The good news about Assange

[nancylebov]

If the prosecution against him is politically motivated (I think that's the way to bet-- I also think that what he's accused of is really rape, but I don't know whether he's guilty), then we've got a chance of getting it verified.

I don't think an international hunt for someone who was accused of being a serial killer would be put together as quickly as what we've seen against Assange.

Comments

[zenlizard]

You're probably right, it wouldn't be. And this is a strong indication that the prosecution against Assange is politically motiveted.

That doesn't change the fact that he's a potential rapist. I'm not saying either way: I haven't seen the evidence either for or against the sexual assault charges.

However, *if* he is in fact, a rapist, then sure, why not use a political motive to advance the rape case against him? There are many people already doing the "whislteblowing" work without also being rapists.

Again, I must stress that I am making a point, not deciding based on evidence I haven't had a chance to actually look at.

[avram]

However, *if* he is in fact, a rapist, then sure, why not use a political motive to advance the rape case against him?

Because the political aspects of the prosecution are bound to overwhelm the other aspects, pretty much guaranteeing that he won't get a fair trial?

Notice the sentence you wrote. If he's a rapist ... why not advance the case? That's the opposite order from how things are supposed to work in a state that presumes the innocence of the accused. (I don't know if Sweden does, but the UK, where Assange is being held, certainly claims to.) You advance the case in order to determine whether the accused has committed the crime; you don't make that determination first.

Before you advance the case, you have a preliminary investigation where you determine whether the case is even worth advancing -- whether there's any evidence at all to investigate, among other things. The very real danger in this case is that the preliminaries have been rushed because of the political aspects of the case.

There are many people already doing the "whislteblowing" work without also being rapists.

Probably. There are probably very few people "doing the 'whislteblowing' work" without having some sort of crime in their past that they can be prosecuted for. Or even some innocent act that can be made to look like a crime by a zealous prosecutor and a biased press. That's the other lesson to be learned here: Piss off the ruling class, and they will hunt through your life, and the lives of the people around you, looking for any excuse to bring the power of the state down upon your head.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

There's a third possibility: ambitious prosecutor and lawyer.

The best account I've seen of the story is at

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Fears-of-STDs-sparked-case-against-WikiLeaks-boss/articleshow/7066340.cms

Finally some decent real journalism. Not snark, not silly. They interviewed associates of the parties, checked many sources.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that this batch of releases got more attention than earlier ones that (as far as I can tell) were no less a breach of national secrecy. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that this one got the attention of TPTB because it embarrassed them by putting their petty backbiting and sniping on public display.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's not what was just released (State Dept cables) but what was rumored to be released next: stuff from Bank of America and BP.

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

Serial killers only get police departments and victims' families and (if they're high-profile enough) the FBI mad at them. Assange managed to enrage and/or embarrass not just one national government, but a whole bunch of them at once.

I think one of the morals of the story is that if you're going to make that high-profile an annoyance of yourself, it behooves you to make certain before you start that your private life is squeaky-clean. They'll still make life a living hell for you if you get them mad enough, but there's no point in deliberately making their job any easier than it has to be.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

I don't know, carefully cultivating a persona as a "colourful character" might be the best defense of all. It's worked recently for Eric Cantona. Trying to out-clean the mud-slinging machine is a losing proposition. Even if you provide nothing for them to latch onto (somehow), calumny is so well developed in the media that it's bound to find expression, even when nobody's deliberately trying to smear you.