Friday, December 3, 2010

"Green-lighting Assange"?

It doesn't say much for the western political-right when it's drifted into territory where the line between reality and extreme parody has all but disappeared. I have no idea if the following was meant to be satire or not, but does it really matter anymore?

"[Assange] has at least one acknowledged son, Daniel Assange, who lives something close to normal life in Australia and who is easy to find and equally easy to harm either physically, legally, or economically. Physical harm would be best.

That’s makes Julian Assange vulnerable and quite “touchable.” Threaten his child and it’s an odds-on bet that he’ll let himself be taken and that, once in custody, he’ll divulge the information needed to eliminate the rest of his cell. Even if he won’t surrender voluntarily, credibly threatening or taking his son should rattle him enough to cause him to err and be an easier target.

Yes, the solution to the Assange and Wikileaks Question is very simple. It just takes an understanding of realpolitik and the willingness to do what needs to be done to remove America’s enemies."

Ezra Levant and Tom Flanagan could not be reached for comment.

(h/t skdadl)

Update: The above quoted blogger "Jonolan" joins us in the comments section, and is kind enough to let us know that his commentary wasn't intended as sarcasm.

Update II: After defending his initial post in the comments section here, "Jonolan" has since deleted his original post and posted this apology.

"Some of Jonolan"'s original "Green-lighting Assange", along with him whining about his service provider forcing him to "censor" his post, is all still available thanks to Google cache, although the most egregious parts advocating the kidnapping, threatening and more of Assange's brother have been redacted.



6 comments:

David said...

That guy is a sociopath.

jonolan said...

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I don't see where Assange should be treated significantly different and/or better than Kamal Derwish and Anwar al-Awlaki, both of whom are, or were in Derwish's case, American citizens who were targeted for assassination by the US government.

Audrey II said...

Jonolan,

Thanks for taking the time to drop by here and make clear your intent behind posting the call for threatening / kidnapping Assange's son and the killing of Assange, his employees, and his sources.

Whether one agrees with the American government's policy of targeting Al Qaeda members for assassination or not (personally, I don't), I think your above conflation of Assange and his collegues with those two men, to say nothing for Assange's family members, speaks for itself.

jonolan said...

The point of that was to show that Julian Assange was touchable, not that you care. You're squeamish about such things, which is your choice and your right to be so.

As for "conflating" Assange and his colleagues with those two men - frankly, Assange had already caused greater harm than either of those two and has the capacity and seeming willingness to much even more.

Audrey II said...

I think that readers are perfectly capable of discerning for themselves the difference between acknowledging the reality of everyone in this world being "touchable" in that manner, and advocacy of it.

I also think that most understand that the "squeamish" charge is one that can always be (and frequently is) lobbed at those who believe in rule of law by armchair machiavellians that don't.

Given that Mr. Assange is now speaking out about potential legal action against those advocating his assassination, I suggest that Jonolan and his now publicly expressed additional suggestion that Assange's family seek some grounded and informed advice on the publishing of such things.

jonolan said...

Nice try, but I'm not a coward and don't worry overmuch about foreign laws, which are not upheld in America.

Ironically, that is the same tactic that Assange uses in reverse as it were.

You might be surprised, but I'm quite conversant of the laws involved and NEVER transgress them in this regard. A cowardly act without a doubt, but I have familial responsibilities...

Post a Comment