Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate' 194
Nerval's Lobster writes "It's no secret that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a low opinion of the new film, "The Fifth Estate," in which he's portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. He's railed against it several times, culminating in a lengthy statement (posted Oct. 9) in which he called it 'a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love.' That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.' WikiLeaks and Assange are clearly attempting a bit of damage control ahead of the film's Oct. 11 release in the U.K. (followed by its U.S. debut on Oct. 18). But what if that pushback is the wrong reaction? That's not to say that Assange should gleefully embrace the film —the script portrays him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past. Whatever its qualities, however, the film could get people talking about WikiLeaks' role in the broader geopolitical context, and that's ultimately a good thing for the organization: It's been quite some time since Assange and company have provided the world with an explosive, game-changing revelation. If nothing else, Assange can take some cold comfort from the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for the worst as the release date approached, but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth."
Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and I should also mention that he tried to set up a leaks site of his own after he left that looked suspiciously like a honeypot operation. Just send your documents and identities to our secretive and closed-source system and trust us to pass it on to the press (yeah, right). Fortunately, it failed [slashdot.org], hopefully because no one was stupid enough to trust Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (Score:2, Informative)
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
That's very generous of him, but in the end he skipped bail in the UK after running from Sweden, and no governement would make such a promise - it is quite likely that the USA don't have anything that would require an extradition, but if they do, then not extraditing him would be highly illegal.
Re:Overrated? (Score:2, Informative)
accused of something ranging from a misdemeanor sexual assault to something like date-rape.
Actually, it's not in this range at all, unless by "accused" you mean "accused by random people and the mainstream media", since Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. They want him for "questioning", so they have an EU (!) arrest warrant out, but that's it. It is clear as day they have a deal to extradite him to US as soon as he lands there. If they were in fact interested in questioning him, they could use linphone.
Ecuadorian officials at the London embassy offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to question Assange there. This offer was rejected by the Swedish authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange#Request_for_political_asylum_in_Ecuador
Questioning my ass.
Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (Score:2, Informative)
He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.
Which is also a brave move on Asange's part, because while Sweden has great hippie health care and education, their justice system is straight up authoritarian. The state can hold suspects for extended periods of time without bail, and also incommunicado. So if Asange goes back he could be held for months without outside contact or an attorney.
That is a fake offer, made in poor faith; they can't promise not to hand him over if he's charged with a crime in the US. And since he hasn't been charged with any crime here, they can't even give a conditional promise not to hand him over for a specific charge. What if it turned out he'd murdered somebody? I'm not suggesting he has, or suggesting that there is any accusation that he has. But you can't know what crimes somebody didn't commit. You can't make a blanket promise not to extradite somebody to countries you have extradition agreements with.
And honestly, as an American, it seems pretty absurd that somebody in his situation would have real fear of charges. No US jury would convict him. Even a jury that hates him would find him "not guilty." The people who leaked to him often committed crimes in the US, but he did not, and since his intent was clearly to act as a journalist, even if he'd been in the US when he did it, his part in it is explicitly protected. The US simply made vague threats and he got so caught up in his anti-American propaganda that he freaked out and hid in a closet. And presumably he's given himself a life sentence.