Ardinius
I'm making a habit of getting into these things late, but I am very surprised at the level of misinformation and ignorance there is surrounding the Assange affair in this forum.
I detest getting into the whole 'did Julian Assange Rape two women' debate because it is completely irrelevant to what the Debate should really be about. Anyone with a shred of intelligence is able to see that this is a prototypical ploy set about to get Julian Assange into hands of the U.S. government where a secret indictment has been drafted against him (as the recent Stratfor Leaks attest to).
But for those of you who still insist/are confused/ or think he is guilty of a rape crime - The facts are as follows:
1) Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.
[Source: @wikileaks]
2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.
[Source: Undue delay for Julian Assange’s interrogation]
3) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor. [Source: Why is Julian Assange in jail?]
4) In all instances, the 2 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. [Sources: Swedish Police Report and The offences described in the EAW are not extradition offences]
5) A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian. [Source: Overlooked evidence in the Assange trial]
6) Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.
[Source: Brief to Canberra Meeting of MPs]
7) After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating she was enjoying Julian Assange’s company; b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian as well.
[Sources: AA: The Twitter Trail, Göran Rudling Witness Statement and Police Statement of Witness C]
8) The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgström (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodström. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodström is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW. [Source: Irmeli Krans: The Facebook Trail]
9) Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media. [Source: Irmeli Krans: The Facebook Trail]
10) Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.
Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under Mutual Legal Assistance protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.
[Sources: Fair Trial for Julian Assange? and Abuse of Process: Disproportionate use of EAW and INTERPOL Red Notice]
11) Both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate. [Source: Brief to Canberra Meeting of MPs]
12) The allegations against Julian Assange do not constitute an offense in Australia or in the UK. [Source: The offences described in the EAW are not extradition offences]
13) If extradited to Sweden: still without charge, Julian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention would last for an indefinite period. Trial in Sweden would be held in secret. [Source: Fair Trial for Julian Assange?]
14) The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliations. They have no formal legal training. [Source: Lay Judges]
15) Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). [Source: Fair Trial for Julian Assange?]
The real debate is about whether Julian Assange's Wikileaks Organisation has a right to exist. Only upon consensus on this subject can we argue whether or not his claim for asylum in Ecuador is justified.
Kali
The real debate is about whether Julian Assange's Wikileaks Organisation has a right to exist. Only upon consensus on this subject can we argue whether or not his claim for asylum in Ecuador is justified.
Whether or not it has a right to exist (and for that matter,
whether or not his claim for asylum is "justified") is irrelevant.
His actions pose a direct threat to the international status quo, and
particularly to US soft power. As a state, the US will act within its power to
negate that threat, and whether or not they employ purely legal methods does
not influence the correctness and effectiveness of their action. Take off the
rose colored glasses for a moment and understand the position he's put us in.
Assange is a dangerous man who is accountable to no one. His organization, by
its nature, is accountable to no one. Even if you think what he's doing is
"right", there's no question that he was aware of the consequences of
his actions, and there's no doubt about the validity of that response.
Ardinius
I need to clarify the argument here; are you saying that the
US, by virtue of the fact they are in power and that they maintain the status
quo, are not subject to correctness or some sense of drawn out morality
regarding their actions?
Kali
Of course they're subject to
whatever you want to make them subject to, but it just doesn't mean
jack shit. Morality has no place in geopolitics, and we should not expect it
to. It's in the best interests of pretty much every sovereign government on the
planet that Assange be put away and his organization shut down. Certainly it's
that way for the US. Allowing a rogue force like him or his nameless
contributors to leak national secrets at will is incredibly dangerous and has
no benefit. Whether or not you think he's "doing the right thing"
does not absolve him of this fact, and it definitely won't and shouldn't
grant him protection from the states that he's wronged.
Of course they're subject to whatever you want to make them subject to, but it just doesn't mean jack shit.
I think you a re-iterating the
pretense of my question here - that subjecting the US to any code of morality
is meaningless because they maintain power and global hegemony- hence they are
not subject to any kind of morality (except of course real morality -
which is the morality dictated by power).
Morality has no place in geopolitics, and we should not expect it to. It's in the best interests of pretty much every sovereign government on the planet that Assange be put away and his organization shut down. Certainly it's that way for the US. Allowing a rogue force like him or his nameless contributors to leak national secrets at will is incredibly dangerous and has no benefit. Whether or not you think he's "doing the right thing" does not absolve him of this fact, and it definitely won't and shouldn't grant him protection from the states that he's wronged.
This is a very interesting point,
but for it to hold valid, I think you need to apply the same principle of 'real
morality' (that is right/wrong dictated by those in power) in a geopolitical
context to Wikileaks itself. The very notion that Wikileaks has the
power to threaten the geopolitical status quo indicates that this organization
isn't subject to our drawn out notions morality either - In other words, it
doesn't matter whether or not you think Wikileaks' actions are of a benefit or
whether you think he's doing the wrong thing - such concepts are essentially
meaningless, the same way someone who thinks that the methods the US is using
to detain him may be immoral.
Wikileaks clearly functions in the domain of a geopolitical context - and either you are arguing that it does not have the power to influence geopolitical affairs and thus deserves whatever is coming its way, or you are arguing that it does have the power, and that every sovereign government that withholds a secret deserves whatever is coming their way.
Wikileaks clearly functions in the domain of a geopolitical context - and either you are arguing that it does not have the power to influence geopolitical affairs and thus deserves whatever is coming its way, or you are arguing that it does have the power, and that every sovereign government that withholds a secret deserves whatever is coming their way.
Mobmaster
So your
saying that if someone has the power to kill someone, it's okay because he has
the power to be above morality?
Because that's what you're saying governments can do, just because they have the power to ignore it, they can.
And i don't think you understand where morality comes into perspective. It's morality wich should (partly) decide for you as a person (everyone has their own moral values) if you support or protest, or don't care about certain issues.
It is based on my moral views, that Assange has done nothing wrong, and therefore I am of the opinion that he shouldn't be persecuted, and therefore I believe it is wrong that he is, I would try to do something about it, but frankly I don't care too much and it would be futile to strive for such a goal at this time.
But thus to answer the original question, I think it is good if he gets asylum, based on my own moral compass
Because that's what you're saying governments can do, just because they have the power to ignore it, they can.
And i don't think you understand where morality comes into perspective. It's morality wich should (partly) decide for you as a person (everyone has their own moral values) if you support or protest, or don't care about certain issues.
It is based on my moral views, that Assange has done nothing wrong, and therefore I am of the opinion that he shouldn't be persecuted, and therefore I believe it is wrong that he is, I would try to do something about it, but frankly I don't care too much and it would be futile to strive for such a goal at this time.
But thus to answer the original question, I think it is good if he gets asylum, based on my own moral compass
Ardinius
I think the point being made here is that your moral compass
(as with any other individuals moral compass) is irrelevant in the context of a
global geopolitical paradigm.
This is where I bring the concept of 'real morality' into the picture - where concepts of right and wrong a determined by those (such as the power brokers in the U.S Government) who are powerful enough to significantly influence the state of geopolitics as we know it today.
Again, the question is whether Wikileaks (just like the US) can significantly influence the state of geopolitical affairs, and thereby be above any drawn out mode of morality we can apply to it.
This is where I bring the concept of 'real morality' into the picture - where concepts of right and wrong a determined by those (such as the power brokers in the U.S Government) who are powerful enough to significantly influence the state of geopolitics as we know it today.
Again, the question is whether Wikileaks (just like the US) can significantly influence the state of geopolitical affairs, and thereby be above any drawn out mode of morality we can apply to it.
Kali
This 'real morality' is just as ineffectual as any other
morality. There is no objectivity in morality, no matter how much you
want to make it internally or logically consistent. And, even if you can
establish morality as objective, there it has no bearing on the correctness (in
the amoral sense of the word) of a state's response to something that it
perceives as a threat.
Ardinius
Without getting into a technical discussion about what we
mean by morality here - can we not also extend the above to argue that
conversely, no established morality has any bearing on Wikileaks' response to
something that it perceives as a threat (Assuming it has the power to
influence geopolitical affairs)?
Kali
Sure, since morality doesn't have any weight to begin with.
General Mosh
I simply think that authority is
bad if it does not have to answer to the needs and wants of all nations or at
least the majority of them....
Ardinius
I think the point that both I and Kali are making here, is that 'authority'
is above any concepts of good and bad that we may apply to it. But I think you
do have an interesting take here General - if we divorce any concept of
morality here to begin with, can we not argue that the architecture within
which authority functions has the ability to fundamentally change the way in
which power is exercised?
Furthermore, has not Wikileaks, in its ability to shed light on power itself (through the revelation of information hidden by authority) fundamentally created a shift in the way that power functions today?
Furthermore, has not Wikileaks, in its ability to shed light on power itself (through the revelation of information hidden by authority) fundamentally created a shift in the way that power functions today?
General Mosh
I don't think Wikileaks will have any lasting effects. Just
some diplomatic scandals and stuff. As for what I was saying, is pretty much
that if one country answers to many, then all of these countries must hold
themselves accountable to the others. In which case, everything that happens
must benefit humanity as a whole, because humanity has no one to be accountable
to (for now), besides themselves.
Ardinius
Wikileaks has already had an extremely significant and
lasting effect through out the world. To claim their only effect has been the
revelation of a few embarrassing diplomatic cables is a gross understatement.
The very fact the U.S. has gone to such lengths to exercise their influence over Sweden to involve Assange in a lengthy (and unrelated) legal battle, to refer to an obscure U.S. espionage act (that is almost a century old) to make a secret indictment against a non-American and even to go so far as to have top level political officials calling for his assassination, shows that even the world's superpower recognizes that Wikileaks is a serious threat to U.S hegemony and that the organisation has the ability to create lasting change across the globe.
Wikileaks has had lasting effects on public perception regarding the Iraq and Afghan Wars through the release of the war logs and has instigated significant and lasting political changes through the release of diplomatic cables in (just to name a select few) Kenya, Tunisia, Eygpt, Bahrain and Ecuador. And these are only to mention a few of it's political repercussions. Wikileaks has also had significant ramifications for cyber technology and security systems, journalism, diplomacy, legal systems for Australia, Sweden, the U.S. and other nations, and the list goes on.
Furthermore, it's been able to achieve this all by holding nations accountable to their own documentation for all of humanity through the medium of the internet.
The very fact the U.S. has gone to such lengths to exercise their influence over Sweden to involve Assange in a lengthy (and unrelated) legal battle, to refer to an obscure U.S. espionage act (that is almost a century old) to make a secret indictment against a non-American and even to go so far as to have top level political officials calling for his assassination, shows that even the world's superpower recognizes that Wikileaks is a serious threat to U.S hegemony and that the organisation has the ability to create lasting change across the globe.
Wikileaks has had lasting effects on public perception regarding the Iraq and Afghan Wars through the release of the war logs and has instigated significant and lasting political changes through the release of diplomatic cables in (just to name a select few) Kenya, Tunisia, Eygpt, Bahrain and Ecuador. And these are only to mention a few of it's political repercussions. Wikileaks has also had significant ramifications for cyber technology and security systems, journalism, diplomacy, legal systems for Australia, Sweden, the U.S. and other nations, and the list goes on.
Furthermore, it's been able to achieve this all by holding nations accountable to their own documentation for all of humanity through the medium of the internet.
General Mosh
Well, you have a point there. I suppose it has had quite an
effect. Only time will tell whether those effects are lasting.
Personally, I think the government functions much more
effectively without telling everyone all that it is doing. That's not to say
some transparency is good, but it cannot be helpful or constructive for
everyone to know everything that goes on in government.
Ardinius
Complete governmental transparency can be detrimental in some
instances, however it is important to note that entities within a position of
power have a strong tendency to keep secret information that allows them to
maintain power (as opposed to keeping information secret for some drawn out
notion of 'the national good').
Further to this,Wikileaks doesn't have the ability to provide complete governmental (and corporate) transparency - that would be a colossal task. Most of the material that Wikileaks publishes is information that is brought to them by disillusioned Whistle blowers via an anonymous dropbox.
This way, most of the information that Wikileaks receives is information where an organization's own staff are appalled by its actions. Furthermore, Wikileaks has time and again gone through a strict process of screening and redacting material (at times with the aid of journalistic organizations) to ensure that strategic assets and personnel are not compromised as a result of the publication of their materials.
So far not a single person has come to direct harm as a result of the release of any of Wikileaks' materials - which is quite an achievement for an organization that deals with extremely sensitive information, and for one that has been around for close to a decade. Even if Wikileaks had impacted people and strategic interests in a negative way, doing so is arguably not as significant as the impact that the release of such documents has in a geopolitical context (and its ramifications for many hundreds of thousands of people).
Further to this,Wikileaks doesn't have the ability to provide complete governmental (and corporate) transparency - that would be a colossal task. Most of the material that Wikileaks publishes is information that is brought to them by disillusioned Whistle blowers via an anonymous dropbox.
This way, most of the information that Wikileaks receives is information where an organization's own staff are appalled by its actions. Furthermore, Wikileaks has time and again gone through a strict process of screening and redacting material (at times with the aid of journalistic organizations) to ensure that strategic assets and personnel are not compromised as a result of the publication of their materials.
So far not a single person has come to direct harm as a result of the release of any of Wikileaks' materials - which is quite an achievement for an organization that deals with extremely sensitive information, and for one that has been around for close to a decade. Even if Wikileaks had impacted people and strategic interests in a negative way, doing so is arguably not as significant as the impact that the release of such documents has in a geopolitical context (and its ramifications for many hundreds of thousands of people).
Utterly Impeccable
I'm sure governments will be a lot more careful now, though.
Hence it can be argued that Wikileaks has actually had very
positive outcomes for national security without any serious breach of strategic
integrity or harm to governmental personnel.
Utterly Impeccable
Well perhaps, but I'm still not convinced it would be
sensible for governments to not do anything in response to so many leaks. Not
that Assange should take all the blame, but certainly some of it.
Ardinius
Assange is the publisher of the materials. If he's to blame
so is any other journalist that does their job and report information that is
of interest and importance to the Public.
Diplomatic dispatches are not of importance to the public.
Publishing them is just an embarrassment to the US.
Ardinius
Surely the published diplomatic material that spurred on
revolutions and political change in Tunisia, Eygpt, Kenya, Ecuador are of
importance to the public.
Viking Socrates
Well in your opinion did the cables lead to the Arab spring?
Ardinius
It was one of the many factors that lead to the Arab spring,
yes. Specifically in Tunisia, where leaked cables were published revealing that
the U.S. would support a people's revolution over Ben Ali's regime.
I mean the ones where idiot diplomatic officials were making
fun of ambassadors or something stupid. Those really aren't of importance to
the public, and simply cause diplomatic embarrassment, which in my opinion is
thoroughly unprofessional.
Duke of Awesome
Yes, I think it's very unprofessional for professional
diplomats to make fun of their coworkers or counterparts.
And its stupid for it to be leaked. How does that help
anyone?
Duke of Awesome
Hopefully it teaches the diplomats to not be 5 year olds.
It was personal dispatches between old friends. Pretty much
just random conversations. Just because they're diplomats doesn't mean they
always have to be regal. I mean, its like you're thinking diplomats should
yell, "I hereby respectfully request you move your body to another
position" in bed. They're humans too.
Ardinius
It's important to note here that the revelation of such
cables are not only embarrassing because their diplomatic counterparts are able
to view them, but also embarrassing because they are made publicly available
for the nation's citizens to see. The fact that such unprofessional behavior
being exhibited on professional diplomatic channels is embarrassing to the
countries own citizen would attest to the fact that it is of interest to the
Nation's public.
For example, can it not be argued that Hillary Clinton's orders (as revealed by published Wikileaks material) to have U.S. diplomats spy on their counterparts is strongly in the interests of U.S. citizens, as it allows the people to determine whether such conduct is ethically justified and shed light on how politicians that represent them and their nation truly behave?
For example, can it not be argued that Hillary Clinton's orders (as revealed by published Wikileaks material) to have U.S. diplomats spy on their counterparts is strongly in the interests of U.S. citizens, as it allows the people to determine whether such conduct is ethically justified and shed light on how politicians that represent them and their nation truly behave?
Its well known that diplomats often double as spies and that
embassy's are where our spies hide in plain site. It really doesn't have to be
published.
Ardinius
Because it's okay for the emperor to be naked as long as no
one says he's naked - right?
I think perhaps you don't understand that there are plenty
of things that go on that everyone knows but are best left unsaid.
Ardinius
No I understand it perfectly, it's just that I don't agree
with the presupposition that the things left unsaid are 'best' left that way
both for those in power and for those who serve that power.
Its to ensure it doesn't cause embarrassment for all parties
involved. I mean its not like its only the US that does it.
Ardinius
My point is that it only causes embarrassment for those in
power Mosh. Other 'parties' keeping silent about it is the same as an admission
to power by those parties.
The reason he did it was to provide embarrassment, and
that's childish. Once again, its not like the US is the only country that does
this, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately now the US is the only country
actually on the record for doing it.
That's not true, the US is among many countries that
Wikileaks has released information on. Just a few days ago they released the Syria files, which is a set of files larger than the US
cables, the Afghan war logs and the Iraq logs combined which serve to embarrass
the Syrian Government.
Eh my bad honestly I don't make a point of reading the site.
