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

from the questions,-questions dept

Tue, Mar 8th 2011 7:31am — Mike Masnick

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?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: george bush, julian assange, prejudice, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

101 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brian Schroth (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:37am

Well, I know when I look for who to trust, a guy whose biggest claim to fame is lying to the whole country in order to send us into a unnecessary failed war. So whatever Bush is saying about Assange, it has to be trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Lets see. Should I believe a former president of the United States or Brian Schroth who's greatest claim to fame is posting inflammatory remarks on the internet? I'll bet you voted for Obama too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    And I'll bet you think that electing McCain would have made a difference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian Schroth (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    have Bush apologetics gotten to the point where the best you can do is "Yeah, he may have lied to the country to send us into a failed war that cost trillions of dollars and killed countless people, but he was President of the United States, so that's got to count for something!"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Have Liberals gotten into such a state that they have nothing better to do than complain about Bush 2 years later?
      
      I mean, Obama only stopped saying it was all Bush's fault like last week.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have assholes been lured here because the word Bush is in the title?
        
        Just because I think Bush deserves to be buttfucked to death onlive TV doesn't mean I like Obama, idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't have to be a lib to think that Bush (both of them) is a total d-bag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Empire's? It's really a problem with democracies. The old saying is that democracy is the worst form of government......until you see all the others.
        
        Can you point to any other democracy that is more efficient?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Brian Schroth (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe you had difficulty reading it, but this article is about comments made by George Bush. This is why comments are about George Bush. When an article is posted about Barack Obama, comments will be about Barack Obama. See how that works?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:14pm
  
  Re:
  Seriously? You and half the posters in this thread are fucking idiots. Truly this country would be better off without your kind. Go make another country a better place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:45am

Bush tampering with a jury pool for Assange? Mission Accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:45am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paddy Duke (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?
    ^ AC comment was me. Forgot to log in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt Bennett (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?
    "Bradley Manning is at least a US citizen who, disputably, broke US laws on US soil."
    
    It's actually not disputable, either from the point of view of the UCMJ or for that of anyone with a security clearance.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JackSombra (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  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
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RobShaver (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:52am
  
  Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?
  I don't understand it either but we invaded Panama to get Manuel Noriega, who we prosecuted for breaking US laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:55am

Bush is one of the biggest jokes of US History. No one would take him seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josef Anvil (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:03am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 5:17am
    
    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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  Of course Bush was a joke, and I even voted for him for his first term. The man was the worst president we had since Ford and did absolutely nothing of consequence other than avenge his daddy. Unfortunately Obama is doing little more. This is coming from an independent, neither conservative nor liberal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:05am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      
      Wow, thanks for that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that a rebuttal? Cuz it sounded like a non-rebuttal. It's all literally true. Go ahead, try to prove otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you were a dog I'd pat you on the back of the head but I'm definitely not playing fetch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again, insult heavy, content lite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:57am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RikuoAmero (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: Anonymous
  Haven't you been paying attention? That's already happened. There are hundreds of Wikileaks clone sites on the intertubez now, and Assange has become completely superflous to the concept of leaking information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Alan Levy (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 7:59am

Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
Bush is a private citizen, albeit a prominent one, and he has every right to express his views about Assange and about whether he should be prosecuted. This is just Dershowitz trying to get attention for himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius, 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:17am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:46am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
      That's just the thing: YOU CAN.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Joe Publius, 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
        God Bless America!
        
        I maybe some kind of anachronism, but I say always err on the side of keeping speech free, no matter how much you may dislike it.
        
        If someone genuinely thinks they're being slandered, we got a law for that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
  Pretty much this.
  
  Besides, has he even been charged with anything yet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
  I do agree with you but at the same time, anyone with the official title President, whether in office or not should probably not make broad claims about ongoing legal actions being pushed forward by the US government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

test, 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:20am

test
test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments, 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:25am

comments being held for moderation now?
Whats up with that Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:35am
  
  Re: comments being held for moderation now?
  Seems to work fine for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
    Maybe it is just my account, but when not signed in, I have no trouble. When I am signed in, when submitting, I get a held for moderation message. Signed out cleared FF cache, but still get message when signed in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
      You know now that you say that, I do see that every once in a great while under my login. I don't know the requirements to get a post flagged, but it usually happens to me when I'm responding to a particularly stubborn troll and am using harsh language.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
        I've gotten my comments caught too, and people think Mike and I are the same person.
        
        Go figure....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RikuoAmero (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
        One of my comments was held for moderation yesterday, for the first time ever on this site. I think it was because I included a link in the comment, and most likely it was modded to make sure I wasn't spamming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
        I've gotten a few caught too - usually when a link is involved. Had one held for using capitol B's in my bold HTML tag too I think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: comments being held for moderation now?
        I'm that one AC who always uses foul language and over the top suggestions of what to do with body fluids, you know?
        
        Well, my comments have never been held for moderation...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: comments being held for moderation now?
  Would you like more spam with that?
  
  [OT]I absolutely agree with the sentiment that Bush is an idiot. However, he may not prejudice any case against Assange for posting Classified information unless there's something I don't know about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean T Henry (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:36am

Quote of the day.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:51am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:51am
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?
        Assange did less wrong than Bush.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?
        The former, actually.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?
        still derailing the conversation with your lib/conservative bullshit, are you?
        
        Come back when you have something better than baseless attacks on the author. We would rather discuss the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?
        *shrug* It didn't start out like this. But it has become apparent that he brings up certain stories very selectively. It has begun to piss me off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:10am

Bush is but a man, a former president expressing an opinion. I happen to agree with him.

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

Sorry Mike, you are once again rather transparent in your choices of stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:19am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, Mike explicitly said that Bush was entitled to his opinion. Mike also pointed out that the counsel representing Assange may be playing this up.
      
      l2FUD n00b
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um, no he didn't. I agree that Mike may very well think that....but he DID NOT say either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      by chastising the former President for having an opinion
      
      Again, I ask: where did this happen. Time to put up or shut up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This is a statement that has not been proven in court"
        
        Right there-- The unsaid second beat to that statement is "therefore he shouldn't be saying it"
        
        It's totally not true (that he shouldn't therefore say it), but it WAS Mike's unsaid accusation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In your opinion, that's Mike's unsaid accusation. Your inferences aren't facts, just opinions. Thanks for sharing yours, as ill-thought out as it was (in my opinion), but nonetheless you're entitled to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're free to live in a world where there is no subtext to a conversation, and no one is saying anything that is not explicitly said. That's not the world the rest of us are living in, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      when did the author ever chastise bush for having an opinion? did you read the article?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:21am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:08am

If anyone truly knows:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am

If anyone truly knows:
"has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States."

Its Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jackie, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:41am

Bush's Comments
It's a good indicator that Assange could never get a trial, let alone a fair trial in the United States.

Bradley Manning is already being subject to torment and torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am

I think Bush criticizing Assange is acually a sneaky endorsement of him. I can see people on a jury (if not here, than Sweeden) saying, "Well if GWB doesn't like him, he must be a pretty good guy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 1:24pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: Wow.
  ah, yes, but these people disagree with you on some minor point, therefor everything you say absolutely Must be an attack on anything they believe, know, agree with, or consider to be right proper and just.
  
  clearly.
  
  (some part of this post is sarcasm. identifying it is left as an exercise for the reader)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt Bennett (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: Wow.
  I'm glad you feel Assange is a bad person. However, I suspect you mean his personal misanthropy, arrogance, and apparent misogyny, rather than his willing disregard for the real damage his leaks have cause, in the pursuit some sort of socially beneficial "revelation" that I frankly don't see.
  
  Correct?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Wow.
    Yes, because asking leading and loaded questions with your expected response at the end of the post supports and verifies your argument so well. Stick to the issues.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wow.
      ....And? Yes, it was a leading question, what, I'm the only one around here that does that? He's still free to agree/disagree, is he talking about his personal failings, or his social-political actions? Which make him a bad person?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT, 8 Mar 2011 @ 4:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Wow.
    "...his willing disregard for the real damage his leaks have cause[d]..."
    
    So far there's been zero evidence presented of any actual harm done. Just because you claim it, doesn't make it true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wow.
      I disagree, highly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow.
        You disagree there's no evidence of actual harm? So where's the evidence? Where's the harm? What "real damage" has been done?
        
        And no, diplomatic inconvenience and dented egos don't count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 8:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT, 8 Mar 2011 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT, 9 Mar 2011 @ 1:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 9 Mar 2011 @ 3:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow.
        "In U.S. elite media, the main revelation of the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables is that the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy in a largely admirable fashion."
        
        Yeah, what she said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT, 9 Mar 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow.
        Wow, you completely missed the point of that whole article didn't you. Did you even read it all?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Bennett, 9 Mar 2011 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2011 @ 11:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2011 @ 3:40pm

What credibility does Bush have, and who would really care what he has to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Hickey, 9 Mar 2011 @ 5:00am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
delashmit (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 8:38am

Julian Assange
George W. Bush's comments have no bearing on this case. He will be on trial in Sweden on sex crime charges. He is not on trial in the United States, at kleast niot yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BongoBern (profile), 9 Mar 2011 @ 9:20am

Wikileaks
Not my opinion - the more Wikileaks the better. Hurrah Anonymous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]