Julian Assange

[NeurotrashWarrior]

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47891737

The Times and other media now reporting the US have upgraded their charges to ones that will see him face up to 185 years in jail. He is a creepy odd individual who should face any and all rape allegations against him in Sweden - but it does look like he was right to fear the US getting their mits on him

I hope he gets sent to Sweden to face justice there.

The Times and other media now reporting the US have upgraded their charges to ones that will see him face up to 185 years in jail. He is a creepy odd individual who should face any and all rape allegations against him in Sweden - but it does look like he was right to fear the US getting their mits on him.

Now, who could see that coming. (Yes, sarcasm).

I think solidgoldbrass nailed it back years ago when he first holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy - she pointed out that it is quite possible both that he is guilty of rape and that the authorities are using the rape charge to get their mitts on him. After all, we all know how seriously rape is taken when there isn't the chance of extradition to the US on other charges hanging over the person (spoiler alert: not taken seriously at all).

If you don't want the US sending you to jail though then you don't infiltrate their intelligence system. I think countries should be able to keep national security stuff private.

If you don't want the US sending you to jail though then you don't infiltrate their intelligence system. I think countries should be able to keep national security stuff private.

Or if you are going to do whistle-blowing under the guise of journalism, cope with the consequences, and make sure you are doing real journalism (i.e. exposing the bad deeds of the powerful), not just dumping a shitload of information with no thought for the consequences.

Exposing footage of US attack helicopters killing civilians - good journalism, in the public interest.

Dumping the names and identifying details of Afghan and Iraqi civilian translators without a thought to the consequences - utterly shitty thing to do.

Not bothering to distinguish between the two scenarios and just dumping all the information because you couldn't be arsed to sift through it - sorry, mate, you lost your claim to being a journalist right there.

Not bothering to distinguish between the two scenarios and just dumping all the information because you couldn't be arsed to sift through it - sorry, mate, you lost your claim to being a journalist right there.

This.

I think solidgoldbrass nailed it back years ago when he first holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy - she pointed out that it is quite possible both that he is guilty of rape and that the authorities are using the rape charge to get their mitts on him. After all, we all know how seriously rape is taken when there isn't the chance of extradition to the US on other charges hanging over the person (spoiler alert: not taken seriously at all)

And yes, I think you're right.

Another article which doesn't even mention the fact Assange dodged charges for rape in Sweden in Rolling Stone: www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/wikileaks-julian-assange-extradited-taibbi-842292/

By continuing to choose to see the rape accusations made against Julian Assange as an existential attack on the left, it demonstrates that nothing has been learned from the Comrade Delta fiasco.

sorry, mate, you lost your claim to being a journalist right there.

You don't honestly think that this is the distinction the US are going to make in the future when they decide whom to prosecute for publishing stuff, do you? That would be exceptionally naive.

No, of course I don't think the US will make that distinction (look at the way they pursued Snowdon). I was responding to a post which seemed to be suggesting (apologies if I've got it wrong) that it was never justified to go snooping into government intelligence info because "countries should be able to keep national security stuff private."

If countries are, for instance, committing war crimes, that deserves to be exposed. It would, however, take a brave journalist to do that in the knowledge that they might get locked up for it. The point I was making was that Assange isn't a journalist, he's just a dumper of information.

I have no idea whether the charges against him are true and don’t rule out the possibility they’re politically motivated BUT any allegation of rape might be untrue for all sorts of reasons. Being a political figure cannot make you above the law when accused of such serious offences.

I agree that it is important governments are held accountable and must not hide behind the national security excuse to cover up their crimes.

The point I was making was that Assange isn't a journalist, he's just a dumper of information.

The acts Assange is indicted for describes prototypical acts of journalists, though. Manifacturing consent around this idea that what Assange is 'not a real journalist' when there is no objectifyable way of separating his acts from journalistic acts is quite the slippery slope and I object to that (which was my point).

If countries are, for instance, committing war crimes, that deserves to be exposed. It would, however, take a brave journalist to do that in the knowledge that they might get locked up for it.

That only holds true for authoritarian or totalitarian governments, which Western governments regularly insist they are not, with quite a lot of song and dance around it.

I think we're arguing past one another, deep. I repeat: I was responding to a post by another poster.

I'm not saying that there's an identifiable and legally codable distinction between information dumping and journalism, and that this distinction could be used in a court of law (though interestingly there used to be a public interest defence to the official secrets act in this country - one which got repealed after Ponting's acquittal over leaks re. the sinking of the Belgrano).

I am saying that regardless of whether they face prosecution or not under the laws of the country they are working in, there are situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do to publicise certain state secrets (the point the PP claimed shouldn't be done).

Additionally I personally think (and this is my opinion) that when Assange dumped a shit load of information into the public domain without any regard for whether it was in the public interest that the facts be known (possible war crimes) or whether it was just random operational background which would put ordinary people in danger while not revealing any wrong doing on the part of people in power, what he did was morally wrong and did not deserve the title of journalism.

(Incidentally I can really recommend studying the Ponting case. His defence was that he did not leak the information, but rather, having realised Heseltine had lied to parliament, he informed MP Tam Dalyell, who then raised it using parliamentary privilege. The judge then put his oar in at the end of the trial and instructed the jury that the public interest and the interest of parliament were synonymous with the interests of the government of the day. The jury basically said "no they fucking well aren't" and acquitted. The government of the day then ammended the official secrets act to remove the public interest defence.)

JA pulled a sickie yesterday and failed to attend his hearing. The court has decided to go to Belmarsh.

JA not enjoying Belmarsh. No Skateboarding and clean your own toilet.