ArnRand said:
Julian Assange is a prick. First of all, the guy sexually assaults two women, then he says some bullshit conspiracy theory about being charged in the us, and fucks off to Britain. He isn?t some kind vigilante freedom fighter, the guy just did something illegal and seems to think he?s above the law. Sweden has said explicitly that if he gets taken there they won?t send him to the US. If he?s innocent of sexual assault, then he should fucking go in a court and prove it.
Now all of you may agree with me (probably not?). But the guy gets celebrity endorsements, supporters in anonymous masks outside the embassy, and the help of Ecuador (who are fucking idiots by the way.) I don?t understand at all.
So yeah. Wikileaks is great. Julian Assange is a prick.
Well, my basic opinion is that Wikileaks and Julian are both problems. My big issue with them is that they tend to release classified data, things like the personal notes and covert opinions of diplomats. What's more the site seems to be pretty much biased against the major Western powers in terms of what information it releases and when. I don't mind crusading journalists and such, but when it comes to some of the information he's obtained and put up I think he's crossed too many lines. Honestly a lot of what he's done borders on treason against a number of nations, and I suppose I can see why he's avoiding prosecution, while I doubt it would happen some of the stuff he's released could arguably get him a death penelty (though this is a long debate I won't get into, there are things that freedom of the press and freedom of speech do not cover). That's before you get into the sexual assault charges that I figure go with him feeling untouchable, I mean if you can release some of the stuff he has the way he has, and potentially put millions of lives in danger, what's a bit of sexual assault?
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the US needs to stop respecting a lot of these territorial agreements for asylum given how they are being used, to be honest I don't much care about damaging relations with nations that might shield someone like this, because a nation willing to do that isn't worthwhile anyway.
I'll also say that having looked at cases like this, and Kim Dotcom (which someone else mentioned) I think a big part of the problem is that very wealthy individuals, or those with something to trade, can buy politicians outright, and use them to pretty much screw with the extradition process. Sure the US might give a lot to some of these nations, but politicians who are being directly given thousands or millions of dollars to use their authority can be a big obstacle. From the way it looked to me Kim Dotcom for example was pretty much paying New Zealand under the table for shelter, leading to the need to concoct reasons to justify getting him that went beyond belief, when we should have just kicked the door down. If Sweden provides Assange asylum (I've heard mixed things about them doing so) I don't think we should even play that game this time and just do what we need to do.
.. and again, yes I know many will disagree with all, or most of this.