The complete account of the allegations against Assange have come to light this week, together with much startling anecdote and declarations from former colleagues at wikileaks and journalists who have worked closely with him. The character it portrays (And this is from a diverse group of individuals, ranging from senior Guardian journalists who now refuse to work with him, and co-founders of Wikileaks; to right wing US officials) is a promiscuous, egotistical megalomaniac who has fallen deeply for the myth created for him by swooning "leftist" supporters.
Yet the veneer is fading, more and more facts are coming to light about this individual that shatter the saintly illusions thrown up around him. Putting the rape to one side for just a moment, if one concentrates on his work with wikileaks they quickly find someone who claims his sole aim is to stop US imperialist adventures abroad. Fair enough? Then we look closely at the Afghan war logs. Amnesty International had asked Assange to censor the names of the many innocent civilian tribal elders who had worked closely with NATO forces and humanitarian charities to rebuild infrastructure in their towns; this would of course include schools hospitals, running water etc..etc.. Assange agreed but only if Amnesty International paid him $700,000 dollars. What happened to this holier than thou non-profit organisation? The logs were subsequently published without amendment and downloaded over 5000 times in Afghanistan. It's safe to say that not only was hard-won trust severed between senior Afghan citizens and organisations who don't carry guns; but many lives were directly put at risk from Taliban hit squads, and who knows how many lives will be indirectly affected through the halted collaboration between certain Afghans and humanitarian charities. Assange's justification for this was that the logs will serve to save more lives than they lose. So Assange cares about the Afghan people only when it is the actions of the Americans who are harming them. When it his him he can use the necessary collateral line all he wants? This is one of many examples coming to light (and I am sure there will be many more) exposing the stench that seems to surround this guy for whom so many have immediately fallen.
As for the rape allegations, you can find a succinct and full summary here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden The article also covers Assanges alarming dishonesty and shadiness. Many have tried to characterise this rape as something violent and stereoptypical. Instead it surrounds forced unprotected sex. The woman attest to the fact that they came forward because after months of begging Assange had continued to refuse a HIV test. But that is not all, he had claimed for months that the Swedish proescution had witheld evidence and not allowed him to see the full allegations; however, it has come to light that copies of the full allegations have been in the hands of Assange's legal team since day one. It seems that Assange is the one fluttering and stuttering around not the Swedish prosecution. I urge everybody to read the full allegations as I have already wittered on for far too long.
What is most worrying to me, as a vehement advocate of left wing principles, is perhaps the most disgusting part of this. The reaction of other supposedly 'left wing' stanchions. John Pilger dismissed the rape allegations as a political stunt without even reading them in full. I have long suspected him to be on the cusp of senility but this is something else. Who can imagine the left dismissing victims of rape out of hand, its all a very misogynistic trait of the reactionary right wing. He is not alone, Tariq Ali, Jemima Khan, Ken Loach and many, many other self publicising feminists, socialists and advocates of social justice.
It seems that situations like this reveal just how biased and untrustworthy the left and right leaning media actually is. So I am forced to retreat into the reactionary quagmire of the Daily Mail to find a suitable summary for this hypocrisy. They point out that the Guardian are pursuing a very public and self-rightous campaign against Andy Coulson, the Tory media guru, for his role in the News of the World phone hacking scandal, which as they rightly point out was an illegal attempt to obtain mostly irellevent and guessable chit chat. Yet there is no such campaign against the illegaly obtained files from wikileaks. Of which most is irellevent and guessable chit chat between diplomats. In fact, they seem to actively support it.
Can there be any professionalism or objectivity these days? The right wing have cornered and mastered sensationalism and partisan hypocrisy. I once thought that the left was above this and that perhaps it was noble principles that drove it. Apparently that is not the case; we find a left wing run exactly the same way for equally petty and short sighted principles like anti-Americanism, long gone are anti-totalitarianism and an unceasing crusade for the vulnerable. Compromise has become the way of the day. Is there any way to reclaim it and does anybody want to?
Julian Assange and "left wing" hypocrisy. Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Aeolus; 19-12-2010 at 14:44.
- 19-12-2010 14:22