14 ms·

Julian Assange Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Embassy

84 points by damohasi 14y ago

opminion 14y ago
Assange interviewed the Ecuatorian president for his program at RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-1-9QXd3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-1-9QXd3Y The Ecuatorian president is introduced as "populist", yet the interview is non-critical. I thought "populist" was globally pejorative? Edit: the president himself uses the term in a negative context
- ForrestN 14y ago
  "Populist" is generally either neutral or positive in American politics. But most often I hear it used to describe a political strategy, going directly for the masses instead of the upper echelons of power.
  - crazygringo 14y ago
    I would disagree, and say it's usually negative -- the idea that you win short-term approval for a dubious policy by appealing to the masses who are ignorant of the true consequences, as opposed to appealing to the elites who would presumably understand that the thing's a bad idea. For example, promising to cut the gasoline tax would be a very populist tactic -- people think "I pay less for gas, that's great!", whereas elites would think, "we'll have less money for infrastructure, leading to decline, or else we'll have to raise taxes elsewhere, making non-drivers subsidize drivers." And by calling this tactic populist, you would generally be indicating that it appeals to the electorate's ignorance. Most people consider that a bad thing, since it leads to worse outcomes. Hence, populism is a pejorative term. I'm referring to use of the word in the US only. If you want a positive term, you would describe something as "democratic" instead. (I'm an American from New York who follows politics a lot.)
    - ForrestN 14y ago
      Well, it's true that elites may see populism with some suspicion, and may convey that to each other. But if you turn on Hardball (famous political TV program), many elites and many not-so-elites, depending on your vantage, might be urging Obama, say, to take a more populist tack in his campaign. It's usually neutral, one side of a spectrum people have diverse opinions about. For example, I don't often feel like angrily shouting at a republican "you populist!" but I do regularly feel like shouting "you morally bankrupt exploiter of the public's ignorance!"
      - molmalo 14y ago
        Just call him demagogue ;) . Read what I wrote above :P Too long to repeat.
    - molmalo 14y ago
      I mostly agree with you in that it's usually negative. But, outside the US, I think it's quite different. It's not as you say that "as opposed to appealing to the elites who would presumably understand that the thing's a bad idea". The elites tend to consider something as a bad idea, when that somethings affects their interests. A populist policy, usually does not benefit the elites, au contraire, it usually affects them negatively, by moving benefits from them to the masses. (Also, in favor of a political gain, like raising the approval ratings). I'll give you a practical and real example: here in Argentina, the vast majority of the agricultural production is in hands of about 2000 elite families, and managed by planting pools (they have around 85% of the productive fields, and only 15% is in hands of small farm-owners). One common practice for those elites historically has been to export the production, but making the transaction outside the country, so they wouldn't pay taxes here. And then, leave their gains in foreign banks (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Uruguay). Then, after our crisis in 2001, the government crated a grain exports tax. Around the 2006/2008, soybean prices skyrocketed[1]. The government wanted to modify the tax, so it would have a sliding-scale taxation system, that would make that the more expensive the international price of a product, the less impact would have in the internal price [2]. It had two objectives. The first, was to avoid having exorbitant food prices inside the country, that would make lots of products inaccessible to large segments of the population (mostly meat). And the second one was to allow the government to get more money from the soybean exports (so they could use that money to finance the industrial sector). Even when the agricultural elites would still have the highest benefits of their entire history, they didn't want the government taking part of those. This bill was seen as a populist measure by the agricultural elites, who forced a lockout that lasted more than four months. Mass media and mainly Clarin, the largest media conglomerate of Argentina, who until then was a governments ally, aligned to those elites interests, and started a heavy campaign against the government (marking the beginning of a war that still lasts). I'm not referring to any specific government here, but the main problem, I think while seeing it from the outside, is that US politics has only two options: Conservative-Right and Liberal-Right. So, when you see a foreign center or center-left government implementing policies like progressive taxation (as in my previous example), mixed economy or the state regulating the economy, your media tends to jump shelling "populist! populist!". So, even when "populism" is usually used as a pejorative term, it shouldn't be. It should be used for a government who tries to fight for their lower classes against the elites. The term that should be used instead, (and the one you are referring, I believe) is demagogy: "a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the poorer and less-educated classes in order to gain power" [3]. [1] http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=soybeans&months=300 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=soybeans&#3... [2] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_agropecuario_patronal_en_Argentina_de_2008 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_agropecuario_patronal_en_A... (in spanish, sorry) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue PS: I also follow politics a lot, my parents where politically active, but they've always let me choose my own believes.
- sp332 14y ago
  Actually Populism is just the opposite of Elitism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Latin_America "a process of controlled inclusion of the "masses" into the political system"
- dsrguru 14y ago
  I live in the U.S., and I've never heard "populist" used pejoratively. Where are you from and what does it connote when used pejoratively in your country?
  - tylee78 14y ago
    one example: it is used that way in Germany and applied (mostly) to right wing parties
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    Here in Europe it's used to refer to politicians who pander to the sentiments of the common people, without having a well thought out long-term strategy; e.g., "I'll lower all taxes AND give free healthcare for all."
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - opminion 14y ago
    Europe. It usually means when one tries to grab votes at the cost of doing what's "correct" from one's point of view. A stereotypical case would be providing "bread and circus" in the short term while the country is sinking in the mid term. The following headlines are example use of "populist" with negative connotations (they are not the only ones, I just provide anecdotal evidence of the common use of "populist" as a negative trait). British English: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098 http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9614000/9614768.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid... (beware starts parliamentary video automatically) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive-populism-riots-gangs http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive... French: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme-derive-de-la-democratie_1640482_3232.html http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme... Spanish: http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120515.html http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120...
  - Confusion 14y ago
- Estragon 14y ago
  If you want to refer to a populist pejoratively, you call them a demagogue.
sp332 14y ago
Why Ecuador, in particular? I just learned that they've adopted the US dollar as their currency, following devaluation of their old currency in 1999. Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though. Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks_asylum_in_ecuador http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.
- xefer 14y ago
  I have a feeling he'll be "couch surfing" from embassy to embassy to delay the extradition as long as possible.
  - marshray 14y ago
    You don't think he'll be arrested the minute he sets foot out of the Ecuadorian?
    - DrJokepu 14y ago
      I really don't think that the Metropolitan Police is going to put officers outside the Ecuador Assembly 24/7 just in case Julian Assange leaves. It just doesn't sound like a good use of the officers' time.
      - marshray 14y ago
        The US would be happy to volunteer a few if it's a question of manpower. Britain would probably commit their own just to avoid that kind of situation. It just doesn't sound like a good use of the officers' time. They've had the guy detained without charge for 500-odd days. Facing some international criticism and generally looking like hypocrites whenever they want to criticize some other country for having political prisoners. The case has been through their Supreme Court and now there's yet another country involved in this international incident. When I was in London last year there were helicopters circling continuously in some places. If Assange gives them the slip somehow, it's not going to be because the local police preferred to prioritize something else that day.
pvnick 14y ago
How dire is Assange's situation? Is it really possible that the US will try to imprison or even execute him? Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange
- wvenable 14y ago
  If he were to ever enter US custody, he's not likely to come away from that for a long time. The question is how interested is the US in getting him into custody and how easy is it for them. I imagine it's not terribly difficult but the US also hasn't done much so far. But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.
- iamdave 14y ago
  I severely doubt it'd go so far as execution, sudden disappearance into a political black hole never to be heard from again? More likely.
  - johnny22 14y ago
    then what exactly are they waiting for. He's not likely to get any lower profile until past the time anybody cares (including the government)
    - iamdave 14y ago
      What's your proposition? Fly to Ecquador, kick in the embassy doors and abduct a man seeking asylum? It'd make for one heck of a news day, but I don't think it's that easy.
- wilfra 14y ago
  The US has nothing to do with this. Sweden is trying to have him extradited from the UK for a sexual assault charge.
  - 14y ago
mc32 14y ago
Why not Argentina? He could take advantage of their antipathy toward the UK. Too transparent?
- objclxt 14y ago
  It's not the UK that wants him - it's Sweden.
  - mc32 14y ago
    I understand, but it's the UK who are allowing the extradition, which, he, Assange, clearly disagrees with.
  - cmdkeen 14y ago
    He's also been bailed by the British courts for the purposes of the extradition process. So he may be committing offences in terms of that. Concrete offences that a normal extradition treaty might cover but that the Swedish "we want to question" warrant may not outside the EU.
- cmdkeen 14y ago
  Female Catholic President. Bit of a risk that she doesn't like people who have (admitted in court in the UK) some pretty dubious sexual acts. Acts which the UK court have said would constitute offences in the UK.
nirvana 14y ago
Julian's situation seems very weird to me, given the stories about how secretive he was, how he kept in hiding, etc. At the same time, he was very clearly and publicly the face of wikileaks. Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right? Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)
- danielweber 14y ago
  According to the people at the New York Times he worked with, he became transformed by his celebrity. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.htm... goes into their history. I'm tempted to quote a few paragraphs but it wouldn't be fair since there is a very large picture being painted.
  - gringomorcego 14y ago
    Hahahahahahahaha. Guess what Bill Keller also wrote? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believe-i-m-a-hawk-club.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believ...
- OzzyB 14y ago
  >All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right? I say no. Taking a feather from Rock 'n Roll, you need a front-man.
- iand 14y ago
  My recollection was that Assange chose to be a figurehead to allow the other wikileaks members to remain anonymous. If that's true then it's been a superbly successful strategy.
- planetguy 14y ago
  Because fame and ego. Assange is a weird-looking socially awkward epsilon-male, but make him the figurehead of anti-Americanism and apparently a bunch of Swedish leftist chicks want to bang him. At least once. As long as he puts on a condom. In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.
rickmb 14y ago
Seems to me Assange isn't so much afraid of being extradited to US (there is a truckload of ways to fight that if it ever comes to that) but of actually being convicted in Sweden. The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government). Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.
- objclxt 14y ago
  It depresses me that people are trying to make comparisons between a copyright infringement case and a rape accusation. Copyright infringement and rape are rather different. This should be obvious. I really don't know where to begin there - I know this community is male dominated, but rape is a incredibly serious crime. Piracy may well be a 'victimless crime'. Rape is not. Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts. Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial. His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual). This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not. And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.
kakaroto_BR 14y ago
Fool, he shoud come to Brazil, best land to any foreign person escaping law.
laic 14y ago
Apparently he is inspired by the blind Chinese lawyer seeking asylum in US embassy.

84 points by damohasi 14y ago

Assange interviewed the Ecuatorian president for his program at RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-1-9QXd3Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-1-9QXd3Y The Ecuatorian president is introduced as "populist", yet the interview is non-critical. I thought "populist" was globally pejorative? Edit: the president himself uses the term in a negative context

ForrestN 14y ago
"Populist" is generally either neutral or positive in American politics. But most often I hear it used to describe a political strategy, going directly for the masses instead of the upper echelons of power.
- crazygringo 14y ago
  I would disagree, and say it's usually negative -- the idea that you win short-term approval for a dubious policy by appealing to the masses who are ignorant of the true consequences, as opposed to appealing to the elites who would presumably understand that the thing's a bad idea. For example, promising to cut the gasoline tax would be a very populist tactic -- people think "I pay less for gas, that's great!", whereas elites would think, "we'll have less money for infrastructure, leading to decline, or else we'll have to raise taxes elsewhere, making non-drivers subsidize drivers." And by calling this tactic populist, you would generally be indicating that it appeals to the electorate's ignorance. Most people consider that a bad thing, since it leads to worse outcomes. Hence, populism is a pejorative term. I'm referring to use of the word in the US only. If you want a positive term, you would describe something as "democratic" instead. (I'm an American from New York who follows politics a lot.)
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    Well, it's true that elites may see populism with some suspicion, and may convey that to each other. But if you turn on Hardball (famous political TV program), many elites and many not-so-elites, depending on your vantage, might be urging Obama, say, to take a more populist tack in his campaign. It's usually neutral, one side of a spectrum people have diverse opinions about. For example, I don't often feel like angrily shouting at a republican "you populist!" but I do regularly feel like shouting "you morally bankrupt exploiter of the public's ignorance!"
    - molmalo 14y ago
      Just call him demagogue ;) . Read what I wrote above :P Too long to repeat.
  - molmalo 14y ago
    I mostly agree with you in that it's usually negative. But, outside the US, I think it's quite different. It's not as you say that "as opposed to appealing to the elites who would presumably understand that the thing's a bad idea". The elites tend to consider something as a bad idea, when that somethings affects their interests. A populist policy, usually does not benefit the elites, au contraire, it usually affects them negatively, by moving benefits from them to the masses. (Also, in favor of a political gain, like raising the approval ratings). I'll give you a practical and real example: here in Argentina, the vast majority of the agricultural production is in hands of about 2000 elite families, and managed by planting pools (they have around 85% of the productive fields, and only 15% is in hands of small farm-owners). One common practice for those elites historically has been to export the production, but making the transaction outside the country, so they wouldn't pay taxes here. And then, leave their gains in foreign banks (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Uruguay). Then, after our crisis in 2001, the government crated a grain exports tax. Around the 2006/2008, soybean prices skyrocketed[1]. The government wanted to modify the tax, so it would have a sliding-scale taxation system, that would make that the more expensive the international price of a product, the less impact would have in the internal price [2]. It had two objectives. The first, was to avoid having exorbitant food prices inside the country, that would make lots of products inaccessible to large segments of the population (mostly meat). And the second one was to allow the government to get more money from the soybean exports (so they could use that money to finance the industrial sector). Even when the agricultural elites would still have the highest benefits of their entire history, they didn't want the government taking part of those. This bill was seen as a populist measure by the agricultural elites, who forced a lockout that lasted more than four months. Mass media and mainly Clarin, the largest media conglomerate of Argentina, who until then was a governments ally, aligned to those elites interests, and started a heavy campaign against the government (marking the beginning of a war that still lasts). I'm not referring to any specific government here, but the main problem, I think while seeing it from the outside, is that US politics has only two options: Conservative-Right and Liberal-Right. So, when you see a foreign center or center-left government implementing policies like progressive taxation (as in my previous example), mixed economy or the state regulating the economy, your media tends to jump shelling "populist! populist!". So, even when "populism" is usually used as a pejorative term, it shouldn't be. It should be used for a government who tries to fight for their lower classes against the elites. The term that should be used instead, (and the one you are referring, I believe) is demagogy: "a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the poorer and less-educated classes in order to gain power" [3]. [1] http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=soybeans&months=300 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=soybeans&#3... [2] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_agropecuario_patronal_en_Argentina_de_2008 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_agropecuario_patronal_en_A... (in spanish, sorry) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue PS: I also follow politics a lot, my parents where politically active, but they've always let me choose my own believes.
sp332 14y ago
Actually Populism is just the opposite of Elitism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Latin_America "a process of controlled inclusion of the "masses" into the political system"
dsrguru 14y ago
I live in the U.S., and I've never heard "populist" used pejoratively. Where are you from and what does it connote when used pejoratively in your country?
- tylee78 14y ago
  one example: it is used that way in Germany and applied (mostly) to right wing parties
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Here in Europe it's used to refer to politicians who pander to the sentiments of the common people, without having a well thought out long-term strategy; e.g., "I'll lower all taxes AND give free healthcare for all."
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- opminion 14y ago
  Europe. It usually means when one tries to grab votes at the cost of doing what's "correct" from one's point of view. A stereotypical case would be providing "bread and circus" in the short term while the country is sinking in the mid term. The following headlines are example use of "populist" with negative connotations (they are not the only ones, I just provide anecdotal evidence of the common use of "populist" as a negative trait). British English: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098 http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9614000/9614768.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid... (beware starts parliamentary video automatically) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive-populism-riots-gangs http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive... French: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme-derive-de-la-democratie_1640482_3232.html http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme... Spanish: http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120515.html http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120...
- Confusion 14y ago
Estragon 14y ago
If you want to refer to a populist pejoratively, you call them a demagogue.

sp332 14y ago

Why Ecuador, in particular? I just learned that they've adopted the US dollar as their currency, following devaluation of their old currency in 1999. Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though. Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks_asylum_in_ecuador http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.

xefer 14y ago
I have a feeling he'll be "couch surfing" from embassy to embassy to delay the extradition as long as possible.
- marshray 14y ago
  You don't think he'll be arrested the minute he sets foot out of the Ecuadorian?
  - DrJokepu 14y ago
    I really don't think that the Metropolitan Police is going to put officers outside the Ecuador Assembly 24/7 just in case Julian Assange leaves. It just doesn't sound like a good use of the officers' time.
    - marshray 14y ago
      The US would be happy to volunteer a few if it's a question of manpower. Britain would probably commit their own just to avoid that kind of situation. It just doesn't sound like a good use of the officers' time. They've had the guy detained without charge for 500-odd days. Facing some international criticism and generally looking like hypocrites whenever they want to criticize some other country for having political prisoners. The case has been through their Supreme Court and now there's yet another country involved in this international incident. When I was in London last year there were helicopters circling continuously in some places. If Assange gives them the slip somehow, it's not going to be because the local police preferred to prioritize something else that day.

pvnick 14y ago

How dire is Assange's situation? Is it really possible that the US will try to imprison or even execute him? Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange

wvenable 14y ago
If he were to ever enter US custody, he's not likely to come away from that for a long time. The question is how interested is the US in getting him into custody and how easy is it for them. I imagine it's not terribly difficult but the US also hasn't done much so far. But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.
iamdave 14y ago
I severely doubt it'd go so far as execution, sudden disappearance into a political black hole never to be heard from again? More likely.
- johnny22 14y ago
  then what exactly are they waiting for. He's not likely to get any lower profile until past the time anybody cares (including the government)
  - iamdave 14y ago
    What's your proposition? Fly to Ecquador, kick in the embassy doors and abduct a man seeking asylum? It'd make for one heck of a news day, but I don't think it's that easy.
wilfra 14y ago
The US has nothing to do with this. Sweden is trying to have him extradited from the UK for a sexual assault charge.
- 14y ago

mc32 14y ago

Why not Argentina? He could take advantage of their antipathy toward the UK. Too transparent?

objclxt 14y ago
It's not the UK that wants him - it's Sweden.
- mc32 14y ago
  I understand, but it's the UK who are allowing the extradition, which, he, Assange, clearly disagrees with.
- cmdkeen 14y ago
  He's also been bailed by the British courts for the purposes of the extradition process. So he may be committing offences in terms of that. Concrete offences that a normal extradition treaty might cover but that the Swedish "we want to question" warrant may not outside the EU.
cmdkeen 14y ago
Female Catholic President. Bit of a risk that she doesn't like people who have (admitted in court in the UK) some pretty dubious sexual acts. Acts which the UK court have said would constitute offences in the UK.

nirvana 14y ago

Julian's situation seems very weird to me, given the stories about how secretive he was, how he kept in hiding, etc. At the same time, he was very clearly and publicly the face of wikileaks. Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right? Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)

danielweber 14y ago
According to the people at the New York Times he worked with, he became transformed by his celebrity. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.htm... goes into their history. I'm tempted to quote a few paragraphs but it wouldn't be fair since there is a very large picture being painted.
- gringomorcego 14y ago
  Hahahahahahahaha. Guess what Bill Keller also wrote? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believe-i-m-a-hawk-club.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believ...
OzzyB 14y ago
>All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right? I say no. Taking a feather from Rock 'n Roll, you need a front-man.
iand 14y ago
My recollection was that Assange chose to be a figurehead to allow the other wikileaks members to remain anonymous. If that's true then it's been a superbly successful strategy.
planetguy 14y ago
Because fame and ego. Assange is a weird-looking socially awkward epsilon-male, but make him the figurehead of anti-Americanism and apparently a bunch of Swedish leftist chicks want to bang him. At least once. As long as he puts on a condom. In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.

rickmb 14y ago

Seems to me Assange isn't so much afraid of being extradited to US (there is a truckload of ways to fight that if it ever comes to that) but of actually being convicted in Sweden. The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government). Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.

objclxt 14y ago
It depresses me that people are trying to make comparisons between a copyright infringement case and a rape accusation. Copyright infringement and rape are rather different. This should be obvious. I really don't know where to begin there - I know this community is male dominated, but rape is a incredibly serious crime. Piracy may well be a 'victimless crime'. Rape is not. Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts. Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial. His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual). This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not. And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.

kakaroto_BR 14y ago

Fool, he shoud come to Brazil, best land to any foreign person escaping law.

laic 14y ago

Apparently he is inspired by the blind Chinese lawyer seeking asylum in US embassy.