Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

The Guardian article that I linked to on the previous page, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden ( and StuartN linked to too ), together with the second of the two articles that I linked to in my last post, do provide quite a lot of evidence for Assange being on or near the autism spectrum. This Daily Mail article too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... truth.html.

And the video that misslottie linked to, in which he sways, blinks, and speaks in a monotonous voice too, while making perfectly phrased points and no effort at all to soften the steam-roller impact with social "graces"/gestures of good will/"blah-blah"s which NT politicians use so irritatingly often.

There are so many things about the ways that he reacts to people, and the misunderstandings which have happened, the contradictions between his beliefs and his way of life, and how he eats, sleeps, organises/focusses on his "special interest", etc, which sound very Asperger, and the trouble is that now that his personal life has become the issue those very same Aspergers/Autist-shaped behaviours are becoming grounds for suspicion and "dislike", in exactly the same way as so many of us on WP have experienced.

I get the impression that unless some new evidence appears very soon to support his theory that the Swedish Extradition order is in fact a means to get him to the USA he will look more and more unsympathetic, the best scenario being that people see his reactions as paranoia, etc and some form of mental illness, rather than a morally reprehensible desire to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. I think that he should *at the very least* tell his lawyer to stop calling it a "honey-trap".
.

Last edited by ouinon on 19 Dec 2010, 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, jesus. So, because some Observer writer is trying to spin a story about how Assange is supposedly losing support (doesn't look like that at all from where I am--but I can see how that could make for a tasty headline!), he should just be a sacrificial lamb to appease other people's moral qualms or curiosity? I'm really not OK with that.

Here in America, people often think that if the police suspect them of a crime that they didn't commit that they don't need to "lawyer up" and not talk to the police, because that'll just make them look guilty, and if they didn't do the crime, then the system will be on their side, right? But that's how often people end up getting themselves into bad trouble facing a charges for a crime they didn't commit and it can be a legal nightmare, including ending in a wrongful conviction. Always, always fight for your rights, for your protection. Always. You never know when it could be more expedient for someone else to trample all over those rights.

Same thing here--the Guardian/Observer wants to say, since Assange won't just go along with the system, he must be hiding something. But that's not necessarily true. if Assange has justified reasons to think he will not get a fair hearing in Sweden, or it's just a set-up to hand him over the US, it's his right to fight going. He doesn't have any obligation to sacrifice his own rights to appease rumor and whispers of people who can't resist making this more morally ambiguous than it really is.

And on a different yet tangentlly related note, and in response to a certain accusation of someone here being "anti-American," I strongly recommend this article about the American mindset:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b ... 93075.html

Here's the gist of it:


Now, when you have a superpower like the US, going around with this kind of mindset, can you blame Assange for not wanting to risk getting extradited to US hands? Especially given the slight-of-hand Sweden has been giving to the rest of the world, presenting itself as a non-aligned country not owing the US any favors, YET Wikileaks already exposed that as false:

http://www.scancomark.se/USA-sees-Swede ... -ally.html

I think that until/unless he has more solid evidence for his suspicions, ( that he and his lawyer can publish as openly as they have been publishing their views on it being a "honey-trap" ), both Assange and his lawyers need to stop referring to the Swedish incidents as a "honey-trap", and to the Swedish prosecutors pursuit of him with an extradiction order as a "smear campaign" and a ruse, etc.

At the moment there is simply not enough evidence to be able to make those claims.

But it is true that this is perhaps where the Extradition hearing will serve a purpose, in seeking an official court decision on whether there is anything political about the Extradition order, on whether it is politically motivated or "genuine". I just think that until the courts have had that chance to examine what evidence exists for this theory, Assange and his lawyers should not be making these allegations in public.
.

In his shoes, I'd rather have a ruined reputation than potentially put myself at the mercy of the US authorities.

There is no way on earth that I would recommend taking the risk of going to Sweden voluntarily just so that if he was extradited or kidnapped by the US, then he could turn round and say "I told you so". The satisfaction of knowing one was right would - in no way - even begin to compensate for the horrendous ordeal that would follow.

Bradley Manning is being kept in solitary confinement and his health is said to be deteriorating:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... eriorating

Here is an article about solitary confinement from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ct_gawande

And that's if he's lucky.

If he's unlucky, as a non-American citizen, he might meet a similar fate to those in Guantanamo,.

This fellow journalist worked for the same company as me, and he was picked up in Pakistan while in possession of a valid visa and while on his way to Afghanistan for work purposes, and was subsequently extra-judicially detained for more than six years in Guantanamo, where he was sexually assaulted, beaten and 'interrogated roughly' (lovely euphemism for torture):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_al-Hajj

The US have a track record of killing journalists. They bombed AJE bureaux in Kabul and Baghdad, killing a journalist in Iraq. David Blunkett and/or Tony Blair discussed with George Bush the possibility of bombing the complex where I used to work. When I was offered the job there, it did cross my mind whether I ought to buy and pack an NBC suit in case our offices were bombed by the US.

That's what the US is capable of under the auspices of its self-declared 'war on terror' and 'if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists' twisted mentality.

The former governor of the state of Alaska and potential presidential candidate for 2012 Sarah Palin has called him an anti-American operative and called for him to be hunted down - and we all know that when she hunts, she does so with guns. He's been called a traitor and accused of treason (despite the fact he's not an American citizen) and as a result there have been death threats against his life.

The US authorities have proven themselves to be quite capable of capturing, torturing, and even killing journalists who - as they see it - speak out of turn.

Ok, I'm for the moment convinced that it would be a mistake for him to go to Sweden, but think that he and his lawyers should stop using the words "honey-trap" and "smear" until a court/judge rules on this at the extradition hearing. It's not fair to the women involved. It achieves nothing, except making him look bad.
.

PS. Though I can see why he'd be pissed off, seeing as the women spoke to a newspaper within days of making the allegations, and his name was released too, which is not normal or acceptable.

You reminded me of a brilliant video that someone recommended ages ago, in which an American law professor explains his opinion as to why everyone should take the Fifth Amendment and why he explains that he, personally, would never speak to the police under any circumstances. If you have a law professor who doesn't feel confident in doing so... Well, I think it's not a matter of confidence, but... well, you'll need to watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

You reminded me of a brilliant video that someone recommended ages ago, in which an American law professor explains his opinion as to why everyone should take the Fifth Amendment and why he explains that he, personally, would never speak to the police under any circumstances. If you have a law professor who doesn't feel confident in doing so... Well, I think it's not a matter of confidence, but... well, you'll need to watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

http://www.scancomark.se/USA-sees-Swede ... -ally.html

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.


I don't think that there is any evidence that Assange wants this at all.
.

Yes, I totally agree with you. I was surprised myself to hear Mark Stephens use the term "honey-trap" and use it in the way of him saying it, not just him referring to third parties making those allegations or reporting rumours. I do think the use of that particular term was and is unwise.

However, there have been instances of people being made victims of smear campaigns in the past, this is a different case from years ago, I know, but it shows how they think and operate:

"... [Leaker of 'the Pentagon Papers'] Daniel Ellsberg, also faced prison and death threats after his leaking in 1971 of 7,000 pages of Pentagon documents, which is credited by many with helping to end the Vietnam war. 'Let's get the son of a b***h into jail,' President Nixon was recorded as saying to his henchmen in what sounded like a Mafia confab. 'We've got to get him,' Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, replies. 'Don't worry about his trial,' says Nixon. 'Try him in the press.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... aks-regret

A couple of aphorisms spring to mind viz a vis the possibility of Assange being subjected to a smear campaign:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

If a campaign of dirty tricks is being waged, and a smear campaign has been mounted, what's the appropriate response to that? Just sit back and do nothing, refrain from sinking to their levels? Let the smears and the mud stick? Or do you actually speak out and assert that you're the victim of a concerted effort to mount a smear campaign? Do you just suck it all up? Or do you, in turn, accuse your erstwhile smearers and arm's length accusers?

Yes, very interesting, thanks.

Oh, this reminds me, I meant to pick up more on this and also earlier points in this thread suspecting Assange of being narcissistic and that was driving his work with Wikileaks, because he was more driven by being the centre of attention and so on.

I meant to challenge that earlier as well. Again, when I say challenge, I obviously don't know one way or the other about whether he's narcissistic or not, I'm not an expert, but I think I can challenge the idea of that as the only or definitive explanation for his behaviour and apparent attitudes.

It's arguable he is genuinely motivated by a very strong sense of social justice inspired by his childhood and later personal experiences. I came across another article that goes into more detail:



http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comm ... e_cares_so

If all that is true, he's grown up in circumstances where he and his family have known people who have been on the receiving end of wrongdoing by 'the authorities' who apparently abused their powers. I can imagine that might plant seeds of a sense of grievance and a sense of right and wrong and instil a sense of wanting to make sure such people were exposed and held to account.

Again, I can only speak from observation and personal experience, but I genuinely believe that most people are totally oblivious to how corrupt the political system and authorities can be and often are. In terms of the UK, the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson started to make the public aware as to how the police will lie and manipulate and withhold evidence in order to cover up their mistakes and brutality. Can you even begin to imagine how much of that has gone on in the past, in the days before CCTV camera footage in tube stations that show someone wasn't jumping over barriers and running away from the police, in the days before mobile phone video footage shows police officers assaulting innocent passersby? It's only as the police have lied and denied horse charges at recent protests, and then video footage disproving police denials has been uploaded to YouTube, along with footage of peaceful protesters being indiscriminately assaulted and bashed in the head by police batons and disabled protester pulled from a wheelchair and dragged across the floor...

The public is only just starting to see things like that.

Just like it was only earlier this year that the public got to see the 'Collateral Murder' video that Wikileaks posted, exposing the murder of unarmed journalists and shooting of children by US military in Iraq.
http://www.collateralmurder.com

If you're a member of the public and you haven't been involved in any kind of activism, and your only involvement with the police has been when you've been burgled or pick-pocketed, or you've been involved in a car crash or whatever, your view of the authorities is of them as helpful at best, or benign at worst.

If you've seen the footage from the protests of police whacking protesters, and they're aware that these days everyone and his granny has a mobile - yet they pretty much don't care! They feel they can subject people to police brutality with impunity in the full view of mobile cameras and also the television cameras that were reporting events... Can you even begin to imagine what the authorities will try to get away with out of sight, if they think no one will ever know?

I used to think the authorities were 'the good guys' as well, until I started to see a few years ago how they were actually cracking down on legal protests and trying to silence dissent, and I heard first hand accounts from friends who had successfully sued the police for wrongful arrest and police brutality.

If you're an apolitical person who just goes to school or college or work and you just do your studies or work, and then you go home and you live a quiet life, you're totally oblivious to the kinds of things that politically active people are aware of, and which journalists reporting those things are aware of.

I personally know numerous people who are motivated to do quite courageous and often quite dangerous things, as a result of which, they've been in the public spotlight. Their motivation wasn't and isn't to attract attentions to themselves to feed any kind of narcissism. I know many journalists and also activists who are motivated by a strong sense of social justice and wanting to expose wrongdoing and/or to make a positive difference by somehow effecting change.

If Julian Assange grew up around those kinds of people, it's understandable that he would have learned their knowledge of corruption and cover ups. It's hard, if not impossible, when you see, hear and experience that kind of thing to act like the three monkeys and cover your eyes and ears and mouth and not say or do anything about it.

While it's entirely possible that he might be narcissistic, I'd like to suggest that it's also entirely possible that he's not, and that he on some kind of crusade in favour of social - and legal - justice wherever he learns there has been corruption or criminal activity he wants to bring it to light and ensure people are held accountable.

Continued/...

.../Continued

And something else that supports the notion that Assange might be acting out of a sense of grievance against the abuse of power by those in authority and a sense of social justice is that he fought a long, protracted custody battle over his son.

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to have fought a lengthy custody battle you'll have some understanding how that feels.

If you haven't, I'll try to tell you: As an Aspie, you probably have a good sense of right and wrong, good and bad, right?

Aargh, y'know what, I wrote a paragraph, but I've just deleted it, because I actually can't even begin to properly explain how f****d up family courts are. If you've been there, you'll know. If you haven't, try to imagine a system that's the bastard love-child of Alice in Wonderland and Catch 22 that will turn on its head all your pre-conceptions about what's right and what's wrong and you will learn that there is the law and there is justice and they are two separate things entirely. And you and your child will get f****d over, and you'll be left distraught and empty and with a deep sense of despair. And you'll be left bewildered, knowing, yes *knowing* being truly utterly absolutely convinced you have been desperately wronged by a system you had faith in, which you placed your trust in, but which failed you and your child, and served up a travesty of justice.

Assange also had some experience of the criminal justice system as a result of facing charges for hacking (which led to his partner leaving and taking their child). I'm guessing he probably thought 'fair cop' in terms of those experiences.

But in terms of fighting and losing a long custody battle? That is the kind of thing that can spark a lifelong sense of being a victim of an injustice, and wanting to prevent other people from being victims of injustice and to right wrongs.

How do I know? Well, obviously, I can't speak for Assange, because I don't know him. But I know what impact a similar case had on me. My daughter was stolen from me by my father and stepmother, who offered to temporarily care for my daughter while I studied after I'd split up from her father. Instead of waiting till the end of my degree though, I said I wanted her back sooner, after just one year, and they went to court behind my back to try to keep her.

I know what it's like to go through something like that and know that you and your child have both been the victims of a terrible injustice. It opens your eyes to the bewildering amount of power some individuals exercise over the lives of others, and how powerless the little people are. And if you're intelligent and articulate, it can inspire people to go on a bit of mission to help other people. If you know how the system works and/or doesn't work and can share that knowledge and help other people.

So I think people shouldn't be too quick to judge and conclude it's all about narcissism. People in the public spotlight are sometimes motivated by fame or money, but there are plenty of people who are driven by other motivators, such as social justice, exposing corruption and crimes, and speaking out publicly is a tool for communicating a message to a wider audience.

EnglishLulu, about the fallibility and partial/biased nature of the law, as well as its vulnerability to political manipulation, etc, I was just thinking something similar, in response to the information that you and mercurial and others have posted here and in the comments sections on newspaper articles, and articles themselves: that it is very hard for me, who has never experienced any police/judicial corruption, oppression, cover-ups, mistreatment etc, to take in the *fact* that there are not only miscarriages of justice because of negligence, neglect, stupidity, etc but active abuses and misuses of the law and bureaucratic procedures in countries all over the world, ( including the UK and Sweden ), and that one can fall foul of it surprisingly easily.

The closest that I have come to experiencing the law and its practitioners as interfering, oppressive, alarming, etc is as a parent as well, ( when I was depressed in the first couple of years after my son's birth and a supposed friend reported me to the Infant Protection services who then made a series of "inspectional" visits to our home, and in homeschooling my son, and the ( quite worrying level of ) attention that this receives ). And the closest I have come to a miscarriage of justice as a result of sloppy policing is that the brother, ( probably aspergers, whose "calm", "cool/frozen", unemotional manner did not endear him to the jury ), of an ex-bf served over a year of a life-sentence ( after months in jail waiting for the trial too ), for two murders that he did not do, before being released on appeal.

I think that it is quite disturbing that The Guardian has apparently changed its stance on Assange the last two days, as it was one of the few "big" newspapers" which totally supported Wikileaks, and Assange, in their reporting. The last three articles have been almost more deadly as a result, because taking a very similar position to mine at times this last few days, *without* presenting at the same time the sort of evidence and arguments which you and mercurial have been posting, which do suggest that at the very least Assange is within his rights as a law abiding citizen, and as a moral one, in waiting to hear what the Extradition Hearing judges decide about the Swedish order; ie. that there are some grounds at least for suspecting political intervention/involvement, and nothing reprehensible about his caution/refusal to go back to Sweden.
.

Substitute sacrifice for prison. What has he sacrificed? How has he shown resolute grace under pressure? His actions are more consistent with narcissism.

If he wants to be a hero he should take on the government of Iran (or other similar dictatorship) ... but he won't because he knows they wouldn't be as nice as USA ... think Shapour Bakhtiar.

It all depends on how you define "heroic"/"hero", a discussion probably better suited to the PPR forum than this one.


It depends on how you define "self-serving"; I believe that it is impossible for anyone to do anything which is not self-serving, in the sense of obeying the rules by which they personally are governed, their morals, beliefs, physiology, etc. I believe that it is impossible for anyone to do anything which goes against their own fundamental, conscious or not, beliefs about reality, about what is right/good, etc. But that again is probably a discussion better suited to the PPR forum. :lol


But they did not make those sacrifices deliberately, the sacrifices were simply the collateral damage of following their particular ideals/beliefs, of acting according to their own rules about what is "right/good", the "inadvertent/incidental" result of "serving" the system of beliefs and conditioning which we call the "self".


Are you suggesting that he shouldn't have complained? That being locked up in solitary confinement for 9 days without being charged with anything is perfectly ok?


Here you clearly jest! :lol :rolleyes: ( Warning; sarcasm follows ); Obviously it was incredibly easy to organise the receipt and release of the secret documents! Obviously it was the fruit of a mere few hours of easy tapping on a computer, nothing to it. I could do that anytime. I might just do it this evening. I shouldn't have any trouble at all organising the website, arranging servers which will accept it, designing security for it, publicising the website so that potential sources hear about it, providing safe methods for people to contact me/my group and send documents in such a way that the source can not be traced, and then negotiating distribution of the documents to famous national newspapers worldwide, having already established my credibility with them beforehand ... etc etc etc. I could do all that in my sleep, in a few hours or days.


You talk as if publishing, publicising, and distributing material of any kind were easy. You have done a lot of this then? You have had no trouble at all reaching millions of people with the material that you wished people to see?


He gave four/five of the most famous ( inter)national newspapers the entire set of 250,000 odd cables to redact as they saw fit. Was that selective of him?


Perhaps because the aims of anarchy are better served by exposing governments and other global organisations with a lot of centralised power, than individuals with little or no known affiliation with such systems? :lol


He is not government. There is no hypocrisy, as an anarchist, in publishing the secrets of government and huge corporations but not his own or those of Anonymous.


Proof?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 19 Dec 2010, 11:43 am, edited 4 times in total.