By Steve Hynd
Dear pundit colleagues of the mainstream media, bloggers and think-tankers,
Can we remember that there are at least four very different issues being discussed when we're talking about Wikileaks and the Assange arrest?
1) What Wikileaks does and would continue to do were it's undoubtably limelight-seeking founder, along with how that might affect journalism and secrecy in general. John's post this morning quotes a particularly rosy account of this meta-argument.
2) Whether what Wikileaks has done recently is bad for the US, for international diplomacy or Mom's apple pie vs whether Wikileaks recent actions are to be applauded as journalism for shining light in dark corners and exposing wrongdoing. We can debate this one until the cows come home but Glenn Greenwald makes some major points today, in particular that there is no coherent way "to argue that what WikiLeaks did with these cables is criminal, but what the NYT, the Guardian and other other papers did is not" and thus "journalists cheering for the prosecution of Assange [for espionage] are laying the foundation for the criminalization of their own profession".
3) Whether Assange is the target of a deliberate shut-down attempt by use of a honeypot entrapment scheme. There's some speculation on this over at Firedoglake and it certainly seems conveniently timed. Assange turned himself in willingly to answer a case that Swedish prosecutors had first decided to drop and then revived. He's been refused bail by a British court but given his lifestyle of flitting from nation to nation that's unsurprising.
4) Whether or not Assange actually did the things he's accused of in arrest warrants, whether or not he was the victim of entrapment. If he did, they're still crimes and let's all remember that the Swedish paradigm is a very civilized "rape through removal of consent at any point" rather than America's rather barbaric insistence on the use of force. Jill at Feministe has a must-read post on that latter point.
I'd appreciate it if we could all try to keep these issues seperate. There is no logical argument that runs "Wikileaks bad because founder accused of rape", "Wikileaks bad because founder is a limelight-seeking douchebag" or "Assange innocent because Wikileaks does so much good stuff".
In a perfect world, this wouldn't need to be said. Unfortunately, in this one knowledge of the basic rules of logic seems to be in short supply.
Thanks, Steve
I would also add a fifth point. Please remember Assange is NOT an American citizen; thusly, treason does not apply.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Noirkat. You'd think the logic there would be obvious, but well...
ReplyDeleteRegards, Steve
Good observations, as usual.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to Assange's week as a guest of the UK was At least his physical safety is better assured for the next few days.
(Or if anything "unfortunate" happens while he's in custody we know whom to hold accountable.)
The case against Assange has been tainted beyond any hope by the insane overreaction against Wikileaks. No one can rule out the possibility of political influence in the case and the nature of the crime is very much he said/she said. Unless there's a smoking gun, it's all going to come down to who the judge believes (and remember, no juries in Sweden.)
ReplyDeleteWhether he's convicted or not is now irrelevant, because the verdict can't be trusted to be untainted by influence. That's what happens when elites go batshit.