Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?

from the questions,-questions dept

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who is apparently advising Julian Assange, is complaining that comments by former President George W. Bush, in refusing to appear with Assange at a Young Presidents Organization event, serves to prejudice the legal process against Assange. Bush stated that Assange “has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States.” This is a statement that has not been proven in court — and which many might question. However, Dershowitz points out that in saying them, it may serve to unfairly tip the scales of any case against Assange. To be honest, I’m not sure that Bush’s comments will really have that much weight here. We’ve already seen tons of politicians make similar claims. It’s clear: US politicians, for the most part, are not fans of Assange. But is that really going to change anyone’s opinion of Assange and/or Wikileaks?

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
101 Comments
Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

… it seems one has to be either unusually intelligent and well educated, or not an American, to realise the vast majority of the US’s presidents have sucked, and the bureaucracy also sucks, and in fact the entire government of the USA is one big pile of systematic suck…

which is pretty much inevitable for any empire, really. (the fact that the USA exists is one of the bits of evidence that even the British Empire, which was probably the most successful in history, had this problem… admitedly it didn’t really get going as a huge empire until after that, but the issues after all require a lot more research and explaining)

John Doe says:

I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?

I don’t understand how the US can charge a non-US citizen with any crime for something they did outside of US soil. I really don’t understand why his country of origin would allow him to be tried either. That would open up every citizen of every country to prosecution by every other country for whatever laws they have on the books. I personally don’t like my odds in that situation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?

This is my biggest concern about all of this. It seems like a phenomenal amount of overreach on the US? part.

Bradley Manning is at least a US citizen who, disputably, broke US laws on US soil. Assange didn?t break any US laws, since he committed his supposed crimes outside US jurisdiction.

JackSombra (profile) says:

Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?

“I don’t understand how the US can charge a non-US citizen with any crime for something they did outside of US soil. “

This has been going on for years and most major governments try this pretty regularly. The way they normally start is with the pedophiles and work up from there

Nothing like a good old “think of the children” argument to push laws that should not be allowed

Greg G (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, you have your right to your opinion of Bush. I just disagree, because your assessment is most likely based on your liberal hatred of anyone that isn’t liberal.

I cringe when I think we could have had Algore in there when we were attacked by terrorists, and knowing how Algore was as VP, we would have coddled the terrorists, and we all know through years of experience at trying to appease them where that’s gotten us…

We rightly let Al go in search of ManBearPig by not electing him.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ok I was going to comment about Assange, but then Crap for Brains, just had to bring up Al Gore and a “what if…”

Let me help you out CfB. IF Al Gore had been President on 9/11, the only thing different that would have happened is that the whole Iraq conflict may have been avoided.

What you can’t seem to grasp is that murderers within the US do far more killing of US citizens than foreign terrorists. Quick lesson in geography CfB… Those two big bodies of water on either side of the US are the primary reason there haven’t been any wars on US soil since the Civil War. AGAIN that was US citizens killing US citizens.

Bush’s biggest success was in terrorizing US citizens and eroding the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. Next time you are taking your shoes off to get through a TSA check point and then sitting on your terrorist free airplane and reading about the latest murders in the US, think about what if Al Gore had been President. Nah, you’ll probably be warning the flight attendant about the president of some Indian company who is sitting in first class with a turban on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

So Bush isn’t a joke because he’s not liberal?

How about being a joke by entering into two non-winnable wars?
Creation of the Homeland Security Administration, an organization that is vastly unsupervised, overfunded and ineffectual?
Free Speech zones? Systematic dismantling of habeas corpus?

And what’s the point of bringing up Al Gore? Are you so angry at liberals that you have to make up situations to satisfy your rage?

Matt Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well…..

He prevented another 9/11 for 8 years.

He installed the first proper Arab democracy ever. (you can disagree as to weather it was worth the cost, but he DID do it)

He got Qaddafi to give up HIS WMDs (yes, he did have them, and yes, he did give them up, this is fact). Can you imagine how much worse things in Libya would be now if he had them?

Incidentally, he did more to help fight malaria in Africa than anyone has before or since.

Don (profile) says:

Anonymous

Bush is an idiot. But if what was said is acknowledged, like this blog just did, might indeed hurt Assange.

The only way to save Assange really is to multiply the effects of Wikileaks so that other clone sites crop up to replicate the data hosted on Wikileaks. And essentially making Assange irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Joe Publius says:

Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights

Hear, hear!

I think the fact that the name “Alan Dershowitz” has any recognition outside his profession is evidence that he doesn’t mind drawing attention to himself.

A US citizen giving a personal opinion should be a non-story, that is, until it isn’t.

Let me know when Bush goes on a “Assange should be hanged: US Tour!” kinda thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights

There’s a difference between personal opinion (“In my opinion, he’s caused damage to the US”) and defamation (“He definitely has caused damage to the US.”). You can’t just go around telling a nationwide audience that someone has repeated and willfully caused harm to the US without actually providing evidence.

CommonSense (profile) says:

Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights

Bush does have the right to say what he wants, but the day he became President of the United States, I think he took a bigger life long role than that of simple private citizen. It was a choice, and no one forced his hand. As such, just like major sports leagues hold their players to a higher standard than ‘private citizens’ because they are role models, and in the public eye their words and actions hold significantly more weight than the words or actions of you or I, Bush still needs to exercise restraint.

This is not a lawyer crying for attention for himself, as much as it is trying to bring attention to the case. If people are paying enough attention, then today they will see what Bush said, and tomorrow they will see all the responses. If they are not paying attention, then they may only hear one side of it, form an UNeducated opinion based on only that one side, and reach the wrong conclusion (like how Obama promised us ‘hope’ and ‘change we can believe in’ but didn’t actually tell us that it would be ‘hope that the rich can stay rich in a poor economy’ and ‘change that you can believe won’t actually make anything better’ so a large number of his supporters would really like to reach out and slap him, but I digress).

Personally, hearing Bush speak out against Assange like this only strengthens my beliefs that there are leaked documents out there which could bring down a rain of terror on him and his administration, and he doesn’t want that. Just like when Bank of America took action against wikileaks, and a day later we learned that it was because rumors of a damning document about Bank of America and their role in the financial crisis, was due to be released.

Matt Bennett (profile) says:

Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

‘Bush stated that Assange “has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States.” This is a statement that has not been proven in court’

The man’s not entitled to his opinion on things?

Look, OJ did it. That will never be proven in court, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say it. Hell, not even that many people disagree with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

Actually, you *can’t* say it… to an extent. There is a line where that kind of speech becomes defamation. Calling someone a criminal in public for a crime they were never tried for or for one they were acquitted of may be considered defamation because it would legally be an outright lie. Of course, it takes a significant amount of actual abuse and defamation for such a case to be heard by the court, and rightfully so (free speech rights), but that does not mean spreading lies as truth is *ALWAYS* (keyword) acceptable.

Matt Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

First of all, in order to sue for defamation, you mostly have to prove that the accusation is NOT true. If it’s a judgement call, or opinion, or otherwise undermined, it would pretty hard to call defamation on it. Furthermore, just because you could be, successfully, sued for defamation for something, doesn’t make it “legally and outright lie” either.

New media says “alleged” mostly because they think it’s best, i.e., it had been determined to be Best Journalistic Practice, and that’s fine, but that neither makes it law, nor does it mean the rest of us are bound by these rules.

Mike pulls out this notion, that really doesn’t exist anywhere else, that you can’t say something about someone until it has been proven “in a court of law.” Interestingly, he only does this when he disagrees with the position being taken, and he routinely makes fun of people who go after people saying things about them.

I have no problem with the latter, but the fact is Mike uses this as way to wield his biases, all the while pretending to be “neutral” between left and right in some way.

I actually have no problem with Mike being Liberal, what drives me absolutely frigging nuts is that insists on pretending it’s not true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

At what point did being liberal even have any bearing on this entire article? You can think Assange is not guilty of anything and not be liberal. Just because you believe in certain portions of the Bill of Rights and other laws and don’t think they should be ignored when its convenient does *not* make you a liberal.

Matt Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

It has bearing because of Mike’s rather consistent (yet consistently denied!) bias.

You certainly can believe in Assange did nothing wrong and not be a Liberal, but it helps. More importantly, Mike is, and that’s why he so vociferously defends Assange.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?

is this liberal in the idiotic pejorative(sp?) US sense? or in the original sense from which the word comes? (i was going to say ‘literal’ but it’s a political meaning in both cases)

if the former: go find a bridge to hide under.
if the latter: um… yeah? so? kinda the point here?

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Is a former President not allowed an opinion, or would that only be for former Presidents that support Assange?

Err, did Mike actually say that? Or even imply that? In fact, he said:

To be honest, I’m not sure that Bush’s comments will really have that much weight here. We’ve already seen tons of politicians make similar claims. It’s clear: US politicians, for the most part, are not fans of Assange. But is that really going to change anyone’s opinion of Assange and/or Wikileaks?

Furthermore, if he was really pulling for Assange, and he thought that Bush’s statement would hurt Assange’s case, why would he purposefully increase the chance that people will see Bush’s comments by posting the story at all? This is the guy who came up with the term Streisand Effect, after all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Mike is a snake when it comes to this stuff. If he can’t help get Assange out of trouble by explaining his case, he will work on FUD to try to confuse the situation.

By publishing the article, and by chastising the former President for having an opinion, he makes it appear that only the correct opinion (“Assange is a freedom god”) is acceptable, and that he will call out any individual with the balls to call Assange what he really is, a petty criminal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

And yet these obtuse ‘subtext’ rules only seem to support your opinion, right? You refuse to admit that the opposite side has just as valid a point as you in this instance.

Do not get caught in the trap of reading between lines that do not exist (intent is impossible to prove in a textual manner without being explicitly stated). It just proves that you’re a fool and at least as biased as you claim Mike to be.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Ah, here’s the thing…..I never claimed to be unbiased.

Look, I think it’s pretty clear what he meant, to most people. We live in a world of social cues. In the real life, it’s body language. Here, it’s subtext. Either way, most of what is said, is unsaid. You can say that it isn’t there….you’re just wrong. Sorry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You have to go no further than the title. Does his comments prejudice the case? Clearly, Mike is saying that Bush should not express his opinion.

Of course, if Bush had said “Assange is a hero”, Mike would be crowing about it and saying how much of a boost it is for Assange’s case.

Basically, Mike is saying “shut up Bush”, because he doesn’t agree with the opinion.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You have to go no further than the title.

Why would you stop at the title and not look at the content? If the complete post was:

Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
No, not at all, despite what Mr. Dershowitz says.

Would you make the same argument? Would you “stop at the title?” And if so, why is that an intellectually honest choice?

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Idiot?

I wouldn’t say Bush is an idiot. He obviously knew how to play the game to make himself and his buddies rich and get elected governor and POTUSA. Maybe he makes up his own words and has poor grammar but have you read ‘the internet’ lately? Now I could agree that he is a greedy liar, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, but calling him a politician should cover that statement.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Wow.

Just caught up on the comments here, and some folks are being more ridiculous than usual. My post did not attack President Bush for saying what he said. I pointed to Dershowitz complaining and then pointed out why his complaint was almost certainly unfounded. Nowhere did I suggest implicitly or explicitly that Bush should not speak his mind, though I did question his analysis of Assange — just as I’ve criticized people across the political spectrum: conservative, liberal and other, for misguided statements on Assange.

That said, contrary to the false claims of other commenters, I have no misguided belief that Assange is a good person. In fact, I’ve pointed out repeatedly (which this particular commenter ignores) that Assange clearly has serious issues that have impacted Wikileaks and how he runs the organization.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wow.

I think military operations have been made more risky, which therefor means a higher death rate.

I think Afghan informants have been exposed, leading to their persecution.

I think less Afghans are willing to work with us now, which leads to poorer information, and a reduced tactical situation, which leads to a higher death rate.

I am really very confident that in some way, these leaks lead to actual deaths occurring.

All this with no real journalistic purpose. Especially among the first, most damaging leaks, there was really no surprising revelations. Frankly there was almost no “there” there, as they say.

Pain without benefit. Had there been something actually worth “whistleblowing” about, then we might have an interesting argument, about the pros and cons. But there wasn’t, it’s all cons.

teka (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wow.

“I think..”

“I think..”

“I think..”

“I am really confident..”

I am glad that you are “thinking” and feeling confident. Of course, the people actually in place to Know those things have not agreed with your position. In fact, in a few cases they have even come out on the negative.

And then you go on to quickly add “but there was nothing really important in the leaks anyhow, so its not like Assange is a Real whistleblower anyhow, despite all these things i think he was somehow responsible for.”

Weird mixed message, and i have been seeing it a lot.

“Leaks Kill Babies And Puppies!”
“Leaks Contain Nothing Of Any Interest! Its Not Like Real News”

odd.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Wow.

No…..

I say “I think” same way people say “I believe”. The truth or untruth of these matters has been argued back an forth enough times, I was finding it more valuable to make an assertion than to relitigate the whole thing.

It’s also not a mixed message. My proposition is that the leaks were A) Materially damaging B)Contained no content of journalistic interest, by which I mean they didn’t reveal much in the way of corruption, cover-ups, gross-incompetence, or anything else beign concealed from the American people, which is the main purpose of “journalism” in the high minded sense.

You can have A without B, those statements are nto in contradiction. But, y’know, good job poking holes in nuthin’.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wow.

“I think less Afghans are willing to work with us now…”

That may also be due to the bombing of Afghan civilians by the US military, but your theory could work too…

“I am really very confident that in some way, these leaks lead to actual deaths occurring.”

And I’m really very confident that you have absolutely no actual evidence or proof or credible sources for all these thoughts in your head.

Instead of believing the vitriol from grandstanding politicians, have a look around for the actual proof that serious harm has come to anyone from these leaks. If you find anything other than the exposure of some terrible behavior by the US government and military, come back and show us.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Wow.

What terrible behavior, really? A few those civilian casualties? Those happen, will happen, it’s literally impossible to keep them from happening. I think we do a pretty good job doing everything we can to prevent stray bombs, misidentified targets, but that shit simply will happen, grow up.

And no, I don’t think broadcasting what mistakes there were to the afghans particularly helps, duh, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was saying people would be less likely to cooperate for the simple reason that the Taliban would be more likely to hear about it,thus increasing their danger.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wow.

“What terrible behavior, really?

Well here’s a few:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/cablegate-disclosures-have-furthered-investigative

That first one’s quite a doozy…

Some more (starting halfway down):

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4215

“I think we do a pretty good job doing everything we can to prevent stray bombs, misidentified targets…”

Maybe the US media downplays it (understandable), but I seem to regularly see and read reports of the last accidental civilian deaths and Afghani politicians pleading for coalition forces to do a better job of not killing civilians.

But let’s not get off-topic. We’re talking about the lack of evidence of harm from the Wikileaks releases, and how you’re going to get us some.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Wow.

Oh, no, I did, or at least skimmed it. The author wants to refute that point–he wasn’t successful. See, most journalists came away with that view for a reason.

Your position isn’t supportable–but if it was, stating how many people disagree with you wouldn’t be a great place to start.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Wow.

You certainly missed my point in providing that link. You asked for examples of the USG’s bad behaviour and that article has a list of them in the second half (which I pointed you to).

If you’d read it properly you might’ve realised that the article’s second half clearly shows that the mainstream media’s comments in the first half are quite disingenuous.

“Your position isn’t supportable…”

My “position” is that the cable leaks have done no real damage to the US, and the some of the USG’s exposed behaviour is deplorable. The former point is supported by the complete absence of evidence to the contrary and the latter is supported by the examples provided by the links provided and numerous other examples that aren’t hard to find.

Bob Hickey says:

Of course it will influence the outcome. As the signer of the “Bush Doctrine” and our most forgetable President yet, it will sway the 23% who approve of oil wars, torture, and illegal imprisonment. Why not try someone who committed no crime in the US? There’s a whole prison full of non-criminals in Cuba, what’s one more.

Leave a Reply to Matt Bennett Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...