Obligatory Wikileaks Assange blog
Well seems the entire blogosphere has some sort of an opinion on this one way or another. So like the trend following sheeple I am here is my quick take. A few points:-
Wikileaks
1. I hugely admire the work that Wikileaks are doing. The main stream media has largely (IMHO) abandoned its role of properly holding power to account. There isn’t that much investigative journalism happening, and much of the way the Press media operates seems to me to consist principally of moving forward the political agendas of their wealthy proprietors.
Wikileaks has been shining lights in places they ought to be shone. It’s revealing truths that public need to know. And it is doing a job the MSM ought to be doing. Friends of mine have fought in Afghanistan and risked their lives and may do so again. If our Government really doesn’t believe it is possible for us to win, and we are only there to save face then this is important.
Whistle blowing, and investigative journalism are fundamentally important in a Democratic Society, it is where the idea of “The Fourth Estate” comes into it’s own. And Wikileaks is a great example of this in practice. The reaction that Wikileaks has provoked from Governments and vested interests is exactly why this kind of thing is important.
I think Wikileaks is a force for good and I applaud it.
2. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the timing of the allegations against Julian Assange seems really suspicious. When things like this happen, with this sort of timing it is bound to raise some eyebrows.
Further any right minded person who knows anything about modern history, and CIA black opps will know that it is not unrealistic that the US might try and smear it’s political opponents. As evidenced by their plots against Fidel Castro over the years.
Clearly whatever has happened Assange has been pursued, because of who he is and what he has done, with unusual vigor given the nature of the allegations against him. Let’s be honest folks wanted for questioning in respect of these kind of cases do not normally head toward the top of the Interpol most wanted list.
May or may not be a Rapist.
3. But, and there is a massive but, neither of the above points mean that the allegations against Julian Assange shouldn’t be properly investigated. That it is possible it could be a smear does not mean it automatically is. That who he is means it has been pursued more vigorously than it normally would have been does not mean it shouldn’t be pursued.
And most of all just because the work that Assange does is to be admired, it does not mean that he is incapable of personal misconduct. I think it is eminently possible that someone who lives in a bubble and a rockstar life all across the globe might start behaving outside of the normal way we do. Just because we look up to people in one context doesn’t mean that automatically ought to give them a free pass in every way. If Assange has committed the crimes he is accused of then then he should be punished in line with the law, and the best place to determine this is in a court of law.
One of the things that has astonished me in some peoples reaction to the whole affair is their views toward Sweden. Now previously to most of us on the left Sweden was held up as a shining example of a progressive system, a functioning Liberal Democracy that was fairer and more equal than pretty much anywhere else on earth (I often for example in writing hold up Sweden as an example of the kind of good society I want for the UK).
Now that a “Hero of the Left™” is being being investigated for a possible crime their it seems to be being rebranded is some crypto-fascist banana republic. With a corrupt legal system, that is just a supine client state for the US looking to deliver Assange to the US authorities (I kind of thought that the extradition happy, US lapdog country in Europe was, well us… oh well shrug).
So in conclusions Wikileaks good, Timing a bit suspect, Allegations may or may not be true and the place to determine this is in a court of law with proper scrutiny. Surely this is all common sense?
Great blog Ralph, this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth though. I do feel that Assange is hiding behind Wikileaks. Tbh how often do we hear who the Swedish authorities are looking for? They may have been looking for him for a while for all we know. I think the timing was more to do with Assange than anything else. He is courting the press and celebrities alike to celebritise himself – building a shield of innocence. If he is innocent and with the money he is making he should be able to defend himself. Lets hope no eggs land on many faces.
Thanks Jo.
I don’t know if he did it or not, but the haste with which some have declared him innocent despite having seen no evidence appals me. And a lot of the language used by some (who should have known better) harks back to “she was asking for it in those clothes” kinda mentality that I abhor.
What needs to happen is clear, talk to the prosecutors and fight the case (if that is one actually develops he has not been charged with anything) and those who are suspicious make sure the case and the trial is held up to proper scrutiny to ensure no stitch up happens.
Can I just copy and paste this and put it up on my own blog? I felt the same “oh shit, there’s no chance of justice being done here” about the McCanns (tthough at least that particular frame-up didn’t stick) and there seems to be nothing but circumstantial evidence for Amanda Knox and her boyfriend. At least those two set-ups seemed driven by xenophobia, laziness and jealousy. When “justice” is used as tool of political oppression it gets purposive. And yet, as you say, if the charges are true….
Ben Warsop recently posted..Spell checker FAIL
Is a tricky one, at least it is if you see the world in black and white. For those on the left “He must be innocent because he is my hero” on the right “He must be guilty because he is my enemy…
See for me the idea that someone could be good and do something bad, or bad and do something good isn’t all that “out there”…. perhaps seeing the world in shades of grey is something we ought to teach in schools!
Thanks for the comment Ben!
Whilst I applaud your refusal to assume either innocence or guilt on Assange’s part for the alleged sex crime, I don’t feel that being neutral covers all the facts of the story. It’s true that, for the time being, nobody apart from Assange and the women involved know the appropriate facts of the case, but other factors that are known to the public are that these charges were dropped a few months ago until these new damaging Wikileak cables started to do the rounds. Allegations of sex crimes taint character and credibility well after a person has been clearly exonerated. Is it really appropriate here to say ‘well we just don’t know who’s guilty until the end of the trial’ or should we not be viewing the allegations with extreme cynicism until more evidence has been bought to light?
Whilst I take your point about how even the allegations can taint a character I think it is very, very dangerous to make assumptions. I have not seen any of the relevant evidence nor do I know the circumstances of the first investigation and what it entailed.
The reality is that *anyone* making any judgements is doing so on the basis of their personal prejudices. Assange’s lawyer has consistently, time after time, said that they have not seen the evidence against him. This was confirmed by Assange when he left the nick. So we don’t know, and for mer the idea that we should automatically assuming that the women are lying just because we happen to like Assange is wrong.
Sweden is not some backwater banana republic. If the charges against him do not stack up, and are politically motivated this will soon become clear; the eyes of the world will be on any trial if one is to occur. But for me due process, rather than the imaginations of those who do not know the facts, is the right place to determine what in the hell is going on.
In regards to the leaks – I understand that diplomacy requires that secrets are kept, but it is not our job to keep them. In fact in a liberal democracy with a free press, it is almost our job to disclose them. I only hope that Wikileaks leads to a fairer and more open global system, but I fear it will more likely lead to increased secrecy and security and new laws being drafted up curbing our already limited right to freedom of information.
With regards to the accusations against Assange – it reeks of foul play even more than the Dr David Kelly suicide. Your assertion that he should should stand trial in an open and meticulously scrutinised court is correct, however I can’t help but feel that the way he is being pursued for his alleged offences does not seem to sit right in a fair and impartial legal system. I would also remove the quotation marks from your comment of “innocent” earlier on – he is innocent, as we all are – until proven guilty, and it is essential that this is remembered for any just legal system to operate with any authority.
Fair point and changed Plymski. But the point remains, many on the left simply because of their personal prejudices have not only asserted that he innocent unless proven guilty. But gone further and determined that he is definitely innocent, not only that but it would be a travesty for the charges he is accused of to even be investigated.
That is wrong, it might be a stitch up heaven knows the timing is suspect. On the other hand is it really that unbeleivable that someone in Assange’s position; travelling around the world, receiving adulation everywhere, being this massive player on the world stage, living a rock star lifestyle, might start losing sight a little of normal judgement and sexual politics. That isn’t to say he has done anything but there is surely a possibility.
I dislike the idea in principle that just because you look up to someone that they are suddenly incapable of having done anything wrong. And no one really knows any of the circumstances about anything, the earlier investigation, the new investigation anything. It is all speculation. And due process is the right way to deal with this.
And further lets apply a little Occam’s Razor here in all. If this was *really* just about extraditing him to the states is it even remotely credible that if asked by the US our government wouldn’t just do it? A lot of this stinks, and it may well turn out to be a stitch up but for me assuming that it *must* be without having seen any evidence is just sloppy thinking.