Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

What charges have been field against him by the U.S.? Or do they just want to extradite him for grins and giggles?

None yet, which is another reason why they couldn't have extradicted Assange from the UK before now. They're still trying to formulate one.

But ... I found it: Article 6 of the Supplement to the Extradition Treaty between Sweden and the USA allows Sweden to decide unilaterally to extradite someone that they are holding for a prosecution to the USA, if the USA has issued a Federal charge against that person. And the USA and Sweden can "agree between them" how long the USA would be allowed to hang onto Assange.

http://internationalextraditionblog.com ... t-i-found/ ( It's a video, but a pretty short, just 2.57 minutes, concise and aspie/autie- friendly one, explaining the implications ).

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1205222/Regardless-whether



The USA does *not* have such an agreement with the UK.
.

So Sweden is going to bring him there and hold him because they United States *might* charge him?

How is this not just conflating possible outcomes into a conspiracy theory?

"In an interview with Salon.com, attorney Douglas McNabb, who specializes in federal criminal defense and international extradition cases, said that there is the possibility that the U.S. has not only a sealed indictment prepared against Assange, but also has an extradition request under seal."

I have no idea if this is true, but seeing how furious the USA is about Assange and Wikileaks it's not at all impossible. And I can certainly see why Assange would rather stay in the UK as long as possible, just in case. :lol
.

So some attorney speculates about some sealed indictment and it's more 'proof'?

Spare me the drama.

The American government can't keep a secret (else Wikileaks would not have them) and they are able to keep a sealed indictment secret?

What? All of the sudden all the leaks dried up?

It sounds like Assange wants to bring governments around the world down and cause civil disorder for whatever reason. He might genuinely believe he is doing the people of this world a service by publishing all this classified stuff.

The thing that I dislike about Assange is his inability to answer a direct question about the case with a direct answer - he is extremely evasive and goes off on elegantly constructed tangents that have nothing at all to do with non-consensual sex. And this case is about a man who is alleged to have had sex without the consent of two different women, in a few days. If it is true, then it indicates a lack of respect for human dignity.

He was investigated a while ago and the prosecutor said that there was no case.

It's very fishy for a prosecutor to do an investigation, say that there is no case, and grant permission for the accused to leave the country if there is actually a case. Unless the alleged victims withheld evidence from the prosecutor until after the prosecutor let Assange leave, which also makes no sense. Or the alleged victims bribed the prosecutor to re-open it. Occam's razor says that it's political.

As for his respect for human dignity, I actually thought he showed that when he leaked the video of the US helicopter attack. I forget the details, but the video showed that the US government lied about what happened. In an interview with PressTV, Assange commented on how it was disturbing to see how the soldiers were delighting in the slaughter. Specifically because one soldier is heard "asking" an injured civilian (who was wrongly shot) to grab for a weapon so that he'd have an excuse to kill the civilian. He tried to make a distinction between dark gallows humor that inevitably happens in such circumstances vs. delighting in slaughter like it's some video game.

It seemed like his motive there was to restore respect for human dignity by exposing the US government's cover-up of that event.

Last edited by theexternvoid on 17 Dec 2010, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The first prosecutor involved filed a case.

That was overruled by his superior. At that point Assange left the country.

That ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs.

The ruling was reversed. A warrant was issued.

What's fishy about it?

Not proof, just a possibility. It's precisely the sort of covert/behind the scenes activity/event which Wikileaks have been exposing.

I don't think that "drama" is necessarily an indication that something is not real or important. Can totally see why Assange may be inclined to believe that the above scenario is true, because he has seen an awful lot of evidence of exactly this sort of covert operation.


Wikileaks don't hear about/receive data about *everything* that goes on. :lol

About "drama": I find your suggestion that Assange is deliberately playing some role, manipulating the press and public opinion, calculating minutely how to achieve some megalomaniac/narcissistic goal, putting on a performance, pretending to be persecuted etc, rather unnecessarily elaborate, melodramatic.

Why do you prefer to tell that story about him rather than the one that I have been outlining?
.

It could just be he was going to get away with it when he was really guilty because the authorities were all ready to look the other way in Sweden because of all his money and connections. They were going to look away again after the first leak. Since the leaks seem to be a process, the authorities are stepping up a bit. They know they can get him (because he probably did do something, they were just going to let him go)so now that he has given them an even greater reason and since he's poised to release more documents they are going to do what they can to make him uncomfortable and pursue this case in Sweden. Just because the case was dropped doesn't mean he is innocent. It just means he is rich and has connections.

Because it is more likely that he is playing the press than the government is. The U.S. can't get people to agree on anything. And they've suddenly found some leverage to induce Sweden to extradite someone on trumped up charges? What are they going to do? Cut off their foreign aid (I can't find Sweden on this list http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1261.pdf )

I totally agree about his evasiveness on this.

After watching and appreciating some earlier interviews/videos of him talking about the Collateral Murder video-leak, because he seemed so very "straight", so direct and clear and calm and earnest, I was quickly struck by the difference in his answers to questions about the sexual-misconduct allegations. For someone usually so *able* at giving straight answers the change was clear.

Unfortunately I think that he probably did what the women said he did; he has never denied that. What he has said instead that he is innocent, of "rape", which is what the judge/prosecutors would have to determine, and at one point seemed to have done.

I did think that he should simply give himself up, rather than fighting extradition, and it is still possible that all the panic about USA sealed indictments etc and perceived vulnerability in Sweden to extradition by the USA, is part of some anxiety-fuelled fear at facing the renewed charges, ( enquiries ).

I don't know if even if that were the case it would be fair to say that he is being "deliberate" about it though; I am inclined to believe that his work may have become his world, to the extent that he might perceive almost any threat to him as provoked by his Wikileaks activity. ie. possible mental health issues.

None of this means that he isn't Aspergers/on the autism spectrum though. And I don't think that he is guilty of deliberate manipulation.

PS. I also recognise the sexual behaviour as reported by the two women; I experienced that sort of thing from more than a few boyfriends, and although I can see how it could maybe qualify as some sort of sexual misdemeanour, what prevented me from seeing the acts as abusive was that each of them was my boyfriend at the time, ( perhaps why the two women decided to report it when they realised that they were not his only sexual partner at the conference ), and I was also capable of the crassest, most oblivious, inconsiderate, inappropriately frivolous/almost objectifying treatment of sexual/romantic partners, because I based most of my behaviour, or what I thought it should be, on what I'd seen in films.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Dec 2010, 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

I was just looking at this, the one on the snowy terrace with the coffee mug etc!

And I realised that his highly pedantic, measured, almost monotonous delivery, with the almost supernatural calm and still face reminded me of my Dad ( definitely on or near the spectrum )! :lol And that heavy insistent battering-ram of speech too, when my Dad wanted to make a point, when he would absolutely refuse to be interrupted until he had ***finished*** his sentence, which would go on and on through dozens of sub-clauses, as Assange's did!! ! :lol .

And the swaying and blinking was *really* noticeable. My Dad did that too, a sort of "emphasis" with his head or his body, or with his fork pecking away rhythmically at the food on his plate while talking.

In fact it was commented on by people posting about the video on youtube; ""blinking in morse code", "swaying back and forth weirdly", and "talking monotonously".

Wild! So aspie! :lol

A lot of older Aspies aren't. Or maybe they are a bit, but they can still 'pass for normal'.

If he is Aspie, I'd hazard a guess that his childhood has a lot to do with him seeming more socially at ease (and I'm just going off what I read and what I've seen, which is pretty superficial really) than you might expect a 'typical' Aspie to be.

He moved a lot as a child. I know from my own experience what a difference that can make to an Aspie. If an Aspie child has a very settled childhood, they can remain in their comfort zone, and they can refuse or decline or simply fail to engage socially with people outside their immediate circles of school or neighbourhood friends. If they are forced out of it, they can learn to adapt, and I speak from experience about that.

I'm a completely different person to who I might have been if I hadn't similarly been forced out of my comfort zone. I lived in the same house for the first 13 years of my life (although my parents divorced when I was about 10). But then I was taken into care, and changed schools and moved several times to different children's homes. If you're forced out of your comfort zone into the company of new people, you learn to make small talk, you learn to make new friends and get to know people. And through trial and error, making lots of mistakes, doing some things right, you learn social skills.

Although, by all accounts, while Julian Assange has been flying around the world, going to parties and meeting and bedding beautiful women, he has, in fact, been described as "socially awkward".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-dept ... 5969230839

I agree with all of this.

The spewing out of facts and figures is quite monologue-ish at times. He's very meticulous and precise about what he's saying, and making sure he's not misunderstood. And his recall of facts, it seems to me as though he's probably got a damn good eidetic memory. He uses his mastery of facts and figures to demolish other people's arguments or vague statements.