If you expect someone who is the head of anything you like - to not be thought of as a creep [or even to not be one] - then I submit for your consideration that you’ve put them on a pedestal.
They’re humans. It’s not a defense of their behavior, it’s an indictment of your expectations and your evidence gathering. What are the chances that someone interested in voiding secrecy would have boundary issues? If that surprises you, I’d have to consider you a bit naive.
Nah. I expect if there is an ACTIVE and ONGOING investigation that he actually follows the rules.
If he didn’t like the laws of Sweden, maybe he shouldn’t have gone there. And if he broke laws there, maybe he shouldn’t try hiding in a country that has very strong extradition laws as a close friend of the nation.
I don’t expect him not to be a creep…ok, I expect everyone not to be a creep…but being a creep and a criminal creep are two different things.
If this where the usual “run-of-the-mill” creep being accused of sexual misconductI would be the first in Line to demand his compliance. But the whole course of events regarding the leaks and following accusations are a bit too coincidental to not appear fishy.
Don’t we forget that there is potential US involvement/interest at stake here too - the US government is known to use character assassination tactics to discredit bothersome persons:
Innocent until proven guilty still has to go to trial.
You mean after he pretty much admitted everything and said he didn’t think it was a big deal, even though it would be considered sexual assault ANYWHERE.
But I guess since this is Assange, well…what he said isn’t what he meant.
Seriously. He hasn’t committed a crime in the US. We have no legal basis for bringing him here. The US may not like him at all, but not liking someone isn’t the same as claiming he committed a crime. Beyond that, we don’t need to make him look bad…he did that all on his own. With women that were long time fans of his. And not fans of the US.
I’ll just quote the guy above your post:
Several US politicians (including Representatives and two (at the time) presidential candidates) openly called for his arrest and/or execution/assassination.
well, several US Politicians also believe there’s no climate change and dinosaurs walked next to humans. luckily it takes more than “several” for it to matter 
If you refuse to even stand trial because you are running away from the process, I personally get to believe he is guilty. As for politicians? Sure. They can make any grandiose statement they want. I mean, if legal depositions made by Boing Boing owners are to be believed, hyperbole is a useful tool.
Do I agree with these politicians? No. But politicians are not the justice arm of the gov’t. They don’t get to hold trials or declare guilt in anything but these hyperbolic grandiose statements that mean absolutely nothing.
Yeah right, because the USA is known to respect foreign citizens human rights and it’s reasoned approach when applying it’s judicial aspirations beyond their borders.
We know of hundreds of foreign nationals apprehended on shaky legal grounds (Dotcom) on behalf of the US government or without any legal justification at all (ref: extraordinary rendition to black site torture prisons). It isn’t entirely unreasonable for him to fear extradition (or worse). If I were in his position I too wouldn’t leave the embassy.
Can’t trust any US politician:
Dotcom, the serial criminal. That can’t even go back to his home country because of computer fraud (convicted), embezzlement (convicted), insider trading (convicted) and then a host of other crimes that he fled to New Zealand because of other pending charges and then lied on his immigration documentation saying that he’s never committed any felonies and that New Zealand has been trying to kick him out ever since.
New Zealand that has extradition treaties with the US and has IP treaties with the US stating that they will respect US copyright and vice versa and will extradite anyone that doesn’t. And yet, he choose to run his business in a country with these same strong IP laws and then wondered why he might get arrested.
Regardless of what you feel about IP laws, you may want to find a different example…this guy is sleazy in far more ways than just this. And if you are a guest of another country, try not to flaunt their laws regardless if you agree with them or not.
Another case were you
?
He is sleazy for sure. He was involved in a lot of shenanigans but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty in this particular case.
Did I say he is automatically guilty? No. I said I believe he is.
Luckily, there is a legal system that is fair and impartial in Sweden that is considered one of the best in the world and impartial to political forces. If only there was a way to use it in this case. I mean, if there was a way to have this group of people use their honest judgement to determine if he were guilty or not.
Or are you talking about Dotcom? Because you seem to bring up folks that aren’t actually connected and bad examples, so I’m not quite sure.
it changed focus.
Some sympathisers were unhappy[citation needed] when WikiLeaks ended a community-based wiki format in favour of a more centralised organisation. The “about” page originally read:[243]
To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.
However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were “of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest” (and excluded “material that is already publicly available”).[244] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote “automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records”.[245] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, in any country, as the original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not conforming to the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that “Anybody can post comments to it. […] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity.”[246] After the 2010 reorganisation, posting new comments on leaks was no longer possible.[34]
It’s amazing how lacking in transparency an organisation supposedly devoted to transparency can become.
I think he’d be more likely to get a fair trial that didn’t end up with him being extradited to the US in Sweden, rather than the UK. If the British government can’t even be bothered to sling you on a plane to be extraordinarily renditioned then you’re clearly not the big info-terrorist you were hoping. It’s almost enough to make one go sulk in an embassy for years.
Meaning they unplugged his Ethernet cable?
Even Alex Jones is getting tired of Assange’s nonsense. Assange had some big press conference in Germany…and the only thing he said was he would have a big release AFTER the election. WTF
I expect you’re disappointed as a result.
But again, I’m not defending Assange. I am pointing out the pitchforks and fires predate the charges, and the disappointment with his morality is based on heresay at this point.
I surely don’t think his involvement in a he said she said situation is relevant to wikileaks
