6 ms·

The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak. It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition. I sup

The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak. It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition. I support Assange, although not without reservation, and I refuse to speak out for him in public because of his rape charges (charges which have not been proven). I doubt he will successfully flee the UK. To paraphrase the old Radiohead song, Assange, "you did it to yourself".

oinksoft 14y ago
Innocent until proven guilty? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that there's no surer way to discredit somebody with no real evidence than to publicize a salacious sex story.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  The issue with claiming innocent until proven guilty is that that is one part of a due process which Assange's actions are making impossible to follow. I'm not saying he's guilty (or innocent), just that when you halt due process, terms like this become a little less meaningful as they're one part of a larger thing which is being blocked.
xutopia 14y ago
What do you mean morally weak?
- autophil 14y ago
  If his motivations were purely based on freedom and the democratization of information, and not on his own physical yearnings, he wouldn't have compromised his mission. Unfortunately, his sexual desires superseded his common sense and that of the greater good.
  - hetman 14y ago
    This still remains only an allegation. On another note, it's easy to remain on one's moral high horse while surrounded by comfort and taking relatively light responsibility on one self. I suspect the perfect moral hero that gives up all of them selves to protect some perfect ideals is something you're more likely to encounter in fiction like Star Trek than reality.
  - nsns 14y ago
    IMO it's the same drive in both: fame He runs Wikileaks giving his name a prominent billing, and has sex with some of his fans. It all comes from the same source.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    What is this argument you're making? Anyone who becomes a public figure must engage in chastity?
    - HomaSapiens 14y ago
      What is the argument you're making? Any public figure cannot by definition commit a rape?
      - jpxxx 14y ago
        I was pointing out how nonsensical that commenter's ad hominem attack was. The idea that Julian's sexuality negates the value of any work he's done is straight out of a century you and I have never lived in. Making him out to be some kind of holy warrior who was brought down by his "yearnings" is weird. Anyway! His comment was dumb, your loaded question is dumb, and this entire thread is dumb.
luriel 14y ago
When the accusations first surfaced, some people at Wikileaks suggested that he does the reasonable thing and stand temporarily down from his role at Wikileaks while he deals with whatever clearly personal issues he has with the Swedish law. Assange didn't take kindly to their suggestion, and they didn't last long at wikileaks. Much more convenient for him to create a claim conspiracy theory and take cover in the hard and actually risky work done by wikileaks, and say that if he goes down, he will take the whole organization with him.
gavinlynch 14y ago
I don't quite see the courage in leaking classified documents. In fact, it's rather easy in this information age.
- Jach 14y ago
  The courage is in leaking them with a name attached to the leaker or distributor. Bradley Manning is an example of what happens to people who leak stuff the State doesn't want leaked. Of course Assange seems more in it for the show than the leaks, which may in the end be the best strategy for most attention to the leaks themselves (along with attention to Assange), but it would have been a much easier and safer execution if it had been done anonymously. (It might not have received any attention though.)
  - gavinlynch 14y ago
    >>> "The courage is in leaking them with a name attached to the leaker or distributor." Which Bradley Manning did not do. >>> "Bradley Manning is an example of what happens to people who leak stuff the State doesn't want leaked." Yes... Bradley Manning is a perfect example of what happens when you illegally releases hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, violating oaths you swore to your country. You go to jail. For a long time. What is your point? And I'm sorry, but as the family member of someone who has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for over 100 combat missions, and the recipient of a bronze star (with valor).... I have a different definition of what exactly "courage" is. Different strokes for different folks............
    - Jach 14y ago
      I suppose I should have said leaking at all has some quantity of courage attached to it, since you're messing with a government entity that pretty much by definition is more powerful than the individual and whose members are just as self-preserving as any other humans. A lot of people sure regard Deep Throat as courageous. Do you just consider him a criminal? It takes more courage to not even try being anonymous about it, though I think the leaker is categorically more courageous than the publisher, so I wouldn't say Assange is more courageous than Manning. My point about Manning is that he could form an idea about what would happen to him if he got caught doing what he considered the right thing. Similarly, Assange could form an idea of what harassment and possibly jail time he'd have to go through by controlling the first distribution channel. Typically people consider taking such known risks courageous, with foolishness often tagging along. > Different strokes for different folks............ Well yes, I could argue that participating in the US military at all within the last decade is a display of complete cowardice--character cowardice, moral cowardice, and intellectual cowardice. I could argue that courage is just foolishness, that they're not separate things but the same thing, and that medals award stupidity. There are many ways to disagree on the nature of courage, what's your point with toting out your family? Just to display one of the ways? Fair enough.

oinksoft 14y ago

Innocent until proven guilty? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that there's no surer way to discredit somebody with no real evidence than to publicize a salacious sex story.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
The issue with claiming innocent until proven guilty is that that is one part of a due process which Assange's actions are making impossible to follow. I'm not saying he's guilty (or innocent), just that when you halt due process, terms like this become a little less meaningful as they're one part of a larger thing which is being blocked.

xutopia 14y ago

What do you mean morally weak?

autophil 14y ago
If his motivations were purely based on freedom and the democratization of information, and not on his own physical yearnings, he wouldn't have compromised his mission. Unfortunately, his sexual desires superseded his common sense and that of the greater good.
- hetman 14y ago
  This still remains only an allegation. On another note, it's easy to remain on one's moral high horse while surrounded by comfort and taking relatively light responsibility on one self. I suspect the perfect moral hero that gives up all of them selves to protect some perfect ideals is something you're more likely to encounter in fiction like Star Trek than reality.
- nsns 14y ago
  IMO it's the same drive in both: fame He runs Wikileaks giving his name a prominent billing, and has sex with some of his fans. It all comes from the same source.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  What is this argument you're making? Anyone who becomes a public figure must engage in chastity?
  - HomaSapiens 14y ago
    What is the argument you're making? Any public figure cannot by definition commit a rape?
    - jpxxx 14y ago
      I was pointing out how nonsensical that commenter's ad hominem attack was. The idea that Julian's sexuality negates the value of any work he's done is straight out of a century you and I have never lived in. Making him out to be some kind of holy warrior who was brought down by his "yearnings" is weird. Anyway! His comment was dumb, your loaded question is dumb, and this entire thread is dumb.

luriel 14y ago

When the accusations first surfaced, some people at Wikileaks suggested that he does the reasonable thing and stand temporarily down from his role at Wikileaks while he deals with whatever clearly personal issues he has with the Swedish law. Assange didn't take kindly to their suggestion, and they didn't last long at wikileaks. Much more convenient for him to create a claim conspiracy theory and take cover in the hard and actually risky work done by wikileaks, and say that if he goes down, he will take the whole organization with him.

gavinlynch 14y ago

I don't quite see the courage in leaking classified documents. In fact, it's rather easy in this information age.

Jach 14y ago
The courage is in leaking them with a name attached to the leaker or distributor. Bradley Manning is an example of what happens to people who leak stuff the State doesn't want leaked. Of course Assange seems more in it for the show than the leaks, which may in the end be the best strategy for most attention to the leaks themselves (along with attention to Assange), but it would have been a much easier and safer execution if it had been done anonymously. (It might not have received any attention though.)
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  >>> "The courage is in leaking them with a name attached to the leaker or distributor." Which Bradley Manning did not do. >>> "Bradley Manning is an example of what happens to people who leak stuff the State doesn't want leaked." Yes... Bradley Manning is a perfect example of what happens when you illegally releases hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, violating oaths you swore to your country. You go to jail. For a long time. What is your point? And I'm sorry, but as the family member of someone who has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for over 100 combat missions, and the recipient of a bronze star (with valor).... I have a different definition of what exactly "courage" is. Different strokes for different folks............
  - Jach 14y ago
    I suppose I should have said leaking at all has some quantity of courage attached to it, since you're messing with a government entity that pretty much by definition is more powerful than the individual and whose members are just as self-preserving as any other humans. A lot of people sure regard Deep Throat as courageous. Do you just consider him a criminal? It takes more courage to not even try being anonymous about it, though I think the leaker is categorically more courageous than the publisher, so I wouldn't say Assange is more courageous than Manning. My point about Manning is that he could form an idea about what would happen to him if he got caught doing what he considered the right thing. Similarly, Assange could form an idea of what harassment and possibly jail time he'd have to go through by controlling the first distribution channel. Typically people consider taking such known risks courageous, with foolishness often tagging along. > Different strokes for different folks............ Well yes, I could argue that participating in the US military at all within the last decade is a display of complete cowardice--character cowardice, moral cowardice, and intellectual cowardice. I could argue that courage is just foolishness, that they're not separate things but the same thing, and that medals award stupidity. There are many ways to disagree on the nature of courage, what's your point with toting out your family? Just to display one of the ways? Fair enough.