Is Julian Assange a terrorist?

Wikileaks Founder To Release Doomsday File If Punished

This sounds like a threat to me, which gets him in deeper, but he has a good defense since there were so many calls for his assassination. It’s funny how the full might of the establishment is coming down on Assange’s head after the relatively harmless State Department leaks, when nothing was done to him following the more serious Iraq and Afghanistan document dumps.

I look forward to the New York Times’s editorial opinion on what should be done to Assange. Although I don’t like the guy, I think that he is better than the New York Times since they are subject to US law and he isn’t. The leaker passed him stuff, he shared it with the Times, both published it, so why is he the scapegoat and they are getting off without any serious consequences? If the leaker had bypassed Assange and gone directly to the NY Times, does that mean it would all have been OK to publish?

Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Is Julian Assange a terrorist?

  1. Alvis Velthomer says:

    I would not say Assange is a “terrorist”, but he definitely has a big ego and a bit of a narcissist. I was reading an interview in which Assange was being interviewed, and one of the questions was about his politics. Assange said that he does not want to be pidgeon-holed into any particular ideology, and that he takes some things from various different political belief systems, and brought up American libertarianism as an example of one political belief system in which he derives some of his personal beliefs from. He believed that a free market cannot work unless there is “open information”, and that Wikileaks helps there be “open information”. He seems to me that he definitely leans toward libertarianism in some ways. I think he is most likely a socially liberal anarcho-capitalist or libertarian.

  2. Polymath says:

    Now he has been charged with sex crimes and they are denying bail:

    British Court Denies Bail to Assange in Sex Inquiry

    But the details smell funny. This article and this one make it pretty clear that Assange is a major cad but not a rapist by the laws of any normal society. Apparently Assange was at a conference in Sweden, seduced two women on successive nights, never called them back, and when they found out about each other and he refused to take an HIV test for them they went to the police and each claimed that he had raped her by insisting on sex without a condom after an initial bout of sex with a condom. No violence was alleged in either case, just persuasion that they regretted later.

    These apparently bogus charges suggest that they can’t nail Assange on any real crimes. The legal issue is one of jurisdiction — there is not doubt Assange’s actions violated the USA’s 1917 Espionage Act, the question is how extraterritorial the USA’s jurisdiction is in such cases.

    It is a VERY interesting legal question — if we have the right to pursue Osama Bin Laden extraterritorially, why not Assange? Where should the line be drawn? I have my own suggestions on this but would like to see what others say first.

  3. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, the US jurisdiction ends at its borders. Nothing stops a country from telling you to GFY. Then you can just declare war on it. And yes, the charges are bogus. If I was the prosecutor in Sweden, I would have refused to press charges. Besides, it’s not new that Swedish women are sluts.

    If I was Assange, I’d press rape charges against them and say that I didn’t want to have sex with them in a certain position until they persuaded me with their body. It’s just as a ridiculous assertion. People are so pathetic. I took an evil test and I scored 74% evil on it. The only things not making me 100% evil is loving children and being honest and not back stabbing my friends. lol

  4. Polymath says:

    I agree about the jurisdiction, except when there are extradition treaties about specific crimes. The correct method to pursue Bin Laden is by making war on him, not by hauling him into court. Technically we could declare war on WikiLeaks which is a non-state organization just like Al Qaeda, but it would be ridiculous to do so. And without such a declaration from Congress, assassinating Assange would be illegal for us to do.

    Where was this evil test? I think you have higher than 74% aptitude for other careers, but if you decide to pursue that one here are some tips:

    How to be an Evil Overlord

  5. Polymath says:

    Berkeley Mulls Resolution to Honor Army Private Accused of Passing Secret Info to WikiLeaks

    It’s interesting how differently members of a conspiracy get evaluated. I think Assange is not guilty of treason, and may or may not be guilty of espionage, and although I dislike his personality I respect his expertise and approve of his Wikileaks project while opposing his agenda of weakening the U.S.A. That’s pretty nuanced.

    Manning, since he is violating sworn oaths of duty to his own country, is a traitor. There’s no doubt about this description, but even there the evaluation is not over because being a traitor can be a good thing if what you had sworn loyalty to is evil. This appears to be the Berkeley City Council’s attitude. I’d like to see a large crowd of veterans picketing this meeting.

    But nobody is evaluating the New York Times’s role in this. What they did is at least as bad as what Assange did, since they were Americans and he wasn’t and they were each publishing the same secret stuff that had been leaked by a 3rd party. With all the calls for Assange’s punishment, what is the Times saying? I think they ought to say SOMETHING. The NYT was, in my view, guilty of treason for some earlier leaks exposing and thus destroying secret and legal US government programs that were effective against Al Qaeda. But somehow they get a pass because they’re “journalists”, as if Assange isn’t because he publishes only via website instead of website+paper as the NYT does.

    I think Obama has probably made it clear to the NYT that they WILL be prosecuted unless they return to their 2008 level of fawning obsequious hagiography in their coverage of him.

  6. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, politicians can’t upset the media. Sure, NYT is as guilty as Assange is, if not more so.

  7. Polymath says:

    Politicans can’t upset the media? Republicans do it all the time without even trying. But Obama is a media creation, so he is in a particularly vulnerable position if they turn on him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s