Trying to make sense of Julian Assange and Wikileaks
Now Julian Assange has been arrested in London, a few mysteries are over, and some are just beginning to unravel. But at the moment I think it's hard to be left with anything other than questions.
It's tempting to think that Assange's arrest might be the result of some kind of dark plot against him, and it does seem like a coincidence that these allegations should surface at a time when the Wikileaks organisation is angering a lot of influential people. But it may just be that, a coincidence. While it does tap into people's need to sniff out a conspiracy to think that the allegations against Assange are something to do with the powerful people he has annoyed and the boats he has rocked, that may or may not be the case.
But it's wrong to imagine that these allegations might be false, simply because of the timing. If there is a case to answer, he must answer it. If there are allegations, they must be taken seriously. Just as it would with any other person. Being the founder of Wikileaks shouldn't put you above suspicion; you should be treated just the same as anyone else. We don't know enough about these allegations in order to speculate about their veracity, or whether the acts contained within constitutes rape, or to make any such arguments. We simply don't know. Assange may be a sympathetic character to some people, and perhaps they err on the side of defending him; others, who don't approve of his organisation, may be quick to condemn him as guilty. Both responses seem equally wrong, in the absence of substantial evidence; and besides, it is for a jury to decide on these matters, if the process should get that far, and not us.
But Julian Assange is not Wikileaks, and that's an important thing to bear in mind during all of this. It is a crude personification of history to imagine that Assange is the only driving force behind the Wikileaks movement, or that without him it would all disappear. It's considerably more complicated than that; Assange is not a lone soldier battling governments and vested interests. He is just part of a movement. Perhaps he is too much of a figurehead, seen as too preening in public, too visible for something that shouldn't be personified or made into a one-man mission. But he is not Wikileaks. If he has committed a crime, that does not destroy Wikileaks; it may taint the 'brand', but it doesn't taint the actions of the organisation, whatever you think of their rightness or wrongness.
Of course it suits Wikileaks's enemies to portray the organisation as some kind of evil plot hatched by an unhinged marginal character; that may well be a strategy that is being employed at the moment during the latest revelations. Again, that doesn't mean that Assange is guilty or innocent of what he's accused of; the fact that it may well suit his enemies very nicely may simply be good fortune on their part or an opportunity they have seized. But it is worth bearing in mind when these things come to be discussed, and you hear the same arguments again and again, and wonder where they may have come from, and who has been briefed to say what.
Wikileaks does represent a sea change in the way we find out information. Previously, journalists were our gatekeepers, and they were fed information by government handlers and trusted sources. Things trickled out. You get stories like "The BBC understands" and "A senior source has told me..." and it's largely unsatisfactory, a nod here and a wink there, when all you want as a consumer of information, as a punter, is someone to front up and actually explain things rather than prodding a journo in a dark corridor somewhere. We live in a culture of secrecy, where millions of pounds and thousands of lives are chucked away because of 'intelligence' we are never allowed to see; we are just meant to take these things on trust from our masters.
It is completely unsatisfactory for us as punters, as citizens, as taxpayers, as people in whose name huge crimes are being committed, to be told that we simply cannot handle the truth. And you get secrecy on a different level - when a cop puts a couple of bullets in a citizen he is allowed to be completely anonymous when defending his actions (for which he won't get punished) and then make fun of the whole process by slipping song titles into his evidence. And there's nothing anyone can do to change any of that; that's just the way it is, these things have to be secret, and that's that.
The second Gulf War may have changed a lot - we are just left with the smug sureness of the people who took us to war, with no evidence to back it up at all, just the certainty of their convictions. But that simply isn't enough in the internet age. People want to see the data for themselves. They want to know what 'intelligence' it is that led to the tragedy of so many wasted lives. Being told that we can't handle the truth doesn't wash any longer. That's the culture into which Wikileaks has arrived, and why it is seen as such a sea change; it's seen as the handing over of information from those who want to keep it secret to the citizens who want to know, often by passing the journalists in the middle altogether. You can see why the secret-keepers and the journalists alike might be startled by this.
None of that, though, excuses Assange if he's guilty of what he's accused of. But at the moment it is "if". People's private lives are different from the actions of governments; individuals have the right to privacy and an expectation that these things should not be pored over in public. So if there is an investigation, a crime, accusations and so on, perhaps this is one instance where we don't have the right to know everything. We must wait and see what happens, and leave any assumptions aside.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 7th, 2010 - 11:27
Has anyone considered the possibility that Assange in fact released all these secret documents – or even made them all up himself – to distract from the imminent charges against him? Have they? HAVE they? Hmmm?
December 7th, 2010 - 12:31
Yeah, thought of that
December 7th, 2010 - 12:52
Are you serious? A group of people (or as you suggest just him) released (or made up, your an idiot) 251 thousand sensitive U.S. documents to avoid or distract from charges of not using a condom? ……………………….
December 7th, 2010 - 20:50
*spoing*
December 7th, 2010 - 13:00
No.
December 7th, 2010 - 14:55
Made them all up himself? Hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps because it’s fucking moronic.
December 7th, 2010 - 17:03
Sorry, I clearly should have indicated that it was not serious (perhaps by typing THIS IS NOT SERIOUS at the top and bottom of my comment). I thought it was a rather smart parody of some of the opprobrium thrown at Assange recently. But apparently not! Apologies.
I have clearly learned NOTHING from the TwitterJokeTrial and deserve immediate punishment.
December 8th, 2010 - 07:43
I think any reasonable person would have found your post threatening…
December 7th, 2010 - 17:16
Come friends, behold the majesty of the Sarcasm Mark: http://02d9656.netsoljsp.com/SarcMark/modules/user/commonfiles/loadhome.do
Prevent ignorant online commentators from missing the point of your ironically delivered remarks.
December 7th, 2010 - 11:55
The thing which staggers me about the whole business is not that Wikileaks should choose to publish all this stuff – that is, after all, what it’s for – but that the US gubbinsment allowed TWO AND A HALF MILLION people access to the material even before Wikileaks got hold of it and then act all surprised about it. To say nothing of an IT security policy so laughably cretinous that a pleb had access to both the material and a CD writer.
December 7th, 2010 - 11:59
Paranoid much Chris? Read the above again. Assange isnt Wikileaks. Wikileaks released these documents not Assange. The above is right, they are two seperate issues.
December 7th, 2010 - 17:05
Oh shitting bollocks.
December 7th, 2010 - 21:08
…and *SPOING* again…
December 7th, 2010 - 12:18
I think one reason those on the side of Assange might be so dismissive of the allegations against him is down to the fact the charges were dropped a while back. It’s not a new case, it was raised a while back – previously looked at and seen as not enough to justify arrest/investigation by prosecutors in Stockholm. Now they’ve been brought back up by prosecutors in Gothenburg, which isn’t where the original case was. Conspiracy mindset or no, that is a bit strange.
Obviously I’m not saying he’s Definitely Innocent. I’m just offering a possible, credible reason as to why so many are incredibly suspicious of the charges.
December 7th, 2010 - 14:36
Perhaps you ought to be aware that in cases of rape, it is not at all unusual for charges to be dropped, only to be picked up again later. It is, furthermore, not at all unusual for rape victims to decide that they do not wish to press charges, and then to press charges later. (and let’s be clear about this: one of the charges against him is rape. There are two other charges of sexual molestation, and one further charge of unlawful coercion). Rape is a very serious allegation, and prosecuting rape cases is notoriously difficult. This is a fact that appears to be ignored by many people commenting on this incident.
I would hate to be the two women whose complaints against Assagne seem to be entirely ignored by those claiming “conspiracy”. To whitewash their complaints as mere ‘conspiracy’ or, as Julian Assagne would like to have us believe, “an attack on media freedom” is an utterly disgusting reaction to these very serious claims.
December 8th, 2010 - 09:06
“I would hate to be the two women whose complaints against Assagne seem to be entirely ignored by those claiming “conspiracy”.
Perhaps you should have added “if the complaints are in fact true”, as it seems to me you have revealed yourself as believing he is guilty, and are in fact just as bad as the people you are trying to condemn.
I will await the trial for forming an opinion, but all I will say is that I can see why it looks suspicious. This man has the entire weight of a superpower pressing down on him. But on the other hand, I feel sorry for these women if the allegations are true!
December 8th, 2010 - 09:14
I would just like to add, as most of us are unawares of the specifics of this case, we shouldn’t really speculate to much.
I just hope that this case is being revived again for purely legal reasons, and not political, as that would be quite worrying. Especially if the women are being dragged into the worlds spotlight. They should be protected from that in any case.
December 8th, 2010 - 16:21
The women had actually already decided to contact Swedish tabloids before they even went to the police. We do know that much. Who needs the protection here?
December 7th, 2010 - 12:21
Just to point out, the charges were laid months ago, dropped entirely, then picked up by another prosecutor now, in a different city from where the incidents took place and were originally made… Supposedly after a politician got involved. And as well, they refused to speak with Assange and his lawyer, who tried to contact them (which is the opposite of how it usually goes). And the Interpol warrant, and it’s contents not being disclosed were also described by lawyers as highly unusual. It’s not just the timing which is the concern here =P
December 7th, 2010 - 12:32
I’ll be pedantic, since that’s my thing:
It would be wrong to *assume* that they *are* false, but surely in writing that sentence you yourself have imagined that they might be. And I can see nothing wrong with doing so.
But Assange has been arrested, and will be extradited without a jury. I’m not at all happy about someone wanted by the US (and facing many calls for assassination) being put on a plane and flown to another country. Sure, a jury trial would be a good thing. All else being equal (and it never is), I’d like said trial here. Same for Gary McKinnon.
I do agree with your final paragraph. However, call it an assumption or a prejudice if you must, but until the Yanks come clean about all the people they’ve put on planes and what’s happened to them, I’m worried about Assange’s safety and I admire his courage.
December 7th, 2010 - 12:58
Assange has been arrested under a European warrant. He is wanted by the Swedes. As far as I’m aware, there is no reason to suspect that Swedish law is in any way deficient.
December 7th, 2010 - 13:48
I imagine you are being quite pedantic, yes.
December 7th, 2010 - 16:09
If there isn’t the possibility that the allegations might be false, why bother with a (jury) trial at all? It’s quite correct to imagine that they’re false, as it is with all allegations.
December 7th, 2010 - 16:14
Speaking of pedantry, what do you mean by the expression “consumer of information”?
December 7th, 2010 - 12:38
I can’t imagine that Chris was serious. It’s much more likely that Assange has fabricated the alleged offence as, on balance, he’s probably safer in a police cell than he is wandering the streets of London with half the world’s intelligence agencies out to get him. Not completely safe, obviously: http://goo.gl/hqLXg
December 7th, 2010 - 13:11
For those interested, this seems to most detailed account of events to date:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html
December 7th, 2010 - 15:13
Yes, very reliable and not at all biased. ‘A radical feminist… while a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’.
December 7th, 2010 - 22:49
All feminists are radicals in the eyes of Dacre.
December 7th, 2010 - 16:32
Detailed or not, this is the Daily Mail we are talking about and while I read the article with interest, the spin was painfully obvious.
December 7th, 2010 - 13:17
Just a brilliant summing up after a week of information deluge. I imagine the overload is by design. Move from story to story, on a day by day basis, using the inherent absurdity of 24 hour news to replace headline after headline, thus reducing it’s importance, significance and crucially, newsworthyness.
For anyone that hasn’t, please go and read some of the documents for yourself. As many as you can. These U.S. diplomatic leaks are just the latest in a long line of ‘documents released’.
Trafigura
BNP membership details
Emails between the BNP leadership and KKK groups in America
Icelandic Bank corruption files
The Iraq war logs
And on and on and on…
Literally thousands from all over the world. Plenty of enemies. I was shocked when the press started putting a face and name to the Wikileaks website. Assange was that man (I’ve no idea who the architect of that ‘personality branding’ is; the media or the Wikileaks administrators) and now, not surprisingly, he’s wanted all over the world.
The initial beauty of Wikileaks was in its facelessness, its anonymity – it was just a computer server. It obviously had to have administrators – but that’s all they ever should be. I’m worried by the ‘new media organisation’ branding. Nevertheless, that does but shouldn’t detract from the fucking content of the leaks.
December 7th, 2010 - 13:36
On t’One O’Clock News just now, Assange’s lawyer (one of them anyway) said the Swedish charges were, ‘an over reaction’. Then realised quick ‘over-reaction implied there was very much something to react to and changed tack a bit.
It would be foolish to not keep the possibility (probability?) of the prosecution being politically motivated. But it would seem there is at least something to the charges.
The BBC also commented on what might happen if after being extradited to Sweden he was then passed to the US. Just Auntie there making up stories I thought? Do the US have any charges to actually throw at him – you’d have thought if they did they would have. And the UK isn’t famous for denying extradition requests to the US.
December 7th, 2010 - 18:23
Not just the BBC: http://bit.ly/ez5dpy Salon thinks so too.
December 7th, 2010 - 14:36
Actually, we *do* know a fair about the charges, including the fact that even according to the prosecutor, the sex was consensual, which already makes all rape claims absurd. We know that one of the women attempted to destroy evidence which indicated nothing untoward had taken place. There is, in fact, a truckload of evidence that the entire thing is made up and designed only to discredit Assange.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101202,01.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
If “Assange is guilty of what he’s accused of” then he’s guilty of absolutely nothing more than engaging in unsafe sex with a willing partner.
December 7th, 2010 - 15:48
That was meant to read a fair _bit_.
Seriously, though: compare the actual known facts (including what he is actually being “wanted for interviewing” for) with what the mainstream media are reporting. Ignore the conspiracy theories for a moment (though one of the accusers has documented CIA ties) and just look at the facts as acknowledged by the prosecutor.
December 7th, 2010 - 17:45
The charges are that sex was consensual on the condition that a condom was used. Mr. Assange then failed to use a condom, so the conditions were broken, therefore the sex became non-consensual. Non-consensual sex is rape. The condition was that a condom be used, and it wasn’t.
Whether the allegations are true or not, and whether the charges are being persued with such vigor because of pressure from the US are other matters that of import, that could impede Mr. Assange’s access to a fair trial.
The fact that if the charges are true then it’s is clearly rape is not in question.
I support Wikileaks, have donated to Wikileaks, will continue to donate to Wikileaks, but I also think Wikileaks is bigger and more important than one person, who may or may not, depending on a fair trial, be guilty of rape.
December 7th, 2010 - 20:27
@Akheloios Best comment on here by far. Thank god someone makes sense!
December 7th, 2010 - 22:54
“Mr. Assange then failed to use a condom”
I have real trouble imagining how this works with the sex simultaneously still being consensual – unless we’re talking about a condom ripping, which I simply cannot consider to be rape (but the prosecutor does). There is also a slew of evidence that the accuser did not, at the time and for some time afterwards, consider the sex to be nonconsensual, and a lot of evidence that this was a planned smear, including highly problematic behaviour by the Swedish authorities.
This is not at all about idolising Assange or about identifying him with Wikileaks. But not every case is a case of “maybe, we’ll see” – sometimes the evidence is right in front of us, and this is one such case. To acknowledge the obvious fakeness of the accusations does not mean not taking sexual violence and sex crimes seriously.
December 8th, 2010 - 06:15
The actual charge is, as far as I’m aware, “sex by surprise” which is an apparently relatively rarely used thing in Swedish law regarding condom use (the woman in a sexual encounter gets exclusive right to dictate their use) that is punishable at *most* by a $715 fine.
As for some more details, in one case he wore a condom and the condom broke (and he apparently didn’t tell the woman or simply didn’t notice) and in the other case he didn’t wear one. Assange also refused to take an STD test on the request of the women.
Still, the whole thing is weird. Like I said, the possible penalty is (again, as far as I’m aware) a $715 fine. Which doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would get anyone else an extradition order and all this fuss that has gone on, *especially* after the same charges were dropped for so long in the first place. The timing is, if nothing else, remarkably coincidental.
December 7th, 2010 - 14:38
*whoosh*
The sound of chrisleonmiller’s sarcasm passing over the heads of scott and VictoriaC.
December 7th, 2010 - 17:06
It *was* detectable, then! Thank goodness. I thought I was going crazy.
December 7th, 2010 - 15:25
Sweden doesn’t have juries for the majority of cases. Whether that makes their legal system ‘deficient’ is a matter for debate.
December 8th, 2010 - 07:05
I thought we didnt either, I would assume less serious crimes are the most common, and less serious crimes are heard by magistrates with no juries
December 7th, 2010 - 20:42
Thanks for this; agree entirely.
December 7th, 2010 - 21:27
I think it’s not a matter of we don’t know if Assange is guilty or not. He’s innocent until proven guilty. The timing should arouse huge suspicion, along with the way the case has previously been tried, and how it may be tried should it come to court. I think suspicion should be maintained until proven otherwise, because the US government has a long history of not giving a flying fuck about scruples of any kind when it comes to getting someone it considers a threat.
December 7th, 2010 - 23:12
The reason these charges were dismissed the first time by a Swedish judge was because one of the women threw a benefit party for Mr. Assange AFTER the date of the supposed condom breaking incident – looked like she was lying to put it plainly or at least wasn’t harmed until she decided she was much later on.
The second woman has known ties to the CIA and operations in Cuba. This is what has been dug up so far. It will be interesting to see what does/doesn’t come out this third time around.
December 8th, 2010 - 09:41
There’s an apparently subtle but important point about whether or not Assange has a case to answer. The fact is that in any case, the prosecuting authority has a “case to answer”, not the defendant – since the burden of proof is on them, not the accused.
The reason I bring it up is that if more people saw the criminal justice system this way, it would be a lot harder to throw mud at adversaries by creating cases against them, and conversely, governments wouldn’t be accused of trumped up cases if people habitually considered all cases this way around.
Goes to show that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t intuitive…
December 8th, 2010 - 11:01
I don’t understand why the UK can’t do a deal with Sweden that says we will extradite him on the condition that he is not extradited to the US?
December 8th, 2010 - 13:41
It’s very obvious to anyone what’s going on to anyone who’s familiar with how governments respond to those release state secrets and now today’s Independent confirms it: http://ind.pn/gwm634
The US govt leaned on Sweden to dig up an old sex charge (“sex by surprise” not rape) that had been dropped in order to issue an arrest warrant for him. That warrant would then be used to ultimately hand over Assange to US authorities where he’ll be tried for espionage and rot in jail for the rest of his life.
It’s clear the US, Sweden and the UK have worked together in all this.
Stop fixating on the sex charge – it’s worthless, it was NEVER about that in the first place.
December 8th, 2010 - 16:37
1) Now that the charges have actually been laid out, one of them does turn out to be rape. This one wasn’t mentioned before, so far as I can tell (previous talk of rape was people misunderstanding the “sex by surprise” charge).
2) I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if the US had leaned on as many allies as possible to find something against Assange, but if they were going to conjure a charge from thin air with a view to later getting him extradited to the US, they wouldn’t want him in Sweden – they’d want him in the UK, from which it would be easier to get him extradited.