Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo

[SLM]

Assange has showcased his 'moral rectitude' in his refusal to stand and defend himself in Sweden against the sexual assault charges... Pretty ironic in my eyes, this creature that 'fights the good fight' (in his eyes) apparently doesn't include rape/sexual assault as part of his definition of morality.

It makes him a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Sweden and it's laws were apparently great when it came to storing his servers as I understand it. To the best of my knowledge, they've not been touched. I may be wrong, they could have been moved (I've not followed this all that closely) but if not, it makes his fighting of the extradition to Sweden to face these charges and the people who state that it's only a ruse to punish him for the leaks, all the more ridiculous.

 

[captain morgan]

I have to agree with your observations on that front... In retrospect, I find it interesting that he would not want to have his trial in Sweden as their legal system is more 'moderate' (relative to the UK) and his ability to defend himself (successfully) would have a higher probability in Sweden.

 

[Machjo]

I sit further left than mentalfloss, he confuses objectivity for placement on the political spectrum.

True for some of what Assange made public (Which I am completely ok with). Not true for not redacting (Or withholding said documents completely) names and locations of informants and human rights workers.

His agenda isn't free speech, it is the victory of the Taliban.

Of course a clear distinction ought to be made between state secrets (which ought not to even exist in an open society), and personal information held by the government. Assange failed to make that distinction, and while neither he nor Manning ought to be punished for any state secrets they may have revealed, they ought certainly to be held accountable for any personal information they may have disclosed.

Assange has showcased his 'moral rectitude' in his refusal to stand and defend himself in Sweden against the sexual assault charges... Pretty ironic in my eyes, this creature that 'fights the good fight' (in his eyes) apparently doesn't include rape/sexual assault as part of his definition of morality.

If Assange is innocent, one would think it would be more efficient and expedient and less time consuming for him, instead of fighting his extradition to Sweden, to head to Sweden right away to face his accusers. Besides, he'll have a hard time arguing that Sweden's justice system is corrupt. It is a well established and respected system unless there is something I don't know.

I'm not saying he is guilty, but merely that if he is innocent, he's showing poor judgement in fighting his extradition.

 

[Machjo]

It makes him a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Sweden and it's laws were apparently great when it came to storing his servers as I understand it. To the best of my knowledge, they've not been touched. I may be wrong, they could have been moved (I've not followed this all that closely) but if not, it makes his fighting of the extradition to Sweden to face these charges and the people who state that it's only a ruse to punish him for the leaks, all the more ridiculous.

Sweden is officially a neutral country, so it would be hard to believe it would suddenly start taking sides between Assange and the US government.

 

[SLM]

He is to the morally bankrupt.

Manson had followers too and they considered him a hero as well.

Context can be everything.

I'll have to disagree, given his commentary when queried about the possible loss of life due to his publishing the documents. As well as his views of the Taliban as "rebels".

Maybe you're right. I just see a coldness within him, have from day one although I couldn't put my finger on it right away, and it makes me think he doesn't care too much about anyones cause.

 

[captain morgan]

Of course a clear distinction ought to be made between state secrets (which ought not to even exist in an open society), and personal information held by the government. Assange failed to make that distinction, and while neither he nor Manning ought to be punished for any state secrets they may have revealed, they ought certainly to be held accountable for any personal information they may have disclosed.

State secrets often overlap with some form of personal information, the 2 are inextricably linked (directly or indirectly).

There is a very strong reason why every nation has severe punishments attached to the charge of treason, and by in large, it has to do with the safety and well being of the citizenry.

Assange has violated this principle on literally hundreds of thousands of occasions and in almost every nation on Earth.

 

[Machjo]

Maybe you're right. I just see a coldness within him, have from day one although I couldn't put my finger on it right away, and it makes me think he doesn't care too much about anyones cause.

I'd be cautious about judging anyone's coldness though. Some people show emotion differently, especially on television (from nervousness or whatever other reason).

State secrets often overlap with some form of personal information, the 2 are inextricably linked (directly or indirectly).

The two are quite distinct from one another. Either information is of a public or a personal nature. Anything that falls in a grey area ought to then be considered public since clearly then it becomes suspicous. The two ought never to mix.

[/quote]There is a very strong reason why every nation has severe punishments attached to the charge of treason, and by in large, it has to do with the safety and well being of the citizenry.

Let's not confuse theft with treason. Treason does have a very technical definition. Assange was not working for any foreign government, and seeing he's not even a US citizen, he can't be considered a traitor to the US. By definition you can commit treason only against your own.

As for Manning, the charge of treason is more debatable since he was a US citizen, but again was not working for any foreign government or "enemy" as such.

 

[SLM]

I have to agree with your observations on that front... In retrospect, I find it interesting that he would not want to have his trial in Sweden as their legal system is more 'moderate' (relative to the UK) and his ability to defend himself (successfully) would have a higher probability in Sweden.

It probably makes sense legally speaking to draw everything out. Plus the lawyers get paid more that way,lol. Also it plays out the drama. I think it was all a P.R. game.

Sweden is officially a neutral country, so it would be hard to believe it would suddenly start taking sides between Assange and the US government.

It is hard to believe, and I do not believe that. However, I've seen/heard that specific opinion voiced by many, many people.

I'd be cautious about judging anyone's coldness though. Some people show emotion differently, especially on television (from nervousness or whatever other reason).

I am cautious. I don't toss these things out lightly. From the day he first came on the scene there was something about him, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I'm not basing that assertion on just one interview or how he comes across on camera. It's based on actions, writings, what others have said (not just his detractors but those who once supported him). You take all these things and put them together, it paints a picture. Do I know it for a fact? No, I don't know him personally. Is it something I've come to believe and see within him based on all these things? Yes it is.

 

[CDNBear]

Of course a clear distinction ought to be made between state secrets (which ought not to even exist in an open society), and personal information held by the government.

We've been over this before. Your belief would cripple national security and would have lost WWII.

 

[captain morgan]

The two are quite distinct from one another. Either information is of a public or a personal nature. Anything that falls in a grey area ought to then be considered public since clearly then it becomes suspicous. The two ought never to mix.

In a perfect world, there would be a clear division between public and personal info, however, we do not live in a perfect world... The Minister of Foreign Affairs for the UK is a matter of public record, but because we know his name is Joe Smith and we can source info on Joe, we have also ventured into the realm of private info.

Let's not confuse theft with treason. Treason does have a very technical definition. Assange was not working for any foreign government, and seeing he's not even a US citizen, he can't be considered a traitor to the US. By definition you can commit treason only against your own.

Assange and Manning have done both. One need not be in the direct employ of gvt in order to pass along sensitive info that will have an impact on a nation.

Further, the USA is not the only nation with 'treason' as a charge. Assange is (presumably) a UK citizen and if he released any cables from the UK diplomatic corps, he would be charged under UK law... On that note, the outside nations of which Assange is not a citizen, also have serious charges against spying.

I'm guessing that Assange would be extremely careful in terms of which nations that he is prepared to enter.

As for Manning, the charge of treason is more debatable since he was a US citizen, but again was not working for any foreign government or "enemy" as such.

There is no debate on this. Manning will be convicted of some degree of treason

 

[petros]

There was nothing wrong with releasing piles of information the public should know but the mistake he made was releasing it raw.

 

[CDNBear]

There was nothing wrong with releasing piles of information the public should know but the mistake he made was releasing it raw.

A mistake is something you do unintentionally. When Assange was confronted about disclosing intel on human rights workers and Afghans aiding the Coalition. His reply was, 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'.

That pretty much removes any notion of it being an error.

 

[Machjo]

A mistake is something you do unintentionally. When Assange was confronted about disclosing intel on human rights workers and Afghans aiding the Coalition. His reply was, 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'.

That pretty much removes any notion of it being an error.

Did he really say that? I'd like to know the source. If true, that's digusting.

 

[CDNBear]

Did he really say that? I'd like to know the source. If true, that's digusting.

Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it. - Google Search

 

[petros]

A mistake is something you do unintentionally. When Assange was confronted about disclosing intel on human rights workers and Afghans aiding the Coalition. His reply was, 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'.

That pretty much removes any notion of it being an error.

That's what free speech is all about. They couldn't bust him because we have free speech so out come the hookers and charges for whatever else they toss at him.

If you were pushing the boundaries of the game of legality would this be your fate?

 

[Machjo]

Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it. - Google Search

Hardly an objective reporter, eh.

That's what free speech is all about. They couldn't bust him because we have free speech so out come the hookers and charges for whatever else they toss at him.

If you were pushing the boundaries of the game of legality would this be your fate?

I'd be very surprised to find the Swedish government being in on such a conspiracy. Now, could the US government through its Swedish embassy have paid off some "hookers"? Maybe, but then again, that's why Assange would be granted a fair trial, so as to try to suss out such a possibility. No system is perfect, but he certainly would get a fair trial.

 

[CDNBear]

That's what free speech is all about.

No it isn't. What Assange did in endangering individual people is tantamount to yelling fir in a crowded theater. His act, doesn't pass the test. Check out the case law that makes the revealing of CI's illegal in Canada, the US, as well as throughout most of Europe.

If you were pushing the boundaries of the game of legality would this be your fate?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

 

[petros]

Hookers and coke has been one of handiest tools used to get people they can't bust otherwise behind bars. I guarantee it's in a spook textbook somewhere.

 

[Goober]

I've been to McLean a couple of times. It's even better to see him tell his stories live because of his mannerisms.

If you listen close you can hear me clapping.


http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/vinylcafe_20111224_77395.mp3

Saw him again in Dec - 4 years in a row now. A great storyteller. Dave cooks the Christmas Turkey and Dave rides the bike.

I just thought that being an ardent supporter of freedom of information pundits like Ezra.. means that you are an ardent supporter of information, but apparently that only counts in a religious context and not in political one?

I'm not sure, I'm just trying to see where the logic is here.

Ezra cares about freedom of information but he condemns Assange (who also cares about freedom of information).

This is logically inconsistent.

So are you saying that all information should be available to anyone?

 

[petros]

No it isn't. What Assange did in endangering individual people is tantamount to yelling fir in a crowded theater. His act, doesn't pass the test. Check out the case law that makes the revealing of CI's illegal in Canada, the US, as well as throughout most of Europe.

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Whose theater was it?