WikiLeaks irony - Julian Assange asks court not to disclose his address
    By Hank Campbell | December 15th 2010 03:03 PM | 31 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Hypocrisy or irony? Attorneys for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have argued his address should not be disclosed because of privacy concern, an odd sentiment from a fellow who argues that 'there is no proof' anyone has been or could be killed because he disclosed their names in sensitive military documents regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It's often the case that when the situation is personal, feelings change.

    District Judge Howard Riddle of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court was having none of it, though, and Assange's mansion whereabouts were disclosed to the court.

    Here is the pic from the Daily Mail:



    He doesn't deserve special treatment but I doubt it would have mattered had he gotten it; I bet OpenLeaks would have disclosed his address in the interests of that open society Assange claims to want when it's not about him.

    Comments

    It's not a privacy concern, he's getting death threat from prominent US politicos. The US kidnaps and tortures its prisoners.

    Therese (not verified) | 12/15/10 | 23:52 PM
    Hank
    ha ha ... yes, and the Taliban won't kidnap and torture the freedom fighters in Afghanistan Assange put at risk by not redacting their names out.  He simply feels differently when he is the one at risk.   When it is someone else there is 'no proof' but he seems to think the US will kidnap him in Westminster.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 00:37 AM
    Have you read anything at all with a concrete source that states that Wikileaks has released names of Afghanis cooperating with the U.S.? Anything that cites a concrete source and does not use the terms "allegedly" or "reportedly"? If so, I would truly like to know, because I have been searching and have not been able to find it.

    I found stories saying that human rights groups that had formerly supported Wikileaks were now retracting support because of what you state, endangering innocent civilians. Yet, when I looked at the Amnesty International website there was an AI page on Wikileaks giving full support with no criticism whatsoever.

    Why, I wonder, would someone like Assange, who risks his life to get out leaks on human rights abuses, endanger innocent civilians? These civilians are those whom Wikileaks has tried to save; it is Wikileaks purpose. Where are the stories of the ramifications of the Wikileaks releases that you say have been published?

    If I have not researched thoroughly, I would truly like to know what I have missed and I thank you for bringing me the truth.

    Respectfully,

    Mary E.

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 04:31 AM
    Hank
    Have you read anything at all with a concrete source that states that Wikileaks has released names of Afghanis cooperating with the U.S.?
    This is the defense Assange used - that there was no proof their lives were at risk.  Obviously, sure, they are public documents now so anyone can read the names but he rationalized there was no proof anyone had died or even would die.   Likewise, there is no 'proof' Assange is at any sort of risk with his address being known yet he tried to claim his privacy was more important - that's why it's ironic.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 11:13 AM
    Yes, the U.S. does torture and assassinate people - pretty scary! So, is it surprising that he has supporters who have more than a few bucks (like the ones that have offered a mansion to shelter him)? Not everyone who is rich is a ruthless plutocrat!

    This is not "Assange's Mansion" and it is very misleading, it's a refuge offered him. For a better profile see this:
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-i-met-julian-assang...

    Love your comment, Therese!

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 05:05 AM
    Aitch
    Sadly, whistleblowers are the hunted in and by the US, especially when they expose motives for US wars in other countries, where resources [drugs/oil] are at stake

    I can't see any reason for ordinary Americans to support this practice, though

    See for example

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50zeMhrqS5s&feature=related

    http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-pilger-war-you-dont-see.html

    Not that Wikileaks is just about War, its as much about cover-ups like...
    Fresh Today

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-bp-azerbaijan-gulf...



    Anyhow, is Julian yet to be declared a Spook....?

    http://metro12.blogspot.com/2010/12/getting-in-who-wikileaks.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22371

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread637303/pg8

    Aitch
    Henry Cox | 12/16/10 | 00:46 AM
    Blood for oil? Not so fast.

    Ugh. Above Top Secret? Really? Alex Jones? You're citing Alex Jones as a credible source?

    taiki (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 12:48 PM
    Quentin Rowe
    Hypocrisy or irony?
    I'd say both. But this dilemma is an inevitable result of his cause. The real question is, is did the judge disclose Assange's address in the spirit of irony or of law?

    If the former, then that would be a little hypocritical now, wouldn't it?
    Quentin Rowe | 12/16/10 | 00:36 AM
    Hank
    I don't think he merited a special exemption - he is wanted on what Sweden considers serious offenses and is obviously a flight risk so granting him some kind of celebrity status so he can remain hidden would have been contrary to equality under the law.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 01:14 AM
    What, for having sex without a condom? Are you also guilty? Who isn't?

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 06:24 AM
    Quentin Rowe

    Ok, here is where I run out of steam.

    First, I'm not sure if publishing his place of residence is a common practice for this type of case in English law.

    Second, I know very little about the circumstances surrounding his case in Sweden, except that one of the complainants was bragging about being in his presence after the alleged assaults took place. More will be revealed, I trust, in due time.


    What I do smell here though is a Giant Stinking Rat! Of course, I have no proof to offer. I would have to produce the said Giant Stinking Rat for such proof. But I can still smell it!

    Quentin Rowe | 12/16/10 | 07:22 AM
    Hank
    Sure it is common - except in the case of a minor it is the standard that a defendant's name and address is not only read in court but published in newspaper accounts.   Should Assange be exempt?  Does he have a greater right to privacy than you or me, even though he would insist we don't if our names and addresses were in some military document?  That would be the hypocrisy.  The irony is that he tried to claim privacy at all.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 11:15 AM
    Quentin Rowe
    Are you sure that addresses are routinely published? This seems unnecessary, considering he is as yet guilty of nothing. It would leave any person before the UK courts open to retribution from misguided citizens. And by any, I mean all the non-hypocrites also.

    You have also left yourself open to a turn-of-the-tables here. If indeed the UK courts do see fit to make this information public, why shouldn't this same argument of openness also apply to the governments of the world?

    And this is the rub. What goes for individual citizens, does not seem apply to governments, even in principle. Murder for example, or spying, or concealing knowledge. Very hypocritical.

    As I agreed earlier, Assange is being hypocritical. But what he stands up against is a much bigger issue - that of the two-faced nature of our world leaders. This is why I believe your current stance will gain little traction.
    Quentin Rowe | 12/16/10 | 21:25 PM
    SynapticNulship
    Are you sure that addresses are routinely published?

    I'm not sure about the UK, but where I live addresses of anybody (except juveniles) arrested are published:
    http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CPD/News/news.cfm
    Samuel Kenyon | 12/17/10 | 02:46 AM
    rholley
    The first ongoing world news event to catch my attention was the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

    During that time, many refugees were crossing the border into Austria.  One of these was discovered by a reporter, who would not keep quiet, but insisted that “the American people have a right to know this!”

    Alas, the successors of the head lying on the ground here also exercised this ‘right’, and all further people making for that border crossing found a less desirable ‘refuge’ elsewhere.
    —
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Robert H Olley | 12/16/10 | 04:39 AM
    For pity's sake - even Glenn Beck, an American conservative, knows better than this, the charges are trumped up:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,602442,00.html
    There's plenty of other testimony to this effect, but you'll have to look for it yourself.

    I'm sorry, Hank, but I didn't go over the previous posts and I don't have time now - I just read the top one and commented earlier. It doesn't seem to me like you look very far before you post a comment. One really can't get a handle on what's happening from watching the news on tv - there's a lot of what they call "spin". "Spin" is insinuating and it misleads the mainstream people who don't look very far past what they hear on mainstream news. One really needs to Google and read the foreign press, and hear what people on both the right and left have to say in order to weigh facts and form a valid opinion.

    It ain't simple, but I applaud you for taking the time to be involved. Look further, please!

    Best,

    Mary

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 04:43 AM
    Hank
    The charges may be trumped up though, in America, if a Republican had claims of 'rape' alleged against him, Assange's primary supporters would not be defending him.    Sweden takes womens' rights seriously and they are not saying he did it, they are saying there is an investigation and he broke their law by fleeing the country.

    His allegation that the US is somehow pressuring Sweden is silly.   Sweden is left of left and that is why he is in trouble - any allegation, no matter how tenuous, is going to side with the victim if it's a woman.   But that leftwing leaning is why he moved there so it's again hypocritical that he flees the country the first time it is applied to him.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 11:19 AM
    amorca
    Hank he did not flee Sweden, he was given permission to leave. In the same way that all the time he was here in the UK he was under an address known to the police as recognised by an official police source on the BBC news and contrary to what was being reported in the news all over the US. You are getting the full american spin , you should know better after so many years in the media. The “rape” claim is actually for not using a condom on both times what probably shows he is an arrogant idiot that believes that nobody can say no to him but that is a very different thing of what rape means to you and to me. And anyway we should wait for the justice to deal with this part of the Assange story before taking any side, so far everything in the Swedish claim is speculation. After all this is a case that was already dismissed by a Swedish judge before (thus Assange being allowed out of the country). On the names so far the worst I saw - and i have been reading it every day - was the identification of the sites crucial for the american economy, which , if turned into a terrorist target can compromise the US . I don’t think that was a particularly good idea, to have published that, and didn’t help him either. But I have seen no names of operatives on the ground or out, which can now have their life compromised. If you did let me know, I would like to read that
    Catarina Amorim | 12/16/10 | 11:46 AM
    He should follow the same rules. It's always easier to "play Jesus" when you are personally safe.

    Pasi P. Hakkarainen (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 05:54 AM
    It is neither hypocrisy nor irony. Whistleblowing is not about telling everything about everybody. It is about exposing hidden problems so they can be addressed. His address is not 'a secret wrong that needs exposing.' And yes, he is at risk. The leaks he publishes are not intended to reveal info to endanger individuals. That is why names are redacted.

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 12:46 PM
    Hank
    But he didn't redact that and he was at a bail hearing where everyone else has their name and address read.    There is no proof of any kind he is at risk, other than the paranoia of people who are always paranoid about something.

    Seriously, the notion that Delta Force could not find his address unless it were read in a Westminster court is a little silly.  And the idea that MI-5 would allow anything to happen to him is even sillier.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 12:53 PM
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Maybe part of the problem was that it wasn't really Julian Assange's address, its apparently his friend Vaughan Smith's address? See http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8184629/judge-grants-bail-to-wikileaks-founder
    He must obey an increased curfew between 10am and 2pm and 10pm and 6am within the 10-bedroom British countryside mansion of Ellingham Hall. Mr Assange must wear an electronic monitoring tag and stay within boundaries set at the Suffolk estate, which is owned by the family of his friend and independent journalism campaigner, Vaughan Smith.
    —
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Helen Barratt | 12/16/10 | 19:57 PM
    Hank
    Well, if that's all it takes for people with criminal charges to not have to do what everyone else has to do in court, I suppose it is okay, but law enforcement officials tend to want to know where at-flight-risk people are.    This was not being announced on the BBC, it was in court.
    Hank Campbell | 12/16/10 | 23:37 PM
    So what if any nation kidnaps or tortures its enemies? So what if they assassinate their enemies? Assange had no concerns for the safety of anyone when he released the documents he chose to release. Those documents didnt just affect the governments associated with them. They put innocent citizens at risk because of the information released.

    Assange should be willing to die for his cause. Let him become a martyr. If Assange truly believes in full justice and exposing the truth he shouldnt be afraid if paople know where he is. The problem is he doesnt really care about justice or truth. Hes a big mouth whiny child looking for attention.

    I will shed no tears if a black op takes him out and I dont care which country goes through with it.

    harryk (not verified) | 12/18/10 | 10:57 AM
    Hank
    He certainly has a sense of entitlement.   An ABC journalist who even had the audacity to ask him about the charges got a huffy walk out and was called a 'tabloid schmuck'.   For seeming to dislike insular government officials who never want to address allegations of wrongdoing, he certainly acts like one.
    Hank Campbell | 12/18/10 | 11:14 AM
    Aitch
    Seems he's acting like most people when they get hounded by the press
    Until you've had it happen, you really have no idea how intrusive, rude, and downright annoying they can be....still makes me wonder if he's a spook, though....

    Aitch
    Henry Cox | 12/18/10 | 11:24 AM
    Intrusive or not he should have taken the interview. Its Assange who claims to advocate the complete freedom of information and transparency. Turns out hes nothing but a hypocrite. He loved the media attention he got for releasing the secrets of others. Now he should deal with his secrets which are public knowledge like a man rather than a crying child.

    harryk (not verified) | 12/18/10 | 11:34 AM
    Yes he does have that sense. I saw the video from that interview. Watching his eyes blink frequently and seeing some of his facial twitches I get the feeling he was on the verge of tears. Maybe he didnt want his followers to see him break down and cry. He can dish it out but doesnt seem like he can take it.

    harryk (not verified) | 12/18/10 | 11:30 AM
    There's no irony or hypocrisy here. If people can't tell the difference between releasing info from an ongoing rape investigation (which is damaging to both the alleged victims AND Assange) and the things Wikileaks releases then they're missing the entire point. Frankly, all this supposed contradiction proves is that people are staggeringly simple-minded.

    Let me spell it out. Private citizens are entitled to privacy. Governments and large corporations are NOT private citizens, nor do we treat them as such. Wikileaks does not seek transparency for private individuals nor does it seek to reveal wrongdoing of private citizens. Wikileaks are not the police or the justice system. They are the press. We, as private citizens, have every right to know what our democratically elected leaders are doing and saying in our name. They are beholden to US, not we to them. We have a right to know about government and corporate corruption. We have less right to know what these CEO’s and officials do in their personal lives, although sometimes the two may bleed together and it may be in the public’s interest. But, more to the point and contrary to warrantless wiretapping and the PATRIOT Act, our government has no right to delve into our lives as they currently do. We are their bosses, not the other way around.

    I’m surprised that so many Americans are against Wikileaks. In my opinion they should be embracing it. I can guarantee that Thomas Jefferson would be behind Wikileaks 100%. Let’s hear from Jefferson, then:

    “The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.”

    Anonymous (not verified) | 12/21/10 | 23:32 PM
    Give him a break. So what he doesn't want people to know his adress? If your afraid for you life why would you want someone to yell your adress out a window? It has nothing to do with killings because of WikiLeaks. We can't 100% say there have been killings and to say he shouldn't have special treatmeant? Give Julian Assange a break he's just trying to help.

    WikiLeaks Supporter (not verified) | 02/01/11 | 14:58 PM
    Hank
    Except he isn't trying to help people in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to stop terrorist Taliban and Baathists by listing thems - what he was asking for was an exemption.  If you get arrested in the US or Britain, your address is listed.  He wants special treatment for himself if he is (supposedly) at risk but denies it for every other person on the planet.
    Hank Campbell | 02/01/11 | 15:02 PM