Did he do that? He shouldn’t have done that if so. That said, he shouldn’t have had any kind of nonconsensual sex either.
That said, the US shouldn’t have machine gunned that van full of journalists, the video of which reached the public via Wikileaks. I also disapprove of that.
However, this is a discussion of a book about Assange, so it is definitely fair ball to talk about his behaviours and choices. What I wish is that when we are discussing the documents and videos that Wikileaks released, we would not also be forced to talk about Assange’s personal assholery.
What was exposed by Wikileaks, exactly? The immunity from prosecution in Iraq of contractors, and the lack of accountability for military personal (as long as they mention a perceived threat) were two things that the Pentagon was fairly open and honest about from the start.
There were already numerous first-hand accounts of incidents in which innocent people were killed under the questionable rules of engagement, but because they lacked the graphic money-shot and Wikileaks watermark they were ignored or quickly forgotten.
The collateral murder video changed that, but instead of releasing the raw footage as it was received, it was presented in an edited form, with an emotionally charged title, a narrative, and omissions where the content did not align with that narrative. It was, at best, manipulative, and at worst, propaganda.
Instead of sparking debate about the real issues of accountability that you mention, it provided an opportunity for people to dismiss the events depicted in the video as an anomaly and not the daily occurrences that they were.
If Assange was committed to making sure the real issues were talked about instead of his personal life, he’d have listened to those that worked with him when they suggested he take a less visible role until things were resolved. I’m thankful that there are people around who can do what he hoped to without feeling the need to build a brand at the same time.
We will probably never know what went down exactly between Assange and these women, but assuming Assange´s side of the story to be true (and i.m.o. there is a distinct possibility that it is, given the perfect timing with which the allegations were made), I wouldn´t hold it against him to call them whores. It isn´t very gentlemanly to do so, but on the other hand he´s been stuck in that damn embassy for the better part of two years now because of them and can expect to remain there for the foreseeable future. People have been called worse for less.
I’ve never understood why he thought he was more at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, when at that point he was already under house arrest in the UK, a country whose government has almost as much reason to dislike him as the US, and has never been shy about extraditing people to the US.
Running to Sweden would have been the sensible choice.
Or maybe the US government realised they could do much more harm to his cause by leaving him free to discredit himself, rather than making him into a martyr. Seems to have worked.
Yes, it’s a shame that Sweden can’t offer him a non-extradition guarantee, but it’s quite understandable that the law doesn’t allow them to set the outcome of extradition requests in advance. The UK can’t offer him that guarantee either, so I don’t think it’s legitimate to argue that he could live in the UK, but couldn’t risk setting foot in Sweden because torture. Unless, as I say, there’s some evidence I’m unaware of; I freely admit to not being a big follower of Swedish news.
So why did Assange refuse to face his accusers in Sweden, and instead decide to stay in the UK and fight to avoid facing them while calling them ‘whores’?
I think that the people who view the article as a smear or hit piece either didn’t read it, or are missing the author’s point. Quoting from towards the end:
Those of us who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in the United Kingdom under Thatcher and Blair, those of us who lived through the Troubles and the Falklands War, the miners’ strike, the deregulation of the City, and Iraq, believed that exposing secret deals and covert operations would prove a godsend. When WikiLeaks began this process in 2010, it felt, to me anyhow, but also to many others that this might turn out to be the greatest contribution to democracy since the end of the Cold War. […] Assange looked like a counter-warrior and a man not made for the deathly compromises of party politics.
This is not someone trying to minimize Assange’s work or portray him as a spy or criminal. This is someone who, like me, strongly believed in the work Wikileaks was doing to expose government evil.
What happened, though, is that big government opposition to WikiLeaks’s work – which continues – became confused, not least in Assange’s mind, with the rape accusations against him. It has been a fatal conflation. There’s a distinct lack of clarity in Julian’s approach, a lack that is, I’m afraid, only reinforced by the people he has working with him.
…and supporting him on the Internet.
Yes, you go to war against evil with the heroes you have, not the heroes you want to have — but on the other hand, you don’t try to whitewash the imperfections of those heroes at any cost. If you do that, you risk becoming the kind of secretive and dishonest organization you are supposed to be fighting against.
And that’s the tragedy the article describes, that Wikileaks became an organization hypocritically obsessed with keeping its own secrets and ensuring ideological purity.
Oh well, now I can sit back and wait to be denounced.
Now that you’re clearly stating your point, and not asking sarcastic questions, why would you be denounced, beyond pointing out that Jesus wants his cross back. Otherwise well said.
