Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[french frank]

Amazing comment! We have learned the hard way that we have to take allegations of sexual assault seriously, and we do so much better now than we did 30 years ago, even though it's far from perfect (I've no reason to think the Swedish experience is any different). The implication of your post is that we should not bother in this case ('normal rules do not apply') because the complainants are 'obviously' lying. That is an appalling view.

Absolutely agree. So why do you query a course of action that would bring a guilty man to justice, or clear him if innocent?

Ecuador's case for offering asylum to Assange is based (however absurdly) on the argument that Ecuador is defending democracy and freedom of speech. If they are 'assured' (if they can be assured) that they are simply protecting a man accused of rape, their argument falls. Call their bluff.

Similarly with Sweden: if there are plans to hand Assange over to the US authorities at any point (which in the circumstances would puzzle me), call their bluff too. They can declare that whenever Assange is released from custody, after serving an appropriate prison term or after he has been cleared, they will guarantee his departure to a country of his choice.

That is the way to separate Wikileaks and the US from their domestic concern.

As RM says (well, I did too) speculations and certainties as to the facts of the matter are pointless. It's a case that has to be unravelled stage by stage.

[Lateralthinking1]

So what the women said doesn't count?

First, I think that we would need to know far more about these individuals. It needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not agents. And that can't be done because if they were not agents it would be a gross intrusion of their privacy. We all accept that of course on the grounds of decent behaviour. And yet if it were another kind of crime we could be told more.

So doesn't that ring alarm bells to you? The fact that this crime of all crimes is the one where journalists cannot reasonably investigate their backgrounds. And, as I say, the timing. That it should happen now? I find it all very implausible.

And in terms of protection for real victims of rape - all of them, not just two - what would be more detrimental to them? One highly unusual man living freely in Ecuador or the entire international system and its laws being prepared to invent occurrences of the crime to suit their own purposes? I say the latter.

Imagine a Britain in which George Galloway's Respect Party or Nigel Farage's UKIP suddenly starts to win seats. Let us say 10 at first, then 20 and the possibility of 50, 100, 200. How easy would it be for one of their senior members to be the subject of a similar allegation? Two stooges of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or both working with the secret services?

All of a sudden, the public support for those parties dropping and no one able to question the backgrounds of the alleged victims because to do so could, as the authorities have it, be an ordeal for people who were victims and ordinary members of the public.

It is not that these concerns about Assange should be dismissed. Rather, it is that there should be the context in which the allegation can be brought to court and no consequential action be taken in respect of Wikileaks. That alas isn't possible, not because of arrangements over which Assange has control but the manner in which the arrangments have been presented to him. Take Wikileaks out of the equation and the trial could be held now.

In fact, why aren't Hague and Co prepared to allow him to go to Ecuador on the grounds that he stands trial for rape and nothing else? Because as far as they are concerned, it is the minor issue, a peg on which to hang what we know he did. They are not especially the friends of rape victims and in the whole business many are being disingenuous.

[ahinton]

I'm not inclined to be overly moral on the latter because it looks to me so obviously like lies.

Why does it look to you like that? On what specific and provable grounds does it do so? Do you gauge the morality or othewise to anything on the grounds of whether or not you think it to be true, regardless of whether or not you know it to be true? That, I humbly suggest, is a stance as potentially dangerous as it is actually unwelcome.

In any half-normal context - no one could ever describe what is alleged as normal - that argument would not be persuasive. But this is a weird, unique and entirely off-the-scale situation. Consequently normal rules do not apply.

What is weird, unique and entirely off-the-scale is neither the sexual assault accusations themselves (they're hardly a rare phenomenon) nor even whether those accusations are genuine and justified but the possible outcome of Assange's extradition to US on charges entirely unconnected with accusations of sexual assault in Sweden, so to what exactly might it be that normal rules (whatever they may be) would not be expected to apply?

Do I think Assange is incapable of what is being alleged? No.

Fine, but does what you think have any bearing either on the accusations themselves or on whether or not they are genuine and justified or on whether or not they constitute an attempt at a politically motivated smokescreen or even on whether or not he is guilty of any or all of them? Likewise, no - because, like most of us, you do not know the facts, there has yet to be a prosecution, let a lone a trial.

He is a very unusual character who after months of prime time television coverage not one of us could claim to comprehend. That inevitably leaves 'anything is possible' doubts in our heads. It also enables others easily to invent things. Given the upset about his work, and inability to nail him down, no one would have betted on them not doing so. To my mind, the absolute give away here is the timing. Now. What an extraordinary coincidence!

No. What a trial by personal opinion! Were I ever to be unfairly charged with and tried for sexual assault, I hope that you would not be the judge or even a juror!

In an ideal world, there are facts that Wikileaks would not have released in order to protect national security. There would also have been no moral vaccum that could have been filled by an Assange. If some bureaucracies have huge difficulties with FOI, then there is no way that Assange and pals could have been expected to have exercised subtlety. Governments have only got themselves to blame. Still, one might ask what has happened because of the revelations. Crucially, the world is still turning.

Maybe, but what does that have to do with whether or not Assange was capable of committing or actually committed those criminal acts of sexual assault of which he is being accused?

And it is hard not to be concerned about the long-term mental health of Assange. For one individual to take on the world's establishment is bonkers, however wonderful or diabolical it might be. Rampant egotism isn't unique but it would have been easier for him to have made a pop record. All the likelihood of what he did was that it would be self-defeating. History gives us the knowledge of martyrs. Assange always thought that he would win. That, I think, is indicative of a troubled background.

Again, what you write here is replete with assumptions, speculations and irrrelevances to the sexual assault accusations. Why would you be concerned about Assange's mental health in any of the contexts here? - do you know him personally or has he done anything that affects you personally or are you one of his medical practitioners? You seem almost to write of him as though his case is somehow analogous to that of Breivik!

We should not forget too here the case of Gary McKinnon, the managing of which leaves a lot to be desired. We can paint the usual picture of nasty authority having its way but I doubt that 'the system' really has sufficient sophistication to deal with maverick intelligence without resorting to trickery. Until I hear things to change my mind, I will feel quite sympathetic in regard to Assange. What happens next will be fascinating. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if he suddenly turned up in Quito.

OK, fair comment - but I do think that some of what you write here make insufficient disctinction between the various aspects of the case. I do agree, however, that "choosing" Ecuador (if that is indeed wht he did - and we don't know the precise circumstances behind that either) as a location in which to endeavour to shield himself from possible extradition to US on charges concerning certain of the activites of Wikileaks is as bizarre as it is ironical.

[french frank]

First, I think that we would need to know far more about these individuals. It needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not agents.

I don't think 'we' need to know anything atm. We really need to watch and listen when the facts are unfolded (as I hope they will be). That will be the time for us to come to conclusions.

[Lateralthinking1]

You seem almost to write of him as though his case is somehow analogous to that of Breivik!

Well, I do think that a court case being in Sweden would have a resonance of Breivik in international perceptions. That suits the authorities well. If it were in the US, it would bring to mind MacKinnon but he is far less known.

I find it quite astonishing how much faith in the authorities can be shown in this instance. For years, we have had people bashing the governments, the bankers and those who start wars. They are all as untrustworthy as a used car salesman and far more dangerous. All of a sudden, there is utter trust and we mustn't question anything because to question is to form conclusions.

Everything I have read of the contributions so far tells me one thing more than any other. It is that rape is something that rightly brings out extraordinarily strong emotions. Perhaps understandably, logic or any broader context can in the process just be wiped out. That some have already assumed that Assange committed rape is no more right than to assume that he didn't do so. Some have decided that the substance of the allegation is rape rather than assault when there is a variety of viewpoints in newspapers. And some immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying he should not be tried for rape somewhere when I wasn't.

And nearly everyone in understandable knee-jerk reaction has completely ignored his involvement in Wikileaks. That is an absolute dream for the powers-that-be. Either the world's best known player of 'cat and mouse' has illogically decided to hand them a win-win situation or they have a propaganda strategy that is working more effectively than any of them could ever have hoped.

Scenario - Prime Minister Nick Griffin says that two BNP members have been the victims of rape by BNP opponents. Believable? My point about morality is that it can only be considered sensibly in a moral environment. More pertinently, justice in law can only occur where the law is not compromised by ulterior motives. Neither is the case here. Ecuador might be different.

[heliocentric]

I think it's naive to suppose that the "sensible" way to look at this situation is to separate the rape allegations from the fact that Assange is effectively "wanted" in the USA in respect of allegations like those which have been used to imprison Bradley Manning in inhuman conditions (actually amounting to torture under the UN convention) for over two years already. Consider these dates: on 30 May 2012 the UK Supreme Court rules that Assange must be extradited to Sweden; on 4 June 2012 Hillary Clinton and a US State Department team visit Stockholm to discuss "climate change and global warming", the first time a US Secretary of State has visited that country since Kissinger in May 1976. This "coincidence" in itself is not of course evidence that anything untoward is being planned, but if I were Assange it would certainly worry me, knowing that the US government has been searching since 2010 for ways to make an example of me. William Hague apparently threatened the Ecuadorian embassy with having its diplomatic immunity violated if they didn't give Assange up, which seems like a massive overreaction if nothing but the Swedish allegations are relevant. Of course neither Assange nor anyone else should get away with the serious crime of rape, but there's an even larger issue at stake here, and the two can't be disentangled.

[JohnSkelton]

I think it's naive to suppose that the "sensible" way to look at this situation is to separate the rape allegations from the fact that Assange is effectively "wanted" in the USA in respect of allegations like those which have been used to imprison Bradley Manning in inhuman conditions (actually amounting to torture under the UN convention) for over two years already. Consider these dates: on 30 May 2012 the UK Supreme Court rules that Assange must be extradited to Sweden; on 4 June 2012 Hillary Clinton and a US State Department team visit Stockholm to discuss "climate change and global warming", the first time a US Secretary of State has visited that country since Kissinger in May 1976. This "coincidence" in itself is not of course evidence that anything untoward is being planned, but if I were Assange it would certainly worry me, knowing that the US government has been searching since 2010 for ways to make an example of me. William Hague apparently threatened the Ecuadorian embassy with having its diplomatic immunity violated if they didn't give Assange up, which seems like a massive overreaction if nothing but the Swedish allegations are relevant. Of course neither Assange nor anyone else should get away with the serious crime of rape, but there's an even larger issue at stake here, and the two can't be disentangled.

But doesn't thinking it naive or impossible to disentangle the US reaction to WikiLeaks, and the criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, from the allegation that Assange raped two women, effectively mean he has to not face the rape allegations on the grounds that there are "larger issues at stake"?

William Hague apparently threatened the Ecuadorian embassy with having its diplomatic immunity violated if they didn't give Assange up, which seems like a massive overreaction if nothing but the Swedish allegations are relevant.

Sure, and it contrasts with the efforts made - to a chorus of outraged support for Thatcher's old amigo - to not extradite Pinochet to Spain in the early years of Jack Straw's famous ethical foreign policy. That Pinochet had presided over mass murder, torture and rape seemed not to give the Mr Hagues of this world a moments unease. But none of that means Assange should have immunity from prosecution for rape.

[JohnSkelton]

I don't think 'we' need to know anything atm. We really need to watch and listen when the facts are unfolded (as I hope they will be). That will be the time for us to come to conclusions.

Quite.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think it's naive to suppose that the "sensible" way to look at this situation is to separate the rape allegations from the fact that Assange is effectively "wanted" in the USA in respect of allegations like those which have been used to imprison Bradley Manning in inhuman conditions (actually amounting to torture under the UN convention) for over two years already. Consider these dates: on 30 May 2012 the UK Supreme Court rules that Assange must be extradited to Sweden; on 4 June 2012 Hillary Clinton and a US State Department team visit Stockholm to discuss "climate change and global warming", the first time a US Secretary of State has visited that country since Kissinger in May 1976. This "coincidence" in itself is not of course evidence that anything untoward is being planned, but if I were Assange it would certainly worry me, knowing that the US government has been searching since 2010 for ways to make an example of me. William Hague apparently threatened the Ecuadorian embassy with having its diplomatic immunity violated if they didn't give Assange up, which seems like a massive overreaction if nothing but the Swedish allegations are relevant. Of course neither Assange nor anyone else should get away with the serious crime of rape, but there's an even larger issue at stake here, and the two can't be disentangled.

Quite.

[heliocentric]

But doesn't thinking it naive or impossible to disentangle the US reaction to WikiLeaks, and the criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, effectively mean he has to not face the rape allegations on the grounds that there are "larger issues at stake"?

As far as I'm aware he is prepared to face those allegations, just not in Sweden. It might be thought that the Swedish authorities might, in view of the larger issues, bend over so far as to agree to question him in London or via a video link, but they have refused to do so and haven't offered a reason for this refusal.

[JohnSkelton]

As far as I'm aware he is prepared to face those allegations, just not in Sweden. It might be thought that the Swedish authorities might, in view of the larger issues, bend over so far as to agree to question him in London or via a video link, but they have refused to do so and haven't offered a reason for this refusal.

Don't know, though I suppose the Swedish authorities would say the larger issues are not their concern and that they wish to question him in the country where the alleged offences took place. Which is normal, after all.

Being prepared to be questioned isn't the same as being prepared to face trial, and I wonder what would change after he'd been questioned: presumably the objection - that it's all bound up with the US wanting to get their hands on Assange - would apply against him standing trial in Sweden.

[heliocentric]

Being prepared to be questioned isn't the same as being prepared to face trial, and I wonder what would change after he'd been questioned: presumably the objection - that it's all bound up with the US wanting to get their hands on Assange - would apply against him standing trial in Sweden.

At that point, if indeed he did end up being charged with anything, the situation would become all the more difficult, that's true.

[french frank]

I think it's naive to suppose that the "sensible" way to look at this situation is to separate the rape allegations from the fact that Assange is effectively "wanted" in the USA [...] Of course neither Assange nor anyone else should get away with the serious crime of rape, but there's an even larger issue at stake here, and the two can't be disentangled.

I'm not quite sure who you're quoting with the word "sensible". But I think on an international plane it is quite possible to disentangle the issues. Sweden could do so 1) by indicating that it is not connecting them and would not extradite Assange if he voluntarily gave himself up for questioning in Sweden or 2) agreed to carry out a preliminary questioning in the UK.

If they will do neither, I agree that Assange has good reason to be wary. That he would not get a fair trial in the US for revealing to the world the illegal acts sanctioned by the government seems certain, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[heliocentric]

I think on an international plane it is quite possible to disentangle the issues. Sweden could do so 1) by indicating that it is not connecting them and would not extradite Assange if he voluntarily gave himself up for questioning in Sweden or 2) agreed to carry out a preliminary questioning in the UK.

Indeed. (My "sensible" wasn't quoting anyone in particular.)

[jean]

Well, whoever you were quoting, you seem now to agree with the view you previously thought naive.