Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ghostwriter Reveals the Secret Life of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the get-used-to-disappointment dept.

Books 359

An anonymous reader writes "From the Telegraph, 'He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend ... A damning picture of Julian Assange ... has emerged in a detailed account by his ghostwriter. Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world. Worse still, he turns on his friends with increasing regularity ... Assange describes the Ecuadorean ambassador offering him diplomatic asylum as 'mad', 'fat' and 'ludicrous'. Even Assange's girlfriend, WikiLeaks researcher Sarah Harrison, grew increasingly frustrated at his behaviour. 'He openly chats girls up and has his hands on their a**e and goes nuts if I even talk to another guy,' she says. O'Hagan, who had hoped to find an anti-authoritarian rebel figure worthy of admiration, says he comes to regard Assange as someone who sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges.' — The Scotsman adds, 'Canongate director Jamie Byng yesterday hailed O'Hagan's account of the "impossibility of trying to ghost Assange's memoirs". He tweeted: "Andy O'Hagan's compelling, ring side account of Being (& being around) Julian Assange is smart, accurate and fair."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

out of the spiritual void into the crapflood (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324597)

if i can change anybody can http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pr%20firm%20smear%20campaigns&sm=3

assange, QEII spotted boarding QEII together? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324743)

rumours & rumours of rumours

So? (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 8 months ago | (#46324615)

Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 8 months ago | (#46324665)

You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.

The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 8 months ago | (#46324701)

Additionally, the man is effectively in captivity under a lot of stress. That can present a very different person than that individual might be if not for being locked in the fucking embassy, for example.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46324897)

Assange's history of treating other people like dirt, including allies, friends, and Wikileaks volunteers, goes back long before he chose to jump bail and become a fugitive from justice. It hasn't exactly been much of a secret either.

Re: So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324967)

Leopards don't change spots...

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about 8 months ago | (#46325053)

You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.

The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.

How do you know that that he isn't the prick that the media has made him out to be? Here we are talking about a guy who was willing to sacrifice confidential informants & journalists just to reveal the truth of how bad the US is. Anyone willing to push their agenda at the costs of innocents is not someone to be admired.

If SoylentNews is going to filter out news it finds distasteful, then I'll stick with Slashdot. I don't need a nerdy version of FoxNews/MSNBC.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325091)

Innocents? They provided him the information. In most countries just doing that is enough to get convicted for treason. If they didn't want the information to be published why did they give it to Wikileaks to begin with?

Do you think there is anyone with a flawless personality? I still admire him for what he did exposing all that information. But it doesn't mean I need to appreciate his entire way of life.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324691)

If you can vilify someone, you no longer have to refute their message.

Re:So? (1, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 8 months ago | (#46324711)

So, stop acting like Assange is an angel who could never have committed the crimes of which he is accused.

Re:So? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324855)

What crimes? Sex without a condom?

Re:So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325081)

Sex without consent, rape.

Re:So? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325135)

Angel? He certainly is no angel. But when I weigh good vs. bad, he's still pretty much on the good side.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

dugancent (2616577) | about 8 months ago | (#46324733)

We should be more interested in WikiLeaks and their info/message, not the blonde guy at the top.

Re:So? (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | about 8 months ago | (#46324993)

Well, an autobiography is about the messenger, not necessarily the message.

Re:So? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325157)

That's pretty much the point. Why does anyone care about his autobiography? I care about one of his projects.

Re: So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325319)

Something about trees and their fruit... how does it go again?

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324801)

Why do we either have to love both Assange and Wikileaks, or hate both Assange and Wikileaks?

You can love Wikileaks and hate Assange, or love Assange and hate Wikileaks. To even bring in finer shades of grey, you can believe that Assange is probably not that nice of a person, and the Swedish investigation is legitimate, but still appreciate the effort put towards Wikileaks, and you can appreciate some of what Wikileaks has done but dislike other acts of Wikileaks.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325101)

Yeah, which is why we're all still using ReiserFS.

Re:So? (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 8 months ago | (#46324911)

It all depends on if you agree with his radical left-wing politics or not. If you do, then he's an angel who can do no wrong.

Remember Jerry Falwell? He was hanged in the court of public opinion because he didn't practice the virtues he preached. All his preaching and life advice was evidently void because of how he conducted his personal life.

I'm not pro-Falwell at all, don't mistake me. I just tried to find an equivalent figure on the other side of the fence that people could relate to. On one side, if you have a good message but you're a shit person, let's ignore it. On the other, the fact that you're a shit person completely discredits the message you send. So, which is it: one or the other? Answer: two legs good, four legs better.

Re:So? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325263)

I can't remember Assange preaching abstinence or fucking with condoms.

The difference is maybe that Assange never claimed to be holier-than-thou.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 8 months ago | (#46324927)

Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government and those who say "Hmm... maybe he's not a good guy after all" tend to get drowned out. Bradley Manning might have an interesting take on whether his friendship with Assange was worth it in the end. And as to a certain extent he's arguably a criminal avoiding justice, it does tend to cast a negative light over everything he does. My biggest questions are things like "Why do you only seem to publish things that put the US in a bad light? Where are the secrets from places like Russia and China, where we know corruption is the norm?" Suppose he was given information about how top Chinese Communist Party officials secretly own various businesses and profit extraordinarily from them while they keep wages down for their employees and he chose not to publish it. Would those of you who defend him still do so? How do we really know that he's not selectively releasing the information he gets to suit some ulterior motive that most supporters wouldn't like?

Re:So? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325161)

The information he released did not only implicate people in the US. It just happened most information he got came from the US so that's what he published that is all.

I don't expect Julian to be flawless. I never do. No one is flawless.

a**e (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325089)

An arse? Ooo eye scalding text. why is that bleeped?

Re:So? (1)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 8 months ago | (#46325093)

I suspect it has a lot to do with persuading the government(s) that are protecting him to stop doing so. He SHOULD face his day in court over the rape allegations. His Wikileaks stuff is another issue and I realize the connections (mainly he'll get hit with the Wikileaks stuff whenever he gets his trial for the sexual assault), but I do not believe one person's political actions should deprive others the right for justice.

Re:So? (1, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325097)

Pretty much this.

Personally, I don't really care too much about him. I care about Wikileaks.

So he is what? Vain, ok. Who cares? Secretive and paranoid. Hmm... I'd guess you get that way if you run something like Wikileaks. Prone to leering at young women. Hmm. Would you feel better if he was leering at young guys? Why the fuck should I care what he likes to fuck, for all I care he could fuck his lunch before he eats it.

It feels a bit like back with Clinton. Nobody cares about what he does, but he fucked someone he shouldn't. Why the fuck is that relevant?

Oh, and I make sexist jokes too. Here's one: What does it mean when the wife is in the living room? That the chain that's supposed to keep her in the kitchen is too long.

Paranoid? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 8 months ago | (#46325115)

If your ghost writer turns on you, of all people, is it really fair to say one is paranoid? Sounds like his belief that people are out to get him is fairly confirmed.

Re:So? (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 8 months ago | (#46325139)

...instead of focussing on what he has done.

One of the things he's done is built a cult of followers who insist that he's leaking secrets purely for the good of the world. It's reached the point where anyone criticizing him is dismissed outright as being a brainwashed government shill, especially here on Slashdot where the hivemind reigns supreme.

However, the actual existence of a benevolent intent is what makes all the difference, factually. If Assange's claims of benevolence are honest, then he's a whistleblower who only gave information to enemies out of necessity or accident. If he really only cared about spilling secrets, then he's a spy who communicates through a very public medium, using scandalous stories as obfuscation.

We can't really "focus on what he has done", without a clear idea of exactly what that is. Is he a whistleblower or is he a spy? Only Assange knows for sure, but whatever he says is obviously biased. For anyone else interested in facts, the only materials we have to consider are articles like this - written by observers, showing only their observations of the man's behavior. Maybe they support his claims, and maybe not.

When we consider the effects of Assange's actions, we should not forget the parts that oppose our own preferred opinions. In comparison, consider that Joseph Stalin helped defeat the Nazis and establish his country as a superpower. On the other hand, he was a tyrant whose powerful nation was forged by oppressing dissent. A few generations from now, if we consider Julian Assange to be a hero, do we include the word "accidental"?

Not actual ghostwriter (5, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | about 8 months ago | (#46325173)

more like self appoint, failed and bitter biographer.
"[When Assange would not cooperare with the writier]... Assange's publisher, Cannongate, releases its own version of the autobiography, after Assange allegedly fails to honour the terms of his contract. The book flopped, selling only 700 copies in its first week"

And it matters why? (2)

fsck-beta (3539217) | about 8 months ago | (#46324625)

Yea a lot of people who do really amazing things aren't always the best people. Sure he deserves some criticism, but we obsess over these take down articles. Clickbait etc

Oh man (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324631)

Cue the rape-apologists

Re:Oh man (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324709)

You have the right to unprotected (consenting adult) sex, and that using that as "rape" is akin to "torture" of logic. Extradite yourself as able.

Re: Oh man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324955)

So you were there. Never dare toss your hat in to rape arguments.

Re:Oh man (0)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325179)

The woman who had the sex with him dropped out the accusation man. She voluntarily let him in her bedroom and had voluntary sex with him before. She just wasn't 'in the mood' one of the times he did sex with her. That is a crime in Sweden? Good thing I don't live there.

Re:Oh man (1, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325201)

Oh and by coincidence she only decided to put the accusation up AFTER she learned he slept with someone else. Go figure.

If you can't win. (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#46324635)

If you can't win: Ad Hominem.

Re:If you can't win. (0)

hey! (33014) | about 8 months ago | (#46324699)

How is this ad hominem? Could you be specific?

Re:If you can't win. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324773)

It's Ad Hominem because the general debate has been about wikileaks, whistle-blowers, and government surveilance, yet here we are talking about a man's personal life, beliefs, and attitudes -- which while entertaining and somewhat interesting, have nothing to do with the larger debate.

Re:If you can't win. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324823)

It's Ad Hominem because the general debate has been about wikileaks, whistle-blowers, and government surveilance, yet here we are talking about a man's personal life, beliefs, and attitudes -- which while entertaining and somewhat interesting, have nothing to do with the larger debate.

Actually it would be "Ad Personam" and not "Ad Hominem", because his personal life might be debatable, but it doesn't contradict what he says.

Re:If you can't win. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 8 months ago | (#46324875)

How about you review what ad hominem actually means and then get back to us? I'll be glad to teach you but we first need a formal agreement as my daily rates are quite expensive.

Re:If you can't win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324965)

Are you selling blowjobs? You offer no teaching.

I see what you did there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324999)

I see what you did there.

ironic captcha: consults

Re:If you can't win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325083)

Because they are bringing up the man's personal life, which is completely irrelevant to the larger issue (government corruption). This is merely a sign that they don't have anything better to debate with.

Re:If you can't win. (1, Redundant)

blueg3 (192743) | about 8 months ago | (#46325143)

It's relevant if you're writing a book about that person. Like, say, a memoir.

Re:If you can't win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324885)

Is it also Ad Hominem when people make positive comments about leakers?

Re:If you can't win. (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46324979)

If you can't win: Ad Hominem.

That is one of the key tactics that has been used against Assange's critics. How many terrible things have been said about the women who filed a complaint against him for sexual assault? Assange's defenders use that tactic with regularity, and seethe when anything is said against him. That includes mod bombs on Slashdot.

Re:If you can't win. (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 8 months ago | (#46325099)

...and how many terrible things have been said about Assange by Assange critics (take this "news" for example) - so your point is what, exactly? People say dumb shit all the time - the only important sensible thing is to rise above the Ad Hominem attacks coming from both sides and concentrate on the facts. No wonder this news was posted by "anonymous reader", just more of the same...

Re:If you can't win. (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325217)

No. Want I don't get is how him being a prick in bed, pun intended, somehow is supposed to render null and void all the work he did at Wikileaks. It doesn't compute.

Re:If you can't win. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325335)

That's one of the key tactics that have been used for ages. Can't refute their claim, can't dispel the allegations, can't debunk their claims? Attack them instead of their message.

Works for various three-letter-agencies, works for a certain cult that claims to be a church while being a thinly veiled front for bad SciFi, works all the times. I can't remember many terrible things being said against the woman who filed rape charges against Assange, though. If you could point me to some it would actually be helpful.

Not a ghostwriter. (5, Informative)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46324637)

Speaking as a ghostwriter, this is not how one operates. This guy is just being an asshole.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324741)

Speaking as your ghostwriter, let me polish that up for you.

As a ghostwriter, the proper conduct is not in the fashion in which the above subject of the article in the Telegraph has conducted himself. Such a manner is befit only that of the most deplorable and low of beings, whose character is far more scurrilous than those they see fit to criticize.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (2)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46324815)

Thanks. I needed to get the word count up.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324827)

my reading of TFA is O'Hagan's role as ghostwriter became compromised by Assange himself. Early on, O'Hagan is explicit in stating terms that include a strong desire to have no public connection to the text, nor to find himself a mouthpiece for Assange in the world of news and current affairs programs. But that doesn't seem to be the nub of this piece - it's more about the impossibility of getting the book written because Assange didn't want it, but couldn't ever commit to 'no'; just as he couldn't commit to 'yes' either. It seems to be 'the idea of a book' that attracts Assange to the project. Please tell me why O'Hagan is an asshole or, at least, enlighten us to the ghostwriter's code that forbids this kind of exposé (years...) after the project failed?

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (3, Insightful)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46324929)

My reading is that O'Hagan was brought in by the publishing company to try to take the book in the direction they wanted, not the direction Assnage wanted. Once this backfired, he explicitly compromised his strong desire to have no public connection to the text by becoming a mouthpiece against Assange in the world of news and current affairs programs. The length of time (years) since the incident has no bearing on the professional ethical implications of violating the privacy of a primary source, even if that source is committed to the idea of violating institutional opacity, and even if that privacy is assured only by convention, and not by a specific NDA.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46324971)

"Only a shitty workman blames his tools."

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325043)

yup. that's right. anything assange does can be excused because of wikileaks.
such is the contorted logic of slashdot.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46325087)

I'm not saying that Assange's behavior is in any way better; just that the ghostwriter in this instance knocked himself down to Assange's level instead of maintaining the professional high ground.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325145)

I see what you did there.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46325045)

Speaking as a ghostwriter, this is not how one operates. This guy is just being an asshole.

If you think he is being "an asshole," you apparently haven't looked at Assange's behavior.

Re:Not a ghostwriter. (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46325065)

Assange is also being an asshole. But that's a given. Just look as his name.

"Rape charges" is bullshit, frankly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324655)

"sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges"

Even if he's a lech, liar, lout, loser... calling what he's accused of "rape" is objectionable to victims of actual rape, as opposed to "victims" of consenting unsafe sex.

I don't think he's lost "moral" high ground by resisting a sham extradition given the demonstrated misconduct by authorities exposed in this whole affair, the contrary.
Those charging them have lost the moral high ground. He may be an egotist, but that doesn't validate calling that "rape" nor his extradition to a US black prison site.

If he were guilty of "rape" that would be an entirely different situation. Repeating this charge only serves to give validity to the notion that he is unfairly persecuted.

Re: "Rape charges" is bullshit, frankly. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324983)

Thankfully real people go to court rather than take your word for it

Re: "Rape charges" is bullshit, frankly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325061)

Real people get extradited, handed off for torture for sex without a condom? Name one.

vain, paranoid, sexist (5, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 8 months ago | (#46324671)

Could describe any number of people who are/were successful in public but had feet of clay. Rev. Martin Luther King, Pres. Bill Clinton - the list goes on and on (admittedly King wasn't necessarily paranoid, they really were out to get him).

Re: vain, paranoid, sexist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324989)

They really are out to get Assange.

Re:vain, paranoid, sexist (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46325365)

Umm... Gandhi?

How much this should matter to the non-braindead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324677)

At this point, with the pressure the U.S. places in governments, publications, or even individuals in order to accomplish his extradition, I wouldn't believe his mother's own word against him.

Everybody should know how much public opinion influences political decision-making nowadays. Money to pay such falsehood should be no objection to the States, when they already sacrificed their moral integrity for the sake of national security.

a**e (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324681)

I've always been a hands on sort of guy myself :-)

Re:a**e (1)

tippe (1136385) | about 8 months ago | (#46324809)

I have to admit, I don't get "a**e". Is that supposed to mean "arse" or something? If so, why the self-censorship for such a benign word?

Re:a**e (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 8 months ago | (#46324909)

It's redacted.

Re:a**e (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324977)

No, the "*" wildcard is 0 or more occurrences of anything. Thus "A**E" is the same as "A*E", and in this case means "AssangE".

Re: a**e (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325015)

That's just one of the fancy new features of beta. You're welcome, slashdotters. ;)

shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324685)

That people like Assange and Snowden who are media whores aren't very nice to be around...shocking...

Re:shocking (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46324731)

can I have 'smear campaign' for 100, please, alex?

we can see thru this character assasination easily enough; but the fact is, if you keep repeating lies enough, people will believe them.

regardless, what the man has done is what matters. personality does not enter into it, not one bit.

Re:shocking (-1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46325013)

We probably won't find out what the man has done anytime soon since he will not go face the charges against him.

Re:shocking (0)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 8 months ago | (#46325237)

As usual from Cold Fjord: half truths, lies, deception, repeating ad hominem and all your typical moral low ground techniques (just to sum up your posts under this very story). There are no charges against Assange. Yeah yeah save use the "Sweden is different, questioning is the same as charging him" crap you usually retort with about this point. Carry on it is amusing to watch... hehe

Re:shocking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325241)

I notice this new round coincides with Greenwald's discovery in the Snowdon documents that Assange is indeed on a US three-letter agencies' manhunt list.

Re:shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325313)

I notice that this new round of smearing on Slashdot coincides with Cold Fjord running around in the comments trying to make the shit stick... money on who anonymous reader submitting the story was... most Wikileaks hit pieces follow this script...

Re:shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324749)

This says nothing about Snowden, maybe your Fox News comprehension is speeding you along to a conclusion you haven't founded yet.

So what? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 8 months ago | (#46324707)

Not being a friend of Assange at all (who jumped bail and now is costing the Ecuadorian government lots of money), but what does that have to do with anything? And everybody can ask themselves what they would look like if someone tried hard to show them in the worst possible light.

psychological warfare = repetition (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 8 months ago | (#46325303)

The second the rape BS comes up it should be a dead give away this is not a legitimate source. Somebody who knows the situation because they have close contact and work with him (at least since he got on the CIA's radar) clearly must know the obvious facts about the Rape BS. But instead decides to act like a CIA operative and push the government's propaganda 110%?? Paid operative before or after is still a paid operative (that doesn't mean spy and who knows what secrets the ghostwriter has, except the NSA...) No, this isn't paranoia, it is common sense. Hell, to say Assange is paranoid is totally idiotic if you have any sense of what he is involved in.

American media is extremely obsessed with the cult of personality; far more than other nations. This is an indirect assault upon Americans by shooting the messenger in ways that highly effective and distracting in the USA (more so than other nations.) The whole point is to make life a living hell on earth as visibly as possible, including thinly veiled BS character assassination so anybody with half a brain can see what is going to happen to anybody who threatens the USA with truth. It is Terrorism plain and simple. The legal system can be made into the punishment (which is why the founders put in that part about a speedy trial in the defunct 6th Amendment ) and if he gets into the USA it'll be the punishment BEFORE conviction and after exoneration he'll still be stuck in Gitmo for his retirement.

Ecuador isn't spending as much as the USA or their bitch, the UK.

It doesn't matter if he is a kiddie fiddler, courageous acts are not exclusively done by saints. If anything it should be more impressive when a "'vain, secretive, paranoid, jealous, rapist" does something that people "above reproach" are too cowardly to do. You'd think Americans would be wiser given how many grow up watching the popular redemption theme in their movies; which has gone to extremes in making everything dark and flawed.

well this isn't anything new. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324783)

Just more psychological warfare/marketing against wikileaks.

How many people would stay nice? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 8 months ago | (#46324825)

How many people would stay "nice" if you found yourself choosing between staying in self-imposed jail or stepping outside and likely finding yourself in real jail?

I have no idea to Assange's personality before all this happened, but a severe case of cabin fever can drive people off the rails.

Re:How many people would stay nice? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46324991)

"Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world."

He's been like that since day 1. None of this started when he locked himself in the embassy.

Love the pro-Assange crowd here... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324861)

Sorry to post A/C, but there's too much hate for contrarian opinions on Slashdot.

I love how the pro-Assange crowd is already dismissing this. I'm sorry, but it does matter. The "why" someone does something is just as important as the "what". Assange takes a lot of credit for Wikileaks, but the truth is there are a lot of people involved in Wikileaks who are more valuable to the organization whereas Assange's narcissim and poor ethical decisions have not only made him an easy target but have also damaged the brand itself. With what they're trying to do, maintaining the ethical and moral high ground is paramount as the only thing they have to go on for their work to make a difference is their reputation; once that's damaged then the public at large will not trust them and nothing will ever really change. If you truly believe in what you're doing, then you don't put yourself into compromising situations with women etc.

Re: Love the pro-Assange crowd here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325019)

100% this. Any professional knows this, and one would hope most adults understand this anyway

Still my hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324895)

When the ghostwriter has created a legitimate outlet that could save the free world, then he can whine a little. Until then, he and everyone else should just shut the f*** up. We ALL have flaws - at least Assange makes up for them by BEING AWESOME.

Ok I'm a fangirl. I admit it. I actually really dig genius a**holes. I'd bear his children in a heartbeat. He's been a bad bad boy and should be soundly punished (in an entirely recreational and mutually-consenting adult situation). But that's about it.

I'm so f***ing SICK of this obsession media have with cramming people's personal peccadillos down our throats! Didn't the message get sent loudly enough with Bill Clinton? WE DON'T CARE!!!! We need strong leadership and smart people! Not uptight a**-coverers who know how to not get caught.

endit

Re:Still my hero (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46325007)

a legitimate outlet that could save the free world

LOL. Wikileaks hasn't accomplished a damn thing.

Re: Still my hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325085)

Who did ASSange save? Impact compared to Snowden? I got all day...

Character assassination (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 8 months ago | (#46324935)

Not that I don't believe it, necessarily. Merely that it can't be trusted. At all.

Character asssassination at its best (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46324973)

I am not interested in his character but his results.

oh noes (5, Interesting)

melchoir55 (218842) | about 8 months ago | (#46325005)

He's self centered and likes to flirt with younger women. Oh no! Our faith in the very integrity of wikileaks must be revisited!

Meanwhile an enormous personality cult continues around an asshole who regularly destroyed the lives of people working for him (Steve Jobs).

If I were going to pick someone to have a beer with, I would pick Assange any day. I don't give a fuck if someone has personality flaws. That means he is the same as every other human alive. What I care about is their effect on the world around them. Assange has had such a net positive impact with wikileaks that no amount of aggressive flirting or being-a-dick-sometimes(tm) is going to burn it.

Re:oh noes (4, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 8 months ago | (#46325299)

Not to mention the liver transplant he got. People his age usually get pushed all the way back to the transplant list. Even then, after he got his liver, did he even bother taking his pills to at least ensure he lived a bit longer so the transplant wasn't useless? No. He did a crazy mystical diet where he died shortly afterwards.

Just maybe ... (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | about 8 months ago | (#46325071)

Maybe, just maybe, he did assault the woman. After all, it is the "seriousness of the charge" that counts.

Re:Just maybe ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325215)

Which is totally why the UK harbored Pincochet from Spain. The guy who makes serial rapists locked away for life look like goddamn choir boys.

has his hands on their a**e (3, Funny)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 8 months ago | (#46325243)

Silly question: what does a**e stand for? :)

Yet another PSYOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325283)

Ignore this crap. It's either directly from the US government, or some minion of the US Government.

Not to mention being totally irrelevant. Assange could be Satan himself and still be a hero for what he has done.

Vendetta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46325285)

From TFA: "In a 45-page essay chronicling the collapse of a $2.5m deal for Assange’s autobiography, O’Hagan..."

tch, tch.

NSA Campaign (4, Informative)

StormReaver (59959) | about 8 months ago | (#46325367)

Remember, the NSA's stated M.O. is to publicly smear Julian Assange in order to get people to divert focus away from the crimes commited by the U.S. Federal Government.

Julian's character is an irrelevant distraction, so don't get drawn into a debate over the messenger. Stay on message: The U.S. Federal Government has committed crimes against its people, and will do anything to cover it up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?