A British countryside Christmas with Julian Assange


Newsweek has published exclusive! photographs of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange enjoying Christmas in the Bail Mansion. Photos: Robert King / Polaris.

(via Choire Sicha)


  1. Haha! That’s hilarious! He’s charged for rape and he’s holding a bag that says “Dear Santa, I’ve been very, very good (most of the time)”! That’s comedy gold right there, because the time when he wasn’t good he raped two women!

    1. @Oskar: Please don’t let the facts get in the way of uninformed public lynching, right?

      Assange has not been charged. He is wanted for questioning in Sweden. He made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.

      Calling a broken condom ‘rape’ is an insult to people who have suffered actual sexual abuse. Please read the actual statements to get an idea of where it’s at. (The Guardian is a good place to start)

      But don’t take my word for it. Go read any reputable news source to see where it’s at – if you care.

      Here’s some comedy scripts, knock yourself out:

      1. The Guardian is not a good place to start. It is an awful place to start, they must be using some kind of really bad machine translation on all sources in Swedish, and then they add a lot of prejudice, opinion and things they just made up by themselves or got from some nutcase conspiracy blog or something. Couldn’t they at least use a good HUMAN translator. And they never fact check anything Julain Assange claims, even when it is trivial to do so (he lies about a lot of really non-significant and easy to disprove stuff, I would say he is a borderline mythomaniac), that’s not good journalism.

        Unfortunately most non-Swedish media seem to do the same thing and the more trustworthy part of Swedish media have very restrictive policies about publishing facts about an ongoing investigation (as has the prosecutor and Assange’s Swedish attorney, stated by law, we don’t fight legal disputes in the media in Sweden, we fight them in the court room), so what most people get to know have been warped into something very far away from anything resembling facts trough a lot of language and cultural misinterpretations, with a lot of wishful thinking and sensationalism added.

        In addition to the official Swedish bulletins and official court documents (yeah, boooring, but anyone who wants them can get copies anonymously at only the cost of making the copy (something like 5 SEK per sheet), something no non-Swedish “journalist” seem to have bothered to do), a good place to start is Swedish chat-rooms and web-forums. Flasback is perhaps the most easily available and a good place to start. Flashback threads always contains a lot of speculation and unverifiable facts, but obviously made up “facts” usually get smashed by other commenters in a thread that has been going on for a while and many of the (unverifiable) facts usually turns out to be from first or second hand sources. [It is the favorite place to cut&paste articles from for Assanges ex-employer Aftonbladet ] Be aware, people active at flashback come from all extremes (and everything in between), the whole spectrum of religious, political and other beliefs, with all kinds of deviants, perhaps not a safe place for faint-hearted US-Americans used to a moderated debate. So if you want to know more than what is in the official bulletins and documents, get a good HUMAN Swedish translator and prepare for many months of digging at Flashback.

  2. Oh, yes, love it. Wonder how his two RAPE VICTIMS are enjoying their holiday? Ugh, this triggers me. I have to go vomit.

    1. Getting to the point where you are actively shagging someone and not quitting when asked to do so does not equate rape, like, anywhere.

      Maybe you should ask any random rape victim to help you understand the matter?

      1. It does in Sweden, though as yet no charges have been filed and the women who went to the police about the matter were only looking for a mandatory STD test.

        Comments like “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism” and “I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.” make it clear that he’s a despicable person and a misogynist. Is he a rapist? That is not for any of us to decide.

          1. Does ‘dated’ mean ‘raped’ or ‘assaulted’ in your vocabulary? If not, I wouldn’t worry about it. You poor, poor, oppressed man. /s

          2. Again, accused != guilty. The fact that you repeatedly fail to make that distinction, but then accuse me of not making the distinction between an individual and a group is a troublesome prospect. Certainly you are capable of recognizing that the group of people proven guilty is a subset of those who are accused, do you not?

            If so, then you must also agree that those who are individuals in a group must represent the entire group in some way, but not visa versa?

          3. Funny, you don’t want anyone assuming Assange is guilty (I don’t assume that, by the way, I just think it’s possible), yet you are assuming his accusers are guilty of making false accusations (“I’d be a misogynist too if women I dated turned me over the authorities.”)

          4. Of course it’s possible that he’s guilty! But there’s no sense making a circus of it.

            And as hungryjoe points out, this entire thing is a distraction from the real story.

          5. So you just support his misogyny either way?

            This isn’t a distraction from the “real” story, it’s a real story all in its own. It’s a story about how rape victims are automatically shamed and discredited by onlookers. It’s a story about how many people believe it’s only rape if a scary stranger jumps out of the bushes and assaults a pretty virgin, and if the woman has any sort of positive contact with her rapist she couldn’t possibly be raped (see Blackboar’s comments on this thread). It’s also a story about how the police and justice system tend to ignore rape victims, unless it’s politically convenient for them not to.

            I don’t deny that wikileaks is important. But the rabid knee-jerk defense of Assange and smearing of his alleged victims reveals some pretty ugly things about our culture.

          6. You can’t blame a guy for hating women after he (allegedly) sexually assaults two of them and they report it to the police?

            Leaving aside the validity of the allegations, most resonable people don’t hate AN ENTIRE SEX after one or two members of said sex do something hurtful. A few men and women have been shitty to me in my lifetime, but I’m neither a misandrist or a misogynist. I suspect most sane, decent people are the same way.

      2. Shagging someone and not quitting when asked to do so IS rape, like, anywhere.

        A “stop, I don’t like this anymore” is not negated by previous consent.

        Also, Assange is accused of having sex with an unconscious woman. Which is also rape, like, anywhere.

      3. Actually, the act of consent can be withdrawn at any time. What if you were having sex, then decided to try a “different” position and she says no. If you go ahead, she can say it was rape as she withdrew her consent… We had to face a question like this during grand jury service and it was painstakingly explained by the prosecutor.

        But I am more interested in the fact that the text messages sent by the victims AFTER the alleged acts took place were speaking very highly of this so-called rapist… That speaks volumes more than a prosecutor’s allegation.

      4. Well, as a rape victim (thanks very much!), I can tell you FIRSTHAND that withdrawal of consent at ANY TIME makes any sex after that RAPE. Look it up. Ass.

      5. Getting to the point where you are actively shagging someone and not quitting when asked to do so does not equate rape, like, anywhere.

        Are you from rural Afghanistan or the 14th century?

    2. DoctressJulia, I think you do a disservice to yourself and other rape victims by accusing Assange of being a rapist without any charges being brought against him, let alone a conviction in a court of law. You dilute the word and its impact by swinging it around like you’re in a drunken knife fight.

    3. I see your rape victimhood, and raise you one drugged and raped victimhood.

      Now that both of our personal tragedies are on the table, can we get back to the issues?

      1. I never said whether I was drugged or not (once I was and once I was attacked)- irrelevant. You are acting like an asshole and I have a hard time believing that you were a rape victim, seeing how rude, insensitive and dismissive you are towards those who are. Now, can we get back whatever issue you deem is important? Ass.

  3. Fascinating photos, sure to invoke the rage of those who want him dead. I’m curious at how relaxed he looks, in front of a media person, and a US one at that. I presume he got paid for these pics? (Legal defense fund is a valid excuse for that in my book). In most of his interviews with US media, he’s been defensive and guarded. I also like how the captions try to put him in a bad light.

  4. Wow, the media has successfully turned Julian Assange into Paris Hilton. That didn’t take long at all.

  5. Kinky. I just hope he won’t stick his dick into his helpers while they’re sleeping and then in the morning order them to go and get his reindeer ready. Oh, he already did? Is that why he’s smiling?

  6. He’s what Bill Maher thinks he looks like.

    Guess we ought to get out all the Santa suit and lampshade shots of Edward R. Murrow – just to show that all serious journos have a lighter side.

    1. No trial at all now would probably work perfectly. Wasn’t it LBJ said ‘we know he didn’t do it, but let’s make the fucker deny it’ (not making any statement either way re guilt/innocence, but it means it has to be denied in the media forever, right?)

  7. Interesting how many of his rape allegation defenders are men. Men (boys), no means no even if you are in the heat of the moment. Dispute whether or not the allegations are correct, continue with innocent until proven guilty BUT imho it’s in poor, outmoded taste continuing to dispute whether it’s rape when someone continues with a sex act when the parameters for permission have changed. Given the dangers of pregnancy and STDs, a woman has the right and a man has the responsibility to stop the sex act if a condom breaks.

    In the article “Scenes from my life in porn” (link on longform), the author recounts about a young porn actress who alleges/believes she became HIV positive when a male porn actor allegedly didn’t use a condom (contrary to the film’s rules) during filming. Would a broken condom with a continuation of the sex act have made this tragic and distasteful tale any less tragic?

    Finally, regardless of whether or not you believe the alleged victims, Julian Assange’s photos show very poor taste.

    1. I think most people getting into flamewars tend to be men, but hell, this is the net, so who knows? Naomi Wolf’s take on this is pretty interesting, if you’ve decided men aren’t allowed to defend Assange:
      “the pretext of using these charges against Assange is a pimping of feminism by the State and an insult to rape victims — I have found myself up against a bizarre fantasy in the minds of my (mostly male) debating opponents.

      Incidentally, Sweden’s top prosecutor was replaced after saying there was no substance to these allegations… but I guess they did their job, judging by the number of pitchforks and burning torches on display here today

  8. I’ve tried to avoid the yellow journalism, so maybe I’ve missed this, but has anyone noticed parallels with the plot of Shockwave Rider by John Brunner?
    I would also say that the focus on Assange, both positive and negative, has distracted the public from the plight of Bradley Manning. I’m quite sure PFC Manning is not dressing up as Santa.

    1. has anyone noticed parallels with the plot of Shockwave Rider by John Brunner?

      That’s giving Assange too much credit. I’m sure he’d like to think of himself that way, but I don’t think he’s anywhere near as brilliant as Nicky Haflinger. As the series of photos points out, Assange is “ever the showman”.

    1. The presumption of innocence is a right in a court of law. Ordinary citizens are free to speculate on the likelihood the accused is guilty or innocent all they like.

      It’s funny how many people (not you, necessarily, Antijoe) who say we MUST assume Assange is innocent seem to have no problem assuming his accusers MUST be lying bitches/feminazis/CIA operatives.

    2. Presumption of innocence is a restriction on government actions and is shorthand for saying the burden of proof is on the accuser. Thus the government (prosecutor) may say someone is guilty, but can’t fully treat someone as such.

      The press often tries to stay neutral and not presume guilt. So they avoid stating someone is guilty, even while publishing what others may say. That’s why the summaries on BoingBoing might seem written awkwardly at times. It’s a tough job to stay neutral without being on the wrong side of someone’s opinion.

      You and I are still allowed to form our own opinions based on any information we choose to accept or reject. Presumption of innocence is voluntary (and a good principle). We can share our opinions on guilt and even act on them. We can treat someone as guilty or innocent regardless of what the press or government say or do (i.e. treat someone as innocent even if they are proven guilty).

  9. Oh, snap. (??) We were both raped. Do you feel some kind of triumph about that? That’s fucked up.

    I am aware of Article 11. I am also aware of the smearing and rape apology that happens EVERY time a person is accused of rape. YOU are doing that, right now. For a rape victim, you seem dangerously unaware and unconcerned with other rape victims.

    1. It looks to me like she was just imitating your use of your status as a rape victim as a badge of authority (which in the case of a definitional debate, it is not).

      The point that I think should be agreed on be all people here is that the Boing Boing comment board is not a proper court to try this case. Some accusations have been leveled at Mr. Assange, but there has not yet been a complete process to assess the claims of the individuals involved and our discussion here doesn’t qualify as a part of that process. Also:

      1) We should not even know about this case. That the names of both accusers and the accused are widely known is already a failure of process.
      2) The information available to us is highly selective and very likely presents a flawed and/or skewed picture of the events
      3) There has been a great deal of misinformation and cases of ignorant observers filling in their gaps of knowledge with assumptions that may or may not hold.

      So, since this is a case with details that are public, I think that proper deference should be given to the accusers while innocence is presumed for the accused until a due process of law has occurred.

      Finally, I know that I’m not a regular commenter here, but am I the only one who thinks that posting a link without further comment is bad etiquette?

      1. It looks to me like she was just imitating your use of your status as a rape victim as a badge of authority (which in the case of a definitional debate, it is not).

        Looks who’s calling the rape victim a liar now.

      2. A ‘badge of authority’?? Oh, yeah, I feel soooo authoritative. /s No, I’m just saying that I have firsthand experience in being blamed for my own rape, and it pisses me off to see it happen others. Is that alright with you? Fucking Christ.

    2. “I am also aware of the smearing and rape apology that happens EVERY time a person is accused of rape.”

      Oh really, every time, well if you’re going to speak like that I don’t think anyone can take you very seriously.

      Because you know sometimes I think a man is accused of rape and people “say yes I bet the bastard did it”, and sometimes a man is accused of rape and people say “how shocking, but lets wait for the courts to decide before we pass judgement”

      If you use words like every time you just come off as a fanatic

      1. Honestly, if you pay attention, what DoctressJulia describes DOES happen. Rape victims are treated quite differently from other crime victims.

        No one says “That murder victim was asking for it, did you see that outfit he was wearing?”

        No one says “She wasn’t mugged, she probably just gave him her purse voluntarily, then regretted it the next morning.”

        No one says “He invited her up to his apartment, so clearly he wanted her to to beat him up.”

        No one says “Well, she was drinking, so it’s her fault she was a hit-and-run victim.”

        It’s great that you personally don’t make any assumptions, but many, many people do, and they often side with the alleged rapist. Given that most accusations are true, that means there are a lot or rape victims being treated very unfairly.

        1. Actually all of the straw-men examples you present do have analogs in the real world.

          • Murder? Well the victim should have done something to stop them.
          • Got mugged? What were you doing out so late or in that neighborhood or what did you do to provoke the perp?
          • Got beat up? What did you do? Couldn’t you have run away.
          • She was drunk and got hit by a car? And that is surprising how?

          Ever hear the canard about “Why didn’t the Jews fight back against the Nazis?” I have. It’s all stupid blame the victim B.S.

          There is a societal backlash against rape victims. But to me that has more to do with societies larger issues with women. And the way women are treated within different cultures. And if you are a man and get raped? it’s never treated sympathetically. You think sexual violence only exists in the straight community. Get real.

          But with regards to Assange in an ascot, it means 1,000% of nothing. They are accusations made in a context that makes it dubious. That is not a “blame the victim” canard; that is a fact in this case.

          And it does not change the fact that if he is proven to have raped these women, the political push wasn’t to bring a rapist to justice, but to punish someone connected to the actions of WikiLeaks. Do you actually believe these charges would be pursued across continents and to this degree if that were not the case?

          Also, who doesn’t have holes in socks. Have you ever worn socks? I’m thrilled if they can last more than 6 months.

          1. “There is a societal backlash against rape victims. But to me that has more to do with societies larger issues with women. And the way women are treated within different cultures. And if you are a man and get raped? it’s never treated sympathetically.”

            I agree completely.

  10. While I do think that continuing to have sex with someone who has withdrawn consent is a form of rape, neither of the women actually accused Assange of this. Reposting my thoughts on the Guardian story detailing the accusations:

    But with the possible exception of sex with a sleeping woman, it doesn’t sound like it qualifies as rape–in the first instance, the woman never actually asked him to stop (‘Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her’), and he did grab a condom when she explicitly asked him (though he was pinning her arms when she just tried to reach for it, a jerky move if he knew she was going for a condom and was trying to nonverbally discourage her). The thing about her waking up to find him having sex with her could definitely qualify as rape, but the article notes that Assange’s lawyers say they have a text message to a friend where she only said she had been “half asleep”, which would be a lot more ambiguous since a half-asleep person can have their eyes open, be mumbling responses, etc. It’s possible she was just ashamed to admit the full story to her friend though, we’ll have to wait for the trial to find out more details about what she’s claiming actually happened that morning.

  11. Considering the history of mankind and it’s attitude toward rape victims– whereby ANY excuse for sexual assault is considered exculpatory– she totally asked for it, she tempted me, she was dressed provocatively, she was drunk, she was AT the party, she kissed me first, she was walking alone at night, she was asleep in the next room, she wasn’t a virgin….. I think we can spare the “Oh poor Julian Assange, tossing wood in the English countryside…innocent until PROVEN guilty peoples!! sob story” Honestly the man seems pretty smug about the accusations which furthers the impression that he is NO gentleman. Is it rape or just appallingly bad manners? Either way, he isn’t my idea of a role model although I think Wikileaks is a good and bold thing to do.

  12. Couldn’t it be that the “bad” on the bag refers to what people think of him about publishing leaked information?

  13. I think those pix make holing up in a country pile look more boring than it is. And I think that’s the first profile shot I’ve seen of Assange that wasn’t done as a portrait.

    At least one of those women is nuts, and it absolutely colors what I think of the matter. On the other hand, Julian’s actions according to her fit a little too closely what other people have said about him, whatever their motivations. But whatever the Swedish court finds is the closest any of us are likely to get to the truth of it, so I’ll go with that. If Assange is charged, tried and found guilty, well, that’ll suck. For everybody. If Assange is cleared, he should take that as a warning to clean up his act.

  14. Welp, turns out Julian Assange is a bigger story than anything in a quarter of a million confidential documents. Is this a win for Assange, or the CIA, or the terrorists?

    Or any of humanity?

  15. Hi-larious!

    But the link is credited to Choire Sicha. And the link appears to go to his Twitter feed. Then why does it go to Michelle Legro when I click on it? Wha’ happened?

  16. Hm. Maybe it’s time to have a canonical “allegations” thread so not every other WL/Assange thread ends up going through the same motions.

  17. This thread wasn’t about the rape allegations. Why is it that every time we post the most innocuous stuff about Assange, even Mr. Humphries photos in Austen-land, it’s all about whether rape is rape or whatever?

    1. Are you not comfortable with Assange’s own celebrity? Perhaps, you are just not comfortable with those who react differently then you? Is the obvious dichotomy of reactions to his fame, and the story of how he got it, lost on you some how?

      Not that I hold it against anyone but what SHOULD we be talking about after seeing these images? What exactly was expected? Undying love for Assange? W

      BoingBoing is doing a Tabloid photo spread here, and that it’s not that far from a celebrity photo spread to celebrity-tabloid comments. That just comes with his fame and should be an expected after running a celebrity photo montage like this.

      I guess I am shocked by BB’s failure to anticipate what should have been obvious, when people talk about Assange they can talk about just two simple (“celebritised” if you will), things: Wiki-leaks, or Assange’s own sordid saga that got him to this mansion in the first place.

  18. I understand that it’s in the interest of The Powers That Be to neutralize Mr. Assange by making him look like a gormless celebutard. I understand that it’s in the interests of the media to push product by making Mr. Assange look like a gormless celebutard. What I don’t get is why Mr. Assange adopts a simpering Byronic pose every time he sees a camera. Is he part of the Gormless Celebutard Conspiracy, too? He’s participating in his own apomemeosis.

    1. Dude, a poser he may be, but could you even keep a straight face when you used the word apomemeosis as if it was common breakfast table vocabulary?

      My spell checker doesn’t even know it exists

      Just sayin

      1. I made it up. It’s apotheosis when you’re transformed into a god, apomemeosis when you’re transformed into a meme.

        1. Well I think I can forgive myself for not knowing a made up word, though I would have had to know the word it was based on to have a hope of noticing “what you did there” ah well I’ll add those two to the list.

          If I had known the actual word, I might have said “nice one” rather than making snarky comments.

        2. Pardon me for interjecting, but, do you not realise that this photo op makes BB complicit with the sworn, old media, enemy. New media has also actively made Assange a “part of the Gormless Celebutard Conspiracy”. I mean think of all the readers who haven’t posted comments, BB’s got a lot of them and they also have their own mind about things.

          …Just say’n…

  19. Julian Assange is nothing more than the “Snookie” of the nerd world. Why is he important? He released information that seems to hold no actual value and has affected nothing with regard to the brutal public/foreign policies that the United States government plows ahead with. The only response the US government has made to his “leaks” is to censor and constrain communication of its own citizenry. We are now subjected to his state of “celebrity” in exactly the same way as the denizens of Perez Hilton are to the self-aggrandizing of the Kardashians. I’m so glad to see that he is happily prancing around his house arrest mansion while Private Manning rots in a hole, quite possibly never to be seen again. Assange is a joke and a shameful one at that.

    1. Now that’s funny. My first thought upon seeing this new photo was ‘beige’. Assange always looks beige, himself. I suppose J. Crew and beige are kind of synonymous.

  20. Thank you Petsounds at #53 for expressing so clearly what I was trying to communicate. It seems that some of my posts have fallen into the ether, oh well.

    As for the people who insist that article 11 applies only to governments, it does not, every human being has a moral obligation to protect human rights, which includes in refraining from witch hunts because something terrible might have done by someone you don’t like. If you’re really want justice for not only those women, but all women, you should be backing a system of justice that acts without fear (of US intervention) or favour (based on, oh, say, gender norms).

    I read a delightful blog today where people were “denouncing” Naomi Wolf for not joining in on the Assange bashing. Sisterhood indeed.

  21. Newsweek gone all OK/Hello! magazine.

    And seriously, please. Move all the rape-no rape talk in another thread. Xeni is right. Not that I am taking the whole wikileaks/rape allegations issues lightly, but seriously. SERIOUSLY. everything has its own place

    lighten up, squirt

  22. Am I the only person who thought the photos and captions read like a failed fashion article? I thought it was hilariously inappropriate.

  23. not to draw down the ire of others, but….

    I think the point is that to be guilty there must be proof “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    You could imagine situations in which there’s overwhelming evidence of rape, – jogger in park is dragged into bushes etc. – and situations where both people claimed they agreed to initiate sex, and then later one of them claims they asked to stop – it could be, but it’s less clear there was intention to commit a crime on behalf of the other party.

    When you consider the consequences of being found guilty – a long term in prison and being placed on a sex offender register – jurors would probably have no qualms about convicting someone who assaults a stranger in public, but when it’s down to a he said / she said situation, jurors might feel less comfortable that the soundness of any conviction they might reach would be beyond reasonable doubt.

    1. Thank you for bringing this up. I have asked the very same questions a couple of times and intended to many more, but never got any straight answers, especially from people who seem too eager to take allegiations of rape as proof of rape.

  24. A bit tacky, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, right? He probably got paid a lot of money for this farce of a photoshoot.

    What’s that word that usually gets applied to women who’ll do anything for money? uhhh… but this is different, of course.

  25. All of this fawning over Julian Assange makes me want to yack. Seriously, the next time I see a fetishistic photo spread of this wanker I’m going to chunder. What the frack?

  26. Stop it! Yer killin’ me! Will he be on a glamorous men of Internet Document Leaking hunky guys calendar?

  27. Did I miss the news where Assange was already convicted for rape or has half of even the boingboing community bought into the smear campaign by now?

      1. I did indeed miss that part but I can´t say I wouldn´t do the same if I was about to be put on what is likely to be a show trial and be made an example of by the most powerful regime in the world which I just embarrased on the international stage.

  28. Considering that Julian may about to be put through some seriously expensive court proceedings, I think getting paid for pictures like this is really quite tame. If this were me about to be put through some US court case that could lead to my death, I’d be desperately trying to raise cash any which way I could. We’ve already seen him explain why he’s having to write a book to raise cash for his defence, despite not wanting to do that yet.

    And because I’m fed up of hearing what an evil man he is without actually ever seeing anything even slightly naughty, I’m just going to say it again. He comes across to me as a very respectful, reasonable man who clearly has a passion for doing something good in the world. If you look into his family history, this has been encouraged and really everything I read him say or read about his past encourages me to see him in a very positive light. I see nothing creepy about the man and I wish that people would start pointing to actual documented events when calling him out as a POS.

  29. God bless the arc of fame:

    Who’s that?
    I like him.
    I love him!
    I hate him!
    Him again!?
    Who’s that?


  30. Let me guess: This WAS NOT a paid photo op. Even a pimp gotta make some money just like the rest of us.

    The Wikileaks thing has almost religious overtones now with zealous followers that will rationalize anything their god does.

    1. And, I guess, an opposing faction of equally zealous detractors?

      Much of what Assange has done is Heroic. This work must and will continue with or without him, but founding Wikileaks was a great service to humanity and to us Americans.

      It may be that he has a dark side, I don’t know. It does not detract from what he has done.


      “Preemptive” (from the definition) holds, since the allegations are actually the ONLY thing most Americans know about Wikileaks/Assange (with that equivalence being implicit in their minds).

      Daniel Ellsberg (The Pentagon Papers leaker) was talking about Manning and Assange (the work, not the allegations) recently on Democracy Now!:


      Well worth a read, since most Feds and Pundits are doing all they can to convince us that there is nothing substantial in the leaks (which is absurd), and that it’s nothing like the pentagon papers.

  31. So you have no faith in Swede’s (or any?) legal system? The charge of a possible show trial has been run out to no end without any compelling evidence against the courts in question.This all goes with out saying that Assange’s own path to Celebrity has invited in the despised element of “theatre” that so many others wave around as “proof” that he will not get a fair trial.

    Well ok, but you have no one to blame but Assange for all this “theatre” you like to push off on the old media. I am sure if he cooperated with the courts then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion right now, the truth would be told and people would be on with their lives.

    Except… Assange has chosen to run from his problems. Was this a calculation on his part to raise his profile and funnel money to his organisation? He’s a smart man and he must have his reasons for choosing to fight extradition: but what are they? Why must he act like he’s carrying some great and terrible secret?

    If he’s done nothing wrong, as Assange as asserted, then why is he so scared of the Swedish courts? It’s cause for suspicion, even if it can only play itself out in the “theatre” of Assange’s own celebrity.

    After all aren’t the charges against Assange based in the smaller local legalities in Sweden? A show trial for Assange would likely involve America and in-so far no such action has been taken. So what’s the man scared of, the truth?

Comments are closed.