It is rather sleazy that they tried to portray Assange as a self-obsessed, egomaniacal cult leader of some kind. Claiming he was in a cult and bleaches his hair, etc. Quite an ad hominem (even if the movie is not intended to be a documentary or a polemic). People are going to watch the movie, see that, and go "oh, what a nut job" even though it's completely fictional.
Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also the claims that Assange is responsible for the harm or death of Americans, or that they later leaked unredacted documents.
The Social Network's dramatization of Zuckerberg wasn't nearly that acrid, in comparison.
> It is rather sleazy that they tried to portray Assange as a self-obsessed, egomaniacal cult leader of some kind.
It is still sleazy if there's element of truth to that? Cult leader, maybe not, but his ego is visible from the ISS, and his narcissism is fairly hard to miss as well.
Likewise Assange is certainly intermingled with harm/death to Americans, if not directly involved. He claims there are higher reasons such as his effort to foist transparency on the U.S. government in particular, but you don't leak hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and still end up Doing No Harm.
Additionally it was Assange's mistakes that left the archive of unencrypted unredacted documents on a public web server in the first place. The Guardian journalist should have been just fine to publish the password years after the fact as the FTP share used to push the documents to the journalists doing the analysis was not required to be public for years! So again, although Assange is not "the sole gunman" here he does share in the responsibility.
And all of this now reaches back into why it might be appropriate to describe Assange with cult-like descriptives. You ask a U.S. Democrat and they'll probably be able to list at least 5 things they don't like about a prominent Democratic politician. Even a Republican would be able to list faults with their politicians.
But to hear people describe Assange, he is almost literally perfect, has never done something wrong, makes snap decisions that are revealed to have been 100% beneficial years later, and never suffers from normal human misunderstanding or flaws in decision-making. Where does this come from?? I screw up something at least twice before breakfast every day, but any fault people point out with Assange must be as part of a vast government and media conspiracy to discredit him? OK, sure...
> Likewise Assange is certainly intermingled with harm/death to Americans, if not directly involved.
Source? In what way has he directly been involved in any harm? Second, US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr vittnessed under oath that the armies investigation could not identify a single death. Do you know something that the second largest army in the world could not prove?
> So again, although Assange is not "the sole gunman" here he does share in the responsibility.
I guess the architect for the World Trade Center do share some responsibility when the two building crashed in 2001. Had he built them more secure, more like a bunker, then so many people would still be alive. so again, althrough Daniel Libeskind is not "the sole gunman" here he does share in the responsibility.
or maybe, just maybe I want to put the whole blame on Al-Qaeda.
To summarize your post:
he has a big ego. he may have caused harm to someone. he made a mistake when handling blatant war crimes. you don't like that "some people" think hes literally perfect and want them to criticize him at least for the mistakes he makes before breakfast - not focus on the actual, real, concrete violations of law that he revealed.
Your entire post reads like you're trying to make mud stick. Give me a break. All of that is a far-cry from what the movie portrayed and is quite intellectually dishonest.
>want them to criticize him at least for the mistakes he makes before breakfast - not focus on the actual, real, concrete violations of law that he revealed.
These are not mutually exclusive goals. I'm grateful for Assange's work and the changes it has affected on the world. However, I think if you were picking the front-man for Wikileaks, he would be a poor choice.
Thankfully, the ideal people rarely do anything interesting, and Assange is a very interesting character (in both senses of the word). I was actually surprised by how little of the memo took issue with the film. Almost all of it is tone, and much of that tone is open to interpretation (does the film mock Assange's feeling of being watched, or do the characters in the scene mock it? The scene includes thugs following Assange.). I'm also surprised the film adds a disclaim as to its sources at the end.
Wikileaks seems really upset, but it seems like the film makers could have done a lot worse. I'm sure the people in the US government have their own list of inaccuracies. What do you expect from a form of entertainment?
>But to hear people describe Assange, he is almost literally perfect
That's a shameful straw man. I don't know of many people who think Assange the man is any sort of saint, but there are many of us who think the character assassination against him is an obvious attempt to distract from the true story, just as the news stories about Manning's psychological and emotional health were an attempt to cast her decision to release those documents as anything other than a principled and moral one.
I think a world without Wikileaks would be a measurably worse place, and a world without Assange would be a world without Wikileaks. Believing that requires no acts of deification or hagiography on my part. He's a flawed man doing important work.
He is definitely an arrogant kind of guy, but the movie literally portrays him as having been in some kind of cult wherein everyone bleaches their hair white. That kicks him down from "arrogant asshole" to "crazy, God complex cult leader" to people watching the movie.
And really, from what I can tell, he's not done anything particularly immoral. No evidence has come out that anything he leaked harmed any Americans. He sifts through all leaked material before just publishing it willy nilly.
This won't be first or last movie that wrongly depicts history :)
Braveheart is one example: the section "Historical inaccuracy" takes good 1/3 of the whole Wikipedia article. Amadeus by Miloš Forman is another example. The Social Network...
Neither Braveheart nor Amadeus were about living people. It could be argued that Zuckerburg's well-being and entire mission doesn't hinge upon the public's perception of him either (plus, as meowface said, the image portrayed of him wasn't that bad).
Except that nobody cares whether Edward Longshanks was slandered, or that his political actions were misrepresented. For Wikileaks and Assange, this has consequences in the real world, and defamation in particular may lead to criminal prosecution.
Except that they do. Especially at a time of national referendum on Scottish independence. With that context Braveheart starts to look more and more like racist propaganda. The date of the referendum vote was even chosen for it's historical significance.
Racist? Are you saying that English is a "race", that it's somehow the same "race" that existed 700 years ago, and that it is "racially" justified in ruling Scotland?
Braveheart is a good example but my favorite example is Remember The Titans, which went so far as to have a player get into a car accident before the championship game when, in fact, he played in that game and got into the accident after the season had ended.
> - Julian Assange might be an egotistical narcissist.
"might be"? Anyone "might" be! Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one?
> - The work and results of Wikileaks may have contributed to harm as well as good.
No one denies that Wikileaks has done harm. Not even Assange himself. Wikileaks has harmed the US image quite badly. For example, before Wikileaks, I had no idea the US military is run by the kind of people who would gun down innocents from a helicopter, so casually.
> Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one?
Some people have asserted as much, including people who have known him personally. Others have said that those assertions are false.
Since I don't have evidence either way, it "might" be true. Might. Might! I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying I can't prove it's not true.
I'm also saying, if that upsets you, think about why that might be. Is it because you know Mr. Assange personally and know it to be a false allegation? Or is it because you like Wikileaks and interpret any attack on Assange as an attack on Wikileaks?
"L'etat, c'est moi"? I don't believe that's true. I think we should be wary of cults of personality. Even if we don't think the "personality" is themselves creating it.
I know that you never said it's true. The problem with all these mights is that they can add to character assassination, without bringing anything substantial to the discussion. Obamacare? Obama might be an egotistical narcissist. Non-violence? Gandhi might have been an egotistical narcissist¹. See what I mean?
And no, it's not because I'm fond of Assange. I welcome information from everywhere.
¹ I hear many people in India say something to that effect these days.
I think personal characterizations have no place in the discussion of public characters, as these can only ever be opinions that are unable to be proven true or false. They only serve to derail a discussion when the argument turns away from one's favor, and is a very dishonest thing to do. Shame on you snowwrestler.
>- Julian Assange <del>might be</del> is portrayed by the media as an egotistical narcissist.
FTFY. You have to be careful with such subjective characterizations of people you've only seen in the media and never actually met in real life, they're almost always inaccurate. Modern media is full of bias and fallacies.
There's nothing unusual about someone being raped by someone close to them, who took advantage of their trust.
The messages could have been deleted because she felt ashamed of her trust.
I'm not blaming Assange for anything. I'm just saying those messages mean very little.
Doesn't he need to go back to Sweden to be charged? TBH that's just semantics. He's wanted for rape, his extradition was appealed and still went through. He's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid the rape "charges".
I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo:
"THE FIFTH ESTATE falsely implies that WikiLeaks harmed 2,000 US government informants. ... US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever."
"Although THE FIFTH ESTATE purports to be about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the film was made without the involvement of WikiLeaks or any of its staff, including Julian Assange. ... The multi-million dollar production, produced by Dreamworks and distributed by Disney, has not financially contributed to WikiLeaks or any of its defence funds."
Sadly I get the feeling the memo won't help reduce the misinformation effect of the film. Unlikely the mainstream press outlets will even pick this up. Perhaps negative IMDB reviews is the best that can be hoped for
> US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever
Not being able to prove harm is different from proving that one did not harm someone. Especially when, in this case, the U.S. took measures to pre-emptively mitigate any harm as a preventive concern. Was the U.S. supposed to let their informants be killed by the Taliban just to be able to say that Assange is an even bigger asshole? Please.
I believe there is a difference between reality and what the legal system is able to prove. They are necessarily different, as the legal system must apply to society as a whole, which means that we require it to have safeguards that will necessarily reduce its ability to deliver convictions.
This doesn't mean that any party not convicted didn't do it; it simply means they were convicted, just as the legal system sometimes manages to deliver convictions on people who were actually innocent.
In this case there's no way to even think of how to apply a legal-style investigation except under some kind of quantum parallel-universe model. Exhaustive investigation or not, the fact remains that as soon as the U.S. learned of the leaks they took prompt action to forestall the ability of AQ and the Taliban to act on those leaks, which forever screwed up the possibility of conclusively determining which particular individuals would or would not have been slain.
That the threat was mitigated doesn't mean there wasn't an existential threat though, nor does it need a jury of 12 people to demonstrate what is plainly obvious: Loose Lips Sink Ships.
>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever"
First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Manning's) really caused that much damage, in fact we came out smelling like roses in most cases, our allies however frequently looked like asses (think Saudis wanting to tag gitmo inmates with bird trackers).
The thing here to consider is 1) by the Wikileaks statement above it would seem that the purpose was never to counter US interests [calling bullshit here, support or oppose Assange/WL != pro US gov], so it is disingenuous at best to us the lack of damaging information to suggest that WL was not an anti-USG group.
Is the Disney film less than fully accurate? I'd bet so, it's a commercial endeavor.
I'm more disappointed that Wikileaks chose to focus on the USG and GB than all of the upstanding states around the world like Syria, Russia, North Korea, and China. Sure, when the US fucks up, call us out on it, that's part of an informed democracy.
WL/Assange pretended to be the vanguard of transparency (and when they first announced such ambitions I actually was rooting for them). Instead of focusing on the most opaque and oppressive governments, they focused on finding the warts on governments that by and large are respective of human rights. Russia? Fuck it you get a pass because Assange doesn't have ricin-proof pants yet. NK? Do you know how hard it is to get documents from there?
</rant>
Seriously though, I am disappointed. When they stood up I thought they were going to actually go after folks who actively opposed free speech and human rights. Instead they went after the targets that were easiest to create media stories out of. I would like for Wikileaks to get the memos on the election rigging in Azerbaijan, I would like for them to get the UN memos between RF and Syria. To borrow the line from Rick, I don't mind a whistle blower, I just mind a cut rate one.
I haven't browsed through much of Wikileaks, butt I was under the impression that they do leak documents from many governments, not solely the US or GB. However, is it a surprise that the documents that get the most press are US-related? And, after all, the bigger the government, the bigger the paper trail / surface area for leaks.
There are pathetically few documents on WL from governments with truly atrocious human rights records. There are more documents from fucking fraternities than oppressive governments. Governments are pretty reliable, there are documents even in the most dysfunctional governments.
Wikileaks is less interested in publishing these than anything that is embarrassing to the US/UK. I know I'm throwing HN Karma down the toilet here, but really, while the behavior of the USG is far far from ideal, the behavior of Wikileaks is also so, and in a more insidious manner since its silence on more oppressive governments gives them validation.
Also for those downvoting, please see my other posts. I am not blindly pro-USG or anti-whistleblower. I have more complicated feelings regarding Snowden but wrt Wikileaks I have been disappointed in their focus. I feel this is a valid concern as the obsession with taking the US down a peg also gives validation to those oppressing their own people. Taking the US down a peg and denouncing real atrocities should not be incompatible. I feel that Wikileaks has sacrificed the more valuable duty of the latter in favor of the former.
> There are pathetically few documents on WL from governments with truly atrocious human rights records.
So what? I seriously don't understand your position. I don't really care that there's nothing about North Korea on Wikileaks simply because:
1. Everyone knows North Korea has an appalling government. "North Korean Government Official Caught Accepting Bribes" would quite possibly be the stupidest news story ever.
2. I don't live in North Korea. I care about what the UK government is doing, because that's where I live!
I take it you're from the USA. Wikileaks are telling you what your government is doing, and instead of thanking them, you're annoyed that you can't ignore what's going on? You're more concerned about some weird "embarrassment"? Seriously, WTF?
Everyone knows that the NSA spies, but having all the physical proof of exactly what happens helps the cause doesn't it?
NK might not be useful, but in countries with some amount of information exchange with the rest of the world like Russia, imagine if there were more solid cases of corruption against specific people in power?
We say that WL helped trigger the Arab Spring, so why not the same in Russia?
> Everyone knows that the NSA spies, but having all the physical proof of exactly what happens helps the cause doesn't it?
I guess that is why anyone who mention said knowledge was labeled as conspiracy nut and tinfoil hat. /sarcasm
Please lets not rewrite history. People did not know that US diplomats was used as spies, or that NSA planted bugs in EU buildings, or had secret deals with mail and social networks that gave them privileged information under secret terms. People did not know about secret assassination lists.
Surely a lot of people suspected things, but knowing is an other cup of tea here.
Manning leaked documents to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks gave the documents to a journalist, seeking help in selecting what information could be safely given out to the public. The journalist then gave out the password in a book, making all documents available to the public, which then caused problems for people named in the leaked documents.
Please point out which people in those steps of events you are disgusted by, and what you would have done instead in their shoes.
"He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets. "
Also, I would go as far as to say that his deputy's trip to KGB HQ in Minsk was totally unnecessary.
The redactions Assange objected to were those that implicated corporations and political figures. The Guardian claimed that they made the redactions from fear of libel lawsuits.
Only after Leigh published the password for the cables, effectively making them public, did Wikileaks post them to its website.
If you have evidence that Assange systematically published cables of informant names before the password was published by Leigh please share it.
Why is it that the documents provided for the journalist's use were still publically accessible months after the journalist had confirmed receipt? That's a good question for starters, as it's possible the journalist could have later been hacked and lost control the password, had his laptop stolen in an apartment burglary, or any number of other legit accidents.
Proper INFOSEC involves not leaving information where it doesn't need to be for any longer than it needs to be there, encrypted or not.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions regarding WL's agenda, when it is quite possible the reason most of the documents are from the US/UK simply because they are reasonably easy to get leaks from compared to more brutal regimes.
This is no doubt true (it's easier in the US than NK), but as I commented below, they posted that they had some stuff on Russia, and then shut the hell up about it. What is the takeaway?
Sometimes, painful compromises need to be made? Pick your battles, fight one bad guy at a time. Would you rather have Snowden in jail?
Also, as a non-US citizen, I think it's justified targeting the US specifically, because they have an inordinate amount of influence on global policies (basically, they force their laws on everybody else through so-called trade agreements)
The change in WikiLeaks's tune regarding Russia far predates Snowden.
Assange was using Russian state media (RT) as a mouthpiece for a television show of his before Snowden as well. I believe one of his first interviews was with the leader of Hezbollah, of all people.
I think.being anti-US is fine, since it is the most evil.country ever, that including disappeared people here. Sometimes I think.US will stop.being assholes and would return the friends of my writing teacher for example, but I know this is impossible, they were thrown out of a helicopter.over the Atlantic sea... I wonder when our government will bother digging those corpses up and counting them.
They used to leak documents from many governments, back when WikiLeaks was still a real wiki.
After their redesign in winter 2008 (2009?) the focus of the site shifted entirely, to direct attention to the flaws of the USA and UK instead.
The goal seems to now be to improve the world by disrupting the state (the largest Western ones being those of the US and UK), as opposed to the goal of a "world without secrets". This fits neatly with Assange's worldview (he has said in August 2013 that of the American politicians he is most fond of the libertarians of the right-wing Republican Party).
Really. You are suggesting that the US government is on the same level of opacity or human rights abuse as any of those that I mentioned? Are you literally fucking stoned?[1]
[1] No judgement, I've had a decent amount of scotch and to each their own, but really?
[edit: legalize it, and then tax it, and give me a tax break :) ]
No, that's rather the point. "They should be catching real criminals" is the argument used to complain about the police arresting people who have committed a crime because there are more serious crimes.
The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
Except cops are out catching real criminals as well, there are lots of cops. If the entire police department are out catching speeding drivers and dealing with no other crime then "they should be catching more serious criminals" is a valid point.
How much capital (financial, political, human, technical) does Wikileaks spend focusing on each country around the world? How would that list correlate with the worst human rights abusers, the most opaque governments.
This of course in a week when the Azerbaijan presidential elections have just seen the results accidentally released before voting even opened...
So when information literally falls into their hands and they still refuse to publish because it happens to be embarrassing to Ecuador, what then? Do we finally get to point out that WikiLeaks is biased in their own investigations, and has been since their major redesign?
Who put them in that position? The US. You can't blame them for wanting to stay alive. If I chase you into a bear den, I can't blame you for staying quiet.
I appreciate the fact that that was the argument being made.
>> The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
I did not say that you should give the US a pass (I in fact explicitly stated the opposite). I did state that if you claim to oppose some common ill of humanity that you should probably focus on where it is most ill.
If I decide to fight malaria, I should probably look at Africa as a good place to do my work.
If I decide to fight corrupt, oppressive, and deceitful governments I should probably look at states with the most distasteful human rights records.
If you decide to learn to swim, do you jump straight into shark infested waters?
If you anger the US government they will (generally) initiate legal proceedings to see you in court. Even if you think the legal proceedings against you are a sham, you (generally) get your day in court which are (mostly) fair. If you anger China or NK they (generally) don't bother with even that much pretense and you may be tried, convicted and executed before anyone even realizes you're missing.
Because of the structural arrangement and pay-to-play financial details of the American legal system, "mostly fair" is an extraordinarily generous characterization of how you will be treated.
So with that mindset, why are you arguing against WikiLeaks on Hacker News? There are FAR worse example of breaking your set of rules where you should probably focus.
Read this very internal memo and decide for yourself. Surely, you could argue for China and Russia breaking human rights, but they don't portray themselves as the moral authority in the world.
The document says this: kill squads, assassination, execution, immunity for the soldiers doing the assassinations. What the documents don't say - destabilize the region, overthrowing foreign governments for political benefit(you could argue they're just playing the geopolitics game with Russia), political exiles, breaching their own constitution in whatever way they can, hacking and cracking(surely an individual hacker would've gotten 50 or so life sentences for the things they've done).
> Read this very internal memo and decide for yourself. Surely, you could argue for China and Russia breaking human rights, but they don't portray themselves as the moral authority in the world.
Russia does, do they not? Were you not paying attention for Snowden or Syria? If Russia is not a moral authority that is at least compatible with WikiLeaks's moral goals then why would Assange host a television show on the state-sponsored Russia Today channel?
>then why would Assange host a television show on the state-sponsored Russia Today channel?
Plenty of possible reasons for that. One would be b/c there's no way Assange could get a TV show in the US, but RT has a decent Youtube following here.
You should read about the secret wars the US has led in Cambodia, their interventions of democratically elected governments in all of Latin America. I'm sure you must have heard of Iran-Contra, the funding of repressing Middle East dictactors.
I think you should really, really read up on some history.
The closest thing that WL has on their website that is even embarrassing to Russia is a Wikipedia rip of Anna Politkovskaya's summary. Everything else is either coincidental or "anti-Syria" voices saying mean things about Russia. Really, the US is the only country with people in government who disagree with their government?
I dont know? surely a combination is needed? someone who disagrees, has the courage to act, knows about wikileaks and has access to information in a medium that is amenable to upload.
Im perfectly willing to believe that the combination is a lot more rare in Russia or China than it is in America.
They publicly announced that they had some pretty mind blowing shit on Russia... which they never released. This leads me to believe a) they never had it to begin with, or b) they bitched out on the execution and decided fucking with a government who might actually hurt them was a bad idea. In either case, I lose respect.
Really? So if a dissident decides to stop dissenting due to increased government pressure, we should lose respect to all the work he did previously? Just because he was not courageous enough to continue, someone, who didn't have the courage in the first place, will lose respect to him? Moral hypocrisy 101.
Or (c) one of their trusted members sabotaged them and deleted their unreleased information before it could be made public. I'd go with (c) because we know a guy called Daniel Domscheit-Berg actually did this. Coincidentally, he's also one of the sources this film is based on.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg (the same guy who wrote the hit-piece book on Assange and worked on "The Fifth Estate" movie) destroyed those leaks in an apparent attempt to sabotage Wikileaks.
Their biggest source was Manning, who only had access to US intel. Hence a disproportionate amount of US leaks. If you go through their archives from before the Manning leaks theres plenty of Russia, Canada, Aus, UK and other countries intel being dumped
Very insightful for me the most interesting part was near the end where it outlines -
"The most significant journalists and whistleblowers in the world (that) are either political exiles, political prisoners, or the targets of criminal investigations by an overreaching security state."
Many of these I had heard of but many more I had not... It's a little chilling honestly.
This movie seems a lot more like character assassination than either fictionalized storytelling or documentary. It's not as though the Wikileaks story lacks drama, moral ambiguity, or a couple of clear villains when told accurately. This begs the question - why give a wildly inaccurate version of events if it isn't significantly enriching the film?
Their raison d'être is transparency, but publicising an internal memo doesn't magically turn it into a press release. It is clearly structured and written for WikiLeaks affiliated staff to use when discussing the film, anything else is a bonus.
Correction: Their raison d'être used to be transparency. They are certainly willing now to hold onto documents that do not advance their own political agenda.
Likewise the memo is sitting on a public folder on wikileaks.org, I'm pretty sure Assange or his troops could hack together a private intranet if that was what was actually desired here. This is a PR release that is just as transparent as when the U.S. "leaks" positive news to the NYT.
Why couldn't the person(s) in charge of reviewing the script(s) have prepared a presentation/document in order to inform the rest of the crew about it and _then_ collectively decided to publish certain information?
Although it contains real names and real places, the film will justify itself as fictional making it harder to target for defamation / libel / slander.
Edit: Another way the film can get off the hook is by claiming the information depicted is based on the sources (books) it uses for forming the script. I can only speculate, but what matters is shaping the public opinion and they are doing it by leaking the script and expressing their opposition to it.
Another guess is they need definitive evidence before sueing the film/makers. To quote from their memo: "Although the film has premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and numerous other media organizations have been shown review copies, the studio continues to refuse to show the film to WikiLeaks staff."
certainly in the UK weasel words get you precisely nowhere in Libel. If you know what you were saying, and your audience knew it too, then you can be sued.
Yeah, this has puzzled me from the start with this film. Normally unapproved bio pics based on a living person at least change the name (viz: Citizen Hearst, ... um, sorry, Kane, right?) out of fear of libel action, I thought.
I can't think of any other film that blatantly sets out to tell a fictional story injurious to the reputation of a living person without renaming them. (Well, My Name Is Bruce, arguably, I guess. But that starred and was directed and co-produced by the "victim", something of an exception.)
I'd love to see Carter-Ruck take this on in a British libel case!
You're right of course, though not sure that Jobs is quite "based on a living person" (though he was alive when the project started, just not when it was released.)
Can ayone explain this statement that Wikileaks makes?
Sarah Harrison, the WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied
Edward Snowden from Hong Kong and assisted his successful
asylum bid, is in effective exile in Russia.
Why is she 'effectively in exile'? What would she be charged with if she returned to the UK?
Aiding and Abetting, maybe. She'd certainly be arrested and interrogated, and then potentially be charged with contempt if she refused under order to disclose other information she may know about Snowden.
Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also the claims that Assange is responsible for the harm or death of Americans, or that they later leaked unredacted documents.
The Social Network's dramatization of Zuckerberg wasn't nearly that acrid, in comparison.