This guy. Again. And in fairness, he never went away. Imprisoning himself for both practical and personal reasons. His very real fear of US extradition, his guilt for Bradley, his addiction to work. His being on the spectrum? It is a wide spectrum after all.
The story hasn’t changed; he is still a divisive figure, one of those ‘types’ who we all know – a little self involved, obsessive, unshakable, stubborn, full of fault, uncompromising, with no time for charm but the debate (and the eventual outcome) is one of the highest importance. So we must face him and not be irked.
He has done much good. Snowden and the next guy come through the door “that had been pried open by Wikileaks” and have put figures of unequivocal power on alert that they are also being monitored. Probably driving them further into the shadowy caves of clandestine behaviour but it is essential to hold them to account in the same ways that they do us. Doesn’t this seem reasonable?
The putting people in harms way excuse is the only point of real intrigue in the whole mess. Those on active service in countries should be protected, of that there is no doubt but there is doubt as to whether Assange insisted on un-redacted info to be published. NYT claims this was a key journalistic difference between him and they but they also received calls from high up US powers to persuade them to publish in a certain way. I have seen no evidence of any operative harmed directly due to the Wikileaks activities and surely this would be a giant smoking gun (or more probably smoking crater) which would swing public opinion?
Some holes in the US investigative systems defenses were exposed – good for US, some (all) diplomats were shown to be a bit rude about each other – good pruning for diplomatic health but most importantly the public has woken up and entered the debate. Occupy, and other movements, have shown that people are not atomised, we are all suffering from the hoovering upwards of wealth, information and power and if we come out together we can do something about it.
Why should your politician know more about you then you know about him?