WikiLeaks' Julian Assange says US gave 'tacit approval' to embassy attacks
Source: Indian Express
Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks declared that the United States had effectively given groups an opening to attack its embassies by supporting the siege of its founder Julian Assange ...
On Tuesday, the US embassy compound in Cairo was invaded by protesters angered by an online film they saw as offensive to Islam, while the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by armed militants.
Four US officials, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed, but WikiLeaks accused US authorities of undermining the safety of all diplomatic missions by not opposing Britain's police cordon around the London embassy.
"By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadoran embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world," the group said, in a message posted on its main Twitter account yesterday ...
Read more: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wikileaks-julian-assange-says-us-gave-tacit-approval-to-embassy-attacks/1001995/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gateley
(62,683 posts)Talk about a stretch. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The problem is that a law or rule has to apply equally to everyone. When you do something to others, then others will assume they have the right to do the same thing to you.
A lot of people don't understand that concept that everyone is equal before the law and that when you deprive another of a right or a protection or even a privilege, you are in a sense giving up your claim to that same right or protection or privilege. That is what is called equal justice, universal justice, equality before the law, the universality of the law.
It's tough, but that is true. It isn't a stretch at all.
And this is precisely why I sometimes criticize our government on a lot of civil liberties and privacy issues.
I don't like many of the things, the snooping and interfering that Anonymous does. It is very distasteful. But then, our very own government and corporations set the example in secrecy for the things that Anonymous does. Same for Wikileaks.
With Wikileaks, the government does not like it when its "secrets" or claimed secrets are published for all to see. But the government takes the liberty of reading all of our private e-mails, intimate love letters (not at my age), family gossip, shopping preferences, etc. It even collects them. And private corporations do the same.
You have to have one law for all -- and that law has to apply with only very limited exceptions even to our very government.
Assange makes a good point. As I have pointed out, we kept Cardinal Mindszenty, a Catholic, in our US embassy in Hungary for a very long time -- 15 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Mindszenty
Yet we complain when Ecuador grants the same right to Assange. We disagree on the grounds of ideology. We judge what Assange did as illegal. The Hungarian government judged what Mindszenty did as illegal. Who knows? We think we are right, but that is our judgment -- and it reflects our bias. The law, the real law, knows no bias.
Hard for people to understand, but that is the way it is if you have government by laws and not by privilege.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I am disheartened tho, to hear so many folks here who do not understand/agree with the concept.
gateley
(62,683 posts)I think maybe, like me, the Administration looked at this as being "different", you know? Thanks for presenting this in a sane, reasoned way, rather than just snapping back at my instant reaction. 
randome
(34,845 posts)Assange is wanted by Sweden. His work for Wikileaks has nothing to do with that.
He is no martyr. He is a coward.
....I think the charade is that he is wanted by Sweden.
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)I would err on the side of caution if I were Mr Assange. Trust no one.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It's just how Swedish prosecutors go after every boorish lover.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Inserting yourself into an unconscious woman is rape.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Sure.
randome
(34,845 posts)I haven't seen them 'going after' Assange. Do we have warships stationed in the area?
navarth
(5,927 posts)Do you seriously believe that powers in the US aren't trying to make an example Assange after what he revealed, much like they did with Ellsberg? To me it seems obvious. I guess it isn't to you. This is or course your right and priviledge, just as it is mine to wonder what's going on in people's heads.
randome
(34,845 posts)...diplomats sometimes lie. My God, Assange must die!
And again, if the U.S. wants him, why go through this ridiculous 2+ years charade to 'get' him?
You know what this takes to support your conspiracy theory, don't you?
The Swedish government has to be in on it.
The Swedish prosecutor has to be in on it.
The women who want Assange tested have to be in on it.
The Australian government -who seem to be embarrassed by Assange's behavior- have to be in on it.
The U.K. government needs to be in on it.
Interpol needs to be in on it.
The U.K. prosecution and appeals process has to be in on it.
And, of course, the big bad wolf himself, the U.S.
Do you really believe that all this effort is being coordinated to 'get' Assange for the ultimate crime of embarrassing some mid-level diplomats?
navarth
(5,927 posts)not comprehensive, but rather discrediting. I believe that conspiracies happen. I think it's entirely plausible that all these items on your list could be 'in on it'. Why? Because it happened to Daniel Ellsberg. It happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Are you, on the other hand, telling me that this CAN'T be the explanation? Then you know more than I do.
In any event, I still don't feel satisfied with the explanations for this level of carpet-bombing threads against Assange. I just feel more suspicious of the motives at work.
Could I be wrong? Sure! But my bullshit detector is still near the top. Not that you should care about what I think, or that what I think amounts to a hill of beans. But I will continue to have questions in my mind about it.
randome
(34,845 posts)The same way I found the OWS threads fascinating. I agree, not much productive is accomplished with these threads. Few people change their minds. But in the case of this specific thread, it was the tweet -whether from Assange or from someone else at Wikileaks- that brought the subject up again.
It didn't need to be posted at DU, sure, but it was.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)How can you possibly?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that he's the target of a Euro-US conspiracy.
navarth
(5,927 posts)you DON'T know. I believe that he's targeted for reasons I've already stated, but I can't possibly know. What I DO know is that people I trust, like Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky support him. And I refer to my memory of what was done to Ellsberg, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, etc. I do not trust my country's security apparatus. If you do, that's your option; but I can't imagine why.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)And that quote of Ellsberg's is two years old. I would like to know what he thinks of Assange's self-serving, world-revolves-around-me quote about the Libya attack. Just because Ellsberg supported Assange in the initial years of Wikileaks doesn't mean he supports everything Assange has ever done or said since. Assange has lost many allies over the years. He has an amazing ability to alienate supporters.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Response to gateley (Reply #1)
Post removed
ohiosmith
(24,262 posts)
mzmolly
(50,985 posts)dumb ass.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)I am just not so US-centric that I think that if our government doesn't denounce something, it means we support it or deserve to be attacked for it.
There are thousands of heinous acts in this world daily that the "United States" doesn't comment on. I do not consider this malice.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)
orwell
(7,771 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)card to get the lowest prices ( hate those cards) I use the name Georgia Orwell.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts) 
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Yup...again.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I've reached the conclusion now though, that he's a total asshole. This narcissist has yet to show a shred of integrity, honor, decency, or courage. As far as I'm concerned he's now irrelevant. This seems to me to be an attempt to direct attention back to himself by making outrageous comments to stir the pot. What a creep. I am sincerely regretting any sympathy or empathy I may have felt for him.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)do unto it.
Respecting the diplomatic immunity and sovereignty of embassies has to be universal.
We send our diplomats to foreign countries where they sometimes serve in great jeopardy, at great danger to themselves. International law demands that we respect and provide the utmost security to all diplomatic missions on our soil. We have the reciprocal right to demand that from other countries.
Today that was brought home.
President Obama does not appear to believe that the Libyan government denied us the right under international law to a secure embassy. He seemed less certain about the Egyptian government, perhaps because the intentions of the Egyptian government toward us are not yet clear.
I have often posted on this. It isn't a matter of what we think of Assange. He may be a wonderful person. He may be a total creep. We cannot really know based on the tiny image we have of him. We only see a silhouette of people like Assange. We cannot know who such a person really is.
But we can apply a universal code for right and wrong behavior. And I believe that, whether we agree with what goes on in embassies or not, we have to respect the right of other countries' diplomats and diplomatic missions to peace and security when they are in foreign countries. That goes for Ecuador. That goes for our embassies no matter where they are.
We were rightfully incensed when our Tehran embassy was taken over by the Iranians in the 1970s. That was a terrible violation of international law. And we have not forgotten it. Nor should we.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)to an extent. What I can't see is how under any code this man's latest remarks could be seen as anything other than self serving and attention seeking.
When the Brits threatened to raid the embassy, I had sympathy for Assange, I was outraged that they would consider doing such a thing. It would still be wrong, regardless of what kind of man Assange is. The fact remains though, that it was an embassy in Britain and not in the US that was threatened. I'm not sure what that particular incident has to do with Obama. I've heard plenty of suggestions that he was involved, that he was urging them on... but I have yet to see proof.
To quote the OP,
"Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks declared that the United States had effectively given groups an opening to attack its embassies by supporting the siege of its founder Julian Assange ... "
It seems to me that Assange thinks this is all about Assange. Frankly, I no longer have the least amount of respect for the man.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)"self serving and attention seeking."
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Swagman
(1,934 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)and rewritten, which OP conveniently left out, too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange
A post on the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed, which is generally presumed to be operated by Assange, read: "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorean embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world."
As a series of other Twitter users objected to the language – one early response read: "@wikileaks you are losing supporters fast with comments like that." – the initial tweet was deleted, though not before some Twitter users saved images of it.
The tweet was then re-sent in two slightly amended forms, firstly: "By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies," and later: "By the UK threatening to breach the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies, in general. It must retract."
Yet another tweet attempted to explain the change, arguing that people had misunderstood the initial tweet because of the use of the "rare" term tacit. It read: "We have deleted and rephrased a previous tweet with the word 'tacit' in it, since the word is rare and was being misinterpreted."
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"generally assumed," as in, we don't know so why are we saying it is so if we are a real journalism outlet?
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)... "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange wrote to one of his Icelandic volunteers, Herbert Snorrason ...
How WikiLeaks Blew It
The sad downfall of Julian Assange and his empire of secrets.
BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
AUGUST 16, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/how_wikileaks_blew_it?page=0,0
By now, it's well-documented that Assange regards himself as the creator and absolute dictator of Wikileaks:
... "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project" ...
12/01/2010
Dissatisfaction with Assange Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dissatisfaction-with-assange-former-wikileaks-activists-to-launch-new-whistleblowing-site-a-732212.html
... Several WikiLeaks members abandoned the site following perceived autocratic behaviour by Mr Assange. They said he failed to consult them on many decisions and put himself front and centre of everything WikiLeaks did ... "You are not anyone's king or god," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Mr Assange in an online chat, a transcript of which was obtained and published by Wired.com. "And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."
Mr Assange shot back, saying he was suspending Mr Domscheit-Berg for a month and that if he wanted to appeal, "you will be heard on Tuesday" ...
Anger at 'slave trader' Assange: WikiLeaks loyalists decide to break away
December 10, 2010
Asher Moses
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-at-slave-trader-assange-wikileaks-loyalists-decide-to-break-away-20101210-18s0w.html
Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
09.27.10 9:07 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
He has been asked to step down temporarily, until the sexual accusations can be resolved, but he has refused:
.... "I think it would be very good for WikiLeaks if there was another spokesperson or even many spokespersons," said Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who, with WikiLeaks' help, recently launched an initiative to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers.
"It would be convenient if he <Assange> would step aside as a spokesman," she told AFP, stressing, however, that "he has my support in all the other parts he plays in WikiLeaks."
"I think it is always a bit dangerous to mix personal matters and to be a spokesperson for a movement like <WikiLeaks>," said the 43-year-old media freedom champion, who in June oversaw the passing of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) ...
Iceland MP: Assange should resign
Published: 8 Sep 10 08:03 CET
http://www.thelocal.se/28840/20100908/
Here's the bottom line:
This tweet doesn't come from a professional organization, devoted to government transparency. The tweet is unprofessional, and the tweet isn't about government transparency -- it's about the personal problems of the dude who controls the organization. And since he runs the organization with an iron fist, he's clearly responsible for whatever the organization sends out
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Or they could have just written an accurate headline.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)
octothorpe
(962 posts)these days.
DeltaLitProf
(769 posts)There happen to be national security secrets well worth keeping, the disclosure of which endangers lives. Assange made no distinction between these and the other material he revealed. No sympathy for him. Let him face trial for the rape allegations. Then we'd like a word with him here.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)puts the words in his mouth for you.
The real headline here:
Indian Express spins a Wikileaks tweet into red meat for Assange haters.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and that includes virtually every newspaper and TV news program in the world.
Although only Assange seems to be carrying the can for this.
longship
(40,416 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Here's an article from the Guardian
WikiLeaks criticised for linking Benghazi attack to Julian Assange case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange
Here's an article by Andy Greenberg at Forbes, who did a very positive interview of Assange a while back
9/12/2012 @ 7:35PM |883 views
WikiLeaks' Lamest Claim Ever: Benghazi Embassy Violence Linked To U.K. Threat To Arrest Assange
If WikiLeaks’ goal is to offend every last supporter it might have retained after nearly six years of constant controversy, its Twitter feed has just pulled a master stroke ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/09/12/wikileaks-lamest-claim-ever-benghazi-embassy-violence-linked-to-uk-threat-to-arrest-assange/
And here are two articles from the Torygraph
WikiLeaks blames US stance on Julian Assange for Libyan embassy attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9540728/WikiLeaks-blames-US-stance-on-Julian-Assange-for-Libyan-embassy-attack.html
Wikileaks: US gave its 'tacit approval' for attacks on embassies by supporting UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9540770/Wikileaks-US-gave-its-tacit-approval-for-attacks-on-embassies-by-supporting-UK.html
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...posted hours before this one?
Yep:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021330806
Same assertion, different news source. Only in that thread it has been pointed out repeatedly that Julian Assange is not the person who currently posts on the Wikileaks Twitter account.
This is a public service announcement for those who are tempted to post a knee-jerk 5-minute-hate post about Assange. If after reading the other thread you still think Assange wrote that tweet, then have at it. But at least go take a look.
tama
(9,137 posts)I was on the jury and voted to leave it even though I disagree with the content and motive. But reposting what jury has voted to hide is not cool. Not cool at all.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)The jury hiding that post, of course, was an abuse of the jury
tama
(9,137 posts)as there is 24h(?) ban for starting new threads after getting a hide it from a jury. My bad.
Discussions on what is abuse of the jury belong to the Meta, but I'll just say here that it's a democratic form of self-regulation (or social learning experiment towards such) of an Internet community and as such, jury is currently the highest collective authority and cannot in that sense "abuse". Responsibility grows from freedom of course we have lot to learn in that regard, collectively and individually. I voted in the minority of that jury but accept it's decision as all other jury decisions.
For further development of the jury I support stronger sanctions for jury alerters who constantly get 'leave' it decisions. In a balanced system also unnecessary accusers need to face sanctions.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)
tama
(9,137 posts)who voted not to censor but to leave it and must count as "Assangist" in your book!??? WHAT AN EARTH CAN YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE by throwing that line at me???
Most jury members didn't give explanation for their post, but the rule that was cited by alerter would point to that they consider you and your posting style crackpottery. And for that fame you need to first take a look in the mirror, as once valued member of DU community.
navarth
(5,927 posts)You continue to disappoint. How about "Anti-Assange Personal Vendetta-For-No-Apparent-Reasonists"?
Really nice to stereotype.
I'm asking about motives here. Nobody can tell me why they hate this guy so much. I don't get it. On DU, not Free Republic!!! Amazing.
For the record: I don't support censoring you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I just call bullshit when I smell it.
I've always felt sympathetic to Assange, because he exposed some really ugly things that needed to come to light. TRANSPARENCY. Is he a jerk? Whatever. I'm sure Daniel Ellsberg did something bad at one time or another. Big Fucking Deal. It's not enough to make me want to persecute him. For some, that makes me an 'Assangist' or a 'hero worshipper'.
What is it about Assange that makes YOU want to persecute him? Why this personal vendetta?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)participate in it again.
If this thread was censored it is a disgrace and I'm very disappointed with DU because of it.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)I think the Home Office in Britain make an extraordinarily bad mistake when they threatened to enter the Ecuador Embassy and seize Assange.
However despite this occurring to me that doesn't make it true.
But many learned people said that it was a shocking blunder by the UK that could have terrible consequences.
Assange is in a no win state at the moment..anything he says will be used by his detractors.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)
rucky
(35,211 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,368 posts)already have their minds made up about Assange (anti), even when Assange didn't actually post the tweets in question.
I expect better of fellow DUers.
navarth
(5,927 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)this place is every bit as knee-jerk as FR.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I can't figure why DUers would have it in for Assange to this extent. Some seem to have a full-time job of it. I wonder why. Something smells funny.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)of being an Asshole.
George II
(67,782 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Clearly states in the article that Wikileaks, not Assange , posted this subject.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange wrote to one of his Icelandic volunteers, Herbert Snorrason ...
How WikiLeaks Blew It
The sad downfall of Julian Assange and his empire of secrets.
BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
AUGUST 16, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/how_wikileaks_blew_it?page=0,0
By now, it's well-documented that Assange regards himself as the creator and absolute dictator of Wikileaks:
... "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project" ...
12/01/2010
Dissatisfaction with Assange Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dissatisfaction-with-assange-former-wikileaks-activists-to-launch-new-whistleblowing-site-a-732212.html
... Several WikiLeaks members abandoned the site following perceived autocratic behaviour by Mr Assange. They said he failed to consult them on many decisions and put himself front and centre of everything WikiLeaks did ... "You are not anyone's king or god," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Mr Assange in an online chat, a transcript of which was obtained and published by Wired.com. "And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."
Mr Assange shot back, saying he was suspending Mr Domscheit-Berg for a month and that if he wanted to appeal, "you will be heard on Tuesday" ...
Anger at 'slave trader' Assange: WikiLeaks loyalists decide to break away
December 10, 2010
Asher Moses
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-at-slave-trader-assange-wikileaks-loyalists-decide-to-break-away-20101210-18s0w.html
Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
09.27.10 9:07 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
He has been asked to step down temporarily, until the sexual accusations can be resolved, but he has refused:
.... "I think it would be very good for WikiLeaks if there was another spokesperson or even many spokespersons," said Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who, with WikiLeaks' help, recently launched an initiative to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers.
"It would be convenient if he <Assange> would step aside as a spokesman," she told AFP, stressing, however, that "he has my support in all the other parts he plays in WikiLeaks."
"I think it is always a bit dangerous to mix personal matters and to be a spokesperson for a movement like <WikiLeaks>," said the 43-year-old media freedom champion, who in June oversaw the passing of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) ...
Iceland MP: Assange should resign
Published: 8 Sep 10 08:03 CET
http://www.thelocal.se/28840/20100908/
Here's the bottom line:
This tweet doesn't come from a professional organization, devoted to government transparency. The tweet is unprofessional, and the tweet isn't about government transparency -- it's about the personal problems of the dude who controls the organization. And since he runs the organization with an iron fist, he's clearly responsible for whatever the organization sends out
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)By Toby Manhire | Published on April 27, 2012
http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/i-am-a-corrupt-moron-flying-jumbo-jets-loaded-with-entire-nations-says-julian-assange/
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Tweet says US 'gave tacit approval for attacks' by accepting 'UK siege on Ecuadorean embassy' where Assange is taking refuge
Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 September 2012 04.07 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)because he always seemed to be a self serving asshole - I love when I'm proved right as it happens so rarely.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)
navarth
(5,927 posts)“EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release
WHY so many attacks on Assange on DU? Something smells funny.
randome
(34,845 posts)Ray Bradbury was a brilliant author. His politics? Not so much.
Scott Ritter was an important whistle-blower. His personal life was not so admirable.
Michael Crichton? Some people think he is a brilliant writer. I don't but his politics certainly suck.
Human beings -even heroes- are often flawed.
navarth
(5,927 posts)He's being persecuted for being a truth-teller. I don't care if he has personal flaws (within reason, of course).
I'm offended by the chorus of trolls that are trying to discredit him; I am even more offended by the disingenuous attitude that pretends to forget that he will be black-bagged and stuck in the cell next to Bradley Manning if he comes out of that building. (Not necessarily referring to you.)
As long as Daniel Ellsberg says he's ok, my opinion is unchanging.
I don't buy these phony rape charges; they're just a bit too convenient. And I question the motives of people that continuously post negative threads about him. Smells like they're trying to create an atmosphere wherein it's perfectly ok to do the dirty to him. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)objectively looking at this man is just astounding. The level of hero worship surrounding this egomaniac is kinda frightening. There's something really REALLY broken, and I don't think it's the system Assange claims to be fighting.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I just find it interesting that many DU posters seem to have a full-time job looking up dirt on Assange. To me that's mighty curious.
I think he's a whistle blower. I don't care if he's an egomaniac. He exposed some of the filth the country does in my name with my tax dollars and the security apparatus is throwing everything at him but the kitchen sink.
Who are the 'you guys' you're referring to? I speak for myself. I'm entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is there's something fishy here.
If I frightened you, I'm sorry. You don't have to be scared of me. I'm just calling bullshit when my bullshit meter gets tweaked.
AGAIN I say: Daniel Ellsberg says Assange is ok. I'll take Ellsberg's word over anybody here.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts) navarth
(5,927 posts)I think it's fine if Assange gets held accountable if he does something wrong. But not with a witch hunt like this.
Let me ask you: do you care if he gets black bagged?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)struggle4progress
(118,281 posts) navarth
(5,927 posts)how sweet. you don't seem very 'censored' to me.
I question your motives.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)I will vote to hide a post that uses excessive ad hominem, not facts I dislike.
I STILL question your motives. You still haven't answered. I'd really like to know.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)What Ellsburg said was based on what he knew about Assange at the time.
Why attacks on Assange on DU? Because he's hiding from rape charges and using Wikileaks to give him cover.
What the hell does the Libya attack have to do with Daniel Ellsberg??
He's hiding from RAPE CHARGES?? Suuuure. That's all he's scared of. NO WAY he would get extradited here and black bagged. My anti-sarcasm cooling system is having to work overtime here.
The Swedes say they just want to talk to him, why don't they do a teleconference?
And it's the RAPE CHARGES that are the reason for so many attacks on DU? OH the lameness of this. You don't convince me. Not one little bit.
Please post me a link where Ellsberg has changed his mind.
I think these rape charges are phony.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)He was in the control of the UK police and courts, why was he not extradited from the UK to the US?
navarth
(5,927 posts)Would you like that? I'm asking.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)My like or dislike is irrelevant. For the record, I don't want anyone treated as Bradley Manning has been treated.
I'm seriously trying to understand why you believe that extradition to Sweden leads to being black bagged in a cell next to Manning. I personally don't see that the black bag result is any more or less likely from UK or Sweden.
If you'd like to explain your reasoning, I'd like to hear it. Sincere question.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)If he ends up in Sweden, we'd actually have to get both countries to approve another extradition.
But we aren't because we don't have any laws that would allow us to prosecute a non-citizen for what Assange did.
navarth
(5,927 posts)and open-minded, start with these:
http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/julian-assange-right-fear-prosecution
http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/julian-assange-arrest-tactics
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/31/julian-assange-on-the-persecution-of-wikileaks-sweden-decay-of-rule-of-law/
http://news.sky.com/story/973139/no-safe-passage-out-of-uk-for-assange
But seriously, do you think he's going to be able to whistleblow on the US MIC and walk away scot free?
Here's a sincere question for you: what do YOU think will happen to him if he walks out of that embassy?
As to your question about why they didn't grab him when he was on bail at his friend's house: we can't really know why, but I'm thinking it's because the UK is an ally and they don't want to interfere with their justice system; it would look bad, just like it would look bad for the UK to storm the Ecuadorian embassy.
AGAIN: I wonder at the vitriol displayed towards him on DU. What are the motives?
(sorry I took so long to get back to you, when work is over I commute home and try to relax.)
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)but not the UKs?
As far as vitriol toward Assange on DU, I can't speak to that, of course. I can only say that my anger and disdain toward Assange is a result of his callous comments about the Afghan informants that were killed after Wikileaks revealed their names.
I have every bit as much sympathy and compassion for Assange as he showed for the Afghan informants -- absolute zero.
If Assange were to walk out of the embassy, I expect that he would be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he would be questioned and perhaps charged with rape. If charged, I would expect that he would be put into jail, since he absconded on bail in the UK. It would be a media dog and pony show, similar to the DSK incident. I would expect that Assange would be tried in accordance with Swedish law, in spite of the media circus.
Assange should have known that he would be watched like a hawk, and any infraction on his part would not be overlooked but would be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. That's what anyone who confronts the MIC should expect. If Assange really feels that Sweden is the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' and he is an anti-feminist, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
Thank you for responding to my note. I will take a look at your links.
navarth
(5,927 posts)about Afghan informants and his so-called callous comments.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)"At an early meeting with international reporters in a restaurant he (Assange) told them: " 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' There was, for a moment, silence around the table."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-press-office/guardian-books-publishes-wikileaks-book
(my bad, apparently he said this about Iraq informants, not Afghani)
Wikileaks did in fact release the names of hundreds of Afghani informants:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)You were the one who brought up Ellsburg's entirely unrelated quote in response to the OP. Ellsburg said that everything that happened to Assange happened to him. Well, no one charged Ellsburg with rape, did they?
There are no US laws that would allow the prosecution of a non-citizen like Assange, unlike a service member such as Manning.
However, if there were, and the US wanted to extradite Assange, they could have easily done it straight from the UK. We have a perfectly good extradition agreement with them. The US didn't have to wait for Sweden to extradite him from the UK, so we could extradite from Sweden. That would make no sense. If he were extradited to Sweden now, we would actually have to get permission from two countries -- Sweden AND the UK -- for him to be extradited here.
You think the rape charges are phony, but many other DUers think they should be investigated. Sweden is at the point of charging him, but -- according to their justice system-- they need to have him in custody to do so. It's way beyond a teleconference.
navarth
(5,927 posts)is because of the staggering amount of persecution evident in these personal vendettas. I simply state that I'm going to take the word of Ellsberg over DU posters with questionable motives.
Yes I DO think the rape charges are phony. You don't?? In my opinion this is disingenuous.
No, nobody charged Ellsberg with phony rape charges, they used a myriad of other BS. So what? The idea remains the same for me. A whistleblower exposes great evil being done with our tax dollars in our name, and the MIC throws everything but the kitchen sink at them. How about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? This is just more of that.
And here is why I am perplexed with these personal vendettas on DU. Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a possiblity that this is a huge smear campaign against a whistle blower?? I just don't get it. I question the motives of these vendettas.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)who think it is possible that Assange is a multi-faceted person capable of both good and evil -- not some persecuted superhero. Even in his work at Wikileaks, I think he did both good and evil, and that he didn't care, since he thought -- but I don't -- that transparency was an ultimate good that overrode everything else.
I think that when he released the unredacted files while his associated media partners were still trying to go through them, he did harm to innocent people. I also think that he has a giant ego, that he think the world revolves around him (hence, his ludicrous Libya statement) and that it is quite possible that he could have forced himself on a woman.
navarth
(5,927 posts)none of what you have described would explain the overwhelming amount of carpet-bombing threads attacking Assange. If I thought like you do (which I don't) I would probably ignore him or place a snarky comment once in a while. Maybe I would say I don't care what happens to him.
What's going on here is way out of proportion IMO. Hence my curiosity.
"....think it is possible that Assange is a multi-faceted person capable of both good and evil -- not some persecuted superhero" That's it? "think it's possible"?? That does not justify the amount of hate I'm seeing. I remain curious about real motives.
And for the record I don't think he's a super hero. But he is persecuted. Just sayin'. And I don't think his Libya statement is ludicrous. I don't care if he has a giant ego. Please demonstrate for me where he's hurt innocent people; I've yet to see any proof. I have an open mind.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)unredacted files without putting other innocent people at risk. But all the news orgs that were working with him were concerned about the risk to people named in those documents. That's why they were working so hard to go through them.
navarth
(5,927 posts)It's still possible. I don't rule it out. But I haven't seen it. And I remain perplexed about the amount of vitriol directed at Assange here.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)It's what happens when you're always bragging about yourself.
Why the vitriol? Here is what one of his supporters says about him (in connection with the rape charges):
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/928/a-textbook-paranoid-narcissist
The first question is easier to answer: I do not know, you do not know, Owen Jones and the others baying for his blood do not know; nor does William Hague or the king of Sweden. This, again, should be obvious; but there is a certain tendency for those who are accused of rape to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Still, there is a complication: this is the person of Assange himself.
On a charitable view, he is eccentric. To be less charitable, he has a screw loose. In the last two years, he has managed to alienate almost every ally he has had through his unstable behaviour. He has touted the crackpot theories of Israel Shamir. He has at least as much the public profile of a textbook paranoid narcissist as of a crusading journalist - and he is on record in simply too many places, saying too many odd things about too many people, for it all to be a CIA concoction.
randome
(34,845 posts)Some people will do anything to avoid personal embarrassment on that level.
That's only speculation on my part. Much like the speculation that the U.S. has spent more than two years trying to 'get' Assange.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I don't think you even deserve a response for that. Shame on you. There are serious issues here.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)9/12/2012 @ 7:35PM
WikiLeaks' Lamest Claim Ever: Benghazi Embassy Violence Linked To U.K. Threat To Arrest Assange
Andy Greenberg
Forbes Staff
If WikiLeaks’ goal is to offend every last supporter it might have retained after nearly six years of constant controversy, its Twitter feed has just pulled a master stroke ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/09/12/wikileaks-lamest-claim-ever-benghazi-embassy-violence-linked-to-uk-threat-to-arrest-assange/
frylock
(34,825 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)and had a meeting with his inevitable irrelevance. He's Sarah Palin, with blond hair, and an Australian accent, and far less interesting.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Are you suggesting he will be found not guilty of any charges against him in Sweden?
If that's the case, why go through this whole charade of charging and hassling him?
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)read it that way
I don't care one way or the other
Some Assangists here seem to think that Sweden is a nightmare of feminist fury and that Assange will be torn apart by the harpies there, while other Assangists here seem to think Sweden hardly ever convicts anyone of rape
I actually have no stance on the truth of the Swedish accusations
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I see Julian Assange/Wikileaks as morally equivalent to the idiot movie maker. Both publicly distributed words and images that any reasonable person would know would lead to violence and likely death for victims that had no say in their actions.
Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants then Assange made callous comments about their inevitable deaths resulting from Wikileaks' actions. Assange is militantly demanding freedom of speech for Wikileaks/Assange no matter who dies as a result. They don't even take care to redact names of people who will obviously be exposed to significant danger as a result of Wikileaks' actions.
Pretty much the same as the stupid film maker who released this inflammatory crap, then claims free speech and demands police protection from the inevitable results of his own actions.
I wonder if Assange will recognize Sam Bacile/Nakoula as his philosophic twin. Maybe Sam can join him in self-imprisonment in the embassy.
I posted the note below (excerpt) a couple of days ago, and it's even more true today-- still irritated at the Assange ego and his mess. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014224942
The whole Assange mess irritates me. I am a staunch supporter of Bradley Manning. Assange, not so much.
Truly, I don't understand why Assange and his supporters are so adamant that he not be extradited to Sweden. If the US wanted to kidnap Assange and take him to Gitmo, they can do so from the UK, even from the Ecuador embassy. I don't see why it is such an enormous threat that Sweden might extradite Assange to the US -- UK might do the same. I don't see why they think Assange is safe in the UK, but would be at risk in Sweden. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Really, it appears to me that Assange has been neutralized by a 'honey trap' (that he opened himself up to by being an egotistical jerk, by all reports), even without his being extradited to Sweden. Locked in an embassy, unable to have secure communications with Wikileaks staffers (because you know the UK can totally monitor anything coming in or out of that embassy), it appears to me that Assange has imprisoned himself already. I don't see how being locked up in a Swedish jail would be any different.....
Like I said, the whole Assange-ego mess is an annoying distraction from the real issues of Bradley Manning's treatment, the war in Afghanistan, and government transparency.
harun
(11,348 posts)and
2. Don't understand what Assange actually did.
If you are one of those people, go back to your television set, there is nothing I can do to help you.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)What Assange did has nothing to do with why this Embassy was attacked, except in the incredibly grandiose mind of Assange, who thinks the entire world revolves around him.
A police cordon around an Embassy in Britain, preventing Assange from escaping unnoticed into that country, has nothing to do with murders of Embassy personnel by terrorists in other parts of the world.
struggle4progress
(118,281 posts)Assange is an Australian, who (having lost his suits in the UK) was scheduled for extradition to Sweden, until Ecuador interfered
The US diplomatic professionals, who contemplated this matter carefully, observed that: (1) Australia is not the US; (2) the UK is not the US; (3) Sweden is not the US; (4) and Ecuador is not the US
They thus discovered that the proper diplomatic stance was based on the theory "we don't have a dog in that fight"
Various noises ensued, while the US tried not to be seen anywhere in the neighborhood
Ecuador wanted to tell everyone that the UK had threatened to raid their London embassy; and the UK was equally insistent that the UK had not threatened to raid anybody's embassy. But Ecuador and the UK took that particular disagreement off the table a few weeks back -- as Wikileaks would know, if Wikileaks actually read the news
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Is that there is nothing that this man can say that will turn off the hero worship some seem to have for him. Yes, I know what tacit means, I'm not convinced that you do.
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)I know his ego is huge, but the world doesn't revolve around his presence. Sometimes shit happens that has nothing to do with him.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)There is no equivalency here. A mob does not ask permission and is largely unidenified as they act. The parties involved are not equal in power, or they would not be rioting.
Everything going on in London is being hyped in the news since the UK and the USA are still *superpowers* and are arguing with a smaller but still impressive power, a *nation.* Ecaudor is standing on a point of law. That narrow point is being respected, despite all claims otherwise, or this matter would have been resolved in a violent way some weeks ago.
Mobs do not rise up from a position of power or they would not use their crude methods. Those with power don't riot, they have bombers, tanks, missiles and other high tech weaponry that will take out any mob. This is not the same thing. There is a reason that people in Libya are pleading for forgiveness. The world knows what a *superpower* can do to them. They are justly concerned.
I don't think Assange is in control of Wikileaks. I don't think Wikileaks is in control of who is posting what is said on Twitter or most of what they distribute at all.
I do think Twitter is in the hands of TPTB and nothing is private. That these shows of outrage are all manufactured and the information is already in the hands of the operators of Twitter who will giggle as they turn the information over to whatever government wants it, when presented with enough paper to calm the masses down.
Most communication is wireless, and it is a utopian view that this is protected by law, when the technology is there to pick it up and record it and can be used and abused by all of the corporations, governments and individuals, by hackers for political purposes, theft by criminals, etc. It's in the air, it belongs to no one and everyone.
So we have another media story to generate arguments about something we have no control over, but sure as hell wish and pray we did. Wishing and praying won't change the ownership or operation of these systems.
We use them at the sufferance of the plutocrats who own social networking systems. It is offered 'free' to mine data and make profit. They are not there for altruistic, freedom of speech and thought reasons.
Those who use these networks not protected by the First Amendment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or a privacy law.
First, all users volunteered and gave permission to join. Second, the owners of the technology and businesses don't let any kind of law or regulation get in their way. All fines are taken into account as a cost of doing business.
We are entering into a technocracy we have empowered, and it has nothing to do with privacy or civil rights. This is just a diversion. I might change my mind tomorrow. Sorry if that offends, but I don't think this is legitimate.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)
