Wikileaks story

[goinghome]

I couldn't agree more, it's really appalling. Here's an answer (in english), from a swedish lawyer, to the letter of Michael Moore:

http://juridikbloggen.wordpress.com/

Fantastic letter - a star is born!

Oscar Wilde said, 'It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information.'

Vaulting onto a high horse, especially with such a far-reaching, sensitive series of operations as Assange has carried off, is bound to tempt fate.
How can anyone hold that extremely high moral ground for very long?

'When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her," Wilde also said, and the possibility is that both sides, be it of David and Goliath proportions, have some culpability, to different degrees, where indecent behaviour is concerned.

Could it be that Assange's view, like OW's, is, ' My own business always bores me to death; I prefer other people's '?!!

If countries had been prepared to tolerate the irritations that come with Freedom of Information legislation and, on receipt of uncomfortably probing questions, had held back, for the sake of transparency, from limiting the scope of those laws, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. In opposition to demands for full availability of documents are often equally understandable rights to privacy and confidentiality. Wikileaks is a brave initiative in many respects that has done amazingly little damage in the four years of its existence, despite the best efforts of modern journalism which, '...by giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community' - OW.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I am utterly taken with the concept of a "foliehatt."

 

[Happy Maudlin]

As for Naomi Woolf, she's always been an unwavering voice for compassion and sanity when it comes to women's issues.

I seriously have doubts about Naomi Wolf... about her credibility and soundness of the allegations she is making now and in the past. Unwavering in compassion, but lacking in logic.

"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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html

I believe that those charges, while the validity of the women's accounts is not discounted, are indeed drummed up to publicly tarnish Assange's credibility. I am confused by Miss Wolf's position: if she is angered by the lack of justice claimed for the exclusively female victims of rape in the countries mentioned, you would think that she would be satisfied with Assange's punishment and (hopefully) impending conviction. Ambiguities and complexities abound in the date rape charges, similar to the ambiguity presented in the Assange case. Noami Wolf alludes to this in her article, yet she removes her previous position upheld to criticize the man-hunt for Assange's arrest. It seems that she forgot what they are actually trying to convict Assange of. The uproar caused by the allegations of sexual assault are a derision; Assange's personal life should not be the focus, when national security is the issue. I think it's rather silly for Wolf to bring feminist issues into the equation, and it highlights her own cynicism towards the same cause she is fighting for.

 

[Qvist]

The facts of the story so far are: a man had sex with two women, and there was some dispute about a broken condom and initial allegations of "sex by surprise" and unlawful coercion. These seem to be "misdemeanor rape" charges that are punishable by a fine. The case was apparently dropped in the first 24 hours after being reviewed by the chief prosecutor, and the women involved requested that the man have himself tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The man refused to take their calls and after a matter of weeks left the country.

A lawyer was then hired by the two accusers, and the man was called in for questioning, but not charged with any criminal offense.

This is the entirety of the case as I understand it.

Assange did not turn up for questioning. That is why he has been declared wanted. He has not been charged because no decision has been made on that point yet - among other things, because he did not turn up for questioning.

And, neither you or I or anybody else here can even remotely know "the entirety of the case". I guess it comes down to whether you think you have a basis for presuming that a Swedish public prosecutor is being bought or cajoled by dark forces in the US or not.

You are correct, when someone refuses to appear for questioning, it is not extraordinary for him to be legally requisitioned. However, the resultant international manhunt and solitary confinement (initially without bail) seems extraordinary.

I think that Assange has a screw loose and is not a very nice person (although he is certainly striking a blow for transparency), but I believe that this is not simply legal business-as-usual, and if we were not talking about the man behind wikileaks, events would most certainly never have taken such a dramatic turn.

What "international manhunt" was that? There was intense media speculation over his whereabouts, but as far as I can tell no sign of any concerted or intensive effort on the part of the authorities to actually find him. As far as I understand, British police were aware of his whereabouts but did nothing until he turned himself in.

I agree the solitary confinement and attempt to refuse bail seems extravagant, but those are in fact aspects where the general Wikileaks situation do - quite legitimately - impact on the arrest made related to the rape charges. Bail and confinement is set on the basis of assessing the risk that the person might try to escape. Since Assange has himself publicly connected the rape case with the Wikileaks controversy and claims that the rape charges was a honeytrap, there seems to be a case for the proposition that he might physically abscond. Albeit not one good enough to actually refuse bail, as it turned out.

Season's greetings, by the way.

 

[Qvist]

I seriously have doubts about Naomi Wolf... about her credibility and soundness of the allegations she is making now and in the past. Unwavering in compassion, but lacking in logic.



I believe that those charges, while the validity of the women's accounts is not discounted, are indeed drummed up to publicly tarnish Assange's credibility. I am confused by Miss Wolf's position: if she is angered by the lack of justice claimed for the exclusively female victims of rape in the countries mentioned, you would think that she would be satisfied with Assange's punishment and (hopefully) impending conviction. Ambiguities and complexities abound in the date rape charges, similar to the ambiguity presented in the Assange case. Noami Wolf alludes to this in her article, yet she removes her previous position upheld to criticize the man-hunt for Assange's arrest. It seems that she forgot what they are actually trying to convict Assange of. The uproar caused by the allegations of sexual assault are a derision; Assange's personal life should not be the focus, when national security is the issue. I think it's rather silly for Wolf to bring feminist issues into the equation, and it highlights her own cynicism towards the same cause she is fighting for.

That is the point. In order for Wolf's point to have any validity and relevance whatsoever, you have to assume that the rape charge is just a falsehood trumped up to get at Assange for other reasons. Which at this point is, to put it mildly, speculative.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I believe that those charges, while the validity of the women's accounts is not discounted, are indeed drummed up to publicly tarnish Assange's credibility. I am confused by Miss Wolf's position: if she is angered by the lack of justice claimed for the exclusively female victims of rape in the countries mentioned, you would think that she would be satisfied with Assange's punishment and (hopefully) impending conviction. Ambiguities and complexities abound in the date rape charges, similar to the ambiguity presented in the Assange case. Noami Wolf alludes to this in her article, yet she removes her previous position upheld to criticize the man-hunt for Assange's arrest. It seems that she forgot what they are actually trying to convict Assange of. The uproar caused by the allegations of sexual assault are a derision; Assange's personal life should not be the focus, when national security is the issue. I think it's rather silly for Wolf to bring feminist issues into the equation, and it highlights her own cynicism towards the same cause she is fighting for.

Well, I can't speak for Ms. Wolf, but I do believe that her point is that sexual violence is visited upon women every moment of every day, and the vast majority of crimes go unpunished, even when they rise to the level of torture, mutilation and murder.

So, when a case of date rape is treated as cause for an international warrant, it probably rankles just a wee bit. Women are routinely brutalized all across the globe, but it is of no interest to the press or the authorities because those women are invisible due to issues of race, class, cultural identity or any number of other depressing reasons.

Pointing out the inequities of the system is not such a surprising position for her to take, given the painful nature of what she has witnessed over the years.

Assange did not turn up for questioning. That is why he has been declared wanted. He has not been charged because no decision has been made on that point yet - among other things, because he did not turn up for questioning.

And, neither you or I or anybody else here can even remotely know "the entirety of the case". I guess it comes down to whether you think you have a basis for presuming that a Swedish public prosecutor is being bought or cajoled by dark forces in the US or not.

It's true, the public never knows all the facts of these types of sensational cases, but that is the all the information we have on which to draw conclusions, so neither you nor I know what we're talking about.

As for the Swedish prosecutor being bought off by shadowy entities in the US, it never even crossed my mind. There are powerful people all over the globe who want Assange locked up - some of them are fairly good people, and some of them are very, very bad.

What "international manhunt" was that? There was intense media speculation over his whereabouts, but as far as I can tell no sign of any concerted or intensive effort on the part of the authorities to actually find him. As far as I understand, British police were aware of his whereabouts but did nothing until he turned himself in.

OK, international law enforcement cooperation - how's that?

I agree the solitary confinement and attempt to refuse bail seems extravagant, but those are in fact aspects where the general Wikileaks situation do - quite legitimately - impact on the arrest made related to the rape charges. Bail and confinement is set on the basis of assessing the risk that the person might try to escape. Since Assange has himself publicly connected the rape case with the Wikileaks controversy and claims that the rape charges was a honeytrap, there seems to be a case for the proposition that he might physically abscond. Albeit not one good enough to actually refuse bail, as it turned out.

Season's greetings, by the way.

It appears that we agree - Assange is being treated differently because he's the proud parent of wikileaks.

Oh yes, seasons greetings.

 

[Dave]

okay, this is so simple.

Julian Assface is one issue and Wikileaks is another issue. You can dislike him for being arrogant and believe he is a rapist, and those things might both be true, and they have nothing to do with the morality of making this information public. We are so used to treating everything like gossip and trivializing all news into entertainment.

Obviously the timing on the rape charges is suspect and it's being used to discredit him. That doesn't mean he's not a rapist, but for the purposes of the question of the morality and ethics of leaking this information that has no bearing. You could not consider either issue in a trial about the other issue, for good reason. There is no connection. It isn't his morality that I'm concerned with.

To contrast, I understand if you can't listen to a singer's music, as in the case of Michael Jackson, because of things the person is accused of, but Wikileaks is not like that. It's not about the person behind it. It's like not liking the telephone directory because you don't like the publisher.

He is a story, and Wikileaks itself is a story, and they might be bigger than a lot of the individual stories that have been made public, but to base your opinion of the release of the information on your opinion of Julian Assange is so totally pointless and really more the level of thought that should go into a debate about Lady Gaga's "meat dress" or something.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

That is the point. In order for Wolf's point to have any validity and relevance whatsoever, you have to assume that the rape charge is just a falsehood trumped up to get at Assange for other reasons. Which at this point is, to put it mildly, speculative.

I am very well aware of that, but I believe Assange is a criminal, so the prospect of the charges being trumped up doesn't really matter to me personally. Assange is not Nelson Mandela, and some people who are left-leaning in their political affiliation, or fancy themselves anarchists, seem to elevate him as a crusader for government transparency, when really he is a slimy bastard with an amoral agenda. In regards to the alleged rape charges, I believe the accusations are legitimate and not conveniently so in order to "get" Assange for Wikileaks publications of private government documents.

 

[goinghome]

For anyone who hasn't had a chance to catch up on the rise and rise of Wikileaks and the latest controversy about its founder, you could hardly look for a more full account than is provided in this newsletter which usually concerns itself with sci-fi ideas becoming reality:http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai/fearchive-featured
(although, in the middle of it all is a little article reporting that,
Use of mobile phones has been banned by a local council in northern India. The reason given is to ban unmarried women from carrying mobile phones and also to halt romances between youngsters from different castes. In Uttar Pradesh state, the Baliyan council has decided to ban mobile phone after a series of elopements. Over the last year, at least 23 couples eloped against their parents wishes. Jatin Raghuvanshi, a village elder, commented that the panchayat (assembly) was convinced that the reason of the recent surge in series of elopement was cell phones as the young loves planned their elopement over using them. )


For example, the introduction alone, with links, reads,
"PUNCTUATIONS
by John L. Petersen

Well, there's too much going on to not publish another issue of FUTUREdition before year end. We were planning on slacking off for the holidays, but then the sun exploded. Really. And WikiLeaks got hotter. There were a number of things that showed up that convinced us we needed to publish another issue before the holidays. So here's a very large issue for you.

As I suggested in the last issue, WikiLeaks has the potential to produce profound implications. Here are some thoughts on that subject.

WIKILEAKS: The Beginning of the End

WikiLeaks is doubly a big deal. We've hardly begun to see the potential fallout from the light that it is shining on what our governments have been keeping from us. Every day a new revelation shakes some more of the confidence that Americans (and citizens from many other countries) have in the systems and institutions that they have depended upon and trusted all of their lives. Some of the material that is rumored to soon be released has the potential to threaten the continued operation of major financial institutions, to say nothing about exposing the manipulations of governments.

But WikiLeaks is also the harbinger of a new era where information technology has the potential to fundamentally threaten democracy (as we practice it), and traditional ideas of free speech fly in the face of government's innate objective for stability and control.

On one hand, we're witnessing a titanic struggle between an encrusted, structurally unsustainable old order which is teetering on the edge of instability, and a rapidly coalescing new world. Powerful institutions are pulling out all stops to keep from losing the historical control that they have enjoyed. At the same time a new generation (that sees reality in quite different ways) is powering the emergent assault, enabled by exponentially exploding information technology that, in significant applications is so complex that no one really understands how it works.

Let me use the present WikiLeaks situation to give you a feeling of how this is playing out. Here are some high points that will hopefully give you the picture.

First of all, if you want to have a good understanding of an issue like this, nobody that I know does a better job of painting the big picture than Tony Judge. Tony holds forth regularly on big and complex ideas alike. His summary of the WikiLeaks situation, taken from the perspective of spying at the UN (are they really spying on each other at the UN?), is really quite masterful and insightful. I would encourage you to take some time and pursue this very nice piece of work.

One of the obvious points to be taken from this analysis is that truth is seldom the currency of governments. That's nothing new, of course, but releases like those of WikiLeaks expose the breadth of the misrepresentation. It's one thing to generally know that few things are exactly what a government agency spokesperson says it is. It's quite another to have the sordid details laid out in front of you.

The only way this is all sustained, by the way, is through the institutionalization of secrecy - which of course is why governments are lying even more than they usually do to try to stop Julian Assange. One of the links in Judge's analysis is this one from filmmaker Michael Moore. Regardless of what you think of Moore, I think his logic about why Sweden is chasing Assange for allegations of sexual misconduct (for which he hasn't been charged) is pretty compelling. The U.S. is very much afraid of what might be leaked by Assange and is using its leverage, whether legal or not, to try to stop it. It's interesting to see what even progressive governments like Sweden will do when they're put in a corner.

A bigger issue is the aforementioned erosion and failure of large institutions. In a democracy, the press is supposed to play a pivotal and fundamental role in the society - shining a light on the doings of the government and other institutions. It is the fundamental and necessary counterbalance to an authoritarian and secretive government. When the press doesn't do its job, the government takes advantage of it, and that is what's going on right now.

Arrianna Huffington, in her piece The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It's About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms makes this point eloquently. She ends by saying:

"It is about our future. For our democracy to survive, citizens have to be able to know what our government is really doing. We can't change course if we don't have accurate information about where we really are. Whether this comes from a website or a newspaper or both doesn't matter.

"But if our government is successful in its efforts to shut down this new avenue of accountability, it will have done our country far more damage than what it claims is being done by WikiLeaks."

I agree.

Happy holidays to you and all of those you love..."

 

[goinghome]

Also, none other than Russell Brand has just had an excellent article published in The New Statesman that expresses very colourfully the exasperation being fomented in the regular intelligent person's opinion about many of the leaks, and why the public interest is justified and sustained:

- “'The spectacle of implicated governments trying to stifle WikiLeaks is futile and undignified,” writes the star comedian Russell Brand.

I've come late to the WikiLeaks debacle as I live in Los Angeles and work in the film industry, a combination that does not encourage an investigative perspective of our planet. There are blind, naked mole rats that have more awareness of current affairs. But while surfing the internet for information on pet psychiatrists, hair gels and "me", I happened upon the diplomatic crisis that is dramatically accelerating our dwindling faith in those who govern us.

When a cultural phenomenon reaches the point of saturation, I wonder if its authors ever query their choice of name. I wonder if Smeg fridges would do things differently if given a second chance? Or if the Beatles, informed at their genesis that they were about to become the biggest band in history, might have paused to reconsider their "punny" title. WikiLeaks is not a good name for a whistle-blowing website, the contents of which embarrass the powerful and expose clumsy and brutal military activity. It sounds like a West End musical about a bladder condition. Or an unreliable, robot butler. I'm sure I could come up with a better name..." - http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/br-wikileaks-governments

As another piece concluded, disabling Wikileaks now wouldn't avert a threat that really stems from the perpetration of a mentality in the corridors of power that is doused in unfit and perilous 19th century imperialistic posturing.

 

[Qvist]

Also, none other than Russell Brand has just had an excellent article published in The New Statesman that expresses very colourfully the exasperation being fomented in the regular intelligent person's opinion about many of the leaks, and why the public interest is justified and sustained:

- “'The spectacle of implicated governments trying to stifle WikiLeaks is futile and undignified,” writes the star comedian Russell Brand.

I've come late to the WikiLeaks debacle as I live in Los Angeles and work in the film industry, a combination that does not encourage an investigative perspective of our planet. There are blind, naked mole rats that have more awareness of current affairs. But while surfing the internet for information on pet psychiatrists, hair gels and "me", I happened upon the diplomatic crisis that is dramatically accelerating our dwindling faith in those who govern us.

When a cultural phenomenon reaches the point of saturation, I wonder if its authors ever query their choice of name. I wonder if Smeg fridges would do things differently if given a second chance? Or if the Beatles, informed at their genesis that they were about to become the biggest band in history, might have paused to reconsider their "punny" title. WikiLeaks is not a good name for a whistle-blowing website, the contents of which embarrass the powerful and expose clumsy and brutal military activity. It sounds like a West End musical about a bladder condition. Or an unreliable, robot butler. I'm sure I could come up with a better name..." - http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/br-wikileaks-governments

As another piece concluded, disabling Wikileaks now wouldn't avert a threat that really stems from the perpetration of a mentality in the corridors of power that is doused in unfit and perilous 19th century imperialistic posturing.

I find that amazing. What I have seen of leaked documents rather suggest to me a fairly sturdy capacity for good analysis in the US foreign service. There haven't really been many surprises either - I mean, how did people imagine that a blunt and forthright analysis of Silvio Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin would read?

Brand's piece is more than anything else depressing. It is depressing because it is so obviously uninformed. He reacts to isolated characterisations taken out of context. He is clearly unaware of the nature of diplomatic reporting. It is depressing because it doesn't seem to strike him that this isn't a pop lyric whose merit can immediately be judged by the extent to which the metaphors used appeal to him. It is depressing because he is not within ten miles of basic competence in judging what he's talking about (unlike the professionals he light-heartedly dismisses because he would never use a metaphor like that). It is depressing because a f***ing comedian gets to sum up the issue in The New Statesmen, who for crying out loud ought to know better. And, above all it is depressing because it shows how even comparatively intelligent and educated people have their heads buried so far down the sands of unreality that they are actually disappointed when they get to read frank and uniquely well-informed analysis of global affairs.

So, like most people of my generation, I am not surprised by the dishonesty or manipulation but rather amused by the haphazard manner of its execution. This is why I've never voted; that is why so few people of my age or younger vote or feel they have any stake in politics. Of course our apathy has allowed this unobserved, unaccountable body to become corpulent and erratic.

That's as good a self-definition of a spoiled, narcissistic, ignorant dickhead as I've ever read. I mean, consider that last sentence, in which Brand appears to say that since he and his like-minded choose to spend their lives with their heads so far up their creative arses that they can't be bothered with stupid things like politics, the powers that be have sadly been denied an indispensable corrective and have, as a result, atrophied.

This is the sort of article that makes you consider whether it might not be better to just drop the internet, or maybe slash your wrists. Goinghome - you are by all appearances a wonderful person, and you really shouldn't waste your approbation on things like this.

 

[Qvist]

For anyone who hasn't had a chance to catch up on the rise and rise of Wikileaks and the latest controversy about its founder, you could hardly look for a more full account than is provided in this newsletter which usually concerns itself with sci-fi ideas becoming reality:http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai/fearchive-featured
(although, in the middle of it all is a little article reporting that,
Use of mobile phones has been banned by a local council in northern India. The reason given is to ban unmarried women from carrying mobile phones and also to halt romances between youngsters from different castes. In Uttar Pradesh state, the Baliyan council has decided to ban mobile phone after a series of elopements. Over the last year, at least 23 couples eloped against their parents wishes. Jatin Raghuvanshi, a village elder, commented that the panchayat (assembly) was convinced that the reason of the recent surge in series of elopement was cell phones as the young loves planned their elopement over using them. )


For example, the introduction alone, with links, reads,
"PUNCTUATIONS
by John L. Petersen

Well, there's too much going on to not publish another issue of FUTUREdition before year end. We were planning on slacking off for the holidays, but then the sun exploded. Really. And WikiLeaks got hotter. There were a number of things that showed up that convinced us we needed to publish another issue before the holidays. So here's a very large issue for you.

As I suggested in the last issue, WikiLeaks has the potential to produce profound implications. Here are some thoughts on that subject.

WIKILEAKS: The Beginning of the End

WikiLeaks is doubly a big deal. We've hardly begun to see the potential fallout from the light that it is shining on what our governments have been keeping from us. Every day a new revelation shakes some more of the confidence that Americans (and citizens from many other countries) have in the systems and institutions that they have depended upon and trusted all of their lives. Some of the material that is rumored to soon be released has the potential to threaten the continued operation of major financial institutions, to say nothing about exposing the manipulations of governments.

But WikiLeaks is also the harbinger of a new era where information technology has the potential to fundamentally threaten democracy (as we practice it), and traditional ideas of free speech fly in the face of government's innate objective for stability and control.

On one hand, we're witnessing a titanic struggle between an encrusted, structurally unsustainable old order which is teetering on the edge of instability, and a rapidly coalescing new world. Powerful institutions are pulling out all stops to keep from losing the historical control that they have enjoyed. At the same time a new generation (that sees reality in quite different ways) is powering the emergent assault, enabled by exponentially exploding information technology that, in significant applications is so complex that no one really understands how it works.

Let me use the present WikiLeaks situation to give you a feeling of how this is playing out. Here are some high points that will hopefully give you the picture.

First of all, if you want to have a good understanding of an issue like this, nobody that I know does a better job of painting the big picture than Tony Judge. Tony holds forth regularly on big and complex ideas alike. His summary of the WikiLeaks situation, taken from the perspective of spying at the UN (are they really spying on each other at the UN?), is really quite masterful and insightful. I would encourage you to take some time and pursue this very nice piece of work.

One of the obvious points to be taken from this analysis is that truth is seldom the currency of governments. That's nothing new, of course, but releases like those of WikiLeaks expose the breadth of the misrepresentation. It's one thing to generally know that few things are exactly what a government agency spokesperson says it is. It's quite another to have the sordid details laid out in front of you.

The only way this is all sustained, by the way, is through the institutionalization of secrecy - which of course is why governments are lying even more than they usually do to try to stop Julian Assange. One of the links in Judge's analysis is this one from filmmaker Michael Moore. Regardless of what you think of Moore, I think his logic about why Sweden is chasing Assange for allegations of sexual misconduct (for which he hasn't been charged) is pretty compelling. The U.S. is very much afraid of what might be leaked by Assange and is using its leverage, whether legal or not, to try to stop it. It's interesting to see what even progressive governments like Sweden will do when they're put in a corner.

A bigger issue is the aforementioned erosion and failure of large institutions. In a democracy, the press is supposed to play a pivotal and fundamental role in the society - shining a light on the doings of the government and other institutions. It is the fundamental and necessary counterbalance to an authoritarian and secretive government. When the press doesn't do its job, the government takes advantage of it, and that is what's going on right now.

Arrianna Huffington, in her piece The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It's About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms makes this point eloquently. She ends by saying:

"It is about our future. For our democracy to survive, citizens have to be able to know what our government is really doing. We can't change course if we don't have accurate information about where we really are. Whether this comes from a website or a newspaper or both doesn't matter.

"But if our government is successful in its efforts to shut down this new avenue of accountability, it will have done our country far more damage than what it claims is being done by WikiLeaks."

I agree.

Happy holidays to you and all of those you love..."

On one hand, we're witnessing a titanic struggle between an encrusted, structurally unsustainable old order which is teetering on the edge of instability, and a rapidly coalescing new world. Powerful institutions are pulling out all stops to keep from losing the historical control that they have enjoyed. At the same time a new generation (that sees reality in quite different ways) is powering the emergent assault, enabled by exponentially exploding information technology that, in significant applications is so complex that no one really understands how it works.

Oh really? What "new world" is this? What "new generation"? What exactly is it that they are "assaulting"? On behalf of whom and in the service of what? To whose benefit? To be replaced by what, to what purpose, and in what way? Or is this just some autonomous process of technology that we cannot and need not understand, just going along for the ride? Don't you think these are questions to which Mr. Petersen ought to provide some sort of answer?

This is blogspace spirituality. No logic, no analysis, no comprehensive vision, no lucid set of ideals or ideas, just a vague miasma of sympathies, antipathies and elective assumptions. This is every bit as irrational, conpiracy-theorising, self-limiting and intellctually decrepit as right-wing nutjob delusions about how the Pentagon were behind 9/11 or health care reform is a secret plot to introduce communism in the US.

Basic sense is being abandoned - left and right.

 

[Qvist]

I am very well aware of that, but I believe Assange is a criminal, so the prospect of the charges being trumped up doesn't really matter to me personally. Assange is not Nelson Mandela, and some people who are left-leaning in their political affiliation, or fancy themselves anarchists, seem to elevate him as a crusader for government transparency, when really he is a slimy bastard with an amoral agenda. In regards to the alleged rape charges, I believe the accusations are legitimate and not conveniently so in order to "get" Assange for Wikileaks publications of private government documents.

Yes, so do I until I see a good reason to think otherwise. So that was in fact an argument against the basic validity of Wolf's thrust of argument.

 

[Qvist]

Well, I can't speak for Ms. Wolf, but I do believe that her point is that sexual violence is visited upon women every moment of every day, and the vast majority of crimes go unpunished, even when they rise to the level of torture, mutilation and murder.

So, when a case of date rape is treated as cause for an international warrant, it probably rankles just a wee bit.

Why? "An international warrant" is not some extraordinary exertion. There are thousands of them every year, on such a routine basis that you never even hear about 99.9% of them. This is just another example of how a fundamentally idiotic narrative ("the great international manhunt") is constructed out of essentially nothing - not exactly the first time the press has done that, it's par for the course. The only extraordinary thing about the case is the amount of press coverage and attention it has gotten. Broken down on actual legal actions, it's as everyday as rye bread.

Women are routinely brutalized all across the globe, but it is of no interest to the press or the authorities because those women are invisible due to issues of race, class, cultural identity or any number of other depressing reasons. Pointing out the inequities of the system is not such a surprising position for her to take, given the painful nature of what she has witnessed over the years.

No, but what is questionable is the inherent assumption that this case is being treated differently because of Assange's role in Wikileaks.

It's true, the public never knows all the facts of these types of sensational cases, but that is the all the information we have on which to draw conclusions, so neither you nor I know what we're talking about.

Perfectly true, which also means that we have no basis for assuming that the charges are trumped up or pursued essentially as an indirect means of getting to Assange.

As for the Swedish prosecutor being bought off by shadowy entities in the US, it never even crossed my mind. There are powerful people all over the globe who want Assange locked up - some of them are fairly good people, and some of them are very, very bad.

What, now we're assuming shadowy figures of power within the Swedish legal establishment acting of their own accord to nail Assange?

OK, international law enforcement cooperation - how's that?

"Routine Interpol request", how is that? I must point out that you quoted this as indicative of an international man-hunt out of all proportion to the crime under investigation. Which in fact it is not.

It appears that we agree - Assange is being treated differently because he's the proud parent of wikileaks.

No, the wikileaks situation is impacting his bail conditions in an unrelated case because he has chosen to link them.

 

[goinghome]

...This is the sort of article that makes you consider whether it might not be better to just drop the internet, or maybe slash your wrists...

Pray cease and desist from fretting, QVist! On this issue there are many views, often in the process of formation as this new challenge to authority is being understood. They can't all be written off that easily, but if they can, would you please share why and how they could? Isn't it only natural that people are curious about the attitudes of those who they presume run aspects of their lives with the good in mind?

The Wikileaks founder stated that transparency could prove even more the merit of ethical companies; it is only the bad companies that need to fear it. In one interview, he said that obtaining copies of the leaked internal communications provided the essential window into how the accumulation and sum of smaller everyday procedures, the lived culture of organisations, ultimately corrode and fell the gung-ho bastions:

"It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.
This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it."

I think that a lot of people, embedded in the daily grind, begin to realise what's going on around them once it's spelled out to them. The result will probably be overdue empowerment in some places; damaging and groundless agitation in others, and a lot of nothing. But it is interesting, as are the internal biographies and conflicts of the activists who're presumably as imperfect as the next person.

 

[Dave]

No, but what is questionable is the inherent assumption that this case is being treated differently because of Assange's role in Wikileaks.

Perfectly true, which also means that we have no basis for assuming that the charges are trumped up or pursued essentially as an indirect means of getting to Assange.

What, now we're assuming shadowy figures of power within the Swedish legal establishment acting of their own accord to nail Assange?

You seem convinced there is no connection and you're spending time putting that idea forth repeatedly. Why?

The connection is that we never heard of this case until the Wikileaks thing blew up. Why are these independent (haha) financial giants like Paypal and Mastercard acting on their own accord to stop processing his donations? This is not an ordinary case. He was out there for months, and then he blows up in the news and he's suddenly a rapist.

It's okay if you can't see the connection but you're just being stubborn.

 

[Qvist]

You seem convinced there is no connection and you're spending time putting that idea forth repeatedly. Why?

Because the CIA is paying me good money, obviously. Why else?

No, I am pointing out that in order to argue that there is a connection, you need some reasonable grounds for doing so. The assumption that there is and the assumption that there isn't are not equivalent. And that such a connection fits your predisposition to find a conspiracy at work is not grounds.

The connection is that we never heard of this case until the Wikileaks thing blew up.

And why would you hear about a rape investigation in Sweden before Assange became an international celebrity? Do you spend a lot of time staying up to speed on the daily goings-on at the Stockholm police? Or do you just not understand the concept "connection"?

Why are these independent (haha) financial giants like Paypal and Mastercard acting on their own accord to stop processing his donations? This is not an ordinary case. He was out there for months, and then he blows up in the news and he's suddenly a rapist.

It's okay if you can't see the connection but you're just being stubborn.

Paypal/Mastercard relates to Wikileaks, has nothing to do with the rape case. The rape case predates the Wikileaks scandal. And you're just being stupid.

 

[Dave]

Because the CIA is paying me good money, obviously. Why else?

No, I am pointing out that in order to argue that there is a connection, you need some reasonable grounds for doing so. The assumption that there is and the assumption that there isn't are not equivalent. And that such a connection fits your predisposition to find a conspiracy at work is not grounds.



And why would you hear about a rape investigation in Sweden before Assange became an international celebrity? Do you spend a lot of time staying up to speed on the daily goings-on at the Stockholm police? Or do you just not understand the concept "connection"?



Paypal/Mastercard relates to Wikileaks, has nothing to do with the rape case. The rape case predates the Wikileaks scandal. And you're just being stupid.

I don't know, maybe I gave the impression I think that you're stupid. I really haven't formed that opinion, but you obviously think this rape case is relevant, and I don't.

It's ALL related to Wikileaks. I used the Paypal - Mastercard issue as an example of how extraordinary this is.

The best thing I read about this was something about how if he did this in China we would look at him as a hero. The US simply doesn't like having all it's many embarrassing secrets exposed. Most of the things I've read had nothing to do with security, they were just examples of dirty deals.

I think Wikileaks is a wonderful thing. I don't really care about the rape case because I don't care about Julian Assange as a person. You are against Wikileaks and think the rape case matters. That is the connection.

If you can't see how this translates into
a: did you hear about Wikileaks?
b: that guy is a rapist!

then you should get out of the PR business and give the CIA back their money.

 

[M-in-Oz]

The rape charges were reported earlier, perhaps nobody cared at that point in time, but they were in the newspapers. I think the question regarding the charges is still, why were they dropped and then re-opened after the latest Wikileak? Why hasn't it been sorted out sooner for the sake of the women involved?

Assange has just signed a book deal as he says to make money to fund Wikileaks.

 

[goinghome]

And why would you hear about a rape investigation in Sweden before Assange became an international celebrity? ...

The rape case predates the Wikileaks scandal. And you're just being stupid.

Hasn't Assange been well-known for a couple of years now? And hasn't Wikileaks been a sporadic scandal since its set-up 4 years ago, whereas the rape charges only arose last August? His ex-colleagues have been complaining for months of his domineering characteristics and they've set up new channels e.g. OpenLeaks, that set them apart but build on the Wikileaks philosophy. The movement doesn't depend anymore on whether one man goes down, deservedly or not, for a misdemeanour.