Julian Assange in custody. At least Swifter let him keep his cup of cocoa.
Ante? UPPED!
When I asked Swifter if I could repurpose this from the crosstalk thread he replied:
Sure, as long as you tell people that I say it’s where he belongs. You may add whatever other commentary you wish from your own viewpoint, of course.
To which I replied, quite naturally, that my own thoughts on this image were far too kinky to post on a nice, family-friendly blog like mine. And now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s difficult to type with no hands free…
raincoaster 
Swifter would like it known that he did NOT provide Julian with a cup of cocoa. He provided him with a cup of Hemlock instead.
http://gawker.com/comment/35166750
I have mixed feelings about this techno-anarchist. Laughably, he’s now complaining of copyright infringement by The Guardian and others, claiming “ownership” of privvy information stolen by Manning.
Some of the information that was leaked may have positive results, i.e., middle eastern countries’ worries about Iran as a rogue nation.
On the other hand, the publication of such information squelches “private” discussion. As soon as someone plops down a voice recorder in the middle of the conference table, people naturally shut up and couch everything they say.
Meanwhile, color Assange yellow.
Yes, the “theft” is hilarious, I completely agree. Adrian Chen on Gawker said the smartest thing I’ve ever heard about Assange:
“Julian Assange is made of contradictions the way other people are made of atoms.”
I don’t think Assange is yellow; I think he’s just crafty, with an eye out for the main chance. He’s a control freak who’s fronting for an organization that claims to be for total transparency, but obviously isn’t. Fortunately, some more distributed sites have sprung up to carry out the mission Wikileaks claims as its own.
I think having Assange as a figurehead suits everyone: for Wikileaks, it means they’ll be left to go about their business as long as the Evil Genius is in custody; for the US, it allows them to just get on with their usual operations, having presented the Evil Genius to the multitudes in handcuffs; to the Swedes, it enables them to look tough and helpful to the US while really not doing much more than going through routine judicial business.
Assange is a red herring. He’s an intriguing one, but one nonetheless. He is not essential to Wikileaks, but it’s crucial for all involved that everyone forget this fact.
Your Grace
We live in a World where there are conseuqnences
Perhaps having a Junior Eaglette colours (err ….. colors, à l’argot des Colonies-Midis) this Eagle’s perspective on this man
Mr A is a self-confessed serial-philanderer – this alone makes him unWelcome in the Adler-Commonwealth
He may think his embarrassing betrayal of sensitive information to be a joke most huge & clever …. and to be a potential source of certain unpleasing illnesses may (he may think) be his right when meeting les Dames
BUT
Perhaps he might do well to spend less effort seeking to evade Swedish Justice for his alleged conduct towards these young Swedish Ladies
… and more time calculating the radio-active impact of exchanges of military nuclear fall-out, which might be occasioned by his “cleverness” in shining a spotlight on certain attitudes of Iran and North Korea’s neighbours, that would have been better kept secret
Remaining your Grace’s obedient servant etc
G E
I’m all for transparency, even though I know the amazing things that can be accomplished with the use of a little secrecy. Transparency in this case would include Assange going to trial on those charges in Sweden, as quickly as possible. The only reason to avoid the trial seems to be because he knows he’s guilty of the infractions with which he is charged. But Wikileaks will continue without him, or there are several other sites in the same business.
Remember, too, that Assange didn’t steal those secrets he’s released. Someone on the inside leaked those. By doing so, the leaker renders those secrets “invulnerable” to spies. They are already in possession of a neutral group, so they’re of no value to foreign governments. Indirectly, this is a way of getting people with weaker connections to their government to express that without hurting them to the extent of giving the information to their enemies directly.
rain– Herr Eagle is absolutely correct.
“Transparency” is a buzzword. Wouldn’t everyone like to know what goes on in the boardrooms of major corporations, behind the closed doors of governmental strategy meetings, and what people really think of you within YOUR OWN GOSSIP CLATCH…
What Assange has done is to publicize the work of Pvt. Manning, who should by all rights be hung for treason. A person of character, upon receiving such private communications, would have kept mum and turned it over to those entities most likely to be damaged by their release to the public.
We’re not talking about a clandestine video posted on the Utoobage of a Domino’s employee spitting on a pizza. We’re talking about a coward intentionally disrupting international relations and world peace. Assange has no conscience, and assuming he’s not ignorant, he is evil as well.
“Fortunately, some more distributed sites have sprung up to carry out the mission Wikileaks claims as its own.”
Rain– I have a lot of respect for you, but you are absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Can we not agree that Manning’s actions are morally different from Assange’s actions? A serving soldier leaking classified information to an organization run by a foreigner is one thing. Publishing that information is quite another.
In my opinion, Assange is using this for ends which are unjustified, but he’s not guilty of treason. He’s more dangerous than Manning to the extent that he has sources other than Manning. I mean, that was a goldmine, but Wikileaks doesn’t get stuff like that every day.
And as for your last comment, I’m assuming it applies to the first word in the sentence you’ve quoted, and doesn’t reflect a difference of opinion on the truth of the last section.
Your Grace
It is always entertaining and generally informative (at least for this Eagle) to disagree with your Grace, although we seem to be largely in agreement on this occasion
I flatter myself that I agree with Senor Strutts on Mr Assange and on so many things
…. apart of course on whether Seattle should be towed into the Pacific and sunk in order to provide a beach off Vancouver for Harbour seals and a shelter for those squid things that are being driven away by California fishermen
BUT we do not to remind ourselves that danger lies not in an entertaining Young Bloggerista like yourself or in whistle-blowing per se
>>>> After all whistleblowing blew the lid off the outrageous expense claims of so many British MPs – a few appear to be surprised that they are currently en route to prison for their criminal activities
BUT the danger is in some of the things which this philanderer is revealing, with such little apparent responsibility for his actions , especially where they affect unpredictable nuclear powers (eg North Korea)
Your Grace’s obedient servant etc
GE
Don’t you have to be married to be a philanderer? Or at least pretend to be in an exclusive relationship? In my opinion as a single woman, Assange is a dirtbag, possibly a rapist, a classic cad, but not a philanderer per se.
Wikileaks purports to be an amoral, apolitical organization, along the lines of Anonymous, but it’s not, really. Assange’s “editing” and the press releases and scheduling of the information released reflects an agenda. The agenda it reflects is politically motivated, to maximize the importance and impact of Wikileaks and to keep Assange out of prison for the longest possible period of time. That it’s not in favour of any particular existing nation doesn’t mean it’s apolitical; it is itself effectively another interest in scheme of global politics, a stateless state like Al Qaeda, with an agenda driven by a) keeping Assange free and b) keeping Wikileaks on the public radar.
In my opinion, that’s foolish. Wikileaks would be far more important and have more chance to change the world if they didn’t try to claim credit for all the leaks. They could provide those leaks without writing up press releases about them (which would also save hundreds of hours of volunteer time).
Rain, with no disrespect to you, you’re being naive. This isn’t about a sexual offense.
You are correct in your statement that “Wikileaks purports to be an amoral, apolitical organization, along the lines of Anonymous, but it’s not, really.” They are also not in the game to merely provide chuckles to the rest of us (like Smoking Gun). They are in it to do damage, and to do it intentionally, and to gloat about it.
Since you advertise yourself as a bibliophile and as a well-read intellectual (no, I’m not being snarky) I suggest that you add to your reading list David Kahn’s “The Code Breakers.” I’ve read the abridged version as well as the unabridged and updated versions. I guarantee it will change your opinion of Assange and Wikilieaks, and will shine a light on some rarely discussed history.
Hell, I’ll even send y0u a copy. I’ve got a spare.
Pingback: Afternoon Links: Lady Gaga to Design Fetish Lingerie Line
I’ve heard about that book. Yes, I’m interested. You can send me your spare by all means. I’ll email you the address. Which reminds me to download Kevin Mitnick’s book with the expurgated chapter. I think TSG has it. They’re not in it for giggles either: TSG is where I got the manual of Afghani Jihad, the CIA translation.
I don’t think they are there to do damage. I do think they will allow themselves to be used by those who wish to do damage, whether Wikileaks is aware of their motivation or not. But I do not think that as an organization they are actively, deliberately malevolent. I believe they are simply self-interested.
Here’s what I think: Assange and the people he started out with were True Believers in an anarchic revolution brought about through the power of technology. Current anarchists may not know what they want to bring about, they just want change, ANY change. This makes them very dangerous, moreso than previous movements, because they’re unpredictable. Hell, two years ago Anonymous was taking down boy band fansites for shits and giggles, and today they’re toppling the government of Tunisia.
A lot of people who’ve joined the Wikileaks cause since then are optimists, people who believe that greater transparency leads to better behaviour. Essentially, they believe that the Panopticon/Surveillance State that governments apply to their people should be turned around and focused on the government, for exactly the same reason: people tend to misbehave less when they know they are being watched.
Unfortunately, while the rate of petty crime decreases in a Panopticon, the rate of violent insanity increases. By 75%. That’s from Mike Davis’ book City of Quartz, which includes studies of Panopticon-style prisons in LA and environs.
What THAT means when applied to governments is anyone’s guess. Remember the guy who spent some time in jail just for taking a picture of a hotel Cheney was staying in?
“I don’t think they are there to do damage. I do think they will allow themselves to be used by those who wish to do damage, whether Wikileaks is aware of their motivation or not. But I do not think that as an organization they are actively, deliberately malevolent. I believe they are simply self-interested. ”
And you are wrong. They’re ALL about damage. I’ve even traded emails with some. Meanwhile you stated:
“Hell, two years ago Anonymous was taking down boy band fansites for shits and giggles, and today they’re toppling the government of Tunisia.”
You think a bunch of naive idiots messing around in foreign policy is a good thing? C’mon, rain. You’re viewing this as a sophisticated schoolboy prank. There are very serious repercussions that will result from their foolishness, and most of them are not good.
Okay, who and what specifically are they trying to damage, and why? Assange has been quoted as saying he’s very busy, with two wars to “stop.” Is that what you’re referring to? That doesn’t sound like damage to me, particularly in light of the US commitment to withdraw.
I agree that there are very serious repercussions. I just don’t think that a roving band of idiots can fuck up, say, Tunisia, any more than it has been already.
Remember, in your country and mine, those “roving idiots” are voters. Neighbors. If the people they hired to administer the government don’t perform to their liking, they’re perfectly within their human rights to route around them. That’s how your country came into being, remember?
You oppose this?
Rain, you’re being evasive, contradicting your own statements, using a strawman argument, and then rephrasing the question.
Assange/Wikileaks and Anonymous (and others) are self-proclaimed techno-anarchist groups. They wish to do damage to corporations and governments in order to create chaos, and they’re not ashamed of hiding it. Anonymous and other similar groups do not explain what they would replace governments and corporations with.
This is the problem with anarchy. No rules. It’s an extreme far right movement, and I’m surprised that a liberal like yourself is defending them.
However, we’re in agreement on this:
“Current anarchists may not know what they want to bring about, they just want change, ANY change. This makes them very dangerous, moreso than previous movements, because they’re unpredictable. Hell, two years ago Anonymous was taking down boy band fansites for shits and giggles, and today they’re toppling the government of Tunisia.”
What makes that a reason to support them?
Why are you conflating the motivations of Wikileaks and Anonymous? They are independent organizations. Anonymous has just arbitrarily decided to act in Wikileaks’ favour this once, but they were previously just as likely to try to take it down.
I don’t have time to finish this comment. Cafe closing. I hate not having internet at home.
But I must say that anarchy is neither left nor right. Honestly, what a ridiculous idea!
Mock the truth and then run away! :D
All in fun, rain. Carry on.
I did. Here:
http://gawker.com/comment/35554702/
I’ll be putting up a post about Anonymous and Wikileaks soonish. A long, wordy one. EgyptOps should be interesting, as should whatever’s going down on the 17th.
Also: if you were on Twitter, you could have seen me argue with Anonymous itself. My site’s still up; they must like my tits or something.