How will Assange be punished for attempting to advance democracy?

Well, I've already brought you some. Still hungry?

/rummaging in the kitchen

I'll see what I can cook up to assange your appetite. I may serve that sort of course in another thread.

(I'm not sure how much forensic psychology of Assange is topical/palatable here...)

for appetizer (if this is your kind of indelicacy) some similar sentiments to mine: ethicsalarms.com: Julian Assange: Not a Hero, Not a Terrorist, Not a Criminal, Just an Asshole

I offered some background above (maybe you missed it). Some more:

CNN Walkout (YouTube 4:16)
w.Larry King re: walkout (YouTube 3:23)
Journeyman Pictures: Inside WikiLeaks (YouTube, 21:56)
schlackman.org: Why Julian Assange is an egotist
postchronicle.com: Special Report: Julian Assange Versus The World
theglobeandmail.com: Who is Julian Assange?
jezebel.com: ...sounds like real assange
grendelreport.com: The Secret Diary of Julian Assange
forbes: WikiLeaks' Stepchildren
nowpublic.com: WikiLeaks Revolt
huffingtonpost.com: How Julian Assange Lost the Moral Plot
feministing.com: Assange- “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism” victim of “revolutionary feminism”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

would you like me start threads with tt's like..."obama is an asshole"??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No thanks (nor would I do that myself).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atika Shubert
Julian Assange Intv – 22.10.10
[ATIKA SHUBERT]

AS - What is in these documents? What is significant about what you have seen?

JA- 00:39
These documents reveal six years of the Iraq war at a ground level detail, the troops on the ground their reports what they were seeing, what they were saying and what they were doing and it covers the deaths of some 104,000 people not just an aggregate, not just in Fallujah a lot of people died but rather the deaths of each person with precise geographic co-ordinates and the operation under which they died

01:12
That is the big outcome for us is that these people whose deaths were previously anonymous they are no longer anonymous we can see where, where they died and under what circumstances.

01:28
We can see what sort of military policies led to their death; we can see the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq during 2007-2008 that also led to a great number of deaths. there are 66,000 internally declared civilian casualties mentioned in the material most of those coming out of the sectarian violence but also a significant number coming out of coalition and military operations

AS – Last time, with the Afghan War Diary, you made a very strong statement saying that in those documents there cold be evidence of possible war crimes. Are you seeing something similar in these documents?

JA - 02:12
I think, we can make an even stronger statement in these documents, that there is very strong evidence, compelling evidence of war crimes having been committed by coalition forces and having been committed by Iraqi government forces in this material,

02:31
There is evidence of 284 abuse of detainees by coalition soldiers in some cases clearly torture, there is over 1,000 reports on the torture or abuse of detainees by Iraqi government forces trained by the coalition. There is cases of people trying to commit surrender and being killed in the process of committing surrender and the people we have spoken to, the lawyers we have spoken to, say that is also clear war crime.

AS – You say lawyers you have spoken to. Are you expecting lawsuits to come out of this?

JA - 03:20
Yes, there will be 40, case for wrongful death of 40 people has already been established by public interest lawyers here in the UK, in the direct of Shiners who are well-known in this area for litigating over wrongful deaths committed by the British government and that is expected to be filed within the weeks after the release of this material

AS - 03:49 How much of an impact do you think these documents were going to have, considering that US combat troops have already been pulled out and for much of the American public they feel that the Iraq war is in the past?

04:02
Well, I’m hoping that people understand that the Iraq war goes on, that there are deaths there of significant numbers every week as a result of primarily the sectarian violence, but also because of policing, that the policing establishment that was left being is fairly brutal regime, unaccountable and not properly checked.

04:34
The US, as you say, the US combat troops have been removed, well actually what are troops for if not for committing combat there are still some 50,000 US troops present in Iraq and that number could go up and down and let’s look at what responsibility does the United States have to the people of Iraq?

05:00
Does it have a responsibly to leave the government and leave the police force in a manner which was aligned with the original claims. Remember the original claims were for weapons of mass distraction that turned out not to be true but the other part was bringing in more humanitarian government into Iraq that we can see in these thousands of cases of abuse of detainees by the Iraqi government and the police that doesn’t seem to having been done so should the US be spending more time to scrutinize what they are leaving behind? I think it should

AS - 05:44
Let me ask, the last time you put out Afghan War Diary – those US military records about the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon made a very strong statement. US Admiral Mike Mullen said you might have blood on your hands. This time, they have demanded that you return these documents and that the press not publish these documents. How concerned are you that US troops or civilians may be injured, may be harmed or even killed by the information in these documents.?

JA - 06:18
Well we have to be careful when we start repeating the statements of an organization that has shown itself not to be credible. In the case of these statements or talking points, we have an organization which has committed in Afghanistan the deaths of hundreds of people per months, hundreds per week in relation to us, NATO last week in Kabul told CNN that there was, they could not find a single person that was in need of protection or moving and the Pentagon cannot find a single person that has been harmed as a result of the release of the Afghan material

07:07
In this case we have taken an even more vigorous approach that we took in relation of the Afghan material not because we believe that approach was particularly lacking or rather just to prevent those sort of distractions from the serious content by people who would like to try and distract from the message. I think the message of this material is powerful and perhaps a little easier to understand than the complex situation in Afghanistan, we are talking of much higher death figures, so our Afghan release documented the circumstances behind the deaths of some 20,000 people in six years in Afghanistan

07:54
This material covers those same six years with the exception of two missing months, and documents the death of 104,000 people, so we are talking about five times greater kill rate in Iraq, comparative bloodbath, compared to Afghanistan but I think because there is just a little bit of a removal, let’s not be fooled into believing that there is no US presence there that because there is a little bit of a removal, I think we can see this war,

08:35
We can see this war with greater clarity than we can see Afghanistan which is in someways is too hot for people to look at in an objective way but we can learn very strong lessons about Afghanistan from what occurred in Iraq, now remember that the most recent portion of this material in Iraq is, is the very end of 2009 so we’re talking about recent events here, we are also talking about events that occurred under the Obama administration, the number of these abuses of detainees occurred in 2009

AS - 09:20
When you say take greater care with these documents, can you explain what do you mean by that and what did you learn from the previous release?

JA - 00:09:37
What we learnt is that unless you have a very sophisticated psychological approach it’s easy for people who are trying to avoid the content of the material to hype something up but in the case of our Afghan material we said that we had withheld 15,000 of 90,000 documents for harm minimization reasons but we didn’t say we withheld 1 in 5 and I think if it had been extremely clear to people that we had withheld 1 in 5, people would understand a bit more what was going on but this figure people couldn’t quite imagine or get their heads around.

10:24
So this time we have taken an opt-in approach and have redacted everything except for things we have cleared by hand and that approach has left black ink all over the material, so it is very clear to everyone that this material has had redaction work done on it. Whereas previously when we just withheld documents in their entirety it wasn’t clear to people all the work that we had done

AS - 11:01
So, you don’t regret the way it was released last time, too much information too soon?

JA - 11:05
Well there, there was some people who turned out not to be, as far as NATO can establish, not to be needing protection, I wouldn’t say that we have any regret about how that was done, however it’s clear that we have learnt from the experience of having people trying to distract from the message and produced a better model and that’s not going to be easy for the Pentagon to do this time. Also they tremendously over-played there hand last time in trying to hype up that issue. And as events have turned out and have been shown that on the ground was not an issue in Afghanistan.

AS -12:00
I want to switch a little bit now to Wikileaks itself and your role in it. There have been a lot of reports of internal – there have been internal disputes within Wikileaks, several people, volunteers have quit-

JA -12:16
Where do you get your sources from Atika?

AS - 12:19
Some former staffers.

JA - 12:22
And did you speak to them?

AS - 12:24
Yes, I did

JA - 12:26
Which ones?

AS - 12:27
Well, I’m not going to say which ones but people have said that they’ve quit.

JA - 12:30
Because there’s only one former staffer who was suspended who has far as I know has spoken to anyone

AS - 12:41
Well, that former staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg has done an interview with CNN saying that he was suspended and that he quit and he cited among other things a personality issue, that your personality seems to be eclipsing Wikileaks and the work of Wikileaks and I’m wondering how you respond to that.

JA 13:03
This is, I mean, just not a very interesting issue. We are an organization, an organization has employees and when employees misbehave they get suspended, and that was the case of Schmidt and some employees when they get suspended are not happy about this

AS - 13:24
But there is criticism that the story around you is eclipsing the work of Wikileaks. Does that concern you, would you consider stepping aside?

JA - 13:35
This organization does not let anyone hang out to dry. We, we always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod to attract, to attract the attacks against the organization for our work and that is a difficult role on the other hand I get undue credit. So that’s my function in this organization, anyone involved in our sorts of activity, can be expected to be attacked across the full spectrum, whether it’s sort of direct fabrications, or or poisonous rumor mongering by the tabloid press. Anyway that is something that we as an organization cannot be distracted by. We have to move on and do the work that we are committed to do.

AS - 14:41
You mention, you sort of describe yourself as a lighting rod, one aspect of that has been the legal situation for yourself in Sweden. You’re now facing charges-

JA- 14:52
I am not going to talk about in relation to this

AS - 14:57
But it does affect Wikileaks-

JA - 14:59
Yeah but this interview is about something else. I will have to walk if you are, if you are going to contaminate this extremely serious interview with questions about my personal life

AS - 15:14
Well, no I’m not. But what I want to ask is: at one point you said it was a dirty tricks campaign-

JA - 15:18
I am going to walk, if you are going to-

AS - 15:21
So you don’t want to address whether or not you feel this is an attack on Wikileaks?

JA- 15:25
It’s completely disgusting, Atika,

AS - 15:28
I’m asking whether or not you feel-

JA - 15:31
I am going to walk if you are going to contaminate us revealing the deaths of 104,000 people with attacks against my person

AS - 15:44
I’m not. What I’m asking is to do with Wikileaks-

JA - 15:50
Okay, sorry​

ASSANGE: "Well, I didn't walk off, Larry, just then. But perhaps, I should...those documents cover 109,000 deaths. That's a serious matter and it's extraordinarily disrespectful to those people to start conflating the first revelation of that material with any sort of tabloid journalism."

KING:"She was asking about the deliverer of the information, a question about the deliverer of the information...what was wrong with that?" he asked.

ASSANGE:"...It is not right to bring in sensational and, in fact, false claims, a relatively trivial matter compared to the deaths of 109,000 people, And it is -- I mean, CNN should be ashamed of doing that. And you, Larry, you actually should be ashamed, as well."

KING: "All you had to do was to say they were false. When you say they were trivial, rape is not trivial. To say they were false, that's your answer. They're false. That's fine. That's all we wanted to hear."​

assange adopts the sop of sci
why do you have a problem with that?

and yes false claims of rape are more than just trivial, they are downright despicable

 

The "SOP of Sci" escapes me in this context (can you clarify?)

If you're going to provide evidence of that assertion, it will require an entirely different thread from this one. As for me, I would rather see the separate matter of sexual misconduct against Assange settled in court, and soon. As I have said from the outset, this is a distraction from more important things, at large, at SciForums, and also in this thread.

I agree, and that is why Assange is irresponsible for not dealing with the charges (on both occasions that they have been raised) forthrightly, in person. The argument that the Swedish system of justice before the eyes of the world is inadequate for Assange in this case is not credible in my opinion- I am confident that Sweden can provide Assange with ample securities of his rights and personal safety, equal to or better than what he enjoys now at Ellingham Hall. If Assange truly values the cause of transparency and public accountability over his own concerns pertaining to his personal peccadillos, then he should face the legal music in Sweden without delay. Suggestions that the Swedish warrant is a U.S. rendition trap have scant merit:

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/​

 

you missed another smear....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ABC's Jim Sciutto: “forcibly spreading her legs” .......“holding her down"​

lets imagine a response

assange: no jim, she voluntarily took her panties off, opened her legs and said...fuck me hard

 

Assange is forcing this matter (separate from his legal jeopardy over freedom of information) further into the public debate, and distracting from what is important, by obstructing the Swedish legal process. It would not require an unusual or unprecedented arrangement for Assange's legal team to arrange guarantees limiting proceedings in Sweden to the matter of sexual misconduct. If the legal funds donated to WikiLeaks were not being misappropriated for purposes other than the advertised WikiLeaks mission, that is what would be happening.

 

Re: the transcript you posted above:

Gustav, do you consider this to be an example of professional and personal accountability on Assange's part?

 

The difficulty keeping Assange's problems in Sweden separate from the WikiLeaks Information-Freedom debate has been a vexing challenging for everyone. A recent dustup involving Michael Moore on the talk circuit and Twitter is illustrative of the serious difficulty in which Julian Assange has placed so many advocates of a worthy and potentially historic cause. I hope that Michael Moore's recent Twittered double-take and second-thought might presage a wider breakthrough in keeping separate issues separate- however some may insist on conflating them, and collective perception may be producing a distracting interference pattern. I hope that some new and coherent daylight is breaking through here. It's ironic to me (especially in light of Gustav's comments above) that Moore's moment of cognitive whiplash was nearly buried amidst our dynamically-intertwining major and social media channels. Sometimes, there is a butterfly effect in the blogosphere- and even if not quite a cascade of epiphanies, maybe (I think) a glimmer of new discovery of interactive learning, and (digg?) growing interest in political and intellectual engagement within the "Me" and "Me-2" generations.

Rachel Maddow first put the salient question out on the (pre-You) tube:

tigerbeatdown.com: #MooreandMe: And Then He Came Down​

Maddow was echoing Twittering Katha Pollitt:

thenation.com: The Case of Julian Assange​

And also blogging Kate Harding:

kateharding.info: Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange​

I like to turn a mirror on the media, and when I see a likeness I sometimes tell someone how a celebrity looks like them (not the other way around). In much the same way, I enjoy seeing interactive media informing consumer media- it gives me hope that we're not really becoming a species of dumbed-down passive observers: Maybe in the midst of all this muddle, we're actually on the cusp of an unprecedented leap of understanding.

If the crescendo of clicking keys among our species is teaching anything at all, we're learning that human consciousness does not really multitask well. Interfering issues require isolation of attention, and a clearing away of distractions so that there can be sequential resolution of separated issues. Like everyone, I feel the easy pull of the conflated collective narrative, and I don't pretend to have an invulnerable commanding viewpoint. But I won't shy away from observing (through the admittedly flawed and subjective compound-eye of multi media) that Julian Assange exhibits the distinctive characteristics of an acquired situational narcissist. That's not a crime, but in Assange's case it may be an affliction with nebulous societal implications; something more than merely troublesome to Assange's career as a champion of truth and accountability. As debilitating distraction, the collective aspects of the malaise are confusing our collective recognition of an accelerating malignancy of institutional tyranny, that is metastasizing in secrecy. We know that daylight is the cure, but hesitate to let it in because we're afraid of what we'll see- and especially what we'll see of ourselves.

Setting aside his innocence or guilt as accused in Sweden: It is Assange's strenuous obstruction of the Swedish inquiry that continues to plague with distraction an extremely important global debate (holding potentially historic implications) about the accountability of the world's most powerful governments and corporations. Assange's personal priorities are being impressed upon the world, interfering with what may be the defining debate of our times.

The eye of the media storm is not pivoting around the great conspiracies of world power that are devastating millions of lives- although these do enjoy considerable cover at the periphery. The WikiLeaks memestorm keeps dumbly shifting into orbit around one man's sexuality, by his (and our) deranged choice. There is a great danger if personal or sexual scandals (be they reality-based or manufactured) can stymie global political rationality, and tip our species into tailspins of collective analytical dysfunction. While society may not be fully alert to such a potentiality, we should not assume that would-be megamanipulators are not more astute. It's high time to separate Assange's sexual liabilities from things more important. The best opportunity for some long-overdue clarity has been waiting right in front of us (or loafing in an aristocratic manor) for too long. Assange's jeopardy is not appreciably increased in terms of his safety, potential penalties, or in terms vulnerability to extradition to the U.S.A. by facing his accusers in Sweden right now. Try him expeditiously and fairly (appeal if there is a question after that) so that the real WikiLeaks debate can receive the focus and coherence it merits.

Utlämna!
Extradite!

 

I think Assange has lost his way

He does have a large following.

Absolutely. But he's not fully operational in exposing that to the fullest- his skin's too thin. Accountability is something he's gaming in the swirly world surrounding him- but things don't compute the same to Assange when it comes to self-examination.

No yes, (I think gag threats are unjust).

Go back to Sweden and answer the charges; write some self-adoring books; learn to really write code; stop playing at journalism; oh, and here's a really important one: Be nice to women, because they're people too. By the way, you're in fine form today, Bells.

The legal grounds for extraditing Assange to the USA are very shaky. Swedish authorities have ruled out extraditing him through the present warrant. They are adamant about keeping the matter of rape legally separate from the highly strained and hypothetical threats of an extradition to the USA for espionage. It is not so easy in USi tradition and habit to specially-render a prominent white boy from Over There without a semblance of legitimate legal process.

I agree. The noises being made about shutting down investigative journalism are premature in a political and technical sense. We are not a closed society and police state yet.

Get guarantees of non-extradition beyond Sweden, and honor the Swedish warrant.

No, Assange's idea of "hiding" is a joke. He was on a lecture and party tour, and bedding down with strangers.

I don't think any of us here try to put things in ways that we deem immoral and unjust, do we?

Look, I know that the last USi President's "Yer either with us or against us" schtick was lapped up to a great extent down under- but I mean, really Bells: We know things aren't really that simple, and if you've read my posts you know that I'm a dinkum WikiLeaks fan. I really hope that WL survives Assange's stint as spooksmodel.

That's a separate case, but one I'm happy to turn to... It's the one that really matters.

Sure, but he's taking a page from Bin Laden, not Sy Hersh.

Nobody with any sense doubts that claim.

And he's a shrill little sheila.

You must not have seen the color of Media up here. I don't drink much from the mainstream- it's distinctly yellow.

I have amazing powers of observation- I read books n stuff.

Rhymes with "Hells"; sometimes yells.

I've spent some time providing links, to just about everything I've quoted. It takes a little time and effort, and you're welcome.

Let's let the courts decide in every case, shall we?

I'm all ears- and glad to leave Assanguality far behind.

He's whimpered that he'll megadump a steaming stream of unredacted all-he's got if he gets frightened, revealing what's most important to him: His precious Assange.

Indeed: He should go beat the rap, and make them all look perfectly silly if he's innocent.

And how he hates that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your laws are powerless before Our Great American Free World Leadership.

:gag: :spit: I hope not.

Assange leaked his wiki all by himself. He can go see the Judge all by himself. He does not need to drag the fight for accountability through the muck. He needs to answer the charges like a responsible man, not a narcissistic nookie-nerd, so we can all go about our business saving the world from (or for) tyranny. Which side is it you're on again?

"Mr. Assange"- gaah! that egotistical git really pisses me off... er, what was that, Bells?

:thumbsup: no worries, that was fun. I'll wait right here- Stay safe and dry down there, Bells. :sleep:

 

please take your gloves off, bells

sure
unduly conflating shit is a no no both here and anywhere else

assange: we leaked stuff
journalist: it doesnt matter.you are a rapist and womanizer

thats just trolling

"false" is what assange asserted with larry king. thats why he considered it "relatively trivial"

haha
had an account of the events in sweden been posted here? a timeline of sorts? did lucysnow post some shit? something about the penalty for his alleged crime is a fine of some $700?

you know what i think is as possibility, hype?
misplaced jackbooted patriotism and a wholly unwarranted antipathy towards assange is clouding your judgment

what? assange saying the buck stops here? i say admirable

for some

 

in this corner we have assange and ........wikileaks

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 STOCKHOLM 000748

SIPDIS

STATE FOR CA/P/IP BARBARA HALL, PETER THOMPSON, DIANE BEAN AND MARY DOETSCH

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y

E.O. 12958: 1.4 (B) 1.4(D) DECLASSIFY 11/07/2018 TAGS: ASEC CVIS PGOV PREL CMGT PTER SW

REF: (A) STOCKHOLM 704 (B) STOCKHOLM 648 (C) STOCKHOLM 510 STOCKHOLM 00000748 001.2 OF 002 (U) Classified by ADCM Marc Koehler, Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d).

¶1. (S) SUMMARY: Meetings between the HSPD-6 terrorist screening information negotiation team and the Swedish MOJ and MFA reveal that the current Swedish political climate makes any formal terrorist screening information agreement highly difficult. Existing informal arrangements are working well, according to Swedish officials, who asked whether the status quo would satisfy future requirements under the Enhanced Visa Waiver Program. End Summary. ​

in the other we have hype and........jezebel.com: ...sounds like real assange

Currently making the rounds is a profile of one Harry Harrison, last accessed in 2006. It describes a "Passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who "seeks siren for love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy." He also likes "women from countries that have sustained political turmoil. Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Not only women!" If this is not Julian Assange, this is one of the endless backpackers with a Cool Gringo complex one encounters in one of those countries with "sustained political turmoil." We're sure those women are grateful!
​

brilliant! an incisive and rigorous analysis

 

I agree with Bells, and do not see how what he's done, as far as leaking is concerned, is illegal. Could somebody please tell me? Surely it isn't illegal to yell 'FIRE!' over the internet. Or maybe 'RAPE!' is the better term... Those sex allegations come down to whether or not the Swedish Court woke up on the right side of the bed or not. In Sweden, he'd be charged for rape and not treason; in the US, he'd be charged for treason and not rape. :shrug:

In fact, it's quite interesting to take a look at correlations of which countries support the leaks, versus those who don't.

 

Assange's personal trouble in Sweden is distracting from the more important issue of freedom of information- removing illegitimate secrecy, where secrecy conceals criminal activity.

Both.

Sure- I'm assuming that you are referring to this thread:

Sf/Philosohy/EM&J/ "SHIELD" Act​

If we adjourn there, please take a little more care in reading my posts, and let’s both try and discuss one issue at a time. It’s becomes hard to follow when we shift back and forth between topic. If you often shift back and forth between Assange's rape allegations, Assange's potential indictment in the USA (still embryonic) for espionage, and the nature of journalism, it will become impossible to reply to you coherently in this format.

Thus far, the U.S. hasn't got a solid case for indictment by any stretch: Not for terrorism, and not for espionage. I do find the preparations for new legislation restricting free speech alarming. I think that this is another reason for Assange to get the Swedish matter settled with all haste.
I’ll back up, here to try and place your questions in some context:

Assange is making very conspicuous mistakes that a serious journalist would never do.

He claims to be a journalist. I haven't heard him specifically claim his work as "investigative", but that is certainly the genre he works in. I don't dispute that Assange is a journalist, as he says he is. Whenever he speaks or writes publicly about news sourced through his organization, it look like journalism to me. I consider Assange a journalist, but not a very good one: Recently he's been making allegations without corroborating them. He's been verging on (arguably committing) blackmail, by threatening an unredacted megadump if he's arrested That's not good journalism- it damages his own credibility, and that of WikiLeaks. He does a much better job for WikiLeaks and his sources when he keeps quiet, and allows more professional people to break the stories, and to take care to not conflate things as you are doing here, mixing Assange's personal issues within the context of the work of WikiLeaks. Good journalists know how to bring a story with a professional degree of focus.

reason.com: Is Julian Assange a Journalist?

Please review my posts. You have clearly misunderstood them. I think that arguing over definitions of investigative journalism is just silly. Call him a researcher, journalist-assistant or whatever you like- it's really all academic, because in terms of freedom of speech it’s all covered.

There is no licensing for journalism, or journalistic research.




Assange disrupts the mission of WikiLeaks by releasing information in a manner that compromises whistleblowers, and persons not implicated in criminal conspiracy.

I think that WikiLeaks have done reasonably well protecting sources, although their lack of help with Bradley Manning's case has been very disappointing. If you look into how journalists routinely protect sources, you will find that there is great care taken in corroborating information from several sources, not only for a check on the facts, but also to expose sources to less jeopardy in being investigated.

When WikiLeaks releases a torrent of items from a single source, it is easier for the gatekeepers to determine the source, and this is often done in subtle ways when normal-looking text is encoded with slight but discreet differences in various compartmentalizations. I think OpenLeaks is on the right track here, in allowing journalists with experience protecting sources to take precautions before major “dumps” that contain a lot of forensic information as a whole.

Of course it is. Assange's problem in Sweden adds to the media smoke-screen, and that is one important reason why I think he should face the charges without delay.




Assange displays an obsession with portraying himself as a leader.

guardian.co.uk: Julan Assange answers your questions​

time.com: Julian Assange Interview​

There is ample evidence in Assange's writing, interviews, and interaction with his associates, that he has much difficulty separating his self-image from his purported cause.

None of those who have left WikiLeaks have expressed any such intentions: They have consistently indicated that Assange is the prioblem, not WikiLeaks. I've already provided links showing this in this thread.

If you would like to explore the spinoffs (and I think it would be interesting) I think it would be more on topic in this thread:

Sf/ World Events/ WikiLeaks Stories

No, I think that Daniel Domscheit-Berg and others have stayed clearly on-message that their cause is very much the same- although under Assange's leadership, WikiLeaks is becoming unnecessarily politicized and stigmatized.




I have seen no expressions of hostility for the WikiLeaks project from those close associates who have parted company with Assange.

Assange is adept at such things on his own; he needs no help from anyone in that respect.

I'm not certain of the relevance of that search to the meandering line of questioning you are offering me here. I am certain that I have never promoted harrassment of journalists, or crackdowns on freedom of speech in my country. It's as if you're not reading what I post closely, and taking superficial pot-shots at me from various angles. This makes it hard to keep to the standards we should set an example of here, IMO Bells. I know that you know the Forum Rules, so I won't get technical. But let's do try and promote a higher standard of discourse here (please?)

I would like for the most harmful crimes of our times to be exposed- Especially crimes on a global scale against the most basic human rights.

Thank you for coming back around to the point of my recent points here: That Assange has become a distraction from more important things. His performance as a journalist, editor, leader, and spokesman has been abysmal.

I have addressed this in posts above, but you do not seem to have comprehended what I offered. Please review, and I'll be happy to answer if you can continue with some acknowledgment and understanding of what I have already related here. I'm being very patient with you, because I do hold you in high regard. I'm going to back up a little, because the context of what came next in your many questions to me was unclear:

I would like for the most harmful crimes of our times to be exposed- Especially crimes on a global scale against the most basic human rights.

I'll settle for professional on-message journalism.

Assange has been unable to separate his ego from his job, and that has been regularly taking him off message. He portrays his problem as the curse of being a "lightning rod", but the reality is that Assange consistently distracts from the WikiLeaks mission.

No, I don't.

Assange has not been charged with any crime under U.S. law.

Long enough to settle the matter in Sweden.

No, Assange has abused the information in very personal ways.

Yes, that is blackmail, and not within the bounds of responsible journalism.

I might characterize it as narcissistic cyberpunk-anarchist. I offered some evidence of that in my last post here.

I gave you considerably more background than that quick answer. If you cannot acknowledge what I offered in my posts above, and persist in asking circular and superficial questions, then I'm going to report your posts as "trolling". Let's try and have some fun, learn from each other, and not ask questions in ignorance of what has already been offered here in this thread.

Assange has severe staffing difficulty because his ego gets in the way of his work. His "rival" former associates believe in the WikiLeaks mission, but disagree with Assange's personal conduct.

Yes, I am sure. I have offered you evidence to that effect. Your circular questioning is absurd and disrespectful here- "trolling". I'm pleased to explore the legal response of world governments to WikiLeaks with you, but please don't reduce this to absurd tail-chasing.

Let's quote one from your above link-
Smari McCarthy:

Birgitta Jónsdóttir:

Author Jerome Taylor:

Daniel Domscheit-Berg:

Good. Let's please try and start over with an intelligent and focused discussion. You've been asking a lot of leading questions of me that really don't acknowledge what I've offered you here. It seems to me like you would like to square off with me as if this is some sort of match, but it isn't cricket. It's a poor example of how to have a fruitful discussion here. I have plenty of fruit to offer, and I'll be happy to serve it up with a little less fisking.

 

I would ask her to be less superficial, and to take one issue at a time. A long series of leading and misleading questions is not appropriate here; it's a poor example to set.



The "SOP of Sci" escapes me in this context (can you clarify?)

Will you please offer an example? I have been taking pains to separate several issues here:

• Assange's sex case, narcissism, shoddy journalism, and poor leadership
• WikiLeaks mission, and WikiLeaks' challenges involving government suppression.
  
  
  May we have a reference for this quote? I challenge it as a misleading characterization (on your part) of an interview.
  
  
  :bugeye:
  
  If you're going to provide evidence of that assertion, it will require an entirely different thread from this one. As for me, I would rather see the matter settled in court, and soon.
  LK had to press Assange for that answer- Assange was evading a valid and important question.
  
  
  The argument that the Swedish system of justice before the eyes of the world is inadequate for Assange in this case is not credible in my opinion-
  
  Yes.
  
  
  I don't recall one.
  
  
  Certainly.
  
  
  Not with from an official source. Assange's case in Sweden is still a very long way from deliberation in court, verdict, and penalty (if any applies).
  
  
  Can you provide an example please?
  
  
  Do you really believe that I have not supported my opinion here?
  
  
  That's my prerogative. But it is not acceptable for you to characterize my judgement thusly, while ignoring what I have provided here supporting my assertions.
  
  
  
  Re: the transcript you posted above:
  Gustav, do you consider this to be an example of professional and personal accountability on Assange's part?
  
  Admirable in light of the fact that Assange is refusing to face his accusers in court about a personal scandal that is crippling the WikiLeaks mission?
  
  
  
  The difficulty keeping Assange's problems in Sweden separate from the WikiLeaks Information-Freedom debate has been a vexing challenging for everyone.
  
  I don't believe that you have demonstrated superior discernment to mine in this thread, Gustav. I think you can do better.

 

That's not a fair comparison of fair associations, Gustav. I have provided much more here than the OKCupid postings tenuously attributed to Assange. I participate here with a realistic expectation that you and most other readers here can use their own brains to weigh the background information I offer, and can consider more than the most distal points as you contribute here to discussion.

 

-Sweden, for example:

msn.com: Lawyer: Women accusing Assange of sexual misconduct support WikiLeaks
mathaba.net: Swedes Protect WikiLeaks, Hire Assange as Columnist
huffingtonpost.com (AP): Sweden's Pirate Party Offers WikiLeaks Safe Haven Online
telegraph.co.uk: WikiLeaks: Swedish government 'hid' anti-terror operations with America from Parliament

 

i agree. its not
apologies hype

no i haven't
not yet anyway