to political drama any more.
[/quote]
and yet you felt qualified to comment on this?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole situation reeks to me. My thoughts:[list]
[*]I have no idea about the rape case, although the things I've heard don't sound rock solid.
[*]It seems like too much governmental effort is being expended following one case.
[*]It would seem logical for the governments concerned to take one of the many possible compromises (e.g. an agreement not to extradite further or to video interview) rather than stretch international relations and internation law.
[*]Given that Assange is not a US citizen, other countries should not be hastening him to the US for treason charges.
[*]I strongly doubt the US would treat Assange humanely and fairly if they got him.
[*]Corruption seems sadly unavoidable, which is why resisting it is essential. An unopposed force will overwhelm.
[*]We should watch governments like a hawk... in the same sense that you would watch an ex-burglar if they are working in your house.
[/list]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mizu' timestamp='1345149826' post='4970330']
sooo... let me get this straight. Sweden issues an international arrest warrant because of a crime that the police here in sweden usually wouldn't even bother to even [i]start [/i]an investigation on.. and this causes Britain to threaten to violate the Vienna convention, to catch this this guy so he can be brought to Sweden for questioning. All for this investigation that already has been closed down once and lacks evidence, and has a high chance of being closed down again...
[/quote]
That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave. After leaving to the UK another investigator issued a request for further questioning and it was granted. As he had fled, they issued an international warrant for his arrest. He didn't want to leave the UK to be questioned, so they filed to have him extradited, which he appealed multiple times leading to where we are now.

Honestly, there is no reason for him to be seeking asylum from being extradited from Sweden. If he were afraid of being extradited to the US, he should have fled to a country that doesn't extradite to the US, but he's in the UK, which could extradite him just as easily as Sweden could, and since he's not a citizen they probably would if asked.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He did not 'flee' he was given permission to leave the country after a request for being able to live there was turned down - they could have prevented him leaving the country at that time too if he was a suspect yet they did not. They allowed him to leave the country.

UK->US extradion isn't as easy as it might seem; a case like it, a UK citizen who was charged with hacking the US defense system, has been stalled in the courts here for 8 years. While he is not a UK citizen the fact he is a commonwealth one [b]might[/b] complicate matters. (IANAL and all that)

Sweden, on the other hand, has a setup which allows them to effectively give the US tempory custody of a prision without the courts getting involved as it is an excutive decision. (The UK would still have to OK it apprently but chances are if he is over there then it wouldn't do anything to stop it).
As to how likely this would be, well apprently Sweden has in the recent past violated international treaties in relation to surrendering foreign nationals into US custody and has been critised by Amnesty International and the UN Committee against Torture for giving up two refugees to the CIA who were then tortured under the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345158581' post='4970366']
That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave. After leaving to the UK another investigator issued a request for further questioning and it was granted. As he had fled, they issued an international warrant for his arrest. He didn't want to leave the UK to be questioned, so they filed to have him extradited, which he appealed multiple times leading to where we are now.
[/quote]
Yeah, Okay. But as Phantom said: He didn't flee. He was given permission to leave. My point is still that there's many things that's weird about this. Julian Assange obviously does not trust the swedish legal system, then why not question him in the UK instead? For some reason it is very important that he's brought here (to Sweden) for questioning, eventhough criminals has been questioned in other countries before...

Right now so called 'experts' are writing in swedish media saying that[i] 'He should come to Sweden for questioning. The whole investigation will be thrown in the trashcan anyway because there is not enough evidence'[/i]. If that is the case, then I wonder why there is so much effort being put into this? The extent of the crime simply doesn't warrant this amount of attention...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url="http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32012/iranian-drones-hezbollah-terrorists-in-south-america/"]So how far away is Venezuela from Ecuador? [/url]Oh right, that country called[url="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32758.pdf"] Columbia where US troops have never been nor carried out "[i]activities" [/i][/url]. This smells like we have [url="http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/schaffer.pdf"]Domino theory[/url] type situation here. More than enough justification in my humble opinion.

For those who choose to interpret me literally...shame on you!

[url="http://civilservicechange.org/?p=604"]Obama's prior to being president and his work on whistle blower's protections.[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/obama-has-prosecuted-more-whistleblowers-than-all-other-presidents-combined.html"]Obama's being president and his work on whistle blower since.[/url]


Hands down Obama is the best Republican president I have ever seen when it comes to his actions.


(For the people who wish to point out he is a Democrat. Yes I know that but he surely doesn't behave like one from my perspective)



[size=2]NB: This has been a somewhat satirical viewpoint with, I truly hope, no development in truth along those lines. It's all about the fine print.[/size]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mizu' timestamp='1345165358' post='4970394']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345158581' post='4970366']
That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. [b]They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave...[/b][/quote]
Yeah, Okay. But as Phantom said: He didn't flee. [/quote]
He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return. Fleeing has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to leave or not.

flee/fl?/
Verb:Run away from a place or situation of danger.

[quote]Right now so called 'experts' are writing in swedish media saying that[i] 'He should come to Sweden for questioning. The whole investigation will be thrown in the trashcan anyway because there is not enough evidence'[/i]. If that is the case, then I wonder why there is so much effort being put into this?
[/quote]
The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum in ecuador.

[quote]UK->US extradion isn't as easy as it might seem; a case like it, a UK citizen who was charged with hacking the US defense system, has been stalled in the courts here for 8 years. While he is not a UK citizen the fact he is a commonwealth one might complicate matters. (IANAL and all that)[/quote]
Extradition of citizens is a totally different matter than extraditing foreign nationals. When you extradite a citizen all your other citizens start questioning if you'd do the same to them. When you extradite a foreign national, people might get upset, but they won't be paranoid about their own safety. Edited by way2lazy2care
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='WavyVirus' timestamp='1345147451' post='4970317']Do you have a source for details of the specific allegations against Assange? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information floating about.[/quote]If you want his side of the story, look up the 'justice 4 assange' site. For a good in-depth analysis of what happened, watch the "sex lies and julian assange" documentary by Four Corners, linked in the OP.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345158581' post='4970366']
That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave. After leaving to the UK another investigator issued a request for further questioning and it was granted. As he had fled, they issued an international warrant for his arrest. He didn't want to leave the UK to be questioned, so they filed to have him extradited, which he appealed multiple times leading to where we are now.[/quote]That's not what happend. He had consensual sex with two woman, they found out that they'd both shared a man without a condom and went to the police asking if there was any way to force him to take an STD test. The prosecutor was not present, so a duty-prosecutor sat in and told the woman that under Swedish law, this counted as "rape". They objected and refused to sign the statement they had made. Assange was then "arrested in his absense" (that's a thing in Sweden) and this news was leaked to the press, who reported that he was being "hunted for rape". Assange saw the headline and presented himself to police to find out WTF was going on. They told him that a duty-prosecutor had made a mistake, and that when the actual prosecutor returned to work, he had immediately "un-arrested" Assange and closed the case. They took his statement anyway, told him he was innocent, and that he could leave the country if he wanted as the case was closed.
Later, Claes Borgström, a lawyer and ex-lawmaker ([i]who's responsible for Sweden's rediculous sex laws -- such as long, mandatory punitive remand periods for people accused of sex crimes, pre-trial[/i]), appealed the decision to close the case, and had it re-opened. The Swedish government (not the Judiciary) then issued the Interpol "red notice" against Assange, leading to his 500+ day detention without charge, and where we are now.[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345158581' post='4970366']Honestly, there is no reason for him to be seeking asylum from being extradited from Sweden.[/quote]The reason that I created this topic, is because it's just become official that he does , within a reasonable doubt, have reason to seek asylum from being extradited from Sweden. That's the decision that Ecuador came to after reviewing all of the extensive evidence, from the irregularities in the sex allegations to the confirmation that the US has a sealed indictment against him, to the fact that the UK is threatening to violate an inviolable convention that is the basis for all modern diplomacy over a minor sex allegation. To say there's no reason to be worried is either extremely naive or gullible, or the words of a propagandist.[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345134008' post='4970225']
[Manning] hasn't been tortured. He's been put in solitary confinement for a very long time, but he's also caused one of the largest intelligence leaks in US history. I don't see how you could expect anything different.
[/quote]The UN special rapporteur on torture declared that Manning's treatment ([i]800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists[/i]) [b]does[/b] amount to torture, that's what I was referencing with the word 'torture'. Keep in mind that in the US, water-boarding and electrocution aren't even called torture, but "enhanced interrogation"... So yes, in the US he hasn't been tortured [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
He's been [b]accused[/b] of a massive intelligence leak, and the Beacon of Freedom is supposed to value the concept of "[i]innocent until proven guilty[/i]". One should expect that he wouldn't be being punished until after his show trial is over.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345174090' post='4970409']He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return.[/quote]No, this is absolutely false ([i]see above - he left after the case was closed[/i]). Where did you get this idea?
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345174090' post='4970409']The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it.[/quote]Because of all of the evidence that the US is going to punish him, and that Sweden will hand him over outside of the extradition process, and that the sex-crime allegations are an obvious front to allow this to occur.
He's not avoiding the sex-crime trial ([i]of which he'll possibly be found guilty BTW, of having "inappropriate" adult consensual sex, not "rape" in the English sense[/i]), he's avoiding the death penalty. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345174090' post='4970409']
The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum.
[/quote]

It's funny that you yourself defined fleeing as running away from danger, and you're surprised he doesn't want to go back. The question is more:[list]
[*]What danger is he fleeing?
[*]Is he justified in fleeing it?
[/list]
Think on this: If Swedish authorities just questioned him in the UK (not unheard of) they could establish whether there's solid grounds for extradition. The parties concerned (including Ecuador) may change their positions if evidence of wrongdoing on his part comes out of the process. Compared to the perceived risk to him of being extradited to the US and given a life sentence, Guantanamo or death, a vague on-again-off-again prosecution with flimsy evidence from Sweden rates low as a priority.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345174706' post='4970413']
He had consensual sex with two woman, they found out that they'd both shared a man without a condom and went to the police asking if there was any way to force him to take an STD test. The prosecutor was not present, so a duty-prosecutor sat in and told the woman that under Swedish law, this counted as "rape". They objected and refused to sign the statement they had made.[/quote]
That's not entirely accurate at all.
[url="http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7570-the-charges-against-julian-assange"]http://www.swedishwi...-julian-assange[/url]
[quote]
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
[/quote]

[quote]The reason that I created this topic, is because it's just become official that he does , within a reasonable doubt, have reason to seek asylum from being extradited from Sweden. That's the decision that Ecuador came to after reviewing all of the extensive evidence,[/quote]
Ecuador had already come to him after he planned to leave Sweden as a potential new host for wikileaks. To say they are an impartial third party would be false.

[quote]to the confirmation that the US has a sealed indictment against him[/quote]
Confirmed by whom?

[quote]to the fact that the UK is threatening to violate an inviolable convention that is the basis for all modern diplomacy over a minor sex allegation.[/quote]
He's a celebrity trying to get away with sexual assault by using his status and paranoia to gain asylum in a foreign country. What kind of precedent does it set if they allow it? That all you have to do if you commit a crime in the EU is run to the UK and seek asylum in a non-extraditionary country? The hyperbole knife cuts both ways.

[quote]The UN special rapporteur on torture declared that his treatment (800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists) does amount to torture, that's what I was referencing with the word 'torture'. Keep in mind that in the US, water-boarding and electrocution aren't even called torture, but "enhanced interrogation"...[/quote]
That's totally inaccurate even by the source you use. It wasn't 800 days, it was July 29, 2010 to March 2, 2011 (significantly less than 800 days) when he was in Quantico. He was not naked at all. He had restricted clothing on account of his being deemed a suicide risk(shoes without laces etc), and was forced to be awake between 5AM(7AM on weekends) and 8PM [I've seen 10PM also] only (15-17 is significantly less than 23 hour days), was allowed out of his cell daily, was allowed books and magazines, and he was permanently moved in April, 2011 to a different facility.

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

[quote]He's been accused of a massive intelligence leak, and the Beacon of Freedom is supposed to value the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". One should expect that he wouldn't be being punished until after his show trial is over.[/quote]
He was also a military officer. Once you sign into service there are quite a number of extra laws you have to deal with. At most he should expect to have the same treatment as other high risk pre-trial criminals in this country, which is pretty well what he got.

[quote]
He's not avoiding the sex-crime trial, he's avoiding the death penalty.
[/quote]
So he's been charged with a crime warranting the death penalty?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
This all hinges on the fact that releasing the documents was legal in the first place, which is also totally questionable. Was it good that some of the things were released, probably. Was it extremely detrimental to the security of the US, it's allies, and it's informants, definitely. In some cases it put families in direct harm. Despite what's been said earlier, many of the documents released included the names of Afghan informants, their families, and their locations ([url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/report-afghan-leaks-dangerously-expose-informants-identities/#.UC3G2N1lSAo"]http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.UC3G2N1lSAo[/url]).

Is it just that they, taking action to remove themselves from an oppressive government that supported terrorist organizations, should be put directly into harms way because some guy can't do a thorough check before spilling the beans? What about the damages to finding future intelligence that could potentially save lives? But yea, outing the US on some legitimately bad things should totally give you a free pass on sexual assault and giving up the names and locations of informants who were still in harms way.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']
That's not entirely accurate at all.
[url="http://www.swedishwi...-julian-assange"]http://www.swedishwi...-julian-assange[/url][/quote]Yes it is, and it fits with the allegations. He had non-violent consensual sex. His "victims" even took him out to breakfast and threw him parties after these "crimes" took place, and tweeted to their friends about how fantastic it was to be hanging with (and fucking) such cool Wikileaks people.
N.B. these are the accusations presented by Claes Borgstrom, after reopening the case, not the original allegations.
Regarding these charges, they come from the original statements where prosecutors decided no crime had been committed.
"[i]to hold her down in a sexual manner[/i]" - he was on top, consensually. That's often how sex works - one body is lying on another.
"[i]having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used[/i]" - this is the main allegation, that they didn't use a condom, but she consented anyway even though having 2nd thoughts about it. This would not be illegal anywhere else...
"[i]deliberately molested ... in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity[/i]" - could be anything, again though, it was consensual, even if the state thinks it "violates sexual integrity". Maybe the state doesn't like blowjobs...
"[i]without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home[/i]" - she said she woke up to foreplay ([i]after inviting him over the night before for the purpose of a 1-night stand[/i]) and then had consensual sex. She apparently assumed he was wearing a condom but didn't ask. That's called "[i]...and once in the morning[/i]".

These accusations have all been created from the same original statements that were given before the case was closed, when a prosecutor threw it out as being frivolous, and which the "victims" refused to sign after being told Assange would be charged ([i]they both were Wikileaks groupies, after all[/i]).

So again, even this 2nd round of inflated accusations still simply boil down to "inappropriately" having consensual sex without a condom, not "rape" in the English meaning of the word.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']Confirmed by whom?[/quote]The fact that there is a grand-jury and an FBI/DOJ investigation into whether Wikileaks staff can be charged with conspiracy to commit espionage has been widely reported, e.g. it's in the ABC link in the OP. The fact that the GJ has issued a sealed indictment against Assange was confirmed in the Stratfor leak, which, yes, isn't the most trustworthy as the leak was obtained by Anonymous - however, the US has refused to deny this revelation. It has also been confirmed by Australian diplomatic cables (obtained under FOI requests) that show that Australian intelligence believes that there is indeed a sealed indictment.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']
He's a celebrity trying to get away with sexual assault by using his status and paranoia to gain asylum in a foreign country. What kind of precedent does it set if they allow it? That all you have to do if you commit a crime in the EU is run to the UK and seek asylum in a non-extraditionary country? The hyperbole knife cuts both ways.
[/quote]The grant of asylum has nothing to do with the "sex without a condom" issue, at all. Ecuador has tried to help Sweden out here, and they've been uncooperative ([i]demonstrating that the intent to move Assange into the Swedish remand system is more important to them than actually questioning him[/i]). Ecuador has granted him asylum to protect him from the very real threat of US persecution. He's been more than fair with Sweden in attempting to assist their investigation. You're deliberately ignoring this. Do you really think that destroying the 1961 vienna convention is less important than some celebrity sex scandal?[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.[/quote]Over 800 days of pre-trial detention ([i]which is ok by the military justice system, yes[/i]). Stripped of his clothes and given a smock ([i]oh yes, not forced nudity[/i]), as a punitive measure. 23-hour a day solitary confinement ([i]not 23-hour forced wakefulness - where did you get that idea from?[/i]). Anyway, all I was saying is that the UN has confirmed he was tortured -- you can rationalize that however you want.
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']This all hinges on the fact that releasing the documents was legal in the first place, which is also totally questionable.[/quote]If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged? The legality hinges on the argument that Wikileaks doesn't count as journalism.
You might also want to cast your eye back to the Ellsberg case, who did the same thing -- leak government secrets because he thought they were covering up war crimes. The fact that Ellsberg is free, and Manning is surely facing life in prison (or death) should tell you quite a bit about how the US has changed...
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']
So he's been charged with a crime warranting the death penalty?[/quote]The investigation is for "conspiracy to commit espionage" - that's confirmed. Whether he's been charged or not is unknown - leaks show there are sealed charges, and this hasn't been denied. Even if this is false, the fact that there is an investigation against him for "conspiracy to commit espionage" is known, and yes, they can execute you for that. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a side note, Ecuador seems very intent on doing whatever pisses the US off the most. Have fun trading with the West in the next century [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]

Also, just wanted to clarify that my first post was what I perceived the media opinion in Sweden, not mine.
My personal opinion is that I find it extremely dodgy that we're going through so much trouble to question him for a crime where its extremely difficult (in Sweden) to prosecute anyone for - even with [i]solid [/i]evidence. Edited by Amadeus H
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345180427' post='4970432']
"having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used" - this is the main allegation, that they didn't use a condom, but she consented anyway even though having 2nd thoughts about it. This would not be illegal anywhere else...[/quote]
Unfortunately it's potentially illegal in Sweden. Hence his extradition.
[quote]
The grant of asylum has nothing to do with the "sex without a condom" issue, at all. Ecuador has granted him asylum to protect him from the very real threat of US persecution. He's been more than fair with Sweden in attempting to assist their investigation. You're deliberately ignoring this.[/quote]
I'm not deliberately ignoring anything. I started by giving only facts, and that was met with enormous hyperbole. I was just giving another hyperbolic scenario that's just as likely; that Ecuador would grant him asylum in exchange for him hosting wikileaks from there rather than from Switzerland, as was his original plan after Sweden fell through. Ecuador has already offered him a non-extradition agreement in the past before granting him asylum for this exact same thing.

I don't think that's what's happening, but it has at least as much evidence as the story you're painting.
[quote][quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345178446' post='4970421']Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.[/quote]Over 800 days of pre-trial detention.[/quote]
If you're including the time after his pre-trial hearings, which started in 2011 then sure, but this happens quite regularly. It's not unusual for murder cases to be in pre-trial for years; I don't see how a trial for treason/espionage would be any different.
[quote]Stripped of his clothes and given a smock (oh yes, not forced nudity).[/quote]
He was on suicide watch in prison. What do you expect them to do give him silk robes and fur moccasins?
[quote]23-hour a day solitary confinement (not 23-hour forced wakefulness - where did you get that idea from?)[/quote]
I guess I misread wakefulness, but solitary confinement isn't that unusual for high risk inmates. He was still allowed to talk to guards, his lawyer, and his family and friends during visiting hours.
[quote]If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged? The legality hinges on the argument that Wikileaks doesn't count as journalism.]
[/quote]
The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge. Journalism, which is the closest thing to what wikileaks could be attributed to my knowledge, is a very dangerous game to be playing around the espionage act. I can only assume the NYT does a better job of drawing the line between what is and is not illegal to divulge. It's one thing to ruin the careers and relationships of some people, and entirely another to put lives in cross hairs.
[quote]The investigation is for "conspiracy to commit espionage" - that's confirmed. Whether he's been charged or not is unknown - leaks show there are sealed charges, and this hasn't been denied. Even if this is false, the fact that there is an investigation against him for "conspiracy to commit espionage" is known, and yes, they can execute you for that.[/quote]
I'd say at the very least he deserves an investigation by the US. He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them. Edited by way2lazy2care
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']
Unfortunately it's potentially illegal in Sweden. Hence his extradition.
[/quote]Indeed - but does it not strike you as at all unusual that such extreme and unprecedented measures would be taken for such a minor "crime"? Normally, police would not even bother launching an investigation, as it's impossible to prosecute. Yet, Swedish politicians force Interpol to issue their highest alert level ([i]higher than a fleeing, murderous dictator![/i]) and an EU arrest warrant normally reserved for dangerous and violent criminals, over a spurious and non-violent "crime" of consensual sex, outside of the regular Judicial process, causing a 500+ day detention in order to carry out an investigation, while refusing to actually carry out the investigation at all, without any charges being formally laid, and now with the threat of violating the 1961 vienna convention. None of this seems at all suspicious to you?
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']
I'm not deliberately ignoring anything.
[/quote]OK
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444'][Manning] was on suicide watch in prison[/quote]N.B. at the direction of a General, against the wishes of the prison's psychologists. It was a punitive measure, not a measure taken to protect him. Again though, I don't have anything to prove about this -- I was just pointing out that someone more informed and trained that me has already declared his treatment as torture. I don't care if you can rationalize why his treatment is acceptable - it doesn't change the fact that the UN has declared it as torture. Surely Assange should be expecting similar treatment, especially as Sweden has cooperated with the US to torture it's innocent citizens before...[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge.[/quote]Wikileaks and it's partners (e.g. NYT) all worked together to perform the same redactions, together, as a team, after the US government refused to assist in the redaction process. It's a huge job to redact 250,000 documents, which is why they all cooperated on it.
Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.[/quote]As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process ([i]as usual, they asked the US government to help in the redaction process, who refused[/i]), and thus named some Afghan informants ([i]though no harm came to them[/i]), but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully. You're regurgitating propaganda again. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally respect freedom of speech in all forms, sadly these days its more "freedom if politically approved" and I say this unrelated to the Assange case.

Now how do 'I' view this, someone who doesnt watch TV or anything media related, who ONLY decided to read up on this based on this thread alone.

Let me get this correct

He got hold of a lot of (boring) information relating to governments or specifically the US
Published them online
and now he is branded a terrorist?

If thats the case then I cant see what he did wrong, if he is a terrorist for that then every other journalist are too, I mean I am looking and skimming through this whole ordeal and it really sums down to "US unhappy because journalist is a journalist".

Edit: After reading more, I can say I find Assange personal life far more interesting than the political drama, which is odd for me since I am a political whore. Could someone actually link some decent stuff to read of wikileaks I am not going through 200k documents only to find generic political crap. Edited by Dynamo_Maestro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0