December 7, 2010

But Christopher Hitchens was talking about the document leakage, and Assange has turned himself in over the... semen leakage.

Yesterday, Christopher Hitchens posted "Turn Yourself In, Julian Assange," and today, Assange has turned himself in.

ADDED: He warned us that he was going to release his code if people rubbed him the wrong way. His DNA code.

37 comments:

peter hoh said...

Assange seems to be making a desperate bid to be selected as TIME's Man of the Year.

This whole extradition thing is the Ford Bronco chase in slow motion.

Kirby Olson said...

The Big O should personally waterboard him in Gitmo.

Scott M said...

Seven castaways on Gilligan's Island. Seven dwarves in Snow White. Coincidence? I think not.

MadisonMan said...

Seven Machos would agree.

bagoh20 said...

"ADDED: He warned us that he was going to release his code if people rubbed him the wrong way. His DNA code. "

Althouse wins the thread!

edutcher said...

As I said in the last thread, he probably figures he's safer on ice.

Not everybody places restraint on their covert guys. Spetsnaz, the SAS, maybe even the inheritors of the Army's ISA all could be hunting him.

PS Agree with bag. Very droll, Madame.

Hagar said...

"Publish and be damned!"

Get it over with, and get this guy and his accpmplices on ice one way or another.

The Crack Emcee said...

I don't care what the reason or motivation is, arrest that man before he gets himself killed:

He's got a mother, y'know.

Pastafarian said...

It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy.

This is a politically motivated act of espionage, an act of war, designed to harm our intelligence capabilities, while we're at war, by a citizen of another country.

What the hell are we waiting for?

What would we do if Canada invaded? Would we try to arrest and prosecute a division of Canadian infantry?

Is this because we have some high-minded idea that assassination of one specific individual is morally wrong? That's idiotic. This shit-bag will cause the deaths of thousands. He's already admitted that an earlier leak of his probably caused the deaths of thousands of Africans -- but he defended himself by saying that they don't have a very long life expectancy anyway.

traditionalguy said...

Wikileaks free use of our secret speech has been a Pearl Harbor internet sneak attack. Admiral Assange's guys may run wild for 6 months, but Midway cometh when his ships will all be sunk.

Scott M said...

Wikileaks free use of our secret speech has been a Pearl Harbor internet sneak attack.

Do you think the label on the CD that POS private secreted the files out on read "Gaga! Gaga! Gaga!" ?

Joe said...

Speaking of Pearl Harbor, what is it with the assholes at Google?

garage mahal said...

It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy.

Then don't you have to kill the people that are printing what he gave them?

Scott M said...

Do you really want to go down the road of defending, say, The New York Times, Garage? The same New York Times that wouldn't print the Climategate documents because they were both supposed to be confidential and had been obtained illegally?

Hypocrisy on parade.

edutcher said...

Pastafarian said...

It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy.

This is a politically motivated act of espionage, an act of war, designed to harm our intelligence capabilities, while we're at war, by a citizen of another country.

What the hell are we waiting for?

What would we do if Canada invaded? Would we try to arrest and prosecute a division of Canadian infantry?
(my emphasis)

Is this because we have some high-minded idea that assassination of one specific individual is morally wrong?

Consider our current Administration and the Democrat Party of the last 40 years.

Joe said...

Speaking of Pearl Harbor, what is it with the assholes at Google?

You answered your own question.

edutcher said...

PS Joe, say what you will about Gates and Ballmer, but go to Bing.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy.

Then don't you have to kill the people that are printing what he gave them?

12/7/10 10:46 AM"

Excellent idea! It's true, GM, like a broken clock is right twice a day.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The Times only likes to print leaked information if it's:

a. Detrimental to the US.

or

b. Detrimental to a Republican

Double plus good if both a & b apply!

garage mahal said...

Do you really want to go down the road of defending, say, The New York Times, Garage?

The Times knew exactly where the documents came from. They are deciding what to redact and/or publish. Only 960 of the 251,297 cables were published by wikileaks, all of them by media orgs first.

Scott M said...

How many did they post from Climategate?

Scott M said...

Publish, rather...

madawaskan said...

What would we do if Canada invaded? Would we try to arrest and prosecute a division of Canadian infantry?

I think the better question would be....

Would we notice?

And then, what would be the worse case scenario?

Let them have Detroit!

madawaskan said...

To be serious for a minute-if you assassinate Assange you end up with the unintended consequences.

It's the martyr theory of schmuckos-you don't want to make a hero out of 'em.

Richard Dolan said...

It sounds like the theory on which he is being charged is that the women's consent was fraudulently obtained (by a representation that he would be using a condom when he either didn't intend to or intended to cut a hole in it first). The essential claim is that the fraud voids the prior consent. I haven't seen any allegation that he forcibly overpowered the women into non-consensual sex.

It's a tricky legal theory. Normally a person cannot claim to have been defrauded if she was in a position to determine the allegedly misrepresented facts. The reason is that, in those circumstances, the element of reasonable reliance cannot be established.

Perhaps Swedish law takes a different view of fraud or of the showing needed to void a prior consent. But is a charge that Assange obtained his partners' consent to sex on false pretenses the best they can come up with against this guy even in Sweden? Is a 'false pretenses' theory of rape really in anyone's interest? Is a claim that "I'll respect you in the morning" a sufficient predicate for rape-by-false-pretenses?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy.

Actually we have less reason to kill him than say, the President of Yemen or the King whatshisname in SA. The irony is that if he falls victim to a 'tragic accident' we're going to take the blame regardless.

Robert Cook said...

Hitchens further shames himself.

Now that he is purportedly dying, one would think he would want to gild his legacy a bit, but I guess he is so wedded to his own view of himself as a brave heretic he is compelled to go all the way, flaunting his continuing acts of self-disgrace as evidence of his integrity.

What a putz.

Robert Cook said...

"It's amazing to me that we still haven't killed this guy."

Yes, given how wantonly and heedlessly we torture and murder human beings by the thousands, and given Obama's claims that he may murder any person anywhere, even American citizens, bypassing due process entirely, I'm rather shocked as well that we haven't murdered Mr. Assange.

But, even the Soviet Union held show trials to legitimize their tyranny. I suppose it would be bad form for us to simply defenestrate Mr. Assange, what with so much attention on him at this time and all.

While I'm shocked we haven't murdered Mr. Assange, I'm just repulsed by the enthusiastic calls for his murder by so many Americans, especially among those in the media, whose vigorous participation in this cheerleading for murder reveals for all to see that our journalistic class, with few exceptions, are servile to power, lackeys and minions nearly one and all, a cohort of Quislings.

BJM said...

Ha! ha! Drudgery scores again with a phallic Big Ben above the headline.

Assange's remand is just more Kabuki, unless the Brits lodge a charge against him under the Official Secrets Act for his most recent leak. I highly doubt #10 would welcome the resulting global derision and media feeding frenzy.

Upon reading Brit and European papers, it appears that Assange assumed, or most probably, was advised, that he would be allowed bail, and after refusing extradition to Sweden would remain in the UK to carry on as usual while public pressure was applied in Sweden.(which ironically, is what would have transpired in the US).

I'm sure he's not a happy camper at the moment as the UK detention system is harsh.

Hoosier Daddy said...

While I'm shocked we haven't murdered Mr. Assange, I'm just repulsed by the enthusiastic calls for his murder by so many Americans

Correct me if I am wrong but I recall a few threads ago when it was suggested that if his leaks resulted in the deaths of innocents, you stated those deaths would not necessarily discredit him leaking the information.

BJM said...

@Cookie

After publishing this:

"The latest revelation to emerge from the Wikileaks suggests Iranian President Ahmadinejad was"slapped" in the face by Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari, for taking a "liberal" attitude towards dealing with opposition protests."

Assange has much more to fear than the opinions of American blog commenters.

Assange is playing a very dangerous game this time around. The US is neutered by its own laws, but Ahmadinejad is another matter. He could call for a fatwa on Assange and assuredly a radical Islamic group or Imam seeking notoriety would oblige. I rather doubt the Brits would protect Assange as they have Rushdie.

You can rail against the perceived evils of the US and the right, but people like Assange who is as guilty of politically motivated murder as you claim is the US, always get their comeuppance; always.

Chris said...

Not overly impressed by the revelations of his leaks other than making some in the current administration look like fools and some of our allies less than honorable. No surprises there. I'm sure that once he starts disclosing information about the Russians or Israel, they'll take care of him. Unfortunately, he will be a martyr to his supporters.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Assange has much more to fear than the opinions of American blog commenters

Indeed and I said pretty much the same thing upthread. Thus far all the State Dept. leaks have done is pretty much confirm what anyone who pays attention to international affairs already suspected all along. Like I said, its quite possible someone will go after him but it won't be the US. Not that will prevent the usual suspects for blaming us anyway.

Matt said...

Apparently the crime he committed in Sweden was because he continued to have sex with a woman after the condom broke. What's sort of funny is that one of the women in the case against him is such a far left radical that she once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

Huh? So says this article.

Robert Cook said...

"Like I said, its quite possible someone will go after him but it won't be the US."

The only reason there has been an international call for his arrest and Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Amazon, etc. have all abandoned Wikileaks is due to American pressure and witchhunting.

madawaskan said...

Well Asssange just motivated his own fans to off him.

Like some perverse twist on the old adage curiosity killed the cat.

These guys might want the code to open their little easter eggs from Assange too badly.

Probably have to protect him from them...

Robert Cook said...

"Correct me if I am wrong but I recall a few threads ago when it was suggested that if his leaks resulted in the deaths of innocents, you stated those deaths would not necessarily discredit him leaking the information."

I was asked what my opinion would be if that were to happen, and if I recall correctly, I said it would depend on circumstances, or we would have to see what happened, or something to that effect...essentially..."I don't know," but, that it wouldn't necessarily discredit the release of the documents...and it wouldn't.

To say otherwise would be to say that anyone harmed anyhwere in the world as the result of news reporting that might have made certain parties desire to seek retaliation against other parties is therefore to be condemned.

News reporting cannot censor itself on the outside chance that negative results might ensue.

The reality is that Wikileaks has asked the U.S. for guidance in what names should be redacted to protect innocents, and the U.S. has refused to assist. Wikileaks has redacted names with the advice of other parties, and is only releasing documents in small increments. They are trying to be responsible and so far there is no evidence or claim that anyone anywhere has been harmed or threatened as a result of the Wikileaks publications.

On the other hand, in our terror wars abroad, we have killed or caused to be killed many thousands of mostly noncombatant residents of lands we have invaded, and we have destroyed their social and civic infrastructures, rendered millions homeless, thrown others into prisons to be tortured and held without recourse to legal assistance. Where are the crocodile tears for those many many lives and families ruined?

We are the bad guys here.

Penny said...

Imagining a UN special council being formed to discuss the internet and all its implications, for good or bad, or for that matter, a congressional committee charged to do the same thing.

Why does that give me the creeps? I mean it isn't as if we can ignore this topic.