Julian Assange, defending our democracies (despite their owners’ wishes) - Charlie’s Diary
Julian Assange, defending our democracies (despite their owners' wishes) - Charlie's Diary Charlie's Diary Being the blog of Charles Stross, author, and occasional guests ... [ Home ] [ FAQ ] [ Contact me ] [ Older stuff ] Back to: Apple's next step | Forward to: Sunbathing in Edinburgh Julian Assange, defending our democracies (despite their owners' wishes) By Charlie Stross The Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 should go to Julian Assange (if he lives long enough to receive it). You don't need me to point you at the huge mass of US diplomatic cables disclosed by wikileaks this week. Nor do you need me to point to the outrage it has generated, including calls for his assassination and, ludicrously, trial and execution for treason by the US government (Planet Earth to Mick Huckabee: by definition it's not treason if he's not an American citizen and isn't acting within the USA). But you might be wondering why he's doing it? If so, read this now. Around the world, governments seem to be more interested in obeying the goals of industry lobbyists and the rich than in actually governing well; this isn't an accident, but the outcome of the capture of the machinery of governance by groups of individuals who are self-selecting for adherence to a narrow ideological outlook. In effect we are beset by accidental authoritarian conspiracies — not top-down conspiracies led by a white-cat-stroking Bond villain, but unintentional ad-hoc conspiracies by groups of individuals who work together to promote common interests. By coordinating, they can gain control of our institutions and impose an agenda that is agreeable to their interests (but not to the majority of the public). Familiar examples might include: the music and film industries and their catspaws among the lobbyists attending the WIPO intellectual property negotiations, the oil and coal industries, the religious right, and so on. Assange has a model of how the abduction of governance by common interest groups — such as corporations and right wing political factions — works in the current age. His goal is to impair the ability of these groups to exert control over democratic institutions without the consent of the governed. By forcing these authoritarian institutions to apply ever-heavier burdens of secrecy to their internal communications, wikileaks aims to reduce their ability to coordinate and, thus, to exert control: Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial. Assange's analysis parallels Chomsky's — modulo having a somewhat different ideological outlook — but he's gone a significant step further, and is fighting back. His own explanation is here (warning: PDF). Wikileaks is not attacking the US government; rather, it's acting to degrade the ability of pressure groups to manipulate the US government to their own ends. Those who benefit the most from their ability to manipulate the State Department are the most angry about this: autocratic middle eastern leaders, authoritarian right-wing politicians, royalty, corporate cartels. Those of us who are scratching our heads and going "huh?" about the significance of Muammar Ghadaffi's botox habit are missing the point: it's not about the content, but about the implication that the powerful can no longer count on their ability to lie to the public without being called on it. In an ideal world, wikileaks wouldn't be necessary. But the US mass media has been neutered and coopted by the enemies of the public interest. So we move to the backlash: disinformation, or black propaganda and smear campaigns. It's no coincidence that within 48 hours of the latest batch of leaks, Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Assange on charges of alleged rape. (I'm only surprised that they didn't go the whole hog and accuse him of incest, blasphemy, child abuse, simony, and disrespectin' the money.) Obviously I can't comment on whether there's any substance to the charges, but Counterpunch suggests otherwise, alleging:Swedish bloggers uncovered the full story in a few hours. The complaint was lodged by a radical feminist Anna Ardin, 30, a one-time intern in the Swedish Foreign Service. She's spokeswoman for Broderskapsrörelsen, the liberation theology-like Christian organization affiliated with Sweden's Social Democratic Party. She had invited Julian Assange to a crayfish party, and they had enjoyed some quality time together. When Ardin discovered that Julian shared a similar experience with a 20-year-old woman a day or two later, she obtained the younger woman's cooperation in declaring before the police that changing partners in so rapid a manner constituted a sort of deceit. And deceit is a sort of rape. The prosecutor immediately issued an arrest warrant, and the press was duly notified. Once the facts were examined in the cold light of day, the charge of rape seemed ludicrous and was immediately dropped. In the meantime the younger woman, perhaps realizing how she had been used, withdrew her report, leaving the vengeful Anna Ardin standing alone. Ardin has written and published on her blog a "revenge instruction", describing how to commit a complete character assassination to legally destroy a person who "should be punished for what he did". If the offence was of a sexual nature, the revenge also must also be sex-related, she wrote.I think that the timing of the allegations (which first surfaced after the previous wikileaks disclosures) and the INTERPOL warrant is suggestive of a politically-motivated disinformation campaign rather than an actual serious criminal investigation. I also note with interest the way the charges were originally brought, then withdrawn, then brought again. Rape is an extremely serious charge, and generally treated as such in Sweden. So what's up with this? Your guess is as good as mine, but my guess is this: Assange is stomping on the bunions of the rich and powerful. And while serious people aren't suggesting murder or prosecution for treason — either of which would make a martyr of him and underscore the seriousness of his project; I'll note that only un-serious politicians, whoring for newspaper column-inches, are coming out with this crap — I think his enemies are fighting back with that time-honoured tactic of the scoundrel, the carefully-aimed character assassination. Which, if you think about it, suggests he's onto something important. Posted by Charlie Stross at 11:55 on December 1, 2010 | Comments (258) 258 Comments PrivateIron | December 1, 2010 13:32 1: Interesting that Sweden has fraud in the inducement as a grounds for rape. In common law countries generally, fraud in the factum is generally the only "deceit" grounds for rape. Charlie Stross replied to this comment from PrivateIron | December 1, 2010 13:34 2: If what I'm reading is accurate, Assange's mistake was to have two one-night stands in the same week. One of them with a woman who has thought long and hard about revenge (assuming that blog entry really was written by her), and at a time when he's busy acquiring powerful enemies. (NOTE: I've seen no allegations of forcible sex, or sex without consent before or during the act -- either of which would clearly make it sexual assault. Rather, the allegations seem to reflect retroactive withdrawl of consent, which is a very murky area indeed.) JohnW | December 1, 2010 13:38 3: When you give examples of special interests manipulating government, why is it just corporations and right wing interests? The public employees unions have just as much, if not more, undue influence, and are just as at odds with the public interest. It's even more pernicious when you realize that they are influencing the people who literally set their pay rates and benefits, and the enormous liabilities from their pension systems are going to end up toppling entire countries' financial systems. On top of all the other mess we're dealing with, this shoe has yet to drop! Charlie Stross replied to this comment from JohnW | December 1, 2010 13:43 4: You appear to have wandered in from the 1970s; I believe your time machine is thataway. Shorter version: the Maggon neutered the public employee unions here in the UK back in the early 80s; I gather Ronald Reagan did similarly in the USA. There are some exceptions -- the screws prison officers in California spring to mind -- but for the most part, the spectre of powerful unions is a very tattered bloody shirt these days. The tide has been running to the right ever since the Berlin Wall came down; is it any surprise that they're the side with the greatest opportunity to get down'n'dirty with the levers of power? PrivateIron | December 1, 2010 13:54 5: I understand that, but in the criminal law of common law countries, deceit is not a basis for a rape charge unless you are lying about the actual fact of having sex, e.g. a gynecologist claiming he is doing an examination when he is actually performing a sexual act. If instead someone lies or misrepresents themselves to induce another consenting adult to have sex with them (offers of marriage, claims to be a Hollywood producer, claims to be of a particular race/religion, etc.), that is not a crime. I realize this is off the main point and even in Sweden it appears to be a weak case. I just thought it was weird that a country like Sweden would have this sort of legal policy. Israel has recently taken a hit for convicting a Palestinian for rape for lying to a Jewish woman about being a Jew; so I had the impression that this was not an acceptable legal principle in the developed world anymore. Pete | December 1, 2010 14:11 6: To be fair, it looks like Huckabee's calling for Bradley Manning to be executed for treason. Which is still, you know, deranged, but not quite as crazy as calling for an Aussie to be tried for treason against the US. Palin actually did call for Assange to be tried for treason. But we expect that from her. Tim H. | December 1, 2010 14:12 7: If the finance leak can happen before the destruction of wikileaks, it should be good in the long term, short term will get ugly from convulsions induced in the finance community. The best outcome would be a back to basics movement, focusing on economy as it happens to smaller entities than multinational banks. Dave Goodman | December 1, 2010 14:15 8: Small point of order - the right-wingers in the US appear to be calling for the execution of the actual leaker, currently thought to be Specialist Bradley Manning, rather than Assange, although Palin is equating Assange with Al-Quaeda later in the article. That said, when you've got Canadian political advisers 'chucklingly' suggesting assassination of foreign nationals because they're a bit embarrassed about some diplomatic cables, you're right, that's deeply symptomatic of a worse problem - the belief among those in government that exposure of government crimes is itself a crime. Eamon | December 1, 2010 14:20 9: I fail to see how revealing diplomatic cables detailing such things as: King Fahd wanting the US to attack Iran. China stating that they could never accept Japan having a permanent seat on the UNSC. The Shah of Iran asking for more F-4 Phantoms in 1972(!). The South Koreans stating that North Korea would collapse in a few years. The Chinese describing the North Koreans as 'children'. The poor status of Japanese document security. ...can be seen as promoting democracy. Assange seems to be a man with an ego that needs to be boosted - and these releases do at least that. Evelyn C. Leeper replied to this comment from Pete | December 1, 2010 14:20 10: In specific, Huckabee said: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." [emphasis mine] Tristan | December 1, 2010 14:21 11: Unfortunately there's an almost no chance of a Nobel Prize - that's just given out to whoever it is politically expedient to give it to - eg Obama - the man had done nothing for world peace and since then has just continued the war and murders of the Bush regime. As for government obeying industry - they have done so since the rise of industry - from the Combination Acts and clamp downs on working class movements through the progressive agenda of regulation to create a stable oligopoly in business to today's rotating door of government and industry and the military-governmental-industrial complex. Ben | December 1, 2010 14:23 12: I thought the allegation against Assange is that he started consensual sex with the women using a condom, but then removed the condom unilaterally. If that's right, the case isn't as ridiculous as Counterpunch makes it sound - but then, They wouldn't choose a ridiculous allegation for a smear operation, would They? I agree that it is probably an attempt to discredit him. Also, according to the linked story, Huckabee is saying that the source of the leak should be executed for treason, not Assange. Presumably the source is a US citizen, probably Bradley Manning. Steve Halter | December 1, 2010 14:30 13: The actions of the NY Times and other supposedly moderate elements are more appalling than those of the right. The US right is as predictable in its response as a junk yard (or Pavlovian) dog. However, it is (supposed) to be the ethical duty of the press to follow the facts of a story. PrivateIron replied to this comment from PrivateIron | December 1, 2010 14:30 14: I guess it is to the main point that such a weak case would be prioritized and given any kind of life. If you believe wikipedia, then some Swedish lawyers claim the warrant is procedurely immature at the very least and Assange's own lawyers claim that the substance of the charge is not consonant with an advanced society's conception of the crime even if you take the allegations as factually true. Charlie Stross replied to this comment from Eamon | December 1, 2010 14:32 15: Eamon: it's all about giving due notice to the conspiratorially-inclined that their private communications are vulnerable to leakage. Which will force them to hold their cards closer to their chest. Which in turn will reduce their ability to coordinate with one another to exert control over our institutions. Are you by any chance familiar with how Trotskyite entryists work? PrivateIron replied to this comment from Ben | December 1, 2010 14:41 16: That is definitely more complicated. If he proceeded against her will afterwards, that would be straight up rape. If he deceived her about its continued use, that might fall into a grey area. From the perspective of the powerful (and less crazy), it is probably best if we all go "Ewww" at his behavior and shun him, than if he goes to prison under murky circumstances and becomes a cause celebre. Issuing an invalid warrant to discomfort him would still be an abuse of power and an example pour les autres. As would prioritizing a specific criminal charge because of the political activities of the accused. Lars Wirzenius replied to this comment from Eamon | December 1, 2010 14:45 17: Eamon, this blogger for the Economist does not think the cables published by Wikileaks are just trivial. Quote: [T]he ACLU reports that the Bush administration "pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national Khaled El-Masri", a terrorism suspect dumped in Albania once the CIA determined it had nabbed a nobody. I consider kidnapping and torture serious crimes, and I think it's interesting indeed if the United States government applied pressure to foreign governments to ensure complicity in the cover-up of it agents' abuses. In any case, I don't consider this gossip. Revealing the abuses of governments definitely works in the favor of democracy. If nothing else, voters should be educated about circumstances, and hiding crimes of governments prevents them from getting educated. soru | December 1, 2010 14:47 18: His goal is to impair the ability of these groups to exert control over democratic institutions without the consent of the governed. But isn't it equally likely that the net result will be to destroy the ability of democratically-controllable institutions to place constraints on the power of those groups? On the front page of today's newspaper, you will find the stuff about who said what about Iran. Somewhere buried in the middle, you will find the fact that several Iranian civilian scientists just got blown up. An act of terrorism that is unlikely to ever see the details posted online, because those involved, whoever they are, will be small in number and committed. If you change things to favour the actions of small, dedicated groups above larger, looser ones, you change a lot of underlying assumptions about politics. You could well end up with a society where you are perfectly free to say 'so and so stole the money he used to bribe the judge to get off the charge for killing the witness'. It's just that individually, everyone will be too scared to do anything about it: he has shown he has the power to have people killed. In short, one where everyone treats what in our society would be an accusation of successful criminality as if you lived in a medieval village and said 'he is the Baron'. monopole replied to this comment from Charlie Stross | December 1, 2010 14:58 19: No we are not overrun with unions here either (sadly). This is a depressingly universal trope in the US, regardless of how bad the right gets, the left must somehow be more evil: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/11/beast-that-shouted-love-at-heart-of.html Whereas the true threat is all these foreigners in other countries. Chris | December 1, 2010 15:01 20: What I heard was that he was having sex and the condom broke. Then he had sex again, and another condom broke. When the two ladies learned of each other, they got pissed off (for some reason) and filed charges against him, apparently in an effort to get him STD tested. Why they couldn't STD test themselves is not clear in this telling. I later heard a revision of the story that says that after the condom broke on both occasions, the woman said stop and he refused to comply, which if true would be out and out rape. It doesn't explain why he's not actually being charged with rape, but rather is being called in for questioning that for some reason can't happen over Skype and why STD testing (which shows up in both versions of the story) is necessary on him when what the women should be concerned about is their own STD results. Source: http://alturl.com/t25ry I really, really hate to feel like a rape apologist, but the unique circumstances of this case leads me to agree with you that this is a full court press effort by various Shadowy Government Entities to get him taken into custody. One curious anomaly in this story is that I heard he was last hiding somewhere outside of London. This wouldn't make any sense, since the US and UK intelligence operations normally work hand in glove, so you'd think the UK is the last place he'd want to go. It may be a baseless rumor, but if it were true would raise interesting questions. Charlie Stross replied to this comment from Chris | December 1, 2010 15:06 21: I really, really hate to feel like a rape apologist. Me too. But the whole business stinks -- especially the timing. See also: Anwar Ibrahim, sodomy charges, Malaysian political corruption. stuart.catt | December 1, 2010 15:06 22: I do enjoy your posts Charlie!! Interesting read on the articles of faith underlying Wikileaks and I would suggest not too far aware from the thought process that informs our coalition overlords when they publicise swathes of government spending. It will be very interesti… truncated (186,110 more characters in archive)