Good Julian vs Bad Julian

[renie408]

I am not an expert by a long shot on the Julian Assange...situation. See? I am not even sure what to call it. But I have noticed that the people who ARE worked up about it fall into a couple of camps.

The 'Good Julian' camp seem to be people who admire Assange for being a whistle blower extraordinaire. They appreciate his contributions to transparency and think of him as a kind of hero. They dismiss out of hand the rape accusations, make comments to discredit his accusers, and feel that the treat of his detention is politically motivated.

There is a 'Bad Julian' camp who are approaching the story from a more feminist point of view. They tend to believe that accusations of rape and think that Assange is, basically, a bad man. He manipulates and uses women for his own gratification.

So, I am wondering why he can't be both. Why can't he be a brave, bold, internet entrepreneur who uses his hacking skills and his contacts to expose all manner of important stories who also manipulates and uses women for his own gratification?

[cali]

1. Of course he can, and you see a fair number of people like me

here, who see him as a deeply flawed unlikeable person who has done some important- though I think overrated- work, but who don't want to see him sent off to Sweden.

[AntiFascist]

94. Assange has no problem being sent off to Sweden to face trial...

as long as he can be assured by the Swedish government that they will not allow him to be extradited to the US for prosecution in the Wikileaks case. It turns out that Sweden is well within its rights by law to make such an assurance.

[cali]

96. no kidding. that's why I'm against his being extradited to Sweden.

Why else would one be?

[AntiFascist]

97. Because...

those of us who defend Wikileaks are often accused of believing that Assange can do no wrong and that the "rape" charge detracts from his hero status. I personally believe he should face trial in Sweden, but not if it puts him in danger of extradition to the US.

[Chorophyll]

2. Sure. You can be like Roman Polanski: make brilliant movies and

rape little girls. That's an extreme example, but history is rife with them.

And history is also rife with men who were liberal or progressive and even heroic in every area of their lives... except when it came to women. My instinct is that Assange falls into this category.

[renie408]

9. That's what I was thinking.

I really don't know a lot about the details, just what I have been reading here. It just struck me that so many people were willing to disregard his behavior with women and want so badly for all of the rape charges to be cover for a government conspiracy. And I am not even saying that there aren't governments who would not be interested in using those charges to get their hands on him. Just that because they want to use the charges to get their hands on him doesn't mean the charges are not entirely valid.

[Chorophyll]

20. I don't doubt that governments (mainly ours) would love to get their hands on him.

And I'm sure they're not above using the rape charges as an excuse. I don't know whether or not he's a rapist, but he doesn't strike me as a particular friend to women. (But then, neither are the governments.)

I think Assange is pretty much about Assange, basically.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. If ad hominem arguments can be used to convict anybody, then we should all agree that he is guilty.

But,
(1) His name is not Roman Polanski, and he is not Roman Polanski.
(2) He did not rape nor has he been accused of raping girls, big or little. He didn't rape any little girls.

[randome]

29. Then he needs to face the music in Sweden, regardless of how we characterize his behavior.

[Chorophyll]

33. I believe I said that Polanski was an extreme example.

I am certainly not saying that Assange did what Polanski did. I don't know what Assange did, or if he did anything at all.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. It is an extreme example. But an extreme example of what? He's not Polanski and he is not

accused of raping little girls.

Associating his name with Polanski is not negated by adding, "I am certainly not saying that Assange did what Polanski did."

Using the name Polanski and referring to raping "little girls" is intended to have an effect other than confining the discussion to the known facts and legitimate issues.

[Chorophyll]

47. I was responding to the OP and that was an example that came to mind.

For the third time now, I will repeat that it was an extreme example, and I will ask that you refrain from attempting to read my mind.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Thank you for your request. Please let me assure you that I am not "attempting to read" your mind.

And I have no intention of doing so.

At most, I've considered your actions including referring to Roman Polanski and raping "little girls." The OP did not refer to Roman Polanski and raping "little girls." I see nothing in it which justifies referring to Roman Polanski and raping "little girls."

Let me offer a deal. If you will refrain from ad hominem arguments, I will refrain from responding to them.

[renie408]

64. You keep using that word....

I don't think that the post you are referring to qualifies as an ad hominem argument. The poster is citing the Polanski affair as an example of brilliant men whose sexual proclivities put them outside the bounds of accepted social behavior. She did not compare Assange directly to Polanski or call him 'Polanski like'. As a matter of fact, the post read "YOU can be like Roman Polanski: make brilliant movies....", so really I guess I should be the one who is outraged.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. I agree with you that "She did not compare Assange DIRECTLY to Polanski or call him 'Polanski like'.

[baldguy]

3. Julian Assange is a Euro-trash asshole who's spent his entire adult life treating women like shit.

The little fact that he's embarrassed two of the most powerful govts on the planet, who have tried to move heaven & earth to get him to shut up & disappear, at the same time they've gone out of their way to protect mass-murderers and billionaire thieves like Augusto Pinochet, just makes the allegations against Assange a little suspect.

[randome]

4. Politicians are embarrassed every day.

The plain fact is that none of the classified documents he and Manning stole materially changed anything about the world.

So I doubt that revenge plays that highly in the situation.

[99Forever]

7. Bingo.

Not that our "trustworthy" powers that be would EVER mount a phony smear campaign against someone who has shown their dirty dealings to the public.

Nah..

... never happen.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. On what factual basis do you claim that "Julian Assange is a Euro-trash asshole who's spent his

entire adult life treating women like shit"?

Is there a factual basis for this?

[baldguy]

52. The same basis that people have to convict him solely on the stength of the accusation.

If he's accused THE HE MUST BE GUILTY! Right? In spite of the fact that it's already been investigated once and dropped, and that Sweden has a different definition of "rape" than either the UK or the US, and last week they were talking about invading the fucking Ecuadoran embassy!

It seems to me that the forces arrayed against Assange are not in the right, here.

[randome]

60. The U.K. made an ill-advised reminder of diplomatic versus political asylum.

It came across as threatening but it was not an overt threat.

I don't think anyone here on DU is saying Assange is guilty. What we are saying is that he should not be treated any differently from anyone else who is wanted for questioning in another country.

Especially when there is a valid arrest warrant and approved extradition request that went through the full appeals process.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. The massing of the British police was just part of the reminder and not part of a threat?

[randome]

74. It was a piss-poor reaction to events. No doubt about it.

But they did not go in and they subsequently repudiated the idea that they would have gone in.

Now we'll just have to wait and see what Assange's next move will be. He's boxed himself into a corner now.

[backscatter712]

82. They retroactively repudiated their threat?

Sort of like how Romney retroactively retired from Bain in 2002 1999.

[randome]

87. They apologized, according to Ecuador.

Sort of a 'retroactive' non-event.

[backscatter712]

99. The UK certainly owed Equador an apology. n/t

[treestar]

40. They don't need to do all that

Why does Pinochet have to be in jail before anyone else can be prosecuted?

The embarrassment was not that big, and it's over.

What moving of heaven and earth? Nothing's been done against him at all for the leaks. Even if you take this Swedish prosecution to be made up solely to punish him for the leaks, that's not moving heaven and earth and in fact it's pretty lame.

[baldguy]

55. What do you call threatening to invade the embassy?

http://www.ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk/announcements/ecuador-shock-at-threats-from-british-government

You think literally going to war over one guy isn't "moving heaven & earth"?

[treestar]

72. They are not invading the embassy

And there's not going to be any war.

Not over those leaks.

[backscatter712]

86. That's not what they said last week.

They retroactively turned the threat into a "reminder" just like Romney retroactively retired from Bain.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. UK protected war criminal Pinochet but Assange isn't charged with any crime

There are no rape charges. Julian has invited Sweden to question him in the UK and Sweden refused. He answered allegations once and then Sweden dropped it, and he left Sweden.

Ironically the UK protected one of the world's worst war criminals , Pinochet from extradition, yet won't protect Julian from extradition to a country where there is no bail, trials are secret, and where Julian hasn't even been charged.

Did you know that Pinochet didn't just order torture, massacres and rapes, but he ordered that women be raped by dogs?

And the UK protected Pinochet from extradition?

THINK!

[randome]

6. Pinochet used legal maneuvers to delay his extradition until his defense team...

...came up with medical reasons to allow him to leave.

Assange is using every delaying tactic at his disposal, as well.

[baldguy]

14. Pinochet was also personal friends with high officials in the UK and US govts.

But, that had nothing to do with how he was treated.

[randome]

24. His legal team still used the appeals process to delay and obstruct.

Same as Assange. Whether Pinochet had personal friends in high places doesn't change the story.

[renie408]

10. That is pretty much what I just posted upthread.

"It just struck me that so many people were willing to disregard his behavior with women and want so badly for all of the rape charges to be cover for a government conspiracy. And I am not even saying that there aren't governments who would not be interested in using those charges to get their hands on him. Just that because they want to use the charges to get their hands on him doesn't mean the charges are not entirely valid."

Just because he has pissed off a few governments doesn't mean that he didn't do the things he said they did and that they aren't bad things to do to women.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

11. It's still bullshit. They knew it was the one accusation that could turn Progressives against him.

And so many here are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

[renie408]

12. I am curious

Why are you so certain that he never did the things they say he did?

And I am not 'against' him. I just think people are more than one thing. I think they can be noble in one part of their life while being a complete ass in another.

[randome]

13. Like Scott Ritter, maybe?

[baldguy]

15. Worked once...

[renie408]

18. Yeah, pretty much.

[Lionessa]

19. You do realize that "the things they say he did" amount to a broken condom,

don't you? The women are not claiming rape as you and I would consider rape, they agree it was consensual sex. The "rape" charge has to do with a condom breaking from anything I've read. In Sweden apparently that is considered rape.

Also did you know no charges have been filed against him, he is wanted for questioning, which he has agreed to do in England either face to face or by electronics, and they refuse.

Just curious how "bad" a broken condom and agreeing to answer questions, just not in Sweden, makes a person.

[randome]

22. Right. It's a minor thing, not a honey trap at all.

Because the U.S. super-duper secret agencies would not have planned anything more elaborate than that. Is that what you're saying?

A 'honey trap' based on something that you say is trivial. Now does that make sense?

And it IS rape if a condom breaks and the user insists on having sex anyways. That's MY definition, no one else's.

[treestar]

39. He was neutralized anyway when Amazon, etc. dropped him

Both because they did not want to be involved in illegal dealings and because wikileaks was too small a company to put up with the costs of their actions. The Anonymous thing did not harm Visa Europe or Master Card or Paypal.

So we hardly need to get our hands on him to stop the leaking.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. If

And if there is no proof that it did?

Did he admit using a broken condom? If so, I've never seen anyone post any links to where that can be verified.

Some people, not you, seem to want a hanging without any evidence of what has been claimed. Like a bell, the word "rape" seems to cause a Pavlovian reaction. Where's the proof that he used a broken condom?

[randome]

49. Of course there is no proof. It's a he said/she said thing.

So he should clear matters up with Sweden and be done with it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. True, there's no proof. I'm not even sure that it is a "he said/she said" or a police-say thing.

In contrast to transcripts that the Swedish police have released with respect to persons other than the women who were involved, the police have withheld the transcripts regarding the interviews of the women and only released the police impressions or summaries.

I have no interest in judging the actual case, if one can be made, but I find the disclosure of some transcripts while withholding others to be odd.

[randome]

67. It could be that in cases involving sex, direct transcripts are routinely withheld...

...until such a time as a prosecutor believes charges are warranted. But that's just speculation on my part, something that seems in endless supply when the subject of Assange is brought up.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. That can't be the case because they already released some direct transcripts in this case.

I suspect that the difference is that the women "accusers" are not accusers at all but are women who talked about having sex with Assange. I suspect that the women are not the accusers but that the police are.

I also suspect that the women refused to sign the transcripts. The police interviewed them, but didn't get their signatures.

[randome]

84. The one thing that is NOT speculation is that the U.K. appeals process validated everything.

They said the arrest warrant was proper and the extradition request was proper.

Now if you think the entire U.K. appeals process is the puppet of the U.S., why would they not already have extradited Assange?

All of this has gone through the proper legal channels. That's why it's so confusing to me for people to INSIST there is a conspiracy to 'get' Assange in the most visible manner conceivable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. "why would they not already have extradited Assange"? Maybe he went to the Ecuadorian embassy.

[renie408]

32. Another thing I am curious about...

How do you know what I would consider to be rape?

And he had a broken condom with two women? That is REALLY bad luck.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. Not only true, but the he's-a-rapist-advocates don't even know if there was a broken condom.

Should anyone assume that there was a broken condom?

Did he say that?

[Robb]

61. False.

There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party (name given) in Stockholm,
Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of
movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful
spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from
moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party (name given) in Stockholm, Assange
deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual
integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a
prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual
intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured
party (name given) in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a
manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked,
erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party (name given) in Enkoping, Assange
deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to
sleep, was in a helpless state.

[SidDithers]

100. I bet you're amazed at how many times these facts have to be posted...

and they still don't seem to sink in.

Sid

[MineralMan]

17. At this point, I have ceased commenting about Assange

on any sort of detailed basis. Frankly, he's no longer worthy of our attention. His 15 minutes are over.

He isn't the first man to take advantage of some sort of counterculture celebrity, and he won't be the last. In my days of closely orbiting around the anti-war movement in the D.C. area, I remember lots of tearful young women who thought their passion and hero-worship for a few of the leaders of that movement would be rewarded on some sort of long-term basis. Those rewards never occurred, and those leaders just move on to the next awe-struck 20-something. Very sad and disillusioning.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Why can't he be both, you ask? Asking that we accept (1) that which is fact based and (2) that

which is based upon speculation, is not a legitimate mid-way point.

It is factually true that he is "a brave, bold, internet entrepreneur who uses his hacking skills and his contacts to expose all manner of important stories."

It neither factually true, nor is there a reasonable basis to believe that there might be facts to believe, that he "also manipulates and uses women for his own gratification." Where are the facts to support a rational belief that he has illegally done so with the two particular women or that he has illegally done so with women in general?

Is he a man like Hugh Hefner who likes women and has the lifestyle that attracts a lot of women? Does he attract a lot of women? Why should we disregard the facts known to us and assume that the extraordinary effort by unhappy governmental officials to go after this whistle-blower means that he is a rapist?

[Cleita]

23. Because the rape allegations don't seem as concrete as they should,

considering even the women involved haven't accused him of rape. It's the police who have concluded that the sex was rape. One of the women even refused to sign the police statement that alleged rape.

His sexual behavior is sleazy and shouldn't be condoned. He seems to have a history of sleazy sexual behavior. But what about other great men who weren't the most upstanding in their sex habits. More recently I can think of Anthony Weiner, who stood up for the liberal cause and yet had to tweet his privates all over the world. There are so many who did heroic things and yet their bedroom habits were deplorable.

[renie408]

36. Ok, THANKS...

That is the kind of response that makes sense to me. All of the blustering, accusing-the-women sounding posts sort of sicken me.

[backscatter712]

43. Nobody's saying Assange didn't behave like a douche.

But he didn't commit rape either.

[renie408]

50. Then what he committed needs a name, because he committed something.

I think that is part of my problem. I am a woman and take my authority over my own body seriously. It really grates for people to decide that entering a woman without a condom is simply bad manners if you have previously had sex. It feels like it should be a bigger deal than that.

[Cleita]

88. This is where there is no black and white. Apparently there was consensual sex here both

before and after the alleged rape. So without evidence other than what she said, he said and what the police said just from statements from the women, who did not accuse him of rape. The police accused him of rape and, it's really hard to build a case on this. There were no witnesses, no rape kits, no nothing that can prove this. If Assange weren't notorious for exposing our government's misdeeds, there would have been no rape case here.

Incidentally did you know he released videos of Americans shooting and killing at random civilians in Baghdad, including two Reuter's reporters? The videos were classified and even Reuters couldn't get the video of their reporters being shot and killed until Assange put those videos out on his website. Only then was Reuters able to get proof. It really makes the US look bad and IMHO this is why they are gunning for him.

They want him in custody badly in one way or the other and what better way than finding out about his sexual habits and using them against him. They love ginning up this kind of stuff especially for people who will be shocked and awed right into lynching him in opinion before judge and jury have had a chance to. It's a tactic that Hitler used, but in his case he accused and often found evidence real or not of homosexuality about people he wanted out of his way. When people heard of some journalist, who criticized Hitler, embroiled in a homosexual scandal, the Gestapo had no problem putting that person away permanently because the public had already convicted him in their minds.

I don't think even the most ardent feminist wants to be manipulated in this way, which is why we have to really examine this in the most objective way we can, no matter how awful his behavior may seem.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Nobody? I'm not sure that there is universal agreement, without proof, that he behaved "like

a douche."

Elsewhere on this thread, someone used the name Polanski and referred to raping "little girls." Another person said, ""Julian Assange is a Euro-trash asshole who's spent his entire adult life treating women like shit." His entire life? Other people seem to believe that he behaved like a douche.

Did he? How do we know this?

[renie408]

57. See, you are kind of what I am talking about with Camp Good Julian. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. Your bilateral thinking is shown by your original post and your present claim that I fall within

one of your two "Camps."

Under your displayed dichotomized thinking, those who fall within your "Camp Good Julian" are people who "dismiss out of hand the rape accusations, make comments to discredit his accusers, and feel that the treat of his detention is politically motivated."

In your described world, people who respond to the respond to the raised issues fall exclusively within either the 'Good Julian' camp or the 'Bad Julian' camp.

In your described world, you have no room for ask, for example, "Where is the factual basis for the accusations?," "Why are the governments of Sweden and the UK (and the USA) engaging in an extraordinary effort to go after this guy?", etc.

Apparently, in your dichotomized world, if any of us ask question, we fall within your 'Good Julian' camp.

Excuse me, but I'm not buying it. I don't have to give up my right to engage in independent thinking and ask questions. I don't have to enage in dichotomized thinking.

[renie408]

85. I don't care if you buy or not.

As for the rest of your impassioned crap, you fall into the 'Good Julian' camp because you refuse to acknowledge that anything even happened...at all.

I don't know you, I just know what you write. If I say that there are two camps, one of which refuses to acknowledge that Assange has done anything and you repeatedly say "You have no proof he did anything.", well then, YOU are the one putting YOU into that camp, right?

I just noticed.

[Cleita]

89. The lynching vigilantes are doing exactly what our CIA wants them to do,

condemn this man so they can get him into custody one way or the other. Amazing how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with a sex scandal.

[a geek named Bob]

101. While I love

my fellow country-persons...

Americans can really be-bag-of-used-hammers DUMB sometimes.

1.) get their attention
2.) show them a problem, built on a stereotype or two
3.) show them a "solution"
4.) rile them up with a horrible event, if they don't use your "solution"
5.) give them a phrase to get them out of their seats

[backscatter712]

25. Then the propaganda is working - the government wants us polarized.

The reality is that Julian Assange did some acts that certainly qualify as douchey, but not criminal.

Did he act like a jerk? Yes. Did his actions constitute an act of rape that justifies treating him like Ted Bundy? No. Last time I checked, being a jerk is not actually a crime.

This is something that should be settled between him and those women, like John Edwards' philandering should have been a private affair between him, his wife and his mistress. Was what Edwards had done to his wife despicable? Yes. But not criminal.

Taking a low-level sexual misbehavior and making a circus around it, or turning it into a crime to railroad a guy into prison is a classic tactic of the right-wing and of the powerful elites. If Assange hadn't aired so much dirty laundry about the US, the military, the State Department, and the banksters, this case would have been dismissed.

[Robb]

27. "Low-level sexual misbehavior."

(facepalm)

[randome]

30. Not 'legitimate' sexual misbehavior.

You know how it goes.

[Chorophyll]

38. Yep. Not the kind that the woman's body can "shut down."

[backscatter712]

45. There's the false equivalence again.

Dare to suggest that Assange not be treated like Ted Bundy, and you're labeled a rape-happy misogynist Todd Akins fanboy.

But please. Continue the lynching.

[randome]

48. The only way he should be treated is according to Swedish laws.

Same as everyone else who goes to Sweden.

[backscatter712]

71. Again, you're assuming that Sweden's behaving honestly in this case.

Of course, Sweden will treat Assange fairly, look at the facts, evaluate the case honestly, and not let political pressures affect their decisions.

[randome]

73. There is no 'evidence' one way or the other to think he is being singled out.

Especially since none of the documents he and Manning stole amounted to much in the real world. Not enough to stage a more-than-two-year plot to 'get' him in the most visible manner conceivable.

[backscatter712]

37. Are the women themselves calling it rape? No.

But by all means, continue the lynching.

[Robb]

53. "Acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity."

"Deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state."

"By using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight prevented her from moving or shifting."

Call it whatever you want.

[renie408]

41. To me it would be better to say, "Yeah, he's a creep....

but he isn't a creep who deserves to be extradited to the US."

[Cleita]

91. Exactly. It's a tactic as old as Rome. Manipulate public opinion against someone

you want to get your hands on or get rid of by appealing to their prejudices and/or sense of moral high ground. It works every time.

[treestar]

31. The "good" he did is questionable

I think the two things are separate. He's avoiding a criminal charge and should just face up to it instead of pretending it's an indirect form of prosecuting him for the leaking - he's not being prosecuted for that. He's the one trying to conflate the two, and it's dishonest.

Wikileaks has been completely ineffective in changing policy. It dumped such huge amounts of material out there that no significant number of people understands or cares.

[Pholus]

35. Ineffective? So, things went according to plan. Excellent!

Yes, shame is an outdated concept in the brave new world.

[treestar]

44. Your post doesn't make sense.

Yes, it's ineffective to dump material that would constitution 2000 large sized books without any attempt to organize and present it and expect people to read all that, get angry and revolt. It just didn't work.

People already suspect bad acts on the part of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing new there.

And some of that could have harmed our soldiers - leaking over 200,000 pages about our operations in Afghanistan? You can be against that war and still be against putting our troops in jeopardy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. scratches head

you realize that the leaks were not just about troop movements? It was purely a collection of diplomatic cables. I personally read with great interest the ones involving Mexico, the Merida initiative and the war on drugs.

They were classified top secret, but any competent historian of Mexico had a collective chuckle, while the Mexican (and American) government was highly offended and insulted. Why the chuckle? What we deemed classify top secret is contained in any good history of Mexico. Hell, the observations of national institutions and especially the Navy and the Army were like... this is classified? REALLY? I mean, this is well known and EDITORIALS on major papers have been published on these issues in major papers, well before the leaks mind you.

The nature of a lot of the releases was the same... things that specialists in insert country here went... this IS CLASSIFIED? Ok. Why not release this to the public so the public understands what is at stake? No serious, the leaks spoke of how the Army is seen as instinctual and not very useful by the Navy and why the Navy has been getting most of the prime operations against the Cartels... one good thing it might have done... a few Generals are facing the music for playing with the Cartels... but hey... not that anybody was too shocked or surprised. Or rather the shock and surprise was... once again... this shit is classified? Really? scratches head.

But seriously, a lot of it had buckus to do with Afghanistan or Iraq... but it was highly embarrassing to a multitude of nation states. Suffice it to say, nation states do not like to have their dirty laundry in the open.

[randome]

62. Yes, but do they 'dislike' having their dirty linen in the open...

...enough to plot and stage a more-than-two-year plan to 'get' Assange by virtue of what many here on DU (regrettably so) believe to be a minor event in Sweden?

Politicians are embarrassed all the time. And they lie all the time. We already knew that. None of the stolen classified documents was that earth-shattering.

[treestar]

75. There were 4 major leakages

1. The video of the attack in Baghdad
2. Afghanistan war logs
3. Iraq war logs
4. diplomatic cables

Mexico? They've done nothing at all to press charges or extradite or anything. It being funny that we classified public information isn't embarrassing enough to bother with persecuting Julian. I thought at least those claims were based on the idea that something really terrible was going to happen to us. Now you're saying it's because we overdid it on classifying information about Mexico?

If he embarrassed the big bad US so much, all we did was have Sweden press non-charges against him?

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. It embarrassed MULTIPLE governments

Sorry if this is hard to comprehend.

And it also revealed a war crime or two... firing at unarmed civilians is a no-no, but I am sure you knew this. Or is it ok if we do it, but not the other side?

Look, the war in Iraq, (preemtive war) is a war crime... all of it.

But how far Imperial powers are willing to go after one man is telling. Very telling actually.

Why did Sweden drop charges and then get them back on? This stopped being about Julian Assange a while ago and became part of the International game countries play.

Anyhow, let's assume that it released troop movements, that are even two months old, are useless for any intelligence operation.The irony is that while people get angry at the fool and rapist (first is debatable, second has not been proven and right now could not be proven in a court of law due to all the circumstances surrounding it), they are missing the real big picture. What the cables revealed is not pretty about the international order.

If Assange does have the data though, on BOA and other ancillary banks, and it is as bad as it seems to be... at this point he has nothing to lose by releasing it though. I would go ahead and do it, send the code to the WWW that will have multiple insurance files just release their happy contents to the wild. His life is over anyway. Part of this is meant to stop the releases and in that they have succeeded. This is what all this is about... one man managed to embarrass so many governments it is not even funny.

[treestar]

93. But they are not doing anything about it

It's not worth it to do anything about it. The material leaked is so voluminous - it makes up 2000 large sized books worth of material. So putting some information about Mexico's history that is hardly secret in a classified document? The government takes in so much more information that that which was leaked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. That is not the point.

And you are missing it still. This is not about Julian Assange, but perceptions and realities.

This is yes, about the US Government, (and being embarrased), and the British, (those are the major players), and everybody else. This stopped being about assange a while ago.

Now let me turn on my scanner, we just had a quake. If there is any damage (doubt it, not big enough) I need to go play vulture.

[Pholus]

78. Then you didn't think about it long enough.

Wikileaks was ineffective for reasons far deeper than presentation. After all, fully half of The Daily Show jokes come from watching how people can say contradictory things FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD without fear of consequence.

As a country, we are completely numb to being lied to in easily and impartially demonstrable ways. Hell, we pretty much expect it. So, regardless of data volume, I agree that Wikileaks was a futile, obsolete exercise. Why should something like the actual details matter at all -- it merely confirmed things that "People already suspect," as you say. Besides, it didn't involve the only element capable of actualy motivating us to angrily demand change anymore -- sex. Sex is our own little version of "Two legs bad, four legs good."

You post on Assange and Manning a lot and definitely from the "law and order" establishment position. I've decided there is merit to your position -- the only practical course of action is to punish the leakers and whistleblowers to the maximum extent possible. That way someone ends up paying for something and we can all share a feel good moment about that.

It's time to consider giving up. In the age of big data about the only thing a person manages when posting online is to hand over lots of "six line" groups to the current incarnation of Cardinal Richelieu. It really is wiser to shut up, put on a happy face and tune into Jersey Shore at this point.

It's not like paying attention was all that fulfilling anyway.

[Bucky]

51. Like Good JFK and Bad JFK. Or good/bad Woodrow Wilson. OR good/bad Napoleon Bonaparte.

Men's aspirations for a better human society make them do great and beautiful things. But their willies make them do bad things.

[renie408]

56. I have always thought that the kind of ego that would make you

believe enough in yourself to be a great leader runs the risk of dragging along some pretty embarrassing baggage.

[Bucky]

59. So did the Founding Fathers

In their debates about what it takes to make a "great man" most concluded that the #1 attribute was "disintrestedness" but that few if any humans were capable of such a thing. So they believed the #2 attribute for finding a great leader was "ambition for fame," which had to be properly corralled by a republican voting process. Madison thought it was inevitable that a demagogue would seize power one day in the US.

[leveymg]

68. Even Gandhi wasn't a complete saint.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html

It was no secret that Mohandas Gandhi had an unusual sex life. He spoke constantly of sex and gave detailed, often provocative, instructions to his followers as to how to they might best observe chastity. And his views were not always popular; "abnormal and unnatural" was how the first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, described Gandhi's advice to newlyweds to stay celibate for the sake of their souls.

. . .

As he grew older (and following Kasturba's death) he was to have more women around him and would oblige women to sleep with him whom – according to his segregated ashram rules – were forbidden to sleep with their own husbands. Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his "experiments" which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi's letters remain such as: "Vina's sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me." One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him.

It can't, one imagines, can have helped with the "involuntary discharges" which Gandhi complained of experiencing more frequently since his return to India. He had an almost magical belief in the power of semen: "One who conserves his vital fluid acquires unfailing power," he said.

[msanthrope]

70. I think you have raised a very interesting point. People are complex. nt

[leveymg]

76. And complex people exceedingly so. I wouldn't want the world led by saints and simpletons.

There's a reason why public figures used to have private lives. Nowadays, nobody survives in public life other than saints and simpletons. That means political life is increasingly left to one-dimensional moral crusaders and hypocrites.

G-d help us if we were all forced to be pure enough to pass such scrutiny.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. Well said.

[randome]

79. It's all in the name.

It sort of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

"Assange me. Assange me now!"

[LadyHawkAZ]

81. I'm sure he is both a brilliant man and an asshole

but that has absolutely nothing to do with why he's being pursued, so it's irrelevant.

[seabeyond]

98. when he let go of 250k cable with absolutely no check in place for innocent lives, i turned on him

and he has proved lack of character and integrity from there out, repeatedly, including the issue with sweden.

generally, people are pretty consistent in behavior when it comes to character.