Kolya on 7/12/2010 at 18:42
He has also arranged to meet with the British police via his lawyers, knowing he'd be arrested on that meeting. So your accusations that Assange was using the threat of releasing all cables arbitrarily in case of "any legal actions" or even to get whatever his fancy might be, are clearly wrong.
It's quite obvious that he's merely trying to protect Wikileaks and himself. A reasonable move since Wikileaks are under attack and as the head of this organisation he's very much at risk personally.
Kuuso on 7/12/2010 at 18:44
Oh please, the strategic target memo is pretty much more useful for the goverments than terrorists. It doesn't even list any really important locations like the spaghetti Junction and various bridges in UK, which would halt everything in the country with just one strategically placed bomb.
demagogue on 7/12/2010 at 18:54
What's clearly obvious is that he's making threats that in effect make everything that happens from here on under that shadow... I think that includes everything from personal threats, legal action, legal abuse (trumped up charges), political fallout, etc. It's all under the same shadow of his threat, so I think it's fair to say it applies to all of it. His words make it clear that he turned himself in only after he arranged that. So it's part of his contemplation that his threats are going to buffer against whatever case is brought against him.
BTW, I'm not saying the move wasn't "smart" or even inescapable from his perspective. It shows more than anything the risk of the whole thing, the position people are put into when they have access to all this damaging information. It leads inevitably to a brinkmanship strategy where everybody has to walk on ice now, him included. But we can know that's going to happen in advance, which is why it's hard to be too sympathetic when he takes the expected brinkmanship turn.
One thing to think about. What if he is prosecuted under a perfectly sound law and legitimately gets like 10 years in prison? How tempted is he going to be to claim he was "cheated" and push the brinkmanship button? If he's in control of the button, whose interpretation of whether he gets "screwed" matters except his own? And isn't that subverting the whole point of having release policies set by democratic institutions, where people's vote matters, rather than private vigilantes that presume to know individually what's best for the public?
Edit:
Quote Posted by Kuuso
Oh please, the strategic target memo is pretty much more useful for the goverments than terrorists. It doesn't even list any really important locations like the spaghetti Junction and various bridges in UK, which would halt everything in the country with just one strategically placed bomb.
Explain to me how releasing the strategic target memo is in the public's interest?
Forget about terrorists or whoever.... What's the point of releasing it? How does it benefit us?
My point was about the lack of any redeeming value, and what that says about his intentions in having and using all this information once the inevitable backlash comes.
(Anyway, we basically know why he released it now; to demonstrate the punch he wields if anything happens to him. It's part of the insurance policy strategy.)
Kolya on 7/12/2010 at 19:09
You're coming a long way from supporting the statement Assange was an attention whore, to saying his precautions to protect himself and Wikileaks are a smart move and inescapable, but ultimately place him in a position of too much and dangerous power for a single person. I can certainly agree with the latter, but of course that just invites the question whether it was himself who put him in this situation or if documented illegal actions by American diplomats, easily available to thousands of people, placed him there.
Stitch on 7/12/2010 at 19:43
Quote Posted by Kolya
The fact that he is public figure is likely his only life insurance and you call him an attention whore?
I call him an attention whore not because he is the public head of a controversial organization but because I think five hours in a bar with this guy would make me want to kill myself.
SubJeff on 7/12/2010 at 19:43
Quote Posted by Stitch
Assange is an attention whoring douchebag who should see court over the alleged rape accusations.
Having said that, he's not really "the problem" as far as the leaked docs go, and the US government should ignore the guy and deprive him of the soap box upon which he will otherwise cement his undeserved folk hero status.
I agree they should have ignored him, but why do you think he should face allegations that have already been dismissed once? Not because you think he is a douchebag, surely.
Stitch on 7/12/2010 at 19:56
Because new information had come in, perhaps?
I mean, I get it--I wouldn't put it past the governments of the world to cynically use baseless rape charges to snag the mouthpiece of Wikileaks. On the other hand, though, I don't find it difficult to believe that Assange might not be telling the truth when he claims that the sex was consensual.
Kuuso on 7/12/2010 at 20:06
Quote Posted by demagogue
Explain to me how releasing the strategic target memo is in the public's interest?
Forget about terrorists or whoever.... What's the point of releasing it? How does it benefit us?
My point was about the lack of any redeeming value, and what that says about his intentions in having and using all this information once the inevitable backlash comes.
(Anyway, we basically know why he released it now; to demonstrate the punch he wields if anything happens to him. It's part of the insurance policy strategy.)
As I've said before that's how Wikileaks works. It's not a newspaper, the whole point is to be a gateway of whistleblowers. It's medium that reaches (and achieves somewhat) neutrality. Don't you think it's a bit weird that none of the big media corps have got their hands on the crudest crimes that have been unveiled from these cables?
Wikileaks is a step away from traditional media that is either corrupt or inept, because of overmoderating in fear of goverment punishment (see how Lieberman is publicly saying that New York Times should be prosecuted for publising the leaked material). There's a price for going for this sort of neutrality, because they have to publish everything, which drowns the really important shit a bit and there's a risk of accidentally unveiling names/locations that put people in risk. That's why they have time after time asked for the cooperation of goverments, who have refused it.
If they had hand-picked the worst crimes, they would have had more impact surely, but that would nullify the point of the site.
About Assange being a rapist or not, it's a null point really. The whole ordeal seems fishy enough - the two women coming together to press charges and then dropping them because there was absolutely no evidence and they themselves claimed it was concentual after all. Then again, Assange might be a rapist.
What I am afraid of here is that Assange's trial will not be fair. US will most likely do everything in their power to affect the outcome. Even though it's held in Sweden, it won't make it neutral. Secondly, I do hope this won't start a spiral of law suits that hinder the work of Wikileaks.
Kolya on 7/12/2010 at 20:11
Quote Posted by Stitch
I call him an attention whore not because he is the public head of a controversial organization but because I think five hours in a bar with this guy would make me want to kill myself.
Well it's your choice if you want to entertain opinions about Assange that are undisturbed by facts, but next time don't place them in the middle of a political discussion as if they were anything more than a personal antipathy.
See, I'm not sure we'd be best buddies either, but that's just not the point here.
Kuuso on 7/12/2010 at 20:55
Here's the reason people are actually feeling suspicion towards Assanges rape accusations:
"James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn't use condoms during sex with two Swedish women."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex.""
""In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.
"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said."
(
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/)
(
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/)
