Friday, August 24, 2012

What I think is happening with Assange

I think it is quite clear that Assange is a high value person of interest in the legal sense. Usually, when sexual assault is the crime which is of interest, high value is when the alleged sexual assaults involve violence, predation and notoriety. This is not the reason in this case, but the full extent of the international legal tools at disposal are being used within proper discretionary limits. Also with his defense against these legal tools, Assange is using all legal tools properly at his discretion.

While the current standoff continues, Assange is, in a reduced but still powerful way, able to continue to lead Wikileaks, and the Syria files proves that the organization is still functionally sourcing and publishing leaks. Client states of the US which were nasty dictatorships have the most to lose with these leaks. Of course, the US also likely loses them as a client states as well, which may or may not be a bad thing for the West.

As far as the risk to "informants" goes which is a highly publicized issue, I think it is a fairly long bow to draw. The war(s) are grinding ones of attrition and a large scale leaks makes both sides extremely jumpy, because they have the same access to the same information, with enough of it with parts deleted or changed that they cannot be be confident of exactly who is the informant. Most terrorists just make a wholesale slaughter of all possible informants, quite regularly.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Asylum Seeker

Whistleblowers, traditionally are given the shaft, and I accept that it is part of life that if you transmit verifiable conspiratorial information to the public domain, you are vulnerable to the wrath of powerful forces that may be available to the parties of the conspiracy.

This is different to information that is secretly passed or sold to the enemy in their private domain. This is the principal difference between whistle blowing and treason. Sure, if you have access to some confidential or secret information, you can sit on it, publish it or sell it secretly.

Either way, with the situation in progress under way in London, it resembles more a diplomatic game of chess than a series of past and possible future court cases. It is even plausible that some parties are playing to lose. People that had put up bail, seemed quite content in losing it, and the British may be playing to lose now. It would be face saving if diplomatic priorities means that Assange would require safe passage to Ecuador to avoid setting a dangerous diplomatic precedent.