Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

At present I am inclined to agree with you, as I said above, but can see that Assange might quite reasonably fear, and wish to avoid, ( whatever the risk to his personal reputation ) the sort of indefinite incarceration that the USA are so prone to, if there is the slightest suspicion that this Swedish Extradition order may be politically motivated.

EnglishLulu does say that, despite the intriguing points about Rove, etc she is keeping an open mind on it. Which is I suppose what I am doing now too.
.

I'm almost in total agreement with you. Except about the idea of now voluntarily returning to Sweden. Yes, it would be the right thing to do, to hop on the next flight to Sweden and attend an interview. But when you say "whatever the risks" I think the risks are too high at the moment.

Once he's in Sweden, they might mess him around for a few more months, while they interview him, then in all likelihood, drop the case and decide not to prosecute, (the English judge commented to the effect that Assange could reasonably expect that the case won't proceed, or words to that effect). So it's a bit of a red herring really. Why insist on him returning to Sweden for a case that's fairly certain to be dropped following further questioning? (And bearing in mind he's offered to attend questioning at the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard.)

I think it begs the question: Why the necessity to question him on Swedish soil? If getting him on Swedish soil isn't the underlying reason? And once he's on Swedish soil (well, technically, he would be on Swedish soil at the Swedish Embassy, but you know what I meant), they could simply drag out the proceedings, refuse him permission to leave the country, possibly lock him up in the meantime, all the while giving the US time to prepare an extradition case.

So when you say "whatever the risks" I think that's too extreme. To insist upon his return to Sweden, when the case would attract at most a fine of £700 (I think I read roughly that figure somewhere) even if he were found guilty, but the greater risk is that he might then be subject to extradition to the US and might end up spending the rest of his life rotting in an American jail... nah. That's not worth the risk. Bearing in mind that US has practised extraordinary rendition, it has apparently sanctioned the assassination of one of its own citizens in Yemen, people have bought tortured, killed, etc., the US has a shocking human rights record. According to this, it was worse than Uganda or Angola or Uzbekistan (and bear in mind child slave labour is a problem in the Uzbek cotton industry and there were reports of people being boiled alive).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_ ... 30,00.html

Erm, it's not mutually exclusive you know. Just because some people are dumb enough to believe that it's a wonderful democracy when it's not (and I'm not specifically "anti-American" I will make exactly the same criticisms of my own country in that regard, I'm all equal opportunities when it comes to scathing and contempt for corrupt political and corporate systems), that doesn't mean that *everyone* is dumb. It's perfectly possible for both to hold true. Yes, some people are dumb and believe that you have a functioning democracy and freedom of speech (oh, you do, except if you say something the authorities don't like, perhaps uncover crimes and corruption, and then you don't), and yes, others are extremely shrewed political operators capable of mounting a sophisticated secret conspiracy when it suits them. You have people who watch Fox News and are stupid enough to believe a lot of what's said, and you have people who send the kind of cables that acknowledge and cover up corruption and crimes. It's not mutually exclusive, y'know, both can be true!

And as things stand, he is facing the Swedish authorities.

The extradition hearing to Swedish isn't set to take place until the new year. The recent legal proceedings weren't about him avoiding the Swedish authorities. The recent legal proceedings were *only* about whether he was to be kept in custody or whether he was to be bailed pending the extradition hearing in the new year.

Tbh, in his shoes, I think I'd be simultaneously anxious to return to Sweden to clear my name, but also reluctant to return in case the extradition was a ruse to facilitate an extradition to the US. It's not as simple as returning to Sweden to clear his name relating to these sexual offences allegations. If it were just that, I'd hazard a guess he'd probably be on the first flight back to Sweden, but him and his lawyer say they have information from credible sources that suggests it's a holding manoeuvre to give the US authorities time to come up with an indictment (which they've apparently now done according to recent reports) and an extradition application.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, there is collaboration between Sweden and presumably the US as part of the allied forces in Iraq in relation to the forcible repatriation of Iraqi asylum seekers from Europe to Iraq.

A flight was supposed to leave Sweden for Iraq about a couple of weeks ago (I don't know what happened to that flight) and apparently "every third week a plane leaves Sweden with Iraqi deportees from three or more countries"

And:

"The European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, sent in October letters to Sweden, Holland and England asking these countries to give inhibition (temporary stay) to all Iraqis who applied for it while ECHR made an investigation on the security conditions in Iraq.

Holland immediately gave a general inhibition to all Iraqis in the country, but Sweden did not even inform the asylum seekers or their lawyers for weeks about the possibility to apply according to this interims, or emergency rule, Rule 39. Therefore the Court was overloaded with applications the last days before the flight which was to take place last Wednesday 17 October."

So, basically, even though Sweden had been informed of a request from the ECHR to give temporary stay, they didn't pass on that information to the people that request affected, neither to the asylum seekers nor their legal representatives. They basically attempted to ride roughshod over the human rights through an omission of information, failing to disclose relevant information to the parties concerned, that could have resulted in asylum seekers being wrongfully repatriated in breach of their human rights.

Thus, Sweden isn't necessarily to be trusted in matters of repatriation/extradition of non-Swedish nationals to other countries.

And don't forget, I mentioned earlier that Sweden was also complicit in some cases of US extraordinary rendition, which Swedish politicians agreed to.

thanks english lulu- i agree with everything youve so eloquently said. and the stuff on the swedish extradition treaty w the US explains the possible motivation for it all,- assange's lawyer, on the channel 4 news, called sweden a 'lick-spittle state' for its extradition laws, and for allowing rendition, which i think hillarious. (his terminology, not rendition).
i think the personal attacks on him are disproportionate, too- in the interview below he says he is now mentioned in 10% of all mentions of 'rape' online- which is staggering, given the short amount of time this has been in the news, and that no formal charges have even been made. horrifying.

the assange newsnight interview is now on youtube, snow, cup of tea and all- he really does have a very AS way of speaking-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAXiMIglXY

admittedly, talking down interviewers is what all interviewees do in one way or another, assange's style seems AS- im often like this. compare and contrast w another (infamous) newsnight interview- its howard v paxman. now something of a comedy classic, btw- its just under 2 mins long,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

i was unable to resist. its comedy gold.
but it does work well to illustrate the difference in behaviour. im watching it on a computer w bust sound- his rocking is much more apparent than i noticed when i saw it live.

@ wavefreak:, what you says is specious, and sadly naïve. If Assange and his legal team have reason to suspect that he will not be treated fairly by the Swedish government, then it's his right to fight it. That is the human rights position--placing justice foremost. You're arguing an authoritarian position that the system must be adhered to, even if the system is unjust. That you want to color Assange's right to fight an injustice been waged against him as "bobbing and weaving"or as "hiding something," that is YOUR bias that your are projecting onto everyone else. You assume others think like that because that's how you think. Asserting it to be true is not just specious, but myopic.

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine (highly recommended, espeically to my fellow Ameicans) tweeted on Dec. 8:

"Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that 'women's freedom' was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!"

And you need to wake up, my friend. The other side is not fighting fair. They want to shut Assange up, stuff him in a hole somewhere so people forget about him, so they can go back to quietly stripping away the last remnants of free speech, free access to information and freedom of the internet, and they want you to blink. They want you hesitate in your moral convictions to stand up for your own rights because if you do, psst, you could be supporting a "rapist." And you don't want to be seen palling around with a "rapist," do ya???

My fellow Americans may not necessarily be "incompetent boobs" but they are too often willing to be suckered.

Assange was being quite Aspie-like, I agree. He knew exactly what he wanted to say, and he was going to say it. I don't think that interviewer was quite prepared for that. But I have been in the position--sadly too often--of having to defend myself against accusations that I believed to be false or wrong, and yeah, I wasn't going to let anyone shut me up.

I don't know the context for that second interview. But it was very surreal.

Out of a million people there are at least a few criminals. No law says you cannot compromise our national security indirectly, the lives of military parents whom you demonize and the patriotism you have lost in the process as well as respect. I suppose so as long as others go along with seeing every person in the government as the bad guys and the one who threatens our national security with information that is illegal by means of democratic process your opinions means more because your side has the goods and we just got to go along with it.

I think we will find who the real constitutionalists are and are not in this. The laws as they are to protect classified information as being illegal for others to view is part of our democratic process. If you want to profit from criminality in your job which is a bias then you and others should seek to in our democratic process create transparency in more safe ways.

Common sense folks less you enjoy the flattery of anarchy.

Nathan Young

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR4MuWQPPzI[/youtube]

Not naive at all. I am aware of the duplicity and dishonesty of governments. I just see Assange as working the system from his own angle. And isn't 'working the system' part of the problem? Assange has the where-with-all to play the game and he chooses to do so. But he has the nerve to whine about it when the sleeping giant rolls over on him.

I wonder how it would wash if someone leaked all the names of the Anonymous hackers. We DO want transparency, no? Or only transparency consistent with 'approved' points of view?

My problem with Assange is that it would appear that he wants to enjoy the adulation of a hero without doing anything heroic. When I think of real heroes that speak truth to power I think of people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Nelson Mandela, Liu Xiaobo, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

These each spent time in prison or are in prison still because their governments disapproved of their ideas.

Assange complained about not having internet for the few DAYS he was in jail

What a wuss.

I think Nick Davies and others at The Guardian have similar feelings, having attempted to work with him over releasing the materials and finding him manipulative and narcissistic. The Guardian coverage seems to have turned now to seriously addressing the non-consensual sex issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden

These actions are also open to prosecution in the UK:

Okay, I'm back for round two! Ding!

Can I just say, firstly, that I sometimes struggle to understand what you're saying from your sentence structure, there sometimes seems to be words missing in sentences, so I hope I'm understanding what points you're making when I'm responding to them.

Although having said that, I'm not quite sure what point you're making in this sentence: "No law says you cannot compromise our national security indirectly, the lives of military parents whom you demonize and the patriotism you have lost in the process as well as respect."

But I'll pick up a few of the constituent points:

The accusation that I'm demonising military parents: I actually am a military parent. (My daughter is in the territorial army, I think that's what you call the "reserves", although when she was called up to serve in Afghanistan she found out she was a couple of months pregnant and couldn't be deployed, and my son-in-law is in the full-time regulars and he was also given orders to deploy, but at the last minute they said they had enough personnel of his rank, so he stayed behind.) I've also been engaged twice, once to a British soldier who was serving at the time of the first Arabian Gulf War (he used to send me 'blueys' and some of his comrades-in-arms were killed by your 'friendly fire', so, no, I don't have an especially high opinion of the US military, given how many Brits they've killed) and about ten years later I was engaged to a man who was a former captain in military intelligence in the PLA. So I'm baffled as to why you would accuse me of such a thing.

I *do not* - *at all* - demonise military parents or military families. What I do have problems with is those who seek to collude with secrecy and would cover up war crimes and criminal activity carried out by those in the military who have perpetrated such things. Being in the military is *not* a blank cheque (check) to behave with wanton disregard for civilian safety and kill with impunity, nor is it licence to torture and humiliate 'the enemy', subject them to degrading treatment, or fail to comply with codes of conduct or the Geneva Convention.

My initial comments about the military were picking up on your comment about you being appalled by any comparison with you (and your diagnosis) and speculation in this thread about whether or not Assange might share the same or a similar diagnosis... because you come from a military family. As we say in England: 'What does that have to do with the price of fish?" or as you say over there: "What's that got to do with the price of eggs?"

You seemed to have the impression that in objecting to any comparison with your condition and speculation about any condition Assange might have, the fact that you come from a military family is a trump card that you played, which wins the argument. Huh?!? I can empathise with your objections to any comparison between your condition and the speculation that he might have the same or similar condition... and therefore you might in some way be alike, an idea you apparently find abhorrent, and that's fine, if you object to what he's done, you're entitled to your feelings and to express your opinion about the same.

But please don't play the military family card, as if that makes everything you say an indisputable truth, because that has nothing to do with it.

There is absolutely no underlying logic with your apparent underlying assertion that Wikileaks and Julian Assange are wrong to uncover the wrongdoings of members of the military because you happen to come from a military family. Coming from a military family as you do, I should have hoped that you might be more concerned about military honour and wanting to bring to justice those among your military who disgrace it by randomly killing civilians or failing to safeguard them, and acting outwith codes of conduct and international law and torturing and humiliating 'the enemy'.

As your own authorities say: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide." Do you, or do not, agree with that assertion? Or does it only work one way, hey?

Reference to [my?] lost patriotism: Touching though your apparent blind patriotism to your country is, I think it's misguided. What you call lost patriotism, I call a lack of blind patriotism, and a determination to consider the actions of my government and other officials with not just a soupçon, but a big vat of critical thinking and analysis. Call me a sceptic, but I rarely accept anything I'm told at face value.

I guess that coming from a military family you're used to just following orders unquestioningly. Isn't it a good job that some people don't? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 34203.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders

I don't, in actual fact, believe that it is unpatriotic, in what purports to be civilised democracy, to wish for politicians and officials and members of the military and businesspeople to be held accountable for wrongdoing. In fact, I rather believe it's incumbent upon all of us, to make sure that occurs. If you love freedom of speech and democracy then I'd suggest it's your patriotic duty to speak out in favour of the same, and not cower away and refuse to confront those of your compatriots who would wish for you to forgo the same.

What's "patriotic" about members of the military going rogue and killing unarmed journalists and civilians? Personally, I'd argue nothing. What's "patriotic" about wanting to hold such members of the military to account? I'd argue everything. What's "patriotic" about politicians and businessmen doing deals behind closed doors to cover up corrupt energy deals or the leaking of pollutants and toxic materials? I'd argue nothing. What's "patriotic" about exposing corruption and favourable legislation or a regulatory 'light-touch' in return for campaign donations? I'd argue everything.

Dude, you're confusing "patriotism" with complicity with war crimes and criminal activity and corruption carried out by those in positions of power in your country.

Respect? Hmmm... tricky issue, that's a tough one. Do I lose respect for those who carry out war crimes and other crimes or are involved in corruption? Yes, absolutely. Am I bothered that someone on the internet suggests I'm losing respect because I'm critical of those who are criminal and corruption, and he apparently thinks they're above suspicion and the law as a result of his patriotism? No and yes. No, I'm not bothered whether or not someone respects me for speaking out against criminality and corruption, because I know the difference between right and wrong, and I have sufficient self-respect in that regard. Yes, I'm a wee bit bothered by the kind of thinking and complicity that lets criminals and corrupt officials get away with wrongdoing, because they seem to think that holding them to account is, bizarrely, somehow "unpatriotic".

As for your assertion that: "I think we will find who the real constitutionalists are and are not in this."

I really suggest that you check your constitution. Because I'm not American, but even I know you have a constitutional right to freedom of speech under the first amendment, which covers publication of information and it covers journalism.

And just like I think you need to consider the definition of "patriotism" and whether that means being complicit in war and other crimes and colluding in the covering up of crimes and corruption - personally, I don't think it does, but perhaps that's just me? - I think you need to double-check the definition of "constitutional" because I don't recall there being anything about covering up crimes and corruption.

You say: "The laws as they are to protect classified information as being illegal for others to view is part of our democratic process. If you want to profit from criminality in your job which is a bias then you and others should seek to in our democratic process create transparency in more safe ways."

I'm just wondering, would you care to explain who is profiting from criminality? I can see who is profiting/benefiting from criminality and corruption when information is covered up, I can see that quite clearly. But I'm struggling to understand you, here, because you seem to be suggesting the Julian Assange/Wikileaks have been engaged in criminality, whereas to date, the Australian authorities (in fact their prime minister) have confirmed that their citizen has not broken Australian laws. He hasn't broken English law. He apparently hasn't broken US law, because none of the US officials interviewed could actually state what law he was alleged to have broken. So, please, remind me again who's supposed to have been engaged in criminality?

And when you say: "If you want to profit from criminality in your job which is a bias then you and others should seek to in our democratic process create transparency in more safe ways."

But does it not occur to you that if those in positions of power and authority wanted the democratic to be more transparent, then they could? Bless you, it's really touching that you have so much faith in the people who are engaged in so much wrongdoing and covering up of wrongdoings to make the democratic process more transparent. Can you not see that's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas? That's not going to happen. That's why the Founding Fathers of your country put in place a system of 'checks and balances', because they knew that neither the executive nor the legislative could not be trusted to govern and regulate themselves, hence the judiciary, which is likewise part of the system of checks and balances.

People in positions of power and authority need to be held accountable and that's not going to happen if you ask dishonourable people to 'fess up to dishonourable behaviour like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas (or should that be Thanksgiving?). They need external bodies and people to hold them to account. And it's arguable that despite or in addition to the system of checks and balances, all branches of government need to be held accountable by way of 'the fourth estate', publishing information that enables those checks and balances to be brought into effect and made to work.

And all of that *is* common sense, not "anarchy".

Last edited by EnglishLulu on 19 Dec 2010, 1:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

So, you're arguing that someone isn't a hero, unless they've spent a considerable amount of time in prison?

I thought most reasonable people considered it to be wrong of such authoritarian regimes to imprison those heroes. Are we now supposed to cheer at their imprisonment, because that's what makes them 'real' heroes as opposed to 'fake' ones?

To follow your argument to the next level, it seems you're suggesting that Assange isn't a real hero because he hasn't been subjected to a lengthy imprisonment, so therefore if he is extradited and subjected to a lengthy imprisonment *then* and only then will he become a bona fide hero.

What would be the difference between what he has done in terms of uncovering corruption and crimes now and after any hypothetical imprisonment? His body of work would still be the same in terms of what Wikileaks has published. So I don't get why prison = hero, free man = non-hero?

I understand your point, ouinon, I understand that you find that difficult understand why he hasn't yet returned.

I can see your point of view, but I still think that the Swedish and US authorities are not necessarily to be trusted and it is prudent to avoid going to Sweden voluntarily and prudent wait until extradited, if indeed he is to be extradited, because the risks of collusion between those two authorities and the possibility of onward extradition to the US is too great.

I do not think he should be made to put at stake his lifelong personal liberty for the sake of answering questions about allegations which, if proven, I've read would result in a fine of a few hundred euros.

My personal opinion is that he should be questioned at the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard and then *IF* the Swedish prosecutors deem there is a case to answer he should be brought back to Sweden face charges and trial. He shouldn't be made to risk his liberty for the sake of answering questions, rather than answering actual charges and being tried.

Absolutely agree!

When I was working on Digi Tv, I was earning less than $30,000. I was the network architect - and tied in multiplexed (which hadn't been done before) encrypted (nagra) streams into 8 way with pds. Yup, tech's don't get much.

Then when I worked as the architect on GPRS - 22K PA.

3G architect with parametric data analysis of most of europe for the middle 6? 24K PA.

So yea, I agree - it's always the marketting and penny counters that get the money!

Co-inventor is worth having? My ass!

I agree that there is a risk, ( and that what you suggest would be a good solution ), but think that on the other hand he may be doing irretrievable damage to his own reputation, and at the same time to his cause/Wikileaks if he does not take that risk.

The two most recent articles at The Guardian suggest that opinion, even amongst his strongest supporters, may be turning against him on this issue, and that taking the risk might be worthwhile, because if he were then to be summarily extradicted to the USA at least people would see that he had been right, and there would be enormous international pressure on the USA to see him released:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... intcmp=239

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... aks-cables
.