Come Outside And Say That!
Jonthedogwalker gets the prize for my post of the week on Twitter with his great wind up of the weirdo and narcissist Julian Assange.
Imaginary Prison (21/06/14)
'If Julian Assange is in a prison, then it's one of his own making' - is the nub of this leader recent article from The Times which I completely agree with I have to say.
I read somewhere the other day that during a press conference in the Ecuadorean Embassy Mr Assange said that the thing that caused him most grief was being unable to see his children - which encouraged me to do some research.
I read somewhere the other day that during a press conference in the Ecuadorean Embassy Mr Assange said that the thing that caused him most grief was being unable to see his children - which encouraged me to do some research.
Apparently, the WikiLeaks founder has fathered at least four children in different parts of the world (presumably to different mothers) but according to this comment from a former WikiLeaks colleague, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, they didn't seem to feature too prominently in his life:
"Often I sat in large groups and listened to Julian boast about how many children he had fathered in various parts of the world. He seemed to enjoy the idea of lots and lots of Julians, one on every continent. Whether he took care of any of these alleged children, or whether they existed at all, was another question."
Now Daniel Domscheit-Berg fell out with Assange over the direction of WikiLeaks which may explain his rather scathing comment, but I know one thing - any parent who really misses their children would do anything to see them again, even if that meant walking out of their own self-imposed prison.
Assange is shabbily avoiding justice. He deserves no tears
The WikiLeaker is costing this country a fortune and he has no right to complain
By Stephen Pollard - The Times
Yesterday marked the second anniversary of Julian Assange’s incarceration in London. Under 24-hour police guard 365 days a year, the WikiLeaks founder has been prevented from leaving what one friend call his “prison cell”.
As his friend Vaughan Smith puts it: “He craves freedom, he can’t buy his own food and he would love the chance to have a normal walk in the fresh air.”
Who would have thought that this could happen in a democracy? What an outrage! Except, of course, that it is all utter nonsense. Far from preventing Assange from leaving, the British state is desperate for him to depart our shores.
Since he arrived at the Ecuadorean Embassy, he has cost the British taxpayer £6.5 million — an average of £9,000 a day. The police operation outside his “prison” is not designed to keep him in but to make sure if and when he does eventually leave that he never goes back in. And then put him on a plane to Sweden as swiftly as legally possible.
Assange is no prisoner of conscience or victim of despotism. He is nothing more than a fugitive from justice who fled to Ecuadorean soil (albeit in London) to avoid a possible trial in Sweden for rape and sexual assault.
For a while, Assange’s supporters — who should surely win the Gullible Idiots of the Century award — maintained that the Swedish allegations were a red herring; that his enemies were intent on having him extradited to the US, where he would rot for the rest of his life in prison.
But that fiction was exposed last year when the US Justice Department said that there was almost no possibility he would ever be charged over WikiLeaks. Any action against Assange would also have to include those newspapers that printed the intelligence leaks, and that is simply never going to happen. Far from acting dishourably, the Swedish authorities are merely seeking to speak to Assange about the serious allegations against him.
So don’t fall for the idea that this is some Fidelio-like story of a hero imprisoned for his role in exposing the crimes of an oppressive authority. It is nothing more than a grubby attempt, by a man who appears to have taken narcissism to new heights, to evade justice.
If Julian Assange wants to end his “imprisonment” then all he has to do is turn the door handle. And the rest of us will say good riddance.
Weirdo and Narcissist (5 May 2014)
Hugo Rifkind hit a few nails on the head with this humorous piece about the ongoing saga of Julian Assange, the major league weirdo and narcissist, and founder of WikiLeaks.
The American authorities would do us all a favour by saying they have better things to do than to try and prosecute Assange which would leave him with no excuse for not jumping on the next flight to Sweden.
A word from America will let Assange out
By Hugo Rifkind - The Times
His two-year embassy stay is costing Britain a fortune. We need to know if his fears of extradition are justified or not
Oh, Julian. How you need a walk in the sunshine. “£6 million spent on 24/7 police surveillance of #Assange inside Ecuadorean Embassy,” tweeted his WikiLeaks organisation last week, perhaps confusing “inside” with “outside” and “surveillance” with “kinda standing there”.
And yet. Six million pounds? Seems a lot. Long ago, remember, the supermodel Linda Evangelista said she wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000. Another six weeks, and the WikiLeaks founder will have been inside Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, SW1X for two whole years, at a cost of £11,000 every day. So possibly the Met Police could have saved quite a lot of money by just employing her.
Obviously, the person best placed to resolve this ludicrous, costly stand-off is the man himself, who remains free to pop out the door and fly to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning on sex offence charges. Had he done so in 2010, and even been convicted, he’d doubtless be out by now. And maybe even missing it, because Swedish prisons look bloody lovely. Last year, according to AFP, an inmate broke out of one to go to the dentist and then went back. True story.
Granted, it may be that Assange does not want to stand trial for rape. This is not, however, his stated reason for remaining in his cupboard. If he did go to Sweden, he claims, the US might seek to extradite him from there. And American prisons aren’t terribly nice at all. Although the dentistry might be better. Not sure.
This is not a wholly reasonable fear, in part for boring legal details about the relative ease of extraditing somebody from Stockholm v one from London, albeit with the obvious proviso in the latter case that they aren’t hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Also, American authorities have never actually said that they want him.
They still could, though, and there’s the rub. Team Assange point to the 2010 disclosure by Eric Holder, the US attorney general, that WikiLeaks was at that time under criminal investigation. Since then the US has consistently denied that any indictment has been brought, both before, during and after the trial of Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source. What the US has never done, however, is rule out the prospect that one could be. And all of our sakes, I think that they should.
It’s not that I am any great WikiLeaks defender. Far from it. Assange is the troubling flaw in the concept of free speech. Believe in it and he is the bit that makes you question your principles. The Manning revelations (of hordes of diplomatic and military cables) today often find themselves lumped together with those of the NSA leaker Edward Snowden (of western intelligence practices). In fact, though, there is a difference. Snowden went to the newspapers. His leaks, as a result, were published by people who agonised over the effects this might have. Warnings were given, names were redacted. This is how journalism is supposed to work.
Manning went to Assange, who blurted all. Witnesses against the Taliban, opposition activists in Belarus, wavering Zimbabwean generals, all saw their names thrust abruptly into the public domain. It was a terrible, terrible thing to do, and I’m happy to see Assange condemned and shamed for doing it. Although that’s not the same thing as saying I’d be happy to see him prosecuted.
If the distinction seems moot, then I’d make the same argument about some of the most vicious sorts of tabloid journalism and why none of them warrant state regulation of the press. Make the practitioners into pariahs, by all means, but not criminals. The former, if it helps, is the action of a moral people, whereas the latter is the act of an oppressive state. In the case of Assange, pariah status should encourage the next Manning to make a better decision, as Snowden (who was the next Manning) in fact did. Ultimately Assange deserves the same protections as any other journalist. And, simultaneously, he deserves disdain for being such an appallingly, dangerously crap one.
Most likely, America never will charge him, anyway. Much as some US lawmakers would clearly like to, the First Amendment gets in the way. Leakers are easy; they have privileged access to material and often break specific laws in sharing it. Plus they tend to be actually American. Assange, as well as being Australian, merely published what he had. How do you prosecute him without also prosecuting all the newspapers who followed him?
You can’t. Also you shouldn’t, and the US seems to accept this. Snowden, after all, has already been charged, whereas the newspapers he leaked to have been merely complained about and glowered at. Yet at the same time, there seems to be a sly satisfaction in leaving WikiLeaks in limbo. No wonder. With minimal expense the US has managed to persuade Assange to lock himself in a room for two years.
Except it costs us a packet. Worse, it’s woolly and vague, and all the things that justice shouldn’t be. The danger with Assange is that his many grim attributes begin to blur. I like neither what he did with WikiLeaks nor what he denies having done with two Swedish women, but I’m increasingly of the view that only the latter should be considered a crime. US justice, which seems to quietly agree, should say so. Then there would be nothing stopping him from going to Sweden and he would doubtless be on the next flight. Right, Julian?
His two-year embassy stay is costing Britain a fortune. We need to know if his fears of extradition are justified or not
Oh, Julian. How you need a walk in the sunshine. “£6 million spent on 24/7 police surveillance of #Assange inside Ecuadorean Embassy,” tweeted his WikiLeaks organisation last week, perhaps confusing “inside” with “outside” and “surveillance” with “kinda standing there”.
And yet. Six million pounds? Seems a lot. Long ago, remember, the supermodel Linda Evangelista said she wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000. Another six weeks, and the WikiLeaks founder will have been inside Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, SW1X for two whole years, at a cost of £11,000 every day. So possibly the Met Police could have saved quite a lot of money by just employing her.
Obviously, the person best placed to resolve this ludicrous, costly stand-off is the man himself, who remains free to pop out the door and fly to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning on sex offence charges. Had he done so in 2010, and even been convicted, he’d doubtless be out by now. And maybe even missing it, because Swedish prisons look bloody lovely. Last year, according to AFP, an inmate broke out of one to go to the dentist and then went back. True story.
Granted, it may be that Assange does not want to stand trial for rape. This is not, however, his stated reason for remaining in his cupboard. If he did go to Sweden, he claims, the US might seek to extradite him from there. And American prisons aren’t terribly nice at all. Although the dentistry might be better. Not sure.
This is not a wholly reasonable fear, in part for boring legal details about the relative ease of extraditing somebody from Stockholm v one from London, albeit with the obvious proviso in the latter case that they aren’t hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Also, American authorities have never actually said that they want him.
They still could, though, and there’s the rub. Team Assange point to the 2010 disclosure by Eric Holder, the US attorney general, that WikiLeaks was at that time under criminal investigation. Since then the US has consistently denied that any indictment has been brought, both before, during and after the trial of Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source. What the US has never done, however, is rule out the prospect that one could be. And all of our sakes, I think that they should.
It’s not that I am any great WikiLeaks defender. Far from it. Assange is the troubling flaw in the concept of free speech. Believe in it and he is the bit that makes you question your principles. The Manning revelations (of hordes of diplomatic and military cables) today often find themselves lumped together with those of the NSA leaker Edward Snowden (of western intelligence practices). In fact, though, there is a difference. Snowden went to the newspapers. His leaks, as a result, were published by people who agonised over the effects this might have. Warnings were given, names were redacted. This is how journalism is supposed to work.
Manning went to Assange, who blurted all. Witnesses against the Taliban, opposition activists in Belarus, wavering Zimbabwean generals, all saw their names thrust abruptly into the public domain. It was a terrible, terrible thing to do, and I’m happy to see Assange condemned and shamed for doing it. Although that’s not the same thing as saying I’d be happy to see him prosecuted.
If the distinction seems moot, then I’d make the same argument about some of the most vicious sorts of tabloid journalism and why none of them warrant state regulation of the press. Make the practitioners into pariahs, by all means, but not criminals. The former, if it helps, is the action of a moral people, whereas the latter is the act of an oppressive state. In the case of Assange, pariah status should encourage the next Manning to make a better decision, as Snowden (who was the next Manning) in fact did. Ultimately Assange deserves the same protections as any other journalist. And, simultaneously, he deserves disdain for being such an appallingly, dangerously crap one.
Most likely, America never will charge him, anyway. Much as some US lawmakers would clearly like to, the First Amendment gets in the way. Leakers are easy; they have privileged access to material and often break specific laws in sharing it. Plus they tend to be actually American. Assange, as well as being Australian, merely published what he had. How do you prosecute him without also prosecuting all the newspapers who followed him?
You can’t. Also you shouldn’t, and the US seems to accept this. Snowden, after all, has already been charged, whereas the newspapers he leaked to have been merely complained about and glowered at. Yet at the same time, there seems to be a sly satisfaction in leaving WikiLeaks in limbo. No wonder. With minimal expense the US has managed to persuade Assange to lock himself in a room for two years.
Except it costs us a packet. Worse, it’s woolly and vague, and all the things that justice shouldn’t be. The danger with Assange is that his many grim attributes begin to blur. I like neither what he did with WikiLeaks nor what he denies having done with two Swedish women, but I’m increasingly of the view that only the latter should be considered a crime. US justice, which seems to quietly agree, should say so. Then there would be nothing stopping him from going to Sweden and he would doubtless be on the next flight. Right, Julian?
