4 ms·

Not surprising. It always seemed like the campaign against Assange was more about an attempt to, in their lingo, "substantially degrade" the coherence and oper

Not surprising. It always seemed like the campaign against Assange was more about an attempt to, in their lingo, "substantially degrade" the coherence and operational effectiveness of, rather than to outright neutralize, either him or his organization. Even if he's done more than his part to play into the interests of this perfidious campaign. Had he gone to face his trial in Sweden (like, you know, a man) he probably would have acquitted, or at worst, been made to face a comparatively light penalty by now. And perhaps salvaged some credibility for himself in the process. Not that the campaign against him wasn't overzealous and clearly politically motivated, etc. Of course it was, but that's not the point. But it's safe to say that the juggernaut of vested interests behind it can be more than pleased at the fruits of their efforts, thus far.

mr_eel 14y ago
Easy enough to call his manhood into question, but pretty ridiculous when you immediately say that "Not that the campaign against him wasn't overzealous and clearly politically motivated, etc." The abuse of the EAW and general excessive response are reason enough for to fight it. As for salvaging credibility; a vicious media campaign had begun against him long before the extradition proceedings reached these dramatic heights — it's not a conspiracy either, it's just a lot of journalists are pricks. I doubt going to Sweden would have changed that. So, it's very easy to say he 'probably… made to face a comparatively light penalty', but when getting that judgement wrong means trumped-up espionage charges, it's a very different proposition altogether.