We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

However, despite all that, I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the man. Perhaps because he is such an incorrigible arsehole?

– Our temperate friend Longrider discussing Julian Assange.

17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Mr Ecks

    He still did good work against Killery and the gang. Being obnoxious is no reason to be left to rot. Clinton is an obnoxious leftist and traitor but she is still poncing about.

  • Schill McGuffin

    They always come for the assholes first.

    You’d think there’d be genuine sympathy on Trump’s part.

  • Behind Enemy Lines

    No sympathy. Conspired with active duty US military to steal classified information so that he could pass it on to people who were waiting to kill assets on our side. Played footsie with Russian intelligence to attack the allies while pretending to be just another presstitute. No, screw Assange. Screw all the rest of them, too. It’s a war out there. Time we fought back.

  • Itellyounothing

    People of ordinary moral standing do awful things in power. I have a lot of sympathy with my country right or wrong, however, the human species as a whole needs some awkward people out their releasing the secret wrongdoings of the people with power. The powerful need to fear ordinary people or else we loose our national independence and democracy. The anti-Trump colluders and the Independence deniers both are that tendency writ large.

  • john in cheshire

    One may not like the messenger but be grateful for his message.

    If we are to await the perfect man to bring us the truth, then only the second coming of the Christ, Jesus, is going to be good enough.

    I notice silence from Mr Assange’s home country; are fellow countrymen only supported if they are universally liked? Or is Australia terrified of what the USA will do to them if they show any concern for this man?

    As for the UK government, their behaviour in this seven year long process of punishment by attrition of one man, is despicable.

  • Mr Ecks

    BEL-I am tempted to add “end” on to the acronym but given PdeH’s rules–

    The dead agents cockrot again Neocon?

    Its 9 odd years now –lets have their names and a checkable account of how Assange publishing info got them killed. We are still waiting from the last few times that bogus accusation was made.

  • bobby b

    “I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the man. Perhaps because he is such an incorrigible arsehole?”

    Not much of a challenge to protect the rights of the lovely, cuddly people.

    (Still curious how an Australian can be a traitor to the US.)

  • Itellyounothing

    Also the all Ferrero Roche diets looks bad for you.

  • After reflecting on its formal correctness (or otherwise) in law, I wrote of the Tommy Robinson affair:

    Who thinks it is actually correct to send Mr Robinson to jail for 13 months while we have yet to hear of the Rotherham councillors (or any of their imitators elsewhere) serving 13 days?

    Jonathan Turley makes a similar point about Assange (h/t instapundit).

  • Runcie Balspune

    I considered sympathizing with him but I was distracted by the unnerving silence from the #MeToo crowd over someone who has practically escaped a rape charge, where others have been condemned for less, sometimes even imaginary, activities.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Niall’s comment above brings to mind the paper “You’re (Probably) a Federal Criminal,” by Alex Kozinski, a Judge on the Ninth Circuit, and Misha Tseytlin, former Solicitor General for Wisconsin.

    17 pdf pages. Not exactly new news, but confirmatory of what we all are pretty sure we know, with commentary to back it up. Suggest you settle in with a pipe and a nice hot cup of hemlock tea before reading.


  • bobby b

    ” . . . someone who has practically escaped a rape charge . . . “

    Not to excuse the behavior, but just for clarity, I read the complaint for the Swedish charge of rape, and it consisted of Assange indicating that he would be wearing a condom during sex, and then tearing it, following which the woman allowed him to stay with her for another week. Which constitutes one variant of “rape” under Swedish law.

    I think it was Whoopie Goldberg who coined the phrase “not rape-rape.”

    (Assange is a weird case. He has succeeded in pissing off all sides for one act or another. For each act, one side can find merit and the other is repelled, but the sides alternate, and so no one is sure if they’re supposed to like him or not.)

  • Not much of a challenge to protect the rights of the lovely, cuddly people.

    Given that he skipped bail and is therefore guilty of a criminal offence, I see no rights that need protecting. He could have defended himself in court. Faced the allegations head on. He chose to run and hide. Now he is having to face what he ran from. Again, I see no rights here that need defending. He broke the law. Now he must face the consequences. Too bad. None of this has anything to do with the WikiLeaks. So, no, my sympathy is reserved for those who actually are being persecuted for non-crimes. I also have sympathy with the point BEL makes – it’s entirely possible assets’ lives were placed in danger because of the leaks.

    Assange is a weird case. He has succeeded in pissing off all sides for one act or another. For each act, one side can find merit and the other is repelled, but the sides alternate, and so no one is sure if they’re supposed to like him or not.

    Fair point. Quite an accomplishment.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “None of this has anything to do with the WikiLeaks.”

    I don’t know. Assange’s argument was that the charges were a pretext for having him arrested so he could be extradited to the US, the US government being extremely annoyed over some of the more embarassing leaks, including the stuff about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and the known-to-be-innocent people being held for years at Guantanamo. (As well as, no doubt, much useful-to-terrorists intelligence on means and methods.) When the Americans decided to pursue him, they asked allied nations for help, and the Swedish charges, and subsequently the European arrest warrant appeared shortly after. His argument was that while he would be willing to stand trial on the rape charges (which he might well have won on – the consent issues are murky, and the evidence all one person’s word against another’s), he didn’t believe he’d get a fair trial in America on the spying charges and fled to avoid extradition to the US. Of course, that just gave them something else they could arrest him for, on which his guilt was not in doubt.

    That he’ll get done for skipping bail is not in doubt. The big question now is will he get extradited to America? Given the UK’s general policy on UK/US intelligence/security cooperation, I think it very likely, although I’m sure the British government will want to think carefully about the consequences of doing so first. Our government got a bit burned on our help to the Americans with their ‘extraordinary rendition’ and ‘dark prison’ kidnapping/torture programmes.

  • @NiV. As you note, we have an extradition treaty with the US that very much favours them. It would have been relatively easy for them to extradite him from the UK rather than go through the faff of getting him to Sweden.

  • Nullius in Verba


    I’m unsure of the legalities, but I gather there are certain crimes for which one cannot be extradited, and all sorts of technicalities, some of which can be waived.



    Assange may have got it wrong, or be blowing smoke, but if the US really did do a deal with the Swedes to have him extradited, presumably they had thought the legal issues through first. But like I said, I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t trust the word of *any* of the parties involved.

  • Paul Marks

    I am no fan of J.A.

    However, if accepting and publishing classified information should be punished by prison why are not the “mainstream media” (who do this all the time) in prison?

    There can not be one law for the New York Times and Washington Post and another law for Wikileaks.