Also remember, it's possible not to defend any of that whilst still talking about the actions of two Governments and what may come of it.
The desire people on the internet have to conflate "here's all this genuinely horrible shit you must now be defending" with "Having a serious ethical debate on charges/crimes and Governments" is peak poisoning the well.
Nothing rustles my jimmies more than the intellectual dishonesty required of someone to quote a serious post with some sort of variation of "So this means you now support rape?".
I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this The Albatross, but your opening remark leans towards that kind of logic. Which I have to say always seems to be missing if we talk about terrorist mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay or somewhere else. No one really goes "So you're pro-terrorist because you're commenting on the actions of a Government towards terrorists?".
You're definitely right, it's valid to criticize government actions if you think those are unjust while not necessarily taking on the stench of everything else associated with Assange. I don't see Ecuador's actions as unjust, or the UK's actions in following through with an extradition request for a person with a sealed indictment from the US Justice Department as unjust. And I actually have faith in the American justice department more so than, say, Ecuador's, Russia's, or any of the governments of the hostile intelligence services that Assange worked with.
I take issue with a broader defense of Assange as some sort of journalist or that Wikileaks is some sort of journalistic outlet, and my last post was a continuation of the post before that. You're seeing this defense mostly from the ... conspiratorial info-sec community, the Glenn Greenwalds and Intercept-writers of the world, but it has a lot of play in anti-establishment populist circles, both left and right too. Assange and Wikileaks are more similar to the Mossad, CIA, and FSB than they are ... the Washington Post or New York Times, that is to say, they're closer to a foreign intelligence agency than they are to a journalistic outlet, and so I think it's ridiculous to try to make them seem journalistic -- which seems to be at the heart of Assange's defense.
Make no doubt, there have been "journalists" who have made their chops by breaking into opponents computers and stealing private information, and then using that for political gain... That was one of the tactics at the Rupert Murdoch owned News of the World, which is now shuttered, but I wouldn't consider them journalists anymore than Assange. So, from my last point, I could summarize it as "not only is Assange
not a journalist, but he is these other despicable things."
As for the "what may come of it" point, I don't support the death penalty, but the spectre of the death penalty (which is probably an unlikely result), for me, is not a valid argument against pursuing justice for other credible crimes. Assange dying some early misbegotten death is as likely in the United Kingdom as it is in a United States federal prison. Despite working with Russian intelligence for years, he's also quixotically an assassination target for Russian intelligence.
That Assange happens to espouse global feminist conspiracies against him, shares anti-Semitic dogwhistles that appeal to neo-nazis, smears feces on his residence, is criticized for abusing his cat, is a credibly accused rapist, worked with homophobic dictators, worked to elect a racist, unhinged president, and so on, just doesn't build a strong character defense for him. But, you're right, even the most despicable people in the world deserve valid criminal defense, which he'll get in the United States... Something he wouldn't get from any of the countries that he does espionage work for.
