Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

There isn't much to learn about Iran that we do not already know. If something does comes up, WikiLeaks will probably be the first to let us in on it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ[/youtube]

Response to EnglishLulu.

My writing style is akin to a speech style and was in special education for English and that didn't help. However I will help you realize the importance despite the bias of your hating America which is not perfect because that would be to prideful and even delusional of me. Also I am told I have mixed expressive language disorder but I am not sure how that works for writing.

In America we vote in politicians. This is part of our democratic process. If materials are deemed classified it is illegal for certain people to view the material. Anarchy-like mentalities would compromise this democratic process whereas democratic processes entail the people voting and witting politicians for the release of certain material. Our government changes leadership all the time and we tend to in public harshly judge wrong doing in our free society.

I am a stickler for the rules and if the rules say I cannot view something I don't. If I want to see something classified like wrong-doing and someone tells me about it we can contact our congressman, senators and president. Wrong doing also is regularly reported in our media so there is no typical censorship. America has helped many nations in the past including in WWII and in other conflicts. Given the nature of war and the human condition of individuals in any country regardless of America people within governments will do bad and bad things will happen. All in all as I am an ethical, moral and caring person I don't feel what so ever evil about my country but I don't think I like Bush.

Some have asked me to run for Congress. Maybe I will one day in my district as I am becoming more known and can arrange eloquent speeches and speak them well. I'd likely run under democrat but I took a test and it said I am both Republican and Democrat. I'd have to attend college classes and understand more essentials and re-read my economic books before I felt confident enough. This running for office I wouldn't even consider for 10 or 20 more years.

Last edited by ci on 19 Dec 2010, 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have to disagree with this, just like any other country there is the obvious, but there is also unknown facts. Big difference between guessing and knowing.

But anyway I better stay away from this thread from now on because I think Assange, and Wikileaks, are very "touchy" subjects, even if its just to wonder if he has AS or not.

Which is the central hubris of anarchists. They are not government. So what? Yet they do the exact same thing as government - IMPOSE their ideas. To what end? What gives anarchists any more right to impose their vision of the future upon this world than the worst fascist government?

Anarchists are as full of themselves as any religious zealots willing to strap bombs to themselves. They are as full of their own self righteous fury as any government that has ever existed. They love their ideas so much that have no room for any other.

Tear it all down. Let it burn. Something good will rise from the ashes.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

Wikileaks has reported on many countries, not just the US. It seems to be a free for all. I haven't read all of Wikileaks, there could be something on Iran already.

Yes, one can foul fall of all those things surprisingly easily. The thing is, most people don't know that, don't even remotely suspect that might be the case. They just accept the 'official' versions of events that they read about and see on the news. (Like in the days before mobile phones with video capability and YouTube the police denying horse charges at protests would have been taken as fact, whereas with technological advances we're only now realising that there is no universal "truth", it's subjective.)

And while other people aren't open-minded, and would doubt it if they read or heard anything questioning the authority of the powers that be, people like you who've experienced, erm, the fringes of such things, you think to yourself 'There but for the grace of God' because you know how bewildering and frightening your own experiences were. And you perhaps know you were one step away from being a victim of an injustice yourself, if you'd answered a question about your child "incorrectly". (Although your brother-in-law apparently was a victim of an injustice that could have been much, much worse).

Most people don't have that insight.

I can understand them printing the details of the allegations if they finally gained access to them. It would have been odd if they hadn't. In the normal course of things, in any other case, I think it would have been questionable, but this is such a high profile case and some of the details are already out there and have been subject of speculation, so it's only 'fair' in a way given the 'attacks' on the women to set out the details of their allegations as a response or defence of them, in a way. Although it does make me uncomfortable, given how victims of alleged sex crimes are usually given more privacy than in this case.

Another thing to consider folks is the information being released may not always be truthful. This is a difficult subject that I perhaps as I am available I will outline the mechanisms and equilibrium of the psychosocial divide between what is known and not known. It is the same sort of psychosocial model as ufology but a bit different. It does take a tremendous amount of time and am currently working on the autism political dynamics so people understand potentially what is going on around them or might better find rationalism with it.

You're not buying what? That Assange may be Aspergers, or that Assange is a hero, or that Assange is justified in staying away from Sweden for now/until a court evaluates how politically motivated or not the Swedish extradition order is, or that what Wikileaks have done is a good thing, or ... ?

Wikileaks has not actually broken any law, they have been acting within the limits of laws which have been voted in over the last century or so of democratic rule in Australia, the USA, and even the UK ( though I gather that there is some law against publishing classified info *from* the UK ).

What authority are *you* calling on when you object to what they have done, except your own ideas/beliefs about what is right/"good"?

What right do you have to "impose" your ideas about what is "right"/"good" on others, when the democratically voted laws of the USA, Australia, and to some extent the UK, do not forbid those acts? You have the right to free speech to express your disgust! :lol But not to forbid acts which offend you, if they are legal.

Law is all we have, to stop people imposing on other people, and it's not infallible, at all, but you do say that it is better than people imposing their ideas about what is right/good/acceptable on other people with no checks at all ... and I agree with you. Wikileaks has acted legally, it has not stepped outside the boundaries set up by the law.
.

PS. But you are free to *say* ( free speech ) that you think certain things should be against the law, like the shooting of civilians, ( as shown in the video released which has been dubbed "Collateral Murder" ), and all the other things *imposed* on people by many govts. Wikileaks has just been exercising the right to free speech to express ( in an almost unprecedentedly powerful way ) its disgust at such acts, and its deep disapproval of those who carry them out, perhaps in the hope that its "free speech" might cause laws on such things to be changed.
.

In time we will figure this all out. However comparatively such things have happened before and the public has reacted when made aware. Overtime all governments change it seems and so does the world and how individuals in society think. A conspiracy to collaborate and leak illegal information to be released shows intent to conduct illegal activities in premise. However while the law might not be specific enough in how I understand it there is a fine line between national security concerns in preservation, corruption within government and conspiracy to perform illegal acts such as the release of illegal materials.

I am unable to ultimately find an absolute determination on these matters. That is why we vote people into office so they can review these matters. I simply do not have the information needed to make an ethical determination as I am not allowed to review classified information.

@ ci: It's true that Wikileaks' work depends to a large extent on individuals breaking the law or at least their employment contracts etc, in order to acquire information, and thus could be said to be encouraging illegal acts, even if there is absolutely nothing in it financially or otherwise for the "sources", apart from seeing the information efficiently released/distributed as far and wide as possible.

That is exactly the aspect of the issue which the USA govt seems to be concentrating on, that relationship; how to make that "relationship"/transaction illegal so that no one could do it again, other than bodies so invested in and supported by the establishment ( like so many newspapers are increasingly ) that the govt would be in little danger.

What's interesting is that Assange "looks" hypocritical for doing this work with Wikileaks, ( and defending it as legal ), and then apparently attempting to evade the workings of the law over the sexual misconduct allegations ... when in fact as EnglishLulu and mercurial have pointed out he is simply balancing different bits of law against each other in an attempt to avoid potential abuse/loss of his rights.
.

In analysis given the governing situation of said other illegal activities of sexual crimes it is important not to even consider them. In determining probabilistics in an estranged world it allows for a myriad of potential reasons for and against him. I view the subject of sexual crimes therefore mute and a potential distraction in a very complex world. You may wish to review psychological warfare. Also a bit of warning that you ought to be a very logical, rational and absolute reasoning mind prior to study.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2JhdswkO6o[/youtube]

You say those four have sacrificed a great deal for their ideas. What have they sacrificed? Their liberty. Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned in Lubyanka and then sent to a labour camp. Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island. Liu is in prison. Suu Kyi has recently been released from house arrest after spend much of the past couple of decades under house arrest.

What, precisely, would Assange have to do, to your mind, to make his actions heroic, bearing in mind that the one thing all those heroes that you've mentioned have spent time in detention and/or under house arrest.

Well, the thing is - and note I ended with - I'm confused because I really don't know what you mean. It's really not clear. Yes, those are real heroes. In part because they lost their liberty for a very long time and sacrificed their freedom for their principles and displayed a great deal of integrity. Whereas Assange is simply, at this stage, in danger of losing his liberty. It seemed to me that you might, perhaps, be satisfied if he were to lose his liberty, and then he might join the ranks of those "heroes". And surely, most people would argue that it's better for such people not to be imprisoned or detained or subjected to house arrest. Btw, Julian Assange has already spent nine nights in prison and he is, effectively, subject to ongoing house arrest, because he is electronically tagged and subject to a curfew and conditions of reporting to the a police station on a daily basis, so while he has been released on bail, he certainly isn't "free" in the sense that anyone in would generally recognise.

Again, it's really not clear what you're demanding of your hero role models, other than they have sacrificed their liberty. Resolute grace? Yes, Suu Kyi is particularly dignified and graceful. But by grace, do you mean compliant and acquiescent? Are those the ultimate qualities to aspire to? I'm not sure. Mandela was particularly graceful post-release, certainly, and very statesman-like. But you do realise that while he initially supported non-violent protest, he later became an advocate of violence and led the ANC's armed wing? Bombing campaigns aren't particularly resolutely graceful tactics, I don't think, but perhaps that's just me? Solzhenitsyn? I don't know what he was like under pressure, whether he raged and was defiant, or whether he behaved in a particularly graceful manner, I can't say. Do you have any evidence that he did display resolute grace under pressure? Likewise Liu. Is he currently being graceful or is he being defiant at the moment, I don't know.

Like I said, it's not exactly clear what criteria you're using to define hero, other than all of those have been subject to lengthy imprisonment or house arrest, and Assange to date has only spent nine nights incarcerated and has just started to be subject to effective house arrest.

So, again, please will you say what Assange would have to do to qualify, in your mind, as a hero.

And yes, I accept your point about 'body of work' I did cross my mind as I typed that that it wasn't quite right, but it was late and I was tired and I perhaps used a clumsy phrase and failed to articulate my thoughts propertly. By body of work I meant founding Wikileaks, putting all the systems and infrastructure in place to facilitate the leaks, recruiting and managing other volunteers, assessing the information submitted and publishing it, particularly the Collateral Murder video, which wasn't a straightforward leaking of material as submitted, but was edited to provide context and narrative, so that was clearly a journalistic endeavour.

As for leaking the names of Anonymous... erm, you are aware, aren't you, who Anonymous are I take it? Oh, apparently, you're not. Because they're not Wikileaks volunteers, he doesn't know who they are.

You might want to actually Google Wikileaks +Iran

There are different kinds of hero's for different kinds of people.

Seeming wiki-leaks information cannot always be confirmed it's model may inherently be a facilitator of and or for and with and or without intent to:

Purposeful release of informations.

a. Strategic influence upon public afars socio-politically.
b. Malicious influence upon public afars for specific political reasons.

Disinformation can even manifest within government and this may especially be the case as national security is compromised. Not just by the informations themselves or for a public to sustain governmental trust-ability but as a mechanism to test perceived compromised individuals and or groups within government(s). That if released would prove tangible as a risk even if false information was seeded to test internal-securities affecting macro national securities.

The national security analytical model is not as straight forward at times and depends upon deceptions (ruses) and not necessary physical threats per say but psychosocial. While the psychosocial and physical threats in analytical models can go together it is important to note that national security analysis can be heavily based upon possabilities. This is also like risk management in business and psychosocial warfare is akin to marketing.

These models require competent, rational and unbiased minds in analytics.

Last edited by ci on 19 Dec 2010, 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.