Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

Can't read a map? Doesn't that just make him a man? And one who won't stop to ask for directions!

I think he's also explained it that having no figurehead for Wikileaks was becoming distracting, because it was giving rise to queries and wonderings about who was behind Wikileaks.

I can understand that maybe having to fend off lots of queries about who was behind Wikileaks was distracting and time-consuming, and he might have thought, Oh, for goodness sake, let's just give them a name and a face so we can get back to doing all our important work.

And also, I think he's described himself as something of a lightning rod, i.e. one of his functions is to be focus of attacks and criticisms, so that everyone else can get on with processing and publishing the data and liaising with the journalists and managing the servers and all the other IT functions behind the scenes.

He may or may not be narcissistic (personally, from what I've read, I think I doubt it) but I think it's wrong to ascribe narcissistic motivations alone and exclude the possibility of him wanting to act as the lightning rod as a selfless act, that serves to protect the other people behind the scenes.

I can understand that, because I've done something similar myself, in a way. Years ago, I was working as a legal secretary, and I was working for a lawyer who was a real sweetie, he was a lovely guy, whereas one of my colleagues was working for a lawyer who kept finding fault with her work, kept sending it back for corrections, and she'd had some warnings, and she was threatened with being fired if she didn't improve her performance, but she was struggling to improve, because then her performance was affected because she was so stressed and in fear of losing her job, and she was married and had one or two children to support and couldn't afford to lose the job as it was close to home and the hours suited... So I stuck my head above the parapet and volunteered to swap lawyers with her. I figured my boss was a sweetie and my colleague needed her job. Whereas I was up for a challenge, and in any event, I wasn't so bothered because I wasn't married with small children, I figured if I was fired, then I'd get another job temping in the city centre. The office manager was amazed that I volunteered to work for a boss who was known to be difficult and demanding, in order to make sure that my colleague's job was saved. So I guess, I also acted like a lightning rod. As it turned out, the lawyer didn't have any complaints about my work (I was actually really bloody good at it, very fast and accurate), so it worked out for everyone.

But I think that sometimes when an Aspie sees an injustice looming, they can do a calculation as to who has the most to lose, and if they figure that other people have more to lose (their homes, their jobs, their children), then I think it might be quite Aspie-ish to say, hang on, I don't so much to lose, so I'll be the lightning rod, I'll stick my head above the parapet, because if I get struck by lightning, get my head chopped off, I know that I can pick myself up and start over again, because I've done it before (I reckon lots of Aspies are probably used to starting over again, in work, because of difficulties keeping jobs, in relationships, because of difficulties making them last).

So, I agree with you, I don't necessarily think his behaviour in becoming the figurehead is narcissistic, I think it can actually be explained as very logical Aspie-like behaviour.

ETA: Plus, I think he might be quite frustrated and annoyed that what he intends and sees as altruistic actions are being misinterpreted as narcissistic.

I think this is political. Who would support compromising governments we vote in? I think the sympathy for him knowingly releasing and attempting to source illegal internal material people accept laws for to protect our national securities is not always a bad thing in premise. I appeal that we the people must vote in and connect our politicians the democratic way in order to see more for now on. This is not a healthy way of honoring our democracy by these estranged parties that honor our constitutional processes? This is America and not some kind of leak organization who exist to break our democratic laws and I think it's brave to honor our own process.

That china calling N. Korea brats was funny. We are at an important time in U.S national security and economic status and thus far future 9/11's have been prevented. This man speaks with mystery of information and yet our wondering and the prospects of never seeing such things may be a stupid mentality.

I know it might sound harsh but it is criminals and conspirators perhaps at times desire to influence the public while under threat by this organization. This is unacceptable and people ought to snap out of it. This is a in psychosocial studies psychological warfare and we are falling for it.

Nathan Young

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2tSbNaeLZ0[/youtube]

Agreed.I agree with all of this as well.

It strikes me as the behaviour of someone who has perhaps misinterpreted her actions. Well, I'm not sure whether he did misinterpret her initial actions, maybe misinterpreted her intentions, following which he seems to have developed a bit of an obsession and displayed perseverences.

It's understandable how he might have misinterpreted her actions, if she allowed him to walk her home, then he kissed her and they exchanged email addresses, because of that he seems to have assumed she was interested. And then it seems as though she didn't bluntly tell him that she wasn't interested. She said she was 'cold' with him in a phone call.

An Aspie might not necessarily interpret 'cold' behaviour. For example, to act 'cold' an NT might answer questions monosyllabically, or might not be proper reciprocating a conversation, they might just answer questions, but not ask questions, not say anything to prolong the conversation, but not bluntly end it either - because in their NT minds, they don't want to be rude and tell someone they're not interested in them, and they don't want to tell someone that they're not interested, so they just don't reciprocate in an NT fashion and hope that the other person 'gets the hint'.

NT communication can be very confusing to Aspies, because a lot of it is unsaid, a lot of it is subtle.

I know I've often struggled to do that 'reading between the lines' thing with men, failed to understand whether or not they're interested, sometimes misinterpreted things they've said or done. And I've failed to get the hint when someone's expressed an interest, but then perhaps after one or two dates, they've lost interest, but haven't bothered to say so clearly, or bluntly. It's quite frustrating.

It does seem as though he was persistent more than what would be considered 'normal'. And then the angry put downs could have resulted from feeling 'led on' by someone who had allowed him to walk her home, they'd kissed, she'd given him her email address... then after several emails and phone calls, bluntly told him not to call the house again.

If he is Aspie, then that would probably have been confusing behaviour that was hard to interpret at the time, it's only clear in hindsight.

The allegations are the subject of current legal proceedings. Any lawyer worth their salt will have told their client not to get into the details of the case.

He will no doubt have been advised by his lawyer not to discuss in media interviews the details of what did or didn't happen.

And also, he's clearly stated, repeatedly, that he doesn't actually know the details of the allegations. He has said, repeatedly, as has his English lawyer, that they have received no statements or court documents in English that set out the allegations against him.

Even if his lawyer advised him to speak freely to the media about what did or didn't happen (and I very much doubt that's the case, I suspect the opposite is true, because that would be standard legal advice), how is he supposed to speak out against the allegations when neither he nor his legal team have formally been told what they are?

So he hasn't, actually, been evasive at all. He hasn't been able to respond to allegations, because neither he nor his English lawyer have been provided with the details of the allegations. And even if/when they are provided with the details, his lawyer will likely strongly advise him not to discuss the details of the case in the media, because the proper forum for examination and cross-examination of the evidence would be in a court of law.

And don't forget, it might not even get as far as a court of law. He has not yet been charged with any offences. The extradition request isn't for him to go to Sweden for a trial, but simply for questioning, because he hasn't even been charged and so there is no trial scheduled or expected, as yet.

And if you're trying to say that he's been evasive about questioning, you'd be wrong. As ouinon said, he's been reported as saying that he stayed in Sweden for several weeks after the allegations were first made and he spoke with the prosecutor in Sweden, and the first charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence. And then he asked the prosecutor for permission to leave Sweden, and he was told that he could leave. And since his return to the UK he and his legal team have apparently made repeated offers to speak with the Swedish authorities. They have volunteered to attend the Swedish Embassy in London, or an interview suite at Scotland Yard (police building in London) or even in Wandsworth prison while he was recently in custody. But the Swedish authorities have failed to take up those opportunities.

I just read an article that The Guardian published at 21.30 GMT yesterday, 18 December, about the full allegations against him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden

It does sound, as I already said above, as if he "did" many or most of the things which the two women said he did, but that the validity or not of the case is based not only on different people's different perspective or point of view on the events/actions ( as is often/usually the case ), but also on the women's subjective experience of those actions/events changing over time ( ie. becoming more critical about Assange's behaviour the instant that they realised that they were not Assange's only sexual partner over that period ).

Having read the Guardian's report I am once more inclined to think that Assange should go back to Sweden to answer questions, and face charges/go to trial if necessary, ( if the two women continue to argue that his behaviour was abusive and therefore criminal, and that their reactions are not "simply" motivated by jealousy or revenge, and if the Prosecutors agree ). But at the same time I can see why, having provoked such menacing reactions, even threats on his life, from prominent figures in the USA, Assange may be very unwilling to take the risk ( of forced extradition ).

It's interesting that one of the women, the one whose flat he was staying in, says that "he wouldn't leave", for a few days, even after she had stopped having sex with him, and Assange was astonished to hear this, saying "She hasn't asked me to leave". Classic aspie obliviousness to behaviour changes which as far as the woman was concerned should have made it obvious that he wasn't wanted, but weren't obvious to him.

I agree with wavefreak58 after all that Assange doesn't appear to have made quite the efforts to see the authorities and answer questions which his British lawyer has been claiming, and didn't return to Sweden for a second visit as previously timetabled, which is what triggered the European Arrest Order.

On balance I'd say that in the interests of Wikileaks credibility, and of international goodwill, as well as for the sake of his own reputation, he should probably go back, and answer questions.

But if charges are brought I think it would be almost a form of discrimination against him, or at the very least very bad luck, because, as I said in my post above, a great many men behave like this to a great many women all the time, and ( most ) police don't want to hear about it.

I suppose there's always got to be a first time, the "precedent", the one which sets new ground rules; it is not ok to promise to use a condom and then fail to; it is not ok to start having sexual intercourse with a woman who is asleep ( unless know each other very well perhaps? ), and it's not ok to hold a woman down in any way ( unless previously agreed ), etc.

I have had the lovely/delightful :rolleyes:! experience of men who start having sex with me while I'm still asleep, ( particularly upsetting on a couple of occasions ), and of men who have successfully, charmingly, cleverly, stubbornly, relentlessly, snidely, whatever persuaded me that not using a condom won't matter just this once, ( at this time of the month, that they'll pull out in time, etc ), or that they're horrible things which ruin the man's pleasure, so surely I won't insist on them using one, ( and that if I do I've spoilt it for them, and probably for myself, and am a ball-breaker and/or wet blanket/kill-joy ), aswell as men who have inexplicably failed to put one on despite saying, several times, that they would, and many men who routinely ( and probably ), unthinkingly have crushed me with their body weight to maintain a position/rhythm that they liked/preferred, ( or to stifle/stamp out any feeble second thoughts about having sex at all ), as casually as one would lift a cat onto one's lap or a toddler into the air, because one can, and few people object to it/see anything wrong in it.

Maybe Assange is about to contribute to women's freedom of speech, etc! :lol But he seems to be conflating his fears of the USA with his reasons for not returning to Sweden, and it's understandable. I hope that someone will be able to persuade him to do the right thing, whatever the risks.

PS. This is all assuming that the two women's accounts are as true as some witnesses have claimed.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Dec 2010, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

And conversely, other Aspies might say that that having people in the military associate themselves with how they are is appalling.

Other people might just say that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

So far as I'm aware, Julian Assange hasn't killed anyone, hasn't committed any war crimes, hasn't pimped out any Afghan children, unlike the US military and security contractors staffed by ex-military.

Personally speaking, as an Aspie journalist I'd much rather be associated with an investigative journalist like Julian Assange than be smeared by association with a corrupt military fighting illegal wars responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But that's just me.

You might want to think about getting off that high horse of yours.

And quite right too. He should not be answering questions that have anything to do with non-consensual sex.

The appropriate place to answer questions relating to an ongoing case is either in a courtroom or lawyer's office or in a police interview suite. I would not at all expect him to discuss with the media the details of what did or didn't happen with those women. That is a matter for the investigating officers, the prosecutors, defence lawyers and any judges.

I find it incredibly astonishing how many otherwise intelligent Aspies can fail to appreciate that there are ongoing legal proceedings and the details of the case are the subject of those ongoing legal proceedings and they're neither a matter for a 'trial by media' nor a matter for a 'trial by internet forum members'.

It seems as though lots of people want to have a 'trial by media' and they want the public to be the jury, and for themselves to be the judge and they want Julian Assange to publicly discuss with the media what happened so they can decide as to whether or not (they think) Julian Assange is guilty. And the more Julian Assange seems to fail to meet those expectations, by 'being evasive' (i.e. applying common sense and prudence and in all probability following legal advice not to discuss what did or didn't happen) the more the internet forum judges and jurors seem to be finding him guilty 'in absentia' because he's not participating in the 'trial by media' by going into the details of what did or didn't happen.

It's a matter for evidence, people! In formal legal proceedings!

Honestly, what's so hard to understand?

That he is not already back in Sweden answering the Swedish Prosecutor's questions, precisely so that the "right" people ( courts, judges, etc ), *can* weigh up and evaluate the evidence ... rather than dragging his feet and making things difficult for the Swedish authorities to do this.
.

You've made a classic mistake of ruling out one possible dubious motivator, and concluding that because you can't find any evidence of that (from one .pdf file, there might be other ways of channeling money to Sweden than that budget), then it's not necessarily about money, so therefore it must all be above board - surely, the exposure of the double-dealing to date might have given you a clue not to take things for granted, but to question them and look for other possible explanations?

One possible explanation is the apparent close connections between Karl Rove and Swedish politicians.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010 ... rt-to.html

I don't know whether or not this pans out, but it certainly makes interesting reading. A source said that a grand jury was looking into the activities of Wikileaks. I think it's since been reported elsewhere that the US authorities haven't denied this. Their source also says that Karl Rove is likely playing a leading role in the efforts to prosecute Assange [in the US, they mean, presumably].

The article goes on to say that's probably not a coincidence, and goes on to outline connections between Rove and Swedish politicians, with a decade long friendship between Rove and the Swedish PM, who apparently asked Rove to help out with his recent election campaign.

Rove arguably has a motive for wanting to silence Assange, given his central role in the Bush administration.

So, this raises questions about the role of Rove in the US, with sources with connections to the justice community suggesting he's probably playing a leading role in the efforts to prosecute Assange, and this raises questions about Rove's links with Sweden...

How does it all tie together? Does it, in fact, all tie together? If there is some kind of plot or conspiracy, how or why would it work?

Again, it's a matter of carrying on asking questions, and seeing if there are credible answers to those questions. Do hypotheses get ruled out? Or do they remain possibilities?

If, indeed, Rove is the driving force, and if he does have strong political connections with Sweden... where does that lead to? What does this all mean?

Hold all these thoughts for a moment. Let's go back and work the UK angle.

That is a stereotype of women, rather than of men. The counterpart stereotype of men is, as you mentioned afterward, refusal to ask for directions.

So, working the why is it so important to get him to Sweden angle (aside, of course, from answering those allegations in Sweden), ostensibly in order to facilitate an extradite him to the US...

As ouinon points out here, it's apparently easier to facilitate an extradition from Sweden than the UK. People, generally speaking, might have though the reverse would be the case, given the UK's 'special relationship' with the US, and Sweden's historic reputation as a fairly liberal country.

But aside from the legalities of any extradition treaties in place, the assumptions about UK and Sweden aren't necessarily true. There have been Wikileaks cables published suggesting that Obama doesn't have a high opinion of Cameron. It was already widely known that Obama has no reverence for the so-called special relationship that British politicians still deluded think we have (we didn't even have a special relationship in the Bush and Blair era, we just had Blair as Bush's poodle, being his b***h), and it was already previously known that Obama considered Cameron to be a lightweight, and the Conservative anti-European tendencies have proven to be isolationist and helping to make the UK less relevant to an Obama who toured Europe and held a mass rally in Germany.

As flagged up previously, in that link about Rove's connections with Sweden, suggesting that he might be pushing for Assange's prosecution, Sweden isn't the liberal haven that it once was, and which many people still mistakenly think of it as.

In addition to the right-ward swing of the government and its policies, there have also been some questionable actions relating to human rights.

Up until 2006, Sweden was apparently complicit in US extraordinary rendition flights: http://www.swedishwire.com/component/co ... h-military

How many flew through Sweden before they were stopped? US' extraordinary rendition flights were apparently approved by Swedish politicians, and it was the Swedish military that boarded a plane and effectively put a stop to them: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... ugh-sweden

If, and that's a big IF, he was taken to Sweden, subjected to some kind of swift decision and extradited before any appeal, once he was on US soil, that would be it, there would be no successful appeal to have him returned to Sweden or Australia or the UK, once they got their hands on him, he would be f****d, no doubt in a legal limbo, just like the Guantanamo detainees, or subjected to a kangaroo court made up of Rednecks who already *know* he's guilty of "treason". D'oh!

And as for the question of why not the UK and back to why Sweden, and isn't it all a bit conspiracy theory and silly, again it's back to the possibility that it might be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK. - Don't forget, the US have been trying to extradite Gary McKinnon for years and so far they've failed to succeed. It would be remarkable if they managed to swiftly extradite Assange where they've failed to swiftly extradite McKinnon, and failed to extradite McKinnon after several years of legal proceedings, and that would raise suspicions of dodgy dealing. The likelihood is that if they tried to extradite from the UK, the case would get mired in legal appeals...

So Sweden... get him there to answer questions... those provisions for extradition can be used, and that's it, game over. As for don't be silly, that's all a conspiracy theory, it's nonsense, because there are serious allegations and that's nothing to do with the sexual misdemeanours he's been accused of... it's all a bit of an unfortunate 'perfect storm'.

As Assange himself said, there are a number of factors. The 'honeypot' theory is a bit outlandish and so people saying it's not a conspiracy because that's a load of rubbish are possibly, probably right. But just because that theory may or may not be correct, it doesn't rule out other players using those incidents and legal proceedings for other nefarious purposes.

The sexual offences allegations are the sexual offences allegations. They're separate to his work for Wikileaks (although ironically it was his work with Wikileaks that took him to Sweden where he met them). And those allegations shouldn't be dismissed out of hand by acolytes, just because of who he is, the complaints of the women should have been taken seriously and investigated. Apparently, they were taken seriously. And Assange was questioned. And then a prosecutor decided there was no case to answer.

What happened next was that the women (one of whom had written a blog about getting revenge on men and using the courts to do so) apparently engaged the services of a lawyer to try to take the matter further. Meanwhile, a politician took up the case. And that brings us back to the Rove connection. Why would a Swedish politician take up the case? Has Sweden's reputation suffered so far badly from Wikileaks efforts that Swedish politicians might independently pursue a vendetta against Julian Assange and use the women's legal case as an instrument to that end? If not, what possible motivation could there be for a Swedish politician to act in such a fashion?

So far, nothing is ruled in, nothing is ruled out. It's all just speculation. But in terms of joining the dots, or putting the pieces together in a jigsaw puzzle... they're all possibilities, all still in play.

As to why the Swedish prosecutors hadn't provided Assange or his legal team with information about the allegations, and why the case was dropped and then restarted with the intervention of a politician several months later... it could just be that the wheels of the legal process turn slowly in Sweden - but then again they moved pretty quickly in the beginning, going from initial report to questioning to the prosecutor looking at the file, and the prosecutor deciding within 24 hours there was no case to answer... it has been suggested that these are holding tactics, in order to give the Americans time to come up with an indictment and to pave the way for extradition from Sweden.

And according to some news reports, that's what the Americans have been doing, empanelling a grand jury and coming up with indictments.

So it's entirely possible that it's not a conspiracy theory in the sense that the women were CIA honeypots, that the case was genuine from the very beginning and not part of some wider plot to discredit Assange and his work for Wikileaks, while simultaneously also being entirely possible that the women's case has subsequently been used by third parties for political purposes, and the legal system has been manipulated, not just by Swedish players, but by the likes of Rove, pulling the strings.

That's a summary that pulls together lots of different strands of hypothetical questions and possible answers to those hypothetical questions suggesting who, what, where and why in terms of motivations.

We won't know more, I don't think, until the new year, when the extradition hearing is due to be held in London, to decide whether or not to extradite him to Sweden, and if he does get sent to Sweden, we'll have to wait and see whether or not all these dots do join up to an extradition or extraordinary rendition to the US.

All that's apparent at the moment is that information has been published in various different places that seems to give possible reasons as to why it might be easier to extradite Assange to the US from Sweden as opposed to the UK, and information has been published that makes connections between Swedish politicians and Rove, and states that sources say he's likely behind moves pressing for Assange's prosecution. But none of that is conclusive one way or the other, so I'm going to keep an open mind and wait and see how things pan out.

You do realise, don't you, that the second Bush administration wasn't voted in by the American people, that Bush stole that election? For your query about supporting the government you vote in, first of all, you have to get the government you voted for. Your democracy failed you.

As for appealing for people to vote in politicians and connect with them and make them be more accountable and transparent and democratic from now on, well, that's a lovely thought, but the present political system doesn't permit that. The present political system doesn't function in a way that facilitates the most noble and honourable and decent people being voted into office and being politicians who facilitate open and transparent government.

The American process that you're wanting to honour is broken and corrupt. I mentioned just above that the process doesn't facilitate the voting into office of decent, honourable and noble people. What it does do it facilitate the voting into public office of the politicians who have raised the most campaign funds, whose PACs have paid for the most advertising, who've most successfully smeared their political opponents in order to cost them votes. And then as for being democratic and transparent and open, well, there's nothing democratic and transparent and open about the way business is done on the Hill.

Special interest groups, corporations and lobbyists contribute to politicians campaign funds, and then once the politician is in office they seek to influence their voting behaviour.

What Assange has been doing isn't facilitating criminals and conspirators, he's been doing precisely the opposite, stripping away the secrecy that enables the criminals and conspirators in Washington and elsewhere to get away with their crimes.

This is the kind of criminal behaviour that goes on unchecked unless investigative journalists get to expose it:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/40322/h ... ey-in-jail

Or American security contractors hiring young boys to 'perform' at parties in Afghanistan
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2277455

And that's not mentioning the 'Collateral Murder' video, of US forces gleefully killing two Reuters journalists and also shooting two children who were in a van that went to the rescue of those injured.

Or other incidents, involving torture - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo.

Or do you only think that crimes should be investigated and criminals brought to justice, so long as they aren't US military, US politicians or businessmen? Do you think that US military and politicians and businessmen are above the law or something? If not, shouldn't their wrongdoing be uncovered and shouldn't they be held accountable? If you were to be driving along the road and taking potshots at pedestrians by the side of the road, wouldn't you expect to be arrested and brought to trial? So why not US marines who did that in Iraq? Or is it acceptable, in your mind, for US military to take potshots at unarmed civilians like people shooting fake ducks in a fairground stall?

Sorry, yeah, I was being facetious! Maybe I should have winked afterwards, to make it clear I was being silly!

The classic mistake is the inconsistency of the anti american. Americans are incompetent boobs when it suits them and capable of mounting a sophiscated SECRET conspiracy when THAT suits them.

[quote]
One possible explanation is the apparent close connections between Karl Rove and Swedish politicians.
[/qoute]

Nothing would please Karl Rove more than having the Obama administration go down in flames but now he is HELPING them through back channels?

Please.



Simple answer. Assange should face the Swedish authorities with his head held high. If he is the brave fighter, speaking truth to power, then he should risk the possible negative outcome. If he wins out in a direct fight, is reputation is enhanced and is cause is served. If he loses because of nefarious actions by government he also wins.

They only way he loses is by bobbing and weaving through the system, IT make him look like he has something to hide. And HIDING things is exactly what Wikileaks doesn't want, right?

I am hugely enjoying and appreciating your assessment/analysis/argument/exploration of this issue, EnglishLulu. Some extremely interesting points.

PS. This thread on whether "Assange is Aspergers" or not has turned into exactly the sort of thread that I hoped the thread in News and Current Affairs would become, so I will link to this thread on that one, and post the link for that thread here, so that the information and analysis stays grouped together.

"Wikileaks and Assange" thread is at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt146104.html
.