Re: Assange, a most unlikeable character.

[grantcart]

I have never liked him. Just don't like the persona that he transmits. Don't like some of the things he has done, especially don't like some of his methodologies. He seems so aggressive against Democratic governments but hasn't taken similar risks against dictatorships. Doesn't seem to have the same hunger against guys like Putin that actually kill people like Assange. Makes me wonder if hasn't made some accommodations.

But all of that is completely beside the point.

This campaign against him is obvious and it is against the larger interests of transparency in a democratic country.

Let's take some of the more relevant issues one by one.

1) Assange is no Daniel Ellsburg.

Daniel Ellsburg was an analyst who gathered information into a comprehensive study, known as the Pentagon Papers. At great personal risk, including his life and imprisonment he broke the law and passed classified material to the New York Times and the Washington Post that published that material.

In this comparison Assange, if anything would be the New York Times and not Daniel Ellsburg. That is the problem with the campaign against Assange. What legally has he done wrong? He is not the one that was stealing the documents, he was the publisher.

If you support some clandestine or underhanded persecution against Assange then you cannot be excused the next time someone does something against the next George Bush, that is the issue here, not whether you like, or dislike, as I do, Assange. Its not personal its business, and it is the business of a free press to publish information for the people to make informed decisions.

2) Assange is no Daniel Ellsburg part two.

Ellsburg was very careful in the material that he passed. It was all related to the understanding and history of policy, how it was made and how. He wasn't dumping large amounts of data that could be used by bad guys to kill other people. It was a lazercut while Assange is unloading semi's full of data.

One of the things that he has done that is the most egregious, imo, is publishing vast details of diplomatic conversations for little or no relevant information. This could have a chilling effect on diplomacy, diplomacy that helps broker peace deals and reduces war. Diplomats need to feel that their conversations are private, that they can make honest reports back to their home base and be able to think openly and discuss all things freely without worrying that everything will be published.

3) If Assange has broken any real laws then prosecute him on those, otherwise stop this campaign of harassment.

4) The Swedish charges of rape at this point are immaterial. Whether or not they are true or not he is not going to get a fair trial, he is going to be persecuted because he is the head of wikileaks. The charges smack of the kind of black ops that were the daily bread of the cold war. Most likely he fell for a 'honey pot' operation. I once sidestepped a similar operation in Ho Chi Minh Ville, my successor was not so successful.

While it is possible that he is a serial rapist, he doesn't fit any profile I have ever seen. Rapists don't just start they have a pattern of behavior, and Assange has a practiced discipline of staying out of the reach of governments so I find it out of character. In any case he won't be able to get a fair trial.

5) Yes the Swedish play ball with the US and other countries when it is in their interest, I know from personal experience.

So I am no hero worshiper of Assange. I don't like him, don't like many of the things he has done.

That is what standing up for the First Amendment is all about. The people have a right to have a transparent system, especially when it comes to war. These lines are rarely drawn with clear delineations that you find yourself in 100% agreement with who or what is being said. In those times it is better you side with the person who has possibly crossed the line than allow the line to be drawn to close, lest the circle be too small when the next time the government takes an action that you disagree with strongly.

Its too bad we didn't have that kind of information at the time time of Gulf of Tonkin or when Dick Cheney and the others were proclaiming that they knew where the WMD were. If only we knew that the psychopath that was feeding the information was a source by the name of 'Curveball' that none of the analysts had any faith in maybe a hundred thousand innocent lives would not be lost.

Yes Assange is a manipulative egotistical prick that may hurt a lot of people because of his carelessness. That is not the issue. The issue is do you think that people who publish secrets, like the New York Times, or Assange, should be persecuted by bogus threats because their methods are 'messy'. Restrict the power of the press in this instance and you will undermine it in the next.

[unc70]

1. WikiLeaks went after Putin in 2010

WikiLeaks has been fairly aggressive exposing Putin and many dictators around the world.

[grantcart]

2. Yes of course. However considering the legions of gangster activity of Putin, including the likely

murder of political opponents, you have to wonder if it is robust as his pursuit of others, but in any case it isn't a center point to the issue at hand.

[David__77]

4. I think you made the point that wikileaks is a conduit, not an intelligence agency.

It could very well be that the US government is leakier than the Russian government. In fact, I suspect that this is highly probable. If that is true, then there would be less for wikileaks for work with as per Russia. There is certainly very little in the way of leaks from the North Korean government, to use a more extreme example. That wikileaks has nothing from N. Korea's government insiders doesn't indicate wikileaks is "easy on" N. Korea.

[1monster]

5. And the US isn't also invloved in murder, even of our own citizens, in other countries?

And in countires that are our putative allies? And if if our democracy (representative democracy, in fact) is so openly and unashamedly doing this, what are they doing that we don't know?

If Assange released so much about the US, then it is because it was there to release it. People in this country still have the moral fiber to say, "This is wrong," and find a way to have it published, in these cases by Assange.

Russia has never been an open society and, thus, it might more unlikely that someone might be as likely to leak what they know.

And I never had a very high opinion of that old dodge of "But everyone else is doing it!" Didn't we as parents tell our kids the same thing our parents told us, "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"

[tama]

8. Anna Politovskaya

is just one of the investigative journalists assassinated in Russia. Wiki has a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Russians are no less brave than others and not less interested in finding out the truth and making it public. If anything, the list proves that they are more so than most.

Wikileaks has been founded by an Aussie, and most people working with it are Anglophones and other Westerners fluent in English. Wikileaks has worked globally, but that does not meant there are no cultural and linguistic barriers of approachability.

[sendero]

6. Maybe nobody has leaked..

... information that could be posted? Assange does not compile or produce the material for Wikileaks, he POSTS LEAKS.

Secondly, saying " well he does a good thing for country X but not country Y" - well I would say SO FUCKING WHAT? There is basically NO POINT there.

[grantcart]

11. I already stated up thread that it was not a point central to the argument, more of an observation.

[David__77]

3. I don't like the world of secret diplomacy.

I think it's great that the worldview of the state geostrategists is exposed.

[Scuba]

7. +1

[Robb]

9. If a man cannot receive a fair trial, how can one try him?

Circular argument you've got there. You've basically said since there's no way he can get a fair shake, we must ignore any possibility he committed a crime and not try him.

That doesn't work.

[grantcart]

10. I don't think any of the actors have clean hands and that he cannot be tried.

Proscutor misconduct resulting in a mistrial with no prosecution against a defendent happens all of the time, even if it is statistically a very small percent.

[jeff47]

12. #4 is really dumb

You're gonna set up a honeypot, but you're gonna create such a convoluted story that requires intricate knowledge of the Swedish judicial system to understand?

Bullshit.

If you're gonna set up a honeypot, you would have sobbing women on camera with fresh bruises talking about how Assange attacked them one night.

Also:

Its too bad we didn't have that kind of information at the time time of Gulf of Tonkin or when Dick Cheney and the others were proclaiming that they knew where the WMD were.

We did. In both situations. The public didn't care.

That is not the issue. The issue is do you think that people who publish secrets, like the New York Times, or Assange, should be persecuted by bogus threats because their methods are 'messy'.

Here's where your argument catches fire, falls over and sinks into the swamp.

The New York Times has republished Wikileaks material and has not been perused for it. Nor any other media outlet that has re-published Wikileaks material. If this was the evil government out to silence publishers of secrets, how come they don't go after most publishers of secrets?