WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

It seems a bit unfair to call Assange anti-American due to the info Wikileaks has released, if only because the majority of the information they've received has been from American government sources. Maybe they've been holding back info from other countries-- I don't know-- and perhaps he has been vocally against America's methods to maintain hegemony, but so am I. I don't think that makes me anti-American, though.

I guess this is a round-about way of asking, what exactly has Assange done to seem so anti-American to you, Shoal? Am I simply not seeing things the same way as you, or did I miss something? I'll admit that until this rape charge debacle, I hadn't really been following Assange as much as the actual news produced from the leaks themselves, so maybe he said something I completely missed.

Very well, Shoal, he's not a liar, he's just untrustworthy because he cares more about his goals than the truth. Generally when I consider someone to be "untrustworthy" that means they are not worthy of my trust, and they are not worthy of my trust because they might betray it. In the currency of information, I consider a betrayal of trust to be a "lie," and therefore one who perpetuates such crimes to be a "liar," wouldn't you agree? Please tell me if that's putting words in your mouth. I am not you so I must suffer this crippling handicap of interpretation, which precludes me from this apparently critical distinction between one who cannot to be trusted and one who is untrustworthy. Please let me know if that's putting words in your mouth, as my words tend to differ from yours, even if I like to think my heart is in the right place.

It sounds like OpenLeaks is going to be moderate in that they'll release "everything." Presumably that includes all the secret documents on China and Iran that Assange supposedly keeps under his mattress right now.

WipEout wrote:

It seems a bit unfair to call Assange anti-American due to the info Wikileaks has released, if only because the majority of the information they've received has been from American government sources. Maybe they've been holding back info from other countries-- I don't know-- and perhaps he has been vocally against America's methods to maintain hegemony, but so am I. I don't think that makes me anti-American, though.

I guess this is a round-about way of asking, what exactly has Assange done to seem so anti-American to you, Shoal? Am I simply not seeing things the same way as you, or did I miss something? I'll admit that until this rape charge debacle, I hadn't really been following Assange as much as the actual news produced from the leaks themselves, so maybe he said something I completely missed.

Ack, my post got canned...

Basically, even if all the information he has access to is US information, his public speech is very "lash out against America" stuff. If he was more neutral in his words instead of taking every opportunity to US-bash, I might be willing to concede the former and not feel that he has some sort of deep seeded ire for the US.

Shoal07 wrote:

So, with Openleaks we will have to see if they are a bit more moderate in not just what they release, but also their public statements. They seem to avoid the vetting issue as they are going to let the news outlets do that for them.

Openleaks isn't going to be releasing anything to the public; they plan on being more like a repository for leaked documents, leaving the decisions of what to publish, and what to censor to the organizations they grant access to.

link

Shoal07 wrote:

Basically, even if all the information he has access to is US information, his public speech is very "lash out against America" stuff. If he was more neutral in his words instead of taking every opportunity to US-bash, I might be willing to concede the former and not feel that he has some sort of deep seeded ire for the US.

Even if he has that ire, on emotional level, does it somehow disqualify the factual information he reports?

On Twitter, I posited my discomfort of buying Infinity Blade made by Chair -- an outfit earlier linked to a fundie conservative writer Orson Scott Card. Pyroman and Ulairi argued that I should not gauge the merit of the product on the views and virtues of people who make it. Now, you postulate that I SHOULD gauge it so.

I am confused.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Basically, even if all the information he has access to is US information, his public speech is very "lash out against America" stuff. If he was more neutral in his words instead of taking every opportunity to US-bash, I might be willing to concede the former and not feel that he has some sort of deep seeded ire for the US.

Even if he has that ire, on emotional level, does it somehow disqualify the factual information he reports?

On Twitter, I posited my discomfort of buying Infinity Blade made by Chair -- an outfit earlier linked to a fundie conservative writer Orson Scott Card. Pyroman and Ulairi argued that I should not gauge the merit of the product on the views and virtues of people who make it. Now, you postulate that I SHOULD gauge it so.

I am confused.

Aren't those two instances different? I mean, one is being produced by people with a possible bias towards the guy whereas the leaks are facts, though perhaps cherry-picked, that were released from a completely different third party.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Basically, even if all the information he has access to is US information, his public speech is very "lash out against America" stuff. If he was more neutral in his words instead of taking every opportunity to US-bash, I might be willing to concede the former and not feel that he has some sort of deep seeded ire for the US.

Even if he has that ire, on emotional level, does it somehow disqualify the factual information he reports?

On Twitter, I posited my discomfort of buying Infinity Blade made by Chair -- an outfit earlier linked to a fundie conservative writer Orson Scott Card. Pyroman and Ulairi argued that I should not gauge the merit of the product on the views and virtues of people who make it. Now, you postulate that I SHOULD gauge it so.

I am confused.

I'm not discrediting the information at all, the focus on this conversation was on Assange.

Out on bail for £200000 plus his passport is confiscated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

How can UK confiscate a passport issued by another country? Is this an acceptable norm in international relationships practice? His passport is the property of the Australian government.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

How can UK confiscate a passport issued by another country? Is this an acceptable norm in international relationships practice? His passport is the property of the Australian government.

Seeing as the UK could have just said "no," I don't think it's beyond their rights to ensure he stays put.

Scratched wrote:

Out on bail for £200000 plus his passport is confiscated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Sweden are appealing though, so he's not going to go 'temporarily free' yet.

£20k of the bail was posted by Michael Moore.

Scratched wrote:

£20k of the bail was posted by Michael Moore.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. I'm not sure if this hurts or helps Assange.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Basically, even if all the information he has access to is US information, his public speech is very "lash out against America" stuff. If he was more neutral in his words instead of taking every opportunity to US-bash, I might be willing to concede the former and not feel that he has some sort of deep seeded ire for the US.

Even if he has that ire, on emotional level, does it somehow disqualify the factual information he reports?

On Twitter, I posited my discomfort of buying Infinity Blade made by Chair -- an outfit earlier linked to a fundie conservative writer Orson Scott Card. Pyroman and Ulairi argued that I should not gauge the merit of the product on the views and virtues of people who make it. Now, you postulate that I SHOULD gauge it so.

I am confused.

I don't agree with Shoal. Not by a LONG shot. But I'll give you my feelings on Chair and Shadow Complex as an illustration of why this is complex. When Shadow Complex came out I loved the game. I still love the game. I finished it and don't regret paying full price. However it was not lost on me who was making this game. And it was not lost on me that when NPCs talked about liberating San Francisco (that's how left the govt. is) that the canon of the game's world (one in which a right wing rebellion takes place against a tyrannical left wing govt.) was presenting a very slanted view of philosophies of governance. In the world of Shadow Complex the evil forces of liberalism take control of the government and The Restoration has to take it back.

I'm very critical of extremist politics and religion so I'm not about to turn away a good dystopian piece of art. I don't think, though, that left wing control of the govt. is the real threat in our current world. In fact, the very idea of our hyper-corporatist society swinging so far to the left is laughable to me. So I dislike the author (Card). I dislike the politics of the game. I dislike the very premise of the world in which the game is based. And yet I gave them my money because aside from producing odious art, the game was very enjoyable, so I had fun with it for what it was.

All of this is to say that in this case I found the messenger absolutely repulsive. I don't trust the messenger. I spent the entire game looking for clues to their wacked out political views. I enjoyed the game, sure. But as a complete work of art my intense distrust of the authors had me questioning the very premise of the game.

DSGamer wrote:

I don't agree with Shoal. Not by a LONG shot.

Get in line

Shoal07 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I don't agree with Shoal. Not by a LONG shot.

Get in line ;)

You should totally do the opposite of my sig.

DSGamer wrote:
Scratched wrote:

£20k of the bail was posted by Michael Moore.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. I'm not sure if this hurts or helps Assange.

Heh, yeah. Talk about a polarising person.

Michael Moore's statement about why he put up the money is pretty powerful too. Of course, those who disagree with him and his politics won't buy it. But I think he makes some good points.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

. . .

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

Yeah, very generous of Moore but he should probably shut up. He's always preaching to the choir because no one else will listen to him anymore.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, very generous of Moore but he should probably shut up. He's always preaching to the choir because no one else will listen to him anymore.

Agreed. Heck, I like about half of what the guy says but then he goes off the deep end with the other half and I don't want to be associated with him. Of course I guess that's to be expected when you're one of the poster boys for far left liberalism.

Kehama wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, very generous of Moore but he should probably shut up. He's always preaching to the choir because no one else will listen to him anymore.

Agreed. Heck, I like about half of what the guy says but then he goes off the deep end with the other half and I don't want to be associated with him. Of course I guess that's to be expected when you're one of the poster boys for far left liberalism.

Yeah, as a liberal I'm pretty conflicted over Moore. He always just goes that one step too far to make a point and thereby loses it, he's still a smart guy though and gives food for though. But I really wouldn't consider him far left

Moore is an example of ideological purity taken to such an extreme that it becomes corrosive.

That said, his works and statements may have been radical, say, 10 years ago, but hardly anymore. The level of vitriol on Fox and MSNBC will have him outgunned pretty much on any given day.

Naomi Wolf on rape, justice and Julian Assange (via BoingBoing)

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

This is something I have thought since I first heard he was wanted. While he may or may not be guilty the actions of the British government are far, far out of proportion to how they treat these cases normally.

Speaking of customs and laws in Britain: I remember the right of a wife to say "no, I don't want to have sex" to her husband was established by a court, reluctantly, only about 10 years ago.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Moore is an example of ideological purity taken to such an extreme that it becomes corrosive.

That said, his works and statements may have been radical, say, 10 years ago, but hardly anymore. The level of vitriol on Fox and MSNBC will have him outgunned pretty much on any given day.

Yes, but at least those guys can be bothered to shave and take off their damn baseball cap.

Looks to obvious that something is going on there in my opinion.

Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I don't agree with Shoal. Not by a LONG shot.

Get in line ;)

You should totally do the opposite of my sig.

I should, and I considered it, but then I would have to remove the stuff which pertains to the actual reason why I come here - to meet gamers to game with. The signature block doesn't allow enough characters to do both. I suppose I could strip the PSN stuff off, no one uses that anyway.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

he's still a smart guy though and gives food for though. But I really wouldn't consider him far left

You are totally wrong on this. Michael Moore never gives away food.

BabaGanoush wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

he's still a smart guy though and gives food for though. But I really wouldn't consider him far left

You are totally wrong on this. Michael Moore never gives away food.

Heh. Were I but 20 years younger, I'd say "I see what you did there".

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
BabaGanoush wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

he's still a smart guy though and gives food for though. But I really wouldn't consider him far left

You are totally wrong on this. Michael Moore never gives away food.

Heh. Were I but 20 years younger, I'd say "I see what you did there". :)

It did give me a laugh.

Minarchist wrote:

He's out on bail today.

Unsurprising. At least he'd better hope it is or they'll throw him back in.