I thought I'd bump my waiting list this week, to tackle something that's actually topical.
When Wikileaks unleashed the "collateral murder" tapes on the internet, everybody I knew was behind Assange. Understandably, most people do not like it when their government tries to hide the shitty things their military gets involved in. And even though there was debate over what sort of punishment Bradley Manning should receive, nobody was talking about going after Assange. After all, he was just ONE of the publishers who collaborated on breaking that story (wasn't it the Guardian and the Washington Post as well?), and we don't lock up people for publishing leaked government secrets in the free-world, do we …?
When "cable-gate" landed, embarrassing politicians and bureaucrats all over the world, the people I knew cheered. When then prime minister Julia Gillard announced that she had directed the attorney general to find a legal way of stripping Assange of his Australian citizenship, those same people booed. They booed loudly enough that Gillard quickly dropped the matter. It was then, though, that I suspected Julian was fucked. The fact that our PM was willing to publicly state her intention to take such drastic action against a bloke who hadn't been charged with a crime, much less been convicted of anything, told me that there was seriously heavy shit going on behind the scenes.
When Swedish authorities announced that Assange was wanted for questioning in regard to issues of sexual misconduct, most of the people I knew leapt to the conclusion that it was a frame-up. I remained sceptical. Assange always struck me as a bit of a narcissistic prick, and from what I've heard, Sweden has some pretty tight laws around sexual misbehaviour. As time went on though, I became suspicious that, even if there was a kernel of truth to the allegations, the Swedish authorities were using it as a means to an end. At this point, I would like to point out that I have heard many many different versions of what Assange is actually accused of doing, but since he's never been formally charged (as far as I know), and has only ever been wanted for questioning, there is no "official" version of events at this time. This is why I scratch my head every time I hear a news report saying that he has been "charged with rape". Am I missing something, or is this just another case of some incorrect information that's been repeated over and over, until everyone, including the vast majority of lazy lazy journos, believe it to be true?
So now, Assange has been booted by the Ecuadorians, arrested by the Poms, and if BradleyChelsea Manning's current incarceration is anything to go by, it seems the Yanks are gearing up to charge him over his involvement with the "collateral murder" leaks. That's right; not the "cable-gate" stuff, not his supposed collusion with big bad Vlad during the 2016 election (of which I am yet to see any proof whatsoever), but the one thing that everybody—EVERYBODY—said they couldn't touch him on.
My, how the world can change in 15 years.
But what I find really confusing, is the reaction I've gotten from people I know over this. I had this conversation with a work colleague the other day:
- Them:
- I'm glad the bastard's finally getting what he has coming to him.
- Me:
- Whadda ya mean?
- Them:
- Well, he's finally going to face justice, isn't he?
- Me:
- What, for like, the the sex stuff?
- Them:
- Nah, anybody can see that was a frame job.
- Me:
- So, d'ya mean, like, for the Wikileaks stuff?
- Them:
- Nah, that stuff's brilliant. Those cunts deserve medals for that.
- Me:
- So, you mean, like, for constin' Hillary the election?
- Them:
- Nah, not really.
- Me:
- So, then, what for?
- Them:
- Ah, I dunno. I've never really liked the cunt. Always thought there was somethin' off about him, 'ay? An' now he's gonna have'ta face the music. Y'know, ya make ya bed and then ya have to lie in it, right?
- Me:
- … ???
By the way, My memory is long enough that I know for a fact, that this particular person did not always think there was something "off" about Assange. But the weird thing is, that as strange as this seems, I've probably had over a dozen conversations like that one in the past few days. Even the people who used to be 100% pro Assange—like he was the second coming of Jesus—now seem to think that he's a dodgy cunt who probably deserves to be behind bars … but when I press them as to why, none of them seem to be able to give me a straight answer.
It's fuckin' weird. And I'm finding it a little bit eerie, to tell you truth. What about the people you know? How have they reacted. And what's your opinion on the subject?
5 comments :
I think Wikileaks was irresponsible publishing most of that stuff. It put a lot of people - Afghanis who'd helped the coalition, for example - in danger. I'm also old/cynical enough to accept that atrocities happen during war. Now that doesn't make it right, but they happen on every side and unless they are state-sanctioned genocide, or mass rape, there's little to be gained by what Wikileaks did.
I think Assange is an entitled dickhead who thought the silver spoon would protect him from the consequences of his actions. And the women at the centre of the rape charges state that they had consented to sex, but NOT sex without a condom, which is considered rape in Sweden. And should be here as well, because that's is NOT what was agreed upon.
Did you know he was a terrible houseguest at the Equadorian embassy? Leaving a mess everywhere, not bathing for months so he stank, and more than once smearing shit on the walls as a mark of contempt for his hosts. What a f-ing c. So yeah, I'm not going to be upset if he goes to prison for a few years.
I propose that one of the reasons people like you and me are so cynical about war atrocities is because they get exposed and not kept secret. The collateral murder drop alerted the public to the fact that American forces were routinely performing "double-taps", where they would attack a target, then wait for medics and other responders to arrive, before attacking again. And it was information from Wikileaks that confirmed that what went on in Abu Ghraib was not down to a couple of rouge prison guards, but part of a widespread CIA torture program.
(Also, if it wasn't for the Snowden leaks, people would still be telling me I was a lunatic every time I brought up the scope of American internet surveillance.)
As for their being irresponsible, I'll say again that, in the beginning, they were working hand-in-hand with a bunch of other news publications (actually, Der Spiegle has also just jumped into my brain as well). Do you reckon those editors should be sharing a cell with Assange? I mean, do you reckon that publishing leaked information should actually be a crime?
Here is a list of versions I have heard regarding Assange's sexual misconduct.
a) He nagged a woman into having sex without a condom (which is apparently coercion in Sweden).
b) He engaged in stealthing—meaning he removed the condom during the act without his partner noticing.
c) He initiated an early-morning rooting session, and his partner was still half asleep and didn't realise he wasn't wearing a condom.
d) One of the women tested positive for an STD, and when she couldn't contact Assange, she went to the police, because—apparently—that's what you do when that happens in Sweden. The police then interrogated her, and railroaded her into her pressing charges.
There have been SMS messages published that support (d), but as I said, until charges are formally laid, who's to say. It doesn't help that I can't read Swedish, nor do I know anyone who can, so all I can do is repeat what I've seen and heard in the English press.
I know that he didn't seem to have too many problems at the embassy up until the last Ecuadorian election. The old government did shut off his internet access for a while, when the US was going ape-shit over the Trump election, but it wasn't until the new government came in that things started to fall apart. As soon as he got into office, the new Pres began making noise that he wanted Assange out, and I believe it was in the middle of last year that he reached an agreement with the Yanks on having him booted. By the by, in return, the Yanks have helped negotiate around $10b in loans for Ecuador—$4b from the IMF, and $6b from various other bodies. Anyway, that seems to be about when most of these stories started about him being a filthy cunt and smearing shit on walls and what have you. Now, maybe the stories are all made up, or maybe Assange started acting like an animal once he found out his days there were numbered; or yes, maybe he was always behaving like that and the former Ecuadorian govt were covering it up for some reason, but the timing does strike me as odd.
Regardless, even if it's all true, I still have to go back to my original point: which bits are the bits that you think he should be locked up for? Is it the Wikileaks stuff? In which case, should all journalists and editors of all publications that print leaked information be locked up? Is it for the sex stuff? Or do you just reckon that being smelly and playing with your own shit should be a gaolable offence?
I think he should answer to the sex stuff, even though it all seems a bit dodgy, but as I understand it, if he did go to Sweden, the Americans would have nabbed him? Generally, we're pretty sympathetic here in the Squib household. Wikileaks was/is such a necessary and important 'service'. I think Assange's unpopularity stems from two things. 1. He lacks charisma and he comes across as arrogant (whether or not her really is). He doesn't even try to be likable and people just hate that. 2. Because he is deliberately mysterious, no one knows if he really was smearing shit on walls or whatever and what people don't know, they make up and what they make up is usually much worse than the truth. Does he deserve to be imprisoned for leaking info? No way. I'm assuming though that he has some kind of safeguard in the form of unreleased secrets which may help him negotiate things. I'd say he probably holds all the cards and the Americans are getting themselves into a hornets' nest (as usual)
There has been a lot of conjecture in tech circles over what Assange might have up his sleeve in case of capture or death. I have to wonder though, at this point, if it even really matters.
While he might be able to release information that damages a specific individual here or there, I think confidence and faith in Western political institutions is so low now that it'd be hard to find a scandal big enough to damage them further. It'd be like throwing a handful of shit at somebody who was already covered from head-to-toe in excrement—what would be the point?
Trump being in the White House is itself a testament to that lack of faith. Remember, he ran as a complete anti-establishment outsider, and was hated almost as much by mainstream Republican insiders as Democrats. I guess that makes him a giant turd, in this analogy.
it'd be hard to find a scandal big enough to damage them further
Yep... it would have to be something really monstrous
Post a Comment