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."
Being portrayed as a liar... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Being portrayed as a liar...by Daniel Domscheit-Berg
FTFY. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is behind this movie, as he was the book [amazon.com] on which it's based. And it's my strong suspicion that Berg was either a CIA or FBI plant at WikiLeaks. He began sabotaging the operation almost from day one, attempted (successfully) to destroy many of its documents, and has actively participated in the concerted effort to discredit Assange ever since he got canned.
I would call him a "traitor," but that would imply that he was ever an actual ally.
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:Being portrayed as a liar... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Except WikiLeaks actually published their documents for the world to see, and made it crystal clear by their actions that they were the real deal and not just a honeypot.
Re: (Score:2)
And WikiLeaks hasn't outed their sources. Manning wasn't betrayed by Asange, but by Lamo, who looks like a drugged up informant if there ever was one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Manning wasn't betrayed by Adrian Lamo. Lamo was just the actor, Manning was betrayed by 'WIRED MAGAZINE' who did it for profit, with the hopes of increased readership, remember that when and if you go to that POS website.
Reality is Assange feels exposed because many of those who support Wikileaks believe he should takes his lumps for seemingly carrying on like a douche and purposely disrupting birth control measure in order to get women pregnant when it was not their intention. Right now he is a dead we
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for the Russian information that they promised a few years ago. Whatever became of that story?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for the Russian information that they promised a few years ago. Whatever became of that story?
They decided that not leaking Russian information and remaining alive was preferable to leaking Russian information and becoming dead.
That's about what I figured too. It shoots down his self-styled mantle of 'objective integrity'. Oh well, he always seemed to be a dick anyhow. I don't plan to watch the movie, either in the theater or later on DVD/cable/download, because he just doesn't seem like someone worthy of the world's attention.
Re: (Score:2)
What credibility? Julian Assange broke his bail conditions. He's a fugitive from justice. He ran away from a rape charge. He has no credibility.
Publicity gains... (Score:2)
Up With Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that Wikileaks can continue to get information to the public. I suspect that government agents have infested WikiLeaks in every way they can and wonder if Wikileaks can still function.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that's why Visa and Mastercard (or at least one of them IIRC?) has started processing payments for Wikileaks again. Because the government has infiltrated it?
Er, wait what? (Score:2)
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
Taking extra money showers, then wiping their arse with $100 bills? Please! The entire business model of Facebook has been around monetization. They don't care about reputation as long as it sells. "Zuckerberg is evil! Buy this book!" Er, ok. "Zuckerberg is God! Buy this book!" Er, ok. Either way... the book is bought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason The Social Network had no effect on Zuckerberg's reputation was because it portrayed him as a kinda-douchey, hard-working, intelligent dork. This was exactly what people assumed he was.
Cumberbatch? Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused - are you suggesting he looks like Shatner or Montalban?
Rewriting the facts (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me this is a pretty good attempt for the media to portray Assange any way they like. The public will lap it up and believe every bit of it, regardless of it's true-to-life accuracy. It's a lot easier to vilify people when you have the masses on your side already.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more about religion than politics. One religion believes Assange is the savior of all mankind, and the other religion believes that he is Satan's tutor. Best to just stay out of it rather than try to attempt to inject logic or reason.
Find a new hammer (Score:2)
Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (Score:5, Interesting)
It's no secret that the US military has a close relationship with hollywood at times. They loan military hardware for use as props, in return for assurances that the movies will portray them in a good way. This isn't a shadowy backroom dealing - a few minutes googling will show it's all done out in the open. There is even a small department within the Pentagon, the Film Liaison Office, dedicated to the task.
So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner? I'm not talking about anything serious like threats of jail for no-cooperating, just a reminder that studios which insult the military or lend support to wanted enemies of the state are not going to be getting any of those oh-so-useful support agreements in future. 'If you make Assange look good, don't come to us next time you want to film scenes on an aircraft carrier.'
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood certainly has had no problem making the US Military look like boobs in any number of films. I think it's only the movies where they need to use fighter jets, or tanks and the like, that they need to play nice.
Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you touch on something pretty obvious which is close to what I was going to state. This movie, like the other mentioned Zuckerberg film, is a propaganda tool.
The MIC, as you mentioned, does have ties to Hollywood. Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US. Those ties have grown in the last couple decades, and its honestly rare not to find propaganda in movies (if you look). The themes, items shown, etc... are all done intentionally. People argue that it's "all for money" and all the connections to propaganda are accidental, but would a studio full of professional's making multiple millions of dollars really be doing things "accidentally"? By the way, many books are the same way. They must be vetted and rewritten to suite someone's taste and not just the story the Author is trying to present.
So Assange is shown as a person to hate in this movie. Zuckerberg, even though there is much controversy about his beginnings and what he stole to get a company going, was presented as a good guy. Those are the messages they want people to get out of the movie. Whistle blowers are evil bad people, while those that hand all your data to the Government are the good guys.
There is much to study in subliminal messages in movies. Numerous books are out there showing how they do things, in addition to videos showing you what you may have missed seeing in movies but your subconscious picks up.
I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
Re: (Score:3)
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
Having seen how much is routinely read into things ex post facto (sometimes by decades
Re: (Score:3)
Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
You are going to try and deny reality that is proven over your belief? Really? It is no secret that Hollywood worked for the MIC during WW II, The Korean War, and Vietnam War. This fact is most definitely not a conspiracy, it is reality. This is a reality you may not wish to hear or see, but the reality does exist.
If you knew of a book that showed how advertising uses subliminal messaging would you change your mind and consider that it could also happen in movies, or hide from that reality too? Here [redicecreations.com], H [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm accepting reality over *your* belief. There's a difference. Not all movies about war have been put out to "sell war" or spread FUD.
This is not a very good straw man. You use that straw man to categorically deny something that is factual and documented. Hell, even Hollywood admits that they made movies and generated propaganda to sell the wars up to Vietnam. If they did so from WW I through Vietnam, what makes you think that they magically stopped in the last 10 years? No, don't answer that because I really don't want to know what you believe.
Don't bother posting more fallacies to support your delusion. Read facts put out by the FO
Re: (Score:2)
Having actually written things and participated in literary analysis, I can assure you that the first thing you learn is to smile and nod once people start cooing about all the subtle undertones and hidden meanings.
I once wrote a poem about spring that was then touted as being about denied love. People make of movies/books/poems/art what they will. I can guarantee you that your audience will read into whatever you produce whatever meaning they are looking for and most of there is no more 'truth' behind it
Re: (Score:2)
. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
In China, many people felt that the movie Avatar was social commentary about the occupation of Tibet. It got to the point where the government cancelled all 2D showings (about 4500 screens) leaving only the 3D version to play in much smaller number of theaters. Who really knows what was in Cameron's head, but it sure seems unlikely that Tibet was the focus of the movie. Just because some films are propaganda doesn't mean that everything in a film is propaganda.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/stories/ava [chinasmack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The other aspect of Avatar to study is the message regarding trans-humanism. Avatar is not the only example of this, more recently there is a Vogue series with Google Glass holding similar messages. These are just two examples, but the overall theme is that is trans-humanism is good and godly, while remaining human is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
In China, many people felt that the movie Avatar was social commentary about the occupation of Tibet.
What?? Which China are you talking about?
No Chinese would ever see themselves as colonists, only as victims of colonialism (first the British, then the Japanese).
No Chinese would ever think of Tibet as an "occupation", only as an "Autonomous Region". Tibet has never been an "issue" in the minds of most Chinese. Chinese travel freely in Tibet, seldom aware that foreigners are often denied access.
As such, if the Chinese sees any message in the movie Avatar, it can only be about the struggle of indigenous peo
Re: (Score:2)
To concur with your point, professional storytellers have no unintentional messages and content. Most of their education revolves around making up bullshit about past works. They're well aware of the B.S. that'd their own work would become the subject of, and plan accordingly. And the longer they've been at it, the better they're able to manipulate their audience into thinking what they want the audience to think.
This is what happens when the school system fails. People get their truths from entertainment.
You should read Brave New World. (Score:2)
1984 was written as a response to Brave New World; without it, 1984 would not have happened. 1984 is based upon almost entirely negative feedback and censorship for total control. Brave New World was based entirely upon positive feedback controls and distraction; censorship wasn't heavy handed; it didn't need to be. It was more imaginative and trying to point out new methods of control (which were beginning to be used at the time) and new problems while 1984 was a rebuttal, reminding people how human na
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the movie producers are not allowed to have opinions at all? By your standard all movies having any ties to history and current events are propaganda, and all documentaries are automatically propaganda too.
Re: (Score:2)
It is vital to the bizarre legal strategy of the US authorities that the public and a potential future jury are led to believe that Assange is a sort of criminal mastermind who 'ordered' people like Manning to hack into military computer systems and steal state secrets, and that he did not just receive documents like any journalist. The movie script portrays him in exactly that way.
So I agree. The 'conspiracy' does not seem very far-fetched in this case. At least the motive is there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's par for the course in any Hollywood treatment. Even Apollo 13 added extra conflict and made the astronauts look less professional than reality despite a deliberate effort to try not to do so. At one point Ron Howard decided to story just needed a bit of conflict to keep it exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
That demagoguery gets more and more pathetic the longer Swedish prosecutors refuse to interview Assange remotely or by visiting him in the embassy, and the longer the Swedish government refuses to say they wont extradite him to the United States.
If you guys actually gave a shit about the rape allegations, you'd be demanding that Sweden make it clear that it's just about those allegations and not an increasingly
Re: (Score:2)
That's just appealing to the audience. The US market loves to see their country as the good guys.
Us Europeans are often annoyed by American WWII films, which give the impression that the Hitler was on the verge of taking over until the almighty Americans swept in and single-handidly defeated the Nazi menace. U-571 is a particually blatant example - the movie is based on the real events surrounding the capture of a German enigma machine by British forces, but the movie version substitutes American forces and
Fact v. Fiction ... (Score:2)
Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between.
I don't know about that and think it depends on the facts and fictions involved. After seeing Gravity, I'm sure there will be many, many people that think the ISS and Hubble are just a jet-pack ride apart, when, in fact, they are not - Astronaut and a Writer at the Movies [nytimes.com]. Unless one actually knows (or is willing/able to research) the facts, the fictions can be rather compelling...
Oh darn (Score:2)
He's being portrayed in a way he doesn't like by somebody that has an agenda that involves gain on their part by making others look bad. This is happening by using information provided by others and the whole thing is outside of his control. The media is then being involved to make sure that the exploitation is maximized for greatest impact. The bully gets his due and doesn't like the taste of his own medicine and is off to cry to his mommy about how others are treating him.
This couldn't have happened to a
They're afraid of you speech (Score:3)
The fifth estate is a mediocre movie. The fact that the talented Cumberbach plays Assange means that Assange becomes human rather than a political figure. When Cumberbach is not on screen, it has the feel of a PBS UK import.
The movie is through the perspective of Assange's friend and so, Assange comes off as a mystery rather than a liar.
As for the movie, it is just middling. People who dislike Assange will find more reasons to confirm their dislike and those who like Assange will find more reasons to do so.
Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.
Probably didn't test well against government audiences...
Par for the course. (Score:2)
Reminds me of the pro-gov slanted news and media in Russia, China, Syria, etc.
Just mix in some non-factual shit, call it "artistic license", and you can paint whichever real events however you want in the minds of fools -- The largest voting demographic...
Truth (Score:2)
Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.
Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.
Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while the
Re: (Score:2)
Our good friends at Mirriam-Webster define terrorism as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".
I get the political goal part, but I'm really not seeing any sort of violent acts or fearmongering.
He's closer to being just another dickwad politician than he is a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
What acts of violence are those? I doubt you can find even 1 that is recent and not defensible. You may not agree with the defense, but if there is legit debate over what is a just military action and what isn't, then you're intentionally lying by saying you'd have to be "blind" not to agree. It is only things that are not reasonably debated where you'd be "blind" not to see it.
So in addition to being a coward, you're also a liar.
Even if you're against most US military action, you'd be blind not to see tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to go back that far, you're almost arguing against yourself. But yeah, you make my point very well; it is not clear-cut, it is a matter of differing values and opinions. A matter of real, actual differences in what people believe is Good. You shouldn't need to land on one side of that, or the other, to see that they are real opinions.
Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (Score:5, Insightful)
> These guys employ terrorist tactics,
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
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 educatio
Re: (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: (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 cou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With respect, you are showing how naive you are if you think it's going to be dealt with via the US legal system. Have you slept for the last decade?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was only one option presented, they could conduct their questioning (not trial, or anything else) on neutral ground. Or does respecting the principle of legality extend to countries which you are not in and mean you must expose yourself to their legal system if they make an accusation, even if you are not within their country?
Re: (Score:3)
Ooo, look, anther Zombie Lie [theguardian.com]. The Swedish courts can prevent the government from extraditing someone, but they cannot compel it.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Please don't use the citation needed troll. Yes, the person you're responding to is a fairly typical brainwashed American, but that response implies that you are someone who doesn't believe anything, unless it comes to them second-hand.
You wouldn't want us to think that, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Its more of a jab than a troll. I am perfectly fine with no citations however, those are some pretty extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which in this case, should at LEAST be a citation of some sort.
I mean seriously "Wikileaks uses terrorist tactics"? I am a pretty staunch supporter, but if that were true, I would need to seriously rethink my feelings on them. Everything I know about them indicates this is false for any reasonable definition of "wikileaks" or "terrori
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary evidence isn't required in a forum where people are talking. Citations are laziness. What is really called for to accompany an extraordinary claim would be an extraordinary argument of support. Which is lacking, granted. :P
Re: (Score:2)
However in the absence of a cogent argument, citations will do for making the point. Especially since holding someone to such a high standard as being able to summon such an argument may be unfairly hamstringing him.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations are silly, people can look it up. I'd rather they look it up and educate themselves, than choose propaganda to feed them.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism
I thought that was governments and corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law.
Sure, the NSA is bad, but what was your point about Assange?
Thank you folks, I'll be here all week.
Re:Well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.
History would indicate otherwise. The move "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson took terrible liberties with history, painting the British to be far worse than they ever were. One example, the movie contains a scene where locals were rounded up, herded into a church, and burned alive (with the church). This happened...in France, during world war II. So Mel Gibson and his writers took a Nazi atrocity perpetrated in France, and portrayed it as an atrocity committed by the British against Americans, when no such thing ever happened.
Similiar falsehoods were spread in another Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart, regarding the Scottish rising up against the English (true) in reaction to various English atrocities against the Scots portrayed in the movie that were demonstrably false and never happened.
The result in both cases: acts of intimidation, threats, and in some cases violence against the English by Americans (in the case of "The Patriot") and the Scots (in the case of "Braveheart"). These type of historical falsehoods are not rejected by audiences, and are in some cases taken very seriously. If similar falsehoods are being spread about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, then he is right to be pissed off, and right to push back.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No. The burned church full of people happened in the USA during the revolutionary war.
It didn't involve 'what's his fuck', the villain in 'the Patriot' who is also the hero in much English fiction.
I'll trust the Scots before I ever trust the English regarding Scottish history.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The burned church full of people happened in the USA during the revolutionary war.
It didn't involve 'what's his fuck', the villain in 'the Patriot' who is also the hero in much English fiction.
I'll trust the Scots before I ever trust the English regarding Scottish history.
I'll trust a history book or even a documentary before I trust a movie to get facts right.
Really... who the hell watches a movie to get the unvarnished truth or history? Whoever you are, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....
Re: Well duh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case we've learned even more recently that it turned out that the Catholic Church was helping the Germans to launder the gold teeth they extracted from Jews they had murdered, and receiving valuable art and other plunder for their role. So it was the play that got people onto the right track as to what really happened. Maybe it wasn't the author's imagination at all!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...
How would you feel if you had started a movement that you truly believed it, only to have some filmmaker come along and try to discredit that movement on the big screen by smearing your personal life with a cartoonish, exaggerated, and sometimes downright fictional portrayal (based on the work of a guy who had betrayed said moment, no less)? I can understand why he might be more than a little pissed at that.
Re: (Score:2)
How many plays have been forgotten to time compared to how many have actually influenced public opinion? Odds are this movie will be good to rake in a few million bucks over the next couple years and be forgotten within a decade outside of certain niche political history classes.
Re: (Score:2)
Tautologies (Score:2)
Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it true. How has Asange made it about himself - it's not like he asked the Swedish government to cook up a witch hunt as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, after he asked for and was given permission to leave the country.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
He had a choice: Donate money to Cryptome or start a competing site with the same purpose but with himself as a figurehead.
I'm guessing he thought he would get laid more by starting Wikileaks.
Re:Overrated? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving.
High profile people tend to have large egos. Go figure.
He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information,
And yet he *is* stuck in an embassy for reasons that defy any real logic, stemming from a case that has been prosecuted in a truly baffling manner.
Just one example would be the level of commitment the UK police have demonstrated in ensuring he stays in that embassy -- a 24x7 stakeout for coming up on 16 months at cost of around 300,000 GPB per month... so closing in on 5 million GPB for a guy accused of something ranging from a misdemeanor sexual assault to something like date-rape.
Not that I condone date rape or think he should get away with it... but 1 in 4 college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape... how many UK rape victims could they have investigated with 5 million GPB?
One would think it would be pretty hard to justify that budget for keeping one penned up in an embassy for years on end over a sexual misconduct in another country for which the evidence ultimately amounts to he-said she-said.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I condone date rape or think he should get away with it... but 1 in 4 college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape... how many UK rape victims could they have investigated with 5 million GPB?
One would think it would be pretty hard to justify that budget for keeping one penned up in an embassy for years on end over a sexual misconduct in another country for which the evidence ultimately amounts to he-said she-said.
My god. Where to even begin. If your numbers are to be believed, then prosecution is REQUIRED to change the situation, be it this one man, or any man. One problem is the stigma assigned to the victims in the US and UK. As long as men are allowed to laugh off sexual assault as business as usual, this is one shit culture that we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
My god. Where to even begin. If your numbers are to be believed, then prosecution is REQUIRED to change the situation
Uh... the guy is persona non-grata in Sweden, and then again in the United Kingdom too.
If someone sexually assaulted a woman you know, and then had to flee the country, and then had to flee the country he fled to the 3rd world to avoid extradition... for a relatively non-violent sexual assault.
Exile to the 3rd world, with automatic arrest and extradition if he tries to come back anywhere with
Re: (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: (Score:2)
It is clear as day they have a deal to extradite him to US as soon as he lands there.
No it isn't. Why didn't the USA initiate proceedings in the UK when we had him in custody? The answer is that they have nothing to charge him with.
Re: (Score:2)
Because at the time the citizens of the UK were fucked off with a constant stream of absurd extraditions to the US and another high profile one like Assange would've been political suicide for any government to accept, especially as the government in question was elected on the platform of putting an end to such idiocy. Couple this with the height of austerity measures and a government at it's lowpoint of popularity, that was also a coalition, part of which strongly sympathises with Assange's cause and whic
Re: (Score:2)
How many date rapists are high profile and hide out in embassies openly defying the law?
Relevancy?
And if the 24x7 police guard wasn't there he'd have vanished into obscurity a while ago.You don't get to point to the exception situation the UK police have created as justification for their exceptional behavior. That's circular.
Date rape is something that the take fairly seriously in Britain. It's a violent crime from someone accused of two different sexual assaults that refuses to face justice.
Saying its a
Re:Overrated? (Score:5, Interesting)
In both cases the sex act was consensual. In one case he told the woman he would wear a condom and didn't. In the second case, a day earlier than the first, he had sex with a condom and then woke up in the middle of the night and had sex again, this time without a condom. The women, who knew each other, wanted him to get tested for stds. Both charges are misdemeanors in Sweden, punishable by a fine, and not even a crime in the UK.
Assange has offered to receive questioning in a neutral location and Sweden has refused. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if they promise, with the force of law, that he will not be extradited to the U.S. Again, Sweden refused. Between Sweden and the UK, they have spent more than $10 million on this case.
What Assange did is not acceptable behavior, but the actions of Sweden and UK make little sense solely given the crimes for which he is accused.
Re: (Score:2)
In both cases the sex act was consensual. In one case he told the woman he would wear a condom and didn't. In the second case, a day earlier than the first, he had sex with a condom and then woke up in the middle of the night and had sex again, this time without a condom. The women, who knew each other, wanted him to get tested for stds. Both charges are misdemeanors in Sweden, punishable by a fine, and not even a crime in the UK.
Assange has offered to receive questioning in a neutral location and Sweden has refused. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if they promise, with the force of law, that he will not be extradited to the U.S. Again, Sweden refused. Between Sweden and the UK, they have spent more than $10 million on this case.
What Assange did is not acceptable behavior, but the actions of Sweden and UK make little sense solely given the crimes for which he is accused.
The extradition has been challenged in an English court. If the allegations, as described by the Swedish authorities, were not crimes under English law, Assange would not have lost the challenge.
The statement "Both charges are ... not even a crime in the UK" has been ruled factually false by a British judge. And it should be pretty obvious to you. If a woman agrees to have sex with you only with a condom and she wakes up one morning to find you already having sex with her and without a condom, damned rig
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll raise you from that example to a very high profile movie director wanted for raping a thirteen year old girl who has been openly defiant for decades. Do you see how worthless your argument is now? The attention can't possibly be due to the suspected minor sex crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4O8byPw7g [youtube.com]
Your comment caused me to go and look this song up, and listen to it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The Manning incident proved you wrong. He went to several newspapers with a reputation of publishing leaks but they would not touch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
s/Assagne/Snowden/
s/Wikileaks/The Guardian/
In every dictionary of English, the explanation of the political term 'useful idiot' should use Snowden as the primary example. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the recent history of whistle-blowing and leaking KNOWS The Guardian was created to destroy honest, non co-opted groups that were attempting to give public access to 'secret' information. Snowden was chosen because of his hacker personality. The group overseeing the real control of The Guardian and Snowden was led by British Intelligence, under another of Tony Blair's war-mongering projects.
The British have a long history of using these intelligence methods ... such as electing cowardly drunks.
Snowden was the stooge used to excuse the circumstances for strife at home after war in the Middle East- especially Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of his so-called 'leaks' harmed Ire land or the UK- what an amazing coincidence. Snowden's ego (and high intelligence) made him the ideal dupe.
On the other hand, Assange is the real deal- except even in his case he is a dupe telling us powerful truths, but truths that your masters decided had better come into the open at this time- for fear that an uncontrolled release of the truth later could have a very nasty, uncontrollable backlash. Assange was allowed to gather and inform us of a FRACTION of the extent of abuses by the warmongers of the West in an inoculation (you inject a little bit of the real 'poison' to allow the body to become immune to further 'poison' in the future).
Now when informed people tell their SHEEPLE ::Baa-aa-aa:: friends about the extent of government evil, their friends yawn, shrug their shoulders and say "heard it all before, and what can anyone do about it?".
The monsters that rule you spend tens of billions of each on psychological warfare against YOU. You, on the other hand, have exactly one person's collections of resources to fight back- not exactly an even contest. So when YOU try to figure out the real truth behind Assange and Snowden, if there is ANY SHEEPLE ::Baa-aa-aa:: instinct in you, you will fail. In truth, even if you consider yourself cynical, you still believe the 'push' information the mainstream media feeds you. You WILL be distracted by the treason charges against Snowden, for instance, thus limiting your ability to see the bigger picture- that Snowden is an identical play to so many used by the British during WW2.
Clearly, the conspiracy knows no bounds...
Re: (Score:3)
Assange was chosen because of his sociopathic personality.
Agreed. Assange is a melodramatic narcissist. As much as he might be railing about the fact that the film will portray him negatively, I can assure everyone here that he probably also masturbates on a regular basis, to the thought that anyone associated with the government has made a film about him at all.
Assange is an archetypical grey hat. I used to know a few of them on IRC in the mid to late 1990s. They are sociopathic vermin, and completely
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't need a legal team, he just needs to realize that he's already served a longer self-imposed prison sentence than the period of time he would be held for "questioning" if he just walked out the door. He'd be questioned and released, most likely.
His fear of being transferred to the US is baseless, he's not even accused of a crime here; and his role was clearly legal under US law. The US strategy has been to make baseless threats and scare him into a corner, which surprisingly worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Worked into turning him into a successful political activist you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a herp-a-derp type of silly and obviously wrong nonsense. He was already a successful activist. And hiding in the closet has mostly kept him out of view and prevented him from continuing to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right... people said words and he hid. That is what I said. You shouldn't have to like the US, or live here, to realize that politicians can't just file political-based criminal charges without a legal basis. He could have just checked with a lawyer to find out if his actions had legal consequences in the US, or if when they said they were "looking" it just meant, you know, "looking." And anybody in the US or who looks into it should be able to tell him, if he parks illegally they'll be right on it, but bei
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is silly of you to claim I don't know that. If you were aware of the details of the things you would have me look up, you'd know that you're stating it in a misleading way. The reports you saw in the media did not talk about activity "on the assumption that he would be delivered to the US at some point." The activity was to meet and look at secret evidence and make a show of looking for something to charge him with, to scare him. Which worked.
Since you vaguely remember having read about it, you
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming "changes" was supposed to be "charges," are you sure he is actually charged with anything? I thought he was just avoiding being questioned on a matter in which he is a suspect and which is considered an exceptionally weak case unlikely to ever be brought to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get real - he's less of an attention seeker than anyone in Hollywood, "reality" TV or US politics. That line is just an empty and pointless insult thought up by some intern at a thinktank when they were looking for a way to discredit him.