View Full Version : WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in UK
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in UK
AP, 7 Dec 2010
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange surrendered to London police Tuesday as part of a Swedish sex-crimes investigation, the latest blow to an organization that faces legal, financial and technological challenges after releasing hundreds of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.
Assange was due at Westminster Magistrate's Court later Tuesday. If he challenges his extradition to Sweden, he will likely be remanded into U.K. custody or released on bail until another judge rules on whether to extradite him, a spokeswoman for the extradition department said on customary condition of anonymity.
Since beginning to release the diplomatic cables last week, WikiLeaks has seen its bank accounts canceled and its web sites attacked. The U.S. government has launched a criminal investigation, saying the group has jeopardized U.S. national security and diplomatic efforts around the world.
WikiLeaks has also seen an online army of supporters come to its aid, sending donations, fighting off computer attacks and setting up over 500 mirror sites around the world to make sure that the secret documents are published regardless of what happens to Assange.
(cont'd) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_hi_te/wikileaks
So now we get to see if he releases all the other stuff he threatened.
Maybe I am wrong, but all this attention to Assange seems like a waste of time. From what I have read or heard about the releases there is nothing that surprised me or it was information that was already known. It would appear that Assange just added some additional detail like names of lying, cheating, backstabbing politicians.
Is it bad we now have evidence that our own Government was black mailing/threatening other countries to get the bogus climate agenda passed.
Is it going to be a bad thing if we get proof that the BiG Banks knowingly committed large scale fraud, assisted people like Bernie Madoff and helped put our economy in dire straights.....I would bet all the money I have they did.
This hype is well timed for Net Neutrality, clamping down on the internet, DHS TV in Walmart and heading down the rooad of Alex Jones and 1984.
This hype is well timed for Net Neutrality, clamping down on the internet, DHS TV in Walmart and heading down the rooad of Alex Jones and 1984.
Never one for conspiracies, I also don't hold much stock in coincidence. This is too much a coincidence for my comfort and I wouldn't be too surprised to see a knee jerk power grab upon the net. How convenient.....jd
Never one for conspiracies, I also don't hold much stock in coincidence. This is too much a coincidence for my comfort and I wouldn't be too surprised to see a knee jerk power grab upon the net. How convenient.....jd
Maybe more of a natural event of consequences than a conspiracy.
You know after you tell so many lies it becomes difficult to keep your stories straight and people have a tendency to blame others for their failings. Charlie Rangel, Bill Clinton, etc, etc, etc. They are all liars and cheaters, but it is always someone or somethings elses fault. And since they are narcissistic they believe the rules do not apply to them and will find ways to maintain the status quo.
Recently there have been several instances where some media hack has mentioned Obama needs an event to get back on track, and referenced the OKC event and how Bill Clinton profited from the event.
IMO it's all a f-ing game, a high stakes game run by egomaniacs that put the majority of us in harms way in one way shape or form. Wikileaks just put names and faces on some of the players.
The Pentagon Papers, Inside The CIA, SpyCatcher, Wikileaks...meh...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
with a little luck someone will pull a "Jack Ruby" on his ass. Don't be surprised if he gets poked in the eye with an umbrella at some point.
So where is the guy's poison pill?
perdurabo
12-07-2010, 10:24
The Pentagon Papers, Inside The CIA, SpyCatcher, Wikileaks...meh...
Whoops Richard, your age is showing :D
with a little luck someone will pull a "Jack Ruby" on his ass. Don't be surprised if he gets poked in the eye with an umbrella at some point.
What Assange did is wrong, but I hope he gets a fair trial without shenanigans. And it will be interesting to see what effect Wikileaks has on the world.
In regards to an umbrella, many speculate this is why Assange hasn't approached publishing items from the Russian government. Litvinenko's killing will serve as a stark reminder for some time to come.
drymartini66
12-07-2010, 12:04
Assange is toast.
The Reaper
12-07-2010, 12:11
Send him to GITMO.
Any of his minions release anything else, send them there as well.
TR
Never one for conspiracies, I also don't hold much stock in coincidence. This is too much a coincidence for my comfort and I wouldn't be too surprised to see a knee jerk power grab upon the net. How convenient.....jd
IMO, as long as there are satellites, there will be a "free" internet.
Not much to say...but I'm having a hard time suppressing laughter...
LINK (http://www.businessinsider.com/reminder-the-sex-crime-that-julian-assange-was-just-arrested-for-wasnt-rape-it-was-2010-12?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Business+Insider+Select&utm_campaign=BI_Select_120710_Personal)
REMINDER: The "Sex Crime" That Julian Assange Was Just Arrested For Wasn't Rape. It Was...
The "sex crimes" against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that led to an international manhunt, and, now, his arrest, have always seemed, if not false, lame.
Basically, it seemed as though two Swedish fans that Assange charmed into the sack were mortified to discover that he actually wasn't that into them.
But then Interpol launched its manhunt, rendering Assange a cross-border fugitive. So it seemed the "sex crimes" might be more serious than initially thought.
But what are they?
They're not "rape," everyone agrees (at least as of a few days ago)--because the sex was consensual. They also aren't unspecified "molestation."
What they appear to be is a violation of a Swedish law against "having sex without a condom."
Interestingly, even that charge doesn't appear to precisely apply in this case.
A condom was apparently used--initially. But it broke. So the dispute is about whether it broke "accidentally" (he said) or it broke "on purpose" (she said).
That DEFINITELY sounds like a job for Interpol.
I'm having a hard time suppressing laughter...
Which is some of the problem. He has supposedly released extremely sensitive documents, which were stolen and those said documents supposedly put our country and many individuals in GREAT DANGER. You'd think he was a modern Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Yet they can only bring him in on a failed condom.
It is farcical.
I wonder if someone is going to be promoted...for bringing in a guy for...a broken condom...HA! I mean obviously this is just bogus stuff that they can get him on so they would have time to build a case to extradite him.
What they appear to be is a violation of a Swedish law against "having sex without a condom."
Interestingly, even that charge doesn't appear to precisely apply in this case.
A condom was apparently used--initially. But it broke. So the dispute is about whether it broke "accidentally" (he said) or it broke "on purpose" (she said).
That DEFINITELY sounds like a job for In-her-pol.
The complete absurdity of the charges, given the back ground of his girlfriends, can not be fabricated.
UNLESS, A$$Sausage set this up himself..
He wanted a World Fiasco Event to hide in plain sight, while his minions released the Doc's under the PROTECTION of the Left Leaning World Media..
You can't whack The Sausage when he is in the UK jail..
And to do anything formally to his org would seem to make the US look like the bad guy..
"I'm a poor misunderstood simple Sausage Wanker, Woe is me. The Big Bad Capitalist are trying to kill freedom of speech"
:munchin
I'm in favor of a firing squad for the homo soldier and the little Aussie elf as well. Set an example.
"Loose lips sink ships."
A condom was apparently used--initially. But it broke. So the dispute is about whether it broke "accidentally" (he said) or it broke "on purpose" (she said).
My money say that in a week or two,
The Ladies involved recant..
They will dispute the charges..
Saying, They may have bit the offending prophyalatic and spit THEM out,,
And that they suffered at the hands of CIA..
Who used WaterBoarding to get them into say otherwise.
Ba Da Bing
Make the US and World look like the sniveling cowards they are...
:munchin
Prophylactic: A preventive measure. The word comes from the Greek for "an advance guard," an apt term for a measure taken to fend off a disease or another unwanted consequence. A prophylactic is a medication or a treatment designed and used to prevent a disease from occurring.
I'm in favor of a firing squad for the homo soldier and the little Aussie elf as well. Set an example.
"Loose lips sink ships."
The Gay Lad should definitely play with bullets, but as much as I despise Assange he has done nothing more than report news in much the same regard as Woodard and Bernstein whom I don't care for either.
The Aussie is a messenger. The Gay Lad is one of the many 'anonymous sources' who are not 'authorized' to go on record that reporters quote on a daily basis and they are the ones providing the classified information. And without Top/Bottom Boy and all the other unauthorized contributors the Aussie and many a journalists had/has no information to provide to the masses.
It is one of the pitfalls of a Free Press and Free Speech.
The Gay Lad should definitely play with bullets, but as much as I despise Assange he has done nothing more than report news in much the same regard as Woodard and Bernstein whom I don't care for either.
The Aussie is a messenger. The Gay Lad is one of the many 'anonymous sources' who are not 'authorized' to go on record that reporters quote on a daily basis and they are the ones providing the classified information. And without Top/Bottom Boy and all the other unauthorized contributors the Aussie and many a journalists had/has no information to provide to the masses.
It is one of the pitfalls of a Free Press and Free Speech.
Rhetorically: Did Assange release any classified U.S. government documents to individuals who don't possess the clearance to read them? Has his actions put U.S. soldiers in greater jeopardy by doing so?
Rhetorically: Did Assange release any classified U.S. government documents to individuals who don't possess the clearance to read them? Has his actions put U.S. soldiers in greater jeopardy by doing so?
I would hope not, but I do not know. If I was wearing your boots I know how I would feel about it and it would involves projectiles.
The Aussie doesn't have a job or a platform without the information. And as long as there are individuals within your ranks willing to divulged classified information there will always be another Assange. Assange and those like him are a disease, but the cure is to purge those that furnish him his product.
Masochist
12-08-2010, 10:54
I'm still waiting to read the study that correlates the swiftness and severity of punishment for such treasonous acts to the liklihood of others doing the same thing further down the road. Granted, the United States tends to be bullseye of the world media and living here ups the ratio of negative press one hears regarding our government and military, but you don't hear too many stories of Russians constantly leaking classified documents.
Just saying ... :rolleyes:
DJ Urbanovsky
12-08-2010, 13:27
I wonder how many people here have read any leaked docs that were put out by Wikileaks? And I do mean any, not just these most recent diplomatic cables. I haven't. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't read them, were I able to commit the time.
If we haven't read the docs (and I'm presuming that's the case because of the general tone around here), then how do we really know what's contained in them? What are we relying on for our info? Media hearsay? Maybe there was some truly sensitive security info in those diplomatic cables. But maybe there's also evidence of our corrupt power structure engaging in douchehattery.
I wonder, is there even a legitimate system of checks and balances left? Maybe these days, it's up to individuals to shine a light in the dark?
People were complaining that there wasn't any transparency. So our current administration promised us transparency. Which they then failed to deliver. People complained some more. So the private sector stepped up to provide transparency. Now, people are still complaining.
I'd like you guys to consider the following: Our concern is obviously needless loss of life. That's the fundamental kernel of why we want to keep certain things secret insofar as they pertain to national security, yeah? Because we don't want our people ending up dead. But let's say our people do wind up dead... If they end up dead because some information was leaked, and that information has to do with a dirty politician doing dirty deeds, who really has the blood on their hands, the whistle blower or the dirty deed doer? I don't know about you guys, but if our officialdom is engaging in inappropriate behaviors, I want to know about it.
One more thing that I find interesting: There appear to be a lot of powerful people that want this guy shut up, yeah? Why? When I see a situation like that, I become very curious about what that guy might have to say.
There! I don't think I used a single curse word in conveying all of that. It wasn't easy. I'd like my parade now, please. :D
I wonder how many people here have read any leaked docs that were put out by Wikileaks? And I do mean any, not just these most recent diplomatic cables. I haven't. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't read them, were I able to commit the time.
99% of the world is not going to read the documents.
But you can bet your sweet bippies that every nation that has an Internet connection has their Intel agency lackeys burning the midnight oil trying to glean the inside story..
and all the MSM are trying to get the scoop on the STORY OF THE YEAR...
For those who wish to read a document:
LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720)
As published in the Guardian newspaper in the U.K.
I have not included any of the text since, as I understand it, some are prohibited from reading the documents. Please be aware the link above will take you straight to such text.
Should this be classified? I confess that I wonder. Is it embarrassing to the U.S.? IMO, very much so.
MOO, YMMV.
Mr Assange's POV.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Don't Shoot Messenger For Revealing Uncomfortable Truths
Julian Assange, The Australian, 8 Dec 2010
WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks.
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."
His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.
I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.
These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.
If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.
WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.
Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.
Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.
We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.
Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.
Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?
It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.
But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:
► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.
► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.
► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.
► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".
► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.
In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
Rhetorically: Did Assange release any classified U.S. government documents to individuals who don't possess the clearance to read them? Has his actions put U.S. soldiers in greater jeopardy by doing so?
Agree Sir!
Personally, IMHO, I hope he and his minions burn in hell hot if anything they "released" puts one hair on a US Soldiers head, in jeopardy!!!
Holly:munchin
I don't know if the information leaked from the embassies directly led to the killing of US and NATO country Soldiers, but didn't the initial release allow for Taliban to come into villages and kill the Afghani informants? ( I'm not quite sure about this ) Is Assange not counting Afghans?
perdurabo
12-09-2010, 00:18
A question (and perhaps food for thought):
What makes Wikileaks not "the press"? Who gets to decide who is the press and who isn't? Giving the government that power seems like a Really Bad Idea (tm). So then maybe "the people"? Eh, they're too easily swayed. So then who, if anyone?
And don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Wikileaks, I think they're putting people's lives at risk and hurting int'l relations. But I've been pondering this issue (along with squirrel mating habits).
The Washington Post created their "Top Secret America" project [1] and didn't get so much as a peep of overt government interest.
[1] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/
And don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Wikileaks, I think they're putting people's lives at risk and hurting int'l relations.
I wholeheartedly agree on the risk, but as far as damaging the International Relations.....my impression from the leaked wires I have read is that our diplomacy is more inline with being dictatorial, using threats, backstabbing and selling out. Not exactly my idea of building strong, trusting, long lasting relationships and it seems a wee bit contrary to what we preach.....it is what I expect from the Russian, China, Iran and Venezuela, not the USA.
But then again I maybe my glasses have a rose colored tint...
CombatMuffin
12-09-2010, 09:37
I wasn't surprised when I heard about all of these cables... I have always seen international politics, or politics for that matter, as learning to lie while smiling, which is wrong.
Take treaties, for instance... You always see smiles and handshakes for the press, but there are always ulterior motives for approving laws, national and international. Look at Free Trade Agreements, and look at how many actually succeed in their objectives.
Of course, a diplomat is never going to do something to hurt international relationships, unless he can afford to, but it just sucks that most of them have to pretend being pals in front of the world. Its a false sense of security for the masses.
Classifying things is NOT the ideal method of running a country, but unfortunately, given our time, culture and degree of civilization, it is necessary.
I wasn't surprised when I heard about all of these cables... I have always seen international politics, or politics for that matter, as learning to lie while smiling, which is wrong.
Take treaties, for instance... You always see smiles and handshakes for the press, but there are always ulterior motives for approving laws, national and international. Look at Free Trade Agreements, and look at how many actually succeed in their objectives.
Of course, a diplomat is never going to do something to hurt international relationships, unless he can afford to, but it just sucks that most of them have to pretend being pals in front of the world. Its a false sense of security for the masses.
Classifying things is NOT the ideal method of running a country, but unfortunately, given our time, culture and degree of civilization, it is necessary.
Not as easy for them to get away with lies given the internet, which is why they want to regulate it.
perdurabo
12-10-2010, 10:34
The latest is that some core members of Wikileaks have announced they will break off and form a new group called OpenLeaks. They say that OpenLeaks will focus more on acting as a intermediary between whistleblowers and the press.
It's known there's been a lot of inner turmoil between group members and Assange long before Wikileaks ever reached the public consciousness.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/openleaks_wikileaks_breakaway/
Somebody needs to open up a can of spring-a-leak on they ass.:)
CombatMuffin
12-10-2010, 11:58
Not as easy for them to get away with lies given the internet, which is why they want to regulate it.
Agreed on all levels, sir.
I personally feel that if politicians/public servants know they are being observed, they are less likely to try underhanded moves in their line of work.
On the latest news, I feel it is ironical: Wikileaks fights to declassify government information on the premise of free access to information, transparency, etc. Yet they perform most of their agenda with anonymous sources, classified methods of operating... They do it for the same reason governments classify: to protect the safebeing of certain individuals/interests.
I agree with what has been said about Wikileaks in general: its just a wave, it will go away like others have gone.
perdurabo
12-10-2010, 15:15
I agree with what has been said about Wikileaks in general: its just a wave, it will go away like others have gone.
I agree that Wikileaks won't be around much longer, but I think that the phenomena will continue on, as it did for years before Wikileaks (ala cryptome.org). OpenLeaks looks like the probable next in line.
The key for such organizations will probably involve working closely with the established press entities and steering clear of political dialogue and iconoclasts. This seemed to work well for John Young and his Cryptome project (http://cryptome.org).
<<SNIP>>I'd like you guys to consider the following: Our concern is obviously needless loss of life. That's the fundamental kernel of why we want to keep certain things secret insofar as they pertain to national security, yeah? Because we don't want our people ending up dead. DJ--
I think there's a bit more to it than the loss of life. Secretary of State Clinton put it well when she said:So let’s be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.*
Esteemed members of this BB argue that GWOT centers around a clash of civilizations between the modernized world and Muslims who want to establish a global caliphate. I'm of the belief that the clash is about those who want to destroy the model of international relations established by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp) and those who want to preserve it.
For international relations as we know them to "work," sovereign nations must protect the ability to communicate privately. Absolutely, it is in every nation's best interest to participate in spy games, but it is equally important that those games be played among sovereign states--not individual asshats sitting in front of a computer, who, IMO, should be subject of the full fury of .GOV.
As for your legitimate concern that the cloak of secrecy is being used to advance the interests of douchebaggery, I do not think that the release of documents in this fashion helps. Diplomatic historians spend their professional careers pouring over communiques and other formerly secret documents and they still have a hard time figuring out how all the pieces fit together.**
______________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/11/152078.htm).
** An example can be found here (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/CWIHP_WP_45b.pdf).
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2010, 18:21
Esteemed members of this BB argue that GWOT centers around a clash of civilizations between the modernized world and Muslims who want to establish a global caliphate. I'm of the belief that the clash is about those who want to destroy the model of international relations established by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp) and those who want to preserve it.
For international relations as we know them to "work," sovereign nations must protect the ability to communicate privately. Absolutely, it is in every nation's best interest to participate in spy games, but it is equally important that those games be played among sovereign states--not individual asshats sitting in front of a computer, who, IMO, should be subject of the full fury of .GOV.
As for your legitimate concern that the cloak of secrecy is being used to advance the interests of douchebaggery, I do not think that the release of documents in this fashion helps. Diplomatic historians spend their professional careers pouring over communiques and other formerly secret documents and they still have a hard time figuring out how all the pieces fit together.**
______________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/11/152078.htm).
** An example can be found here (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/CWIHP_WP_45b.pdf).
You nailed it.
For better or worse, the world is changing.
We are on the downslope of peak government.
It's not an issue of whether the change should happen; it is happening.
Governments and individuals will have to adapt to the new reality, or perish.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 10, 2010
One of the original members of Wikileaks warns that a series of bigger bombshell revelations are in the pipeline and that the growing crisis being contrived around the group and its figurehead Julian Assange is greasing the skids for the cybersecurity agenda to regulate and censor the world wide web.
Cryptome.org founder John Young, who the New York Observer recently characterized as “the original Wikileaker,” told the Alex Jones Show how he volunteered to register Wikileaks.org in December 2007 under his name for Wikileaks members who wanted to remain anonymous, with the understanding that the site was merely for the public benefit. Young became suspicious when he was subsequently told that the aim was to raise $5 million dollars within the first six months.
“I said wait a minute, that doesn’t sound like public benefit to me, that sounds like a high value funded program,” said Young, likening the scenario to a George Soros-style outfit.
“This was a business operation not a public benefit operation and it’s turned out to be that,” said Young, concurring with the fact that Wikileaks was introduced into the public arena by Cass Sunstein in a Washington Post editorial. This is important because in a 2008 white paper, Sunstein, who is now Obama’s White House information czar, argued that government entities should pose as “conspiracy theorists” as part of a clandestine plot to discredit independent media voices and ultimately demolish free speech on the Internet.
Young said that Wikileaks provided the perfect pretext for government to raise funds for a cybersecurity infrastructure that would eventually be used to silence free speech and regulate the Internet.
“Some of the enthusiasts for Wikileaks seem to be operating in concert with some of its opponents, it looks like they’re in lock step to me,” said Young, noting that the whole fiasco was a display of theatre designed to test whether the cybersecurity agenda is ready to get traction. Given the fact that establishment Republicans are already introducing legislation aimed at criminalizing Wikileaks, circumstances clearly indicate that the crisis is being exploited to push Internet censorship.
Although George Soros’ Open Society Institute denies having any connection to Wikileaks, Young personally had conversations with Wikileaks founders who told him of their efforts to secure funding from the organization, at which point Young resigned from Wikileaks. Young said that Wikileaks were all but bankrupt when they were operating on their own but have now “raised millions by being on the inside.”
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*
As to who is actually behind Wikileaks aside from Assange himself, Young pointed to a Wikipedia list of “Cypherpunks,” Internet gurus, some of whom now hold prominent positions in major technology companies, who were responsible for a mailing list that started in 1992 for people interested in privacy and cryptography.
Young said that Wikileaks was not an independent organization nor one controlled by government, but instead a “concept, an aspiration, a goal….not anything you’re going to be able to take down by the usual means,” which is why Young predicts Wikileaks will not be taken down. However, he cautioned that Wikileaks now redacting documents was a sign that they have been co-opted to a large extent.
“If you were offered a million dollar bribe and you were 39-years-old and had no other income, think about it, it’s called a government contract,” said Young, alleging that Assange has been bought off.
“I expect there will be a continuing crisis raised by the Wikileaks model,” said Young, adding that increasingly damaging documents will continue to be released and that this will enable both dissidents like Assange as well as governments to accrue both power and increased funding.
“It’ll be kept going for quite a while, money’s pouring in from all sides,” said Young, adding that the situation was being escalated into a “war-like crisis” so the US government could milk cyber-threats to beef their own authority.
Stock up for the Holidays with eFoods Direct and get FREE Shipping!
“Right now they’re just testing the public’s reaction with this low-level secrecy revelation, but the other stuff will come,” said Young, pointing out that just because the cables released thus far were classified as secret didn’t mean they were true. Indeed, many of the cables bolster discredited rhetoric about the war on terror and do little to harm US imperial objectives because they mainly consist of material that arises out of the echo chamber of geopolitical propaganda.
Young predicts that a “series of bombshells” will continue to emerge both from Wikileaks and about its founder Julian Assange, specifically in relation to the bogus rape charges against him, and that we’re only being “teased” at the moment and much more interesting material is in the pipeline, which Young went on to list;
- Information about the internal affairs of Bank of America
- Files on weapons of mass destruction
- War plans of all nations, for and against one another
- Reports and training literature on black site prisons and torture chambers
- Files about clandestine spy agencies and their operatives
- Files on human rights abuses
- Files about billionaire political meddlers
- Files about global tax collection agencies
- Files about the Vatican’s meddling in global political affairs
- Information about the Clinton Foundation, although this was the only one on which Young wasn’t certain.
http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-founder-bigger-bombshells-on-the-way/
perdurabo
12-10-2010, 22:09
Except John Young shuns the spotlight, doesn't really have any political axe to grind (except maybe gov't transparency), and has made compromises with the IC on what he publishes and what he doesn't.
It would be disingenuous to compare him to Assange, IMHO (not that you are, Paslode).
For better or worse, the world is changing.
Always has, always will.
We are on the downslope of peak government.
That claim has been made a number of times before and here we are...again...
It's not an issue of whether the change should happen; it is happening.
Always has, always will.
Governments and individuals will have to adapt to the new reality, or perish.
Another revelation.
And so it goes...:munchin
Richard
It would be disingenuous to compare him to Assange, IMHO (not that you are, Paslode).
I don't know enough either to compare the two. I was more interested in Mr. Young's comments and/or insights on Wikileaks backers, their motivations and the motivations of AssHingee.
FWIW - Beck was has a two days his week connecting the same Soros, Sunstein and Wiki...links.
Something interesting to ponder...
Pro-WikiLeaks "cyber-anarchists" have taken down the websites of Visa, MasterCard, and other perceived WikiLeaks "enemies." Is "Operation Payback" just the beginning?
Richard :munchin
How Far Will Hackers Go To Defend WikiLeaks?
The Week, 6 Dec 2010
A loosely aligned group of hackers and web activists has declared war on the "enemies" of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. The group Anonymous, an offshoot of the infamous 4chan message board, is directing the cyber-attacks, and their "Operation Payback" has so far temporarily taken down the websites of Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, the Swiss bank PostFinance, and Assange's Swedish prosecutor. Potential next targets: Twitter and Facebook, which froze Anonymous' accounts Wednesday. Just how far will this "cyber-war" go? (Watch an MSNBC report about the online effort)
The war will get only nastier: These "Internet vigilantes" aren't just defending WikiLeaks, says Ryan Singel in Wired. They see this as a proxy war for "freedom on the Net in general," and they'll use "any means possible, however dubious," to win. The 4chan crowd has waged similar campaigns, but its "unprecedented reaction" to this "naked" use of corporate power against WikiLeaks signals that Operation Payback "may not be easily brought to heel."
"Vigilantes take offensive in WikiLeaks censorship battle"
The counterattacks have begun: "Operation Payback is facing a little payback of its own," says Ryan Tate in Gawker. And not just from Facebook and Twitter: The Feds and antagonistic hackers have shut down some sites coordinating the attacks. Operation Payback is also generating a "nasty PR backlash" — these "symbolic wins" over enemy websites "might be cathartic," but they make WikiLeaks look even more "illicit."
"Noose closes around pro-WikiLeaks vigilantes"
Even hacktivists observe some boundaries: These attacks show the "growing reach" and power of these "self-described 'cyber-anarchists,'" as well as their support for Assange, say John F. Burns and Ravi Somaiya in The New York Times. But their crusade may have limits. There has been talk of cyber-attacking the two Swedish women accusing Assange of sex offenses, admits hacktivist Gregg Housh, but "a lot of people don't want to be involved [with that type of attack]."
http://theweek.com/article/index/210158/how-far-will-hackers-go-to-defend-wikileaks
FWIW - Beck was has a two days his week connecting the same Soros, Sunstein and Wiki...links.
And that says it all...
Richard :munchin
Ret10Echo
12-10-2010, 22:51
Seems the hacktivist "code" supports attacks on corporations as noble deeds, but taking out individuals as either too low-brow or lacking in challenge.
I imagine they are in someone's Mom's basement wearing Che' T-shirts...
EX-Gold Falcon
12-11-2010, 00:04
I question how long wiki will still be around (regardless of who might still host them) if they were to publish China's "dirty laundry". The fifty-cent army would come in waves of $ millions.
And would anyone here be willing to share personal space with wiki staff members if they leaked Kremlin secrets?
Me neither.
Yet Julian has been quoted on Guardian UK as willing to do so. Hope he's stocked up on potassium iodide; cause he'll defiently need it.
T.
P.S. FYI, info of China's $.50 movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
And that says it all...
Richard :munchin
I knew you would enjoy that post, the similarities of the Tin Foil Twins and in particular Mr. Beck :D The irony with the posted article is that Jones (IMO) couldn't get enough of Assange. But now, with the FCC bearing down, the Internet Kill Switch and the DHS channel in a Walmart near you he has changed his tune.
But more to the point...
I mentioned prior in the topic that without information Assange has nothing...I forgot funding. It does take money to operate a business, no matter how big or small it is and the Government has gone after terrorist funding sources in the past....and without funding it is difficult at best to operate a business.....I know he is probably doing this from his Mom's basement and illegally parks file sharing on his neighbors hard drives.
Assange is a creep, Dusty and many others would volunteer for his firing squad if there was the opportunity....and the Top/Bottom Kid as well.
So how would you feel if Assange had a large financier like Soros funding this project and thus making your job in the field more difficult or riskier?
...transnational crowdsourcing...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Why WikiLeaks Is Winning Its Info War
Time, 8 Dec 2010
There was a time when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's voluntary surrender to the British authorities might have put an end to the crisis created by the Internet provocateur's dissemination of tens of thousands of state secrets. But in the upside-down world of transnational crowdsourcing unleashed by WikiLeaks, in which thousands of activists around the globe can be rallied to defend and extend its work, Assange's arrest is a win, not a loss, for his organization.
The asymmetrical info war initiated by the WikiLeaks dump of diplomatic cables is all about spectacle — the more Assange is set up by world powers, the more powerful his own movement becomes. "The field of battle is WikiLeaks," wrote John Perry Barlow, a former Grateful Dead lyricist and founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the First Amendment advocacy group, in a message to his followers. "You are the troops." WikiLeaks admiringly forwarded the post to 300,000 of its own followers. As the U.S. and other governments attempted to close down WikiLeaks over the past week, those "troops" have fought back. And so far, it doesn't look like much of a contest.
First, the U.S. government pushed WikiLeaks off the servers of Amazon, its U.S. host — thanks in part to an effort by the office of Senator Joe Lieberman, who heads the Senate Homeland Security Committee. After the rogue site was pushed off a smaller, backup host in the U.S., it moved first to a Swiss domain, then to a simple numeric one. WikiLeaks has complained, and some news outlets have reported, about apparent hacker attacks against the website. The effect of all that pressure, however, was very much like cutting the head off the mythical Hydra. By Tuesday evening, WikiLeaks listed 507 Web addresses that it said were hosting the site worldwide.
The U.S. and its allies have taken other steps to curb WikiLeaks' activities. The French Industry Minister Eric Besson called for the site to be banned from French servers. Swiss bank PostFinance announced it had frozen $41,000 in an account set up as a legal-defense fund for Assange. The bank said it took action because Assange had claimed Geneva as his domicile when opening the account, but this had proved incorrect and he could not show that he is a Swiss resident. PayPal, MasterCard and Visa have all blocked donations to WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks' backers are fighting back, though their hacker attacks on some of the sites that shut off WikiLeaks funding may be less effective.
Assange's detention is not without its costs to him and WikiLeaks. Swedish prosecutors say he has been accused of having had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, despite her insistence that he use a condom, and that he had unprotected sex with a second woman, Miss W, while she was asleep. Both scenarios would be crimes in Sweden, and the attention to the charges has divided some of his supporters. Assange has not been formally charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.
But the principal effect of his arrest has been to rally the troops. Assange, who was in hiding in England, turned himself in to British police on Tuesday morning. That afternoon, he faced a hearing in which his British lawyer pledged to appeal again against extradition to Sweden. Several people present offered tens of thousands of dollars worth of bail, but the judge ordered him held without bail. Supporters cheered Assange as he left the courthouse.
And the David vs. Goliath stagecraft continues. Assange's Swedish attorney, Bjorn Hurtig, told Reuters on Friday that he suspects "somebody has an interest in getting [Assange] to Sweden and maybe asking for him to be extradited to another country [from there]." In fact, extradition from Europe to the U.S. is hard, and even if Assange could be extradited it's not clear what he could be charged with.
There is, of course, a limit to how much Assange can win. In the U.S., officials are finding that while there were certainly structural reasons like expanded technology and overclassification behind the theft of the leaked documents, practical reasons were equally important. Thanks to an imperative from then commander of the U.S. Central Command David Petraeus and others to share information with allies on improvised explosive devices and other threats, the Central Command allowed the downloading of data from its secret in-house network, SIPRNet, to removable storage devices, officials tell TIME. The information was then carried to computers linked to secret networks used by allies and uploaded. The process was derisively called "sneaker net," because it was so inefficient, although it replaced the prior need to manually retype all information into the allied computers.
New restrictions on downloading media have been imposed over the past six months, restoring the restrictions that existed before the leaks. That may be one victory for the U.S. in its attempts to fight WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said Tuesday that a new editor in chief of WikiLeaks would step in during Assange's absence.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2035817,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly
Masochist
12-13-2010, 13:20
Pro-WikiLeaks "cyber-anarchists" have taken down the websites of Visa, MasterCard, and other perceived WikiLeaks "enemies." Is "Operation Payback" just the beginning?
While MC, Visa and PayPal are all cutting ties with Assange and WikiLeaks, it looks like he still has a way of receiving funding.
Swedish ISP, Payment Site Say They’ll Keep WikiLeaks as Client
By Janina Pfalzer - Dec 10, 2010 9:23 AM ET
Swedish internet services provider Bahnhof AB and payment website Flattr said they will keep WikiLeaks as a client after companies including Amazon.com Inc. and PayPal Inc. cut off the whistleblower.
Flattr, which allows its users to donate a monthly sum and divide it between internet content providers by clicking Flattr buttons, is open to anyone who wants to use it, Jonas Birgersson, who heads the Malmoe, Sweden-based company’s advisory board, said today by phone. WikiLeaks added the button from its website, he said.
The U.S. has condemned the website after it published thousands of classified State Department documents. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to Sweden related to alleged sex crimes. PayPal, the payment processor owned by EBay Inc., cut access to WikiLeaks website on Dec. 4 citing violation of the acceptable use policy. MasterCard Inc., the world’s second largest payments processor, and Visa Europe Ltd. also cut off the website.
“We treat WikiLeaks just like any other customer,” Bahnhof Chief Executive Officer Anna Mossberg said in an interview. “Like any other Swedish ISP, the two things that would cause us to drop a client would be if they stop paying invoices or if the Swedish police would contact us and say that the customer is doing something illegal according to Swedish law.”
more ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/swedish-isp-payment-site-say-they-ll-keep-wikileaks-as-client.html
How Wikileaks Uses Flattr To Let Users Easily Distribute Monthly Donations
Posted by Lauren Dugan on August 11th, 2010 2:15 PM
While mainstream media struggles to find a balance between free online content, paywalls and subscriptions, Wikileaks is happily experimenting with a new micropayment service, Flattr. Flattr lets organizations set up microdonations on individual blog posts, articles, videos, photos and other media so that users who like the content can give their financial support. And what sets Flattr apart is really its ease-of-use: users don’t have to log in to a larger payment site like Paypal and donate large lump sums – Flattr is a true microdonation platform. It looks like mainstream media could learn a lesson or two from Flattr and Wikileaks.
Perhaps the most innovative aspect of Flattr is how it sets up its micropayments. Users who are registered with Flattr log in once to set up a monthly fee (the amount is determined by the user him- or herself). At the end of each month, the fee is divided by all of the media that the user “flattered” that month. Users shouldn’t have to log in more than once a month, and they can spread their love to as many sites as they want – each flatter simply takes a portion of the user’s monthly fee, rather than adding anything to it.
Flattr is an egalitarian payment system: there are no levels, tiers or user types. If you have content on your blog and want to add a Flattr button, you can; you also must have a minimum of 2 Euros in your Flattr account to divvy up between the content you read. Every Flattr user is seen by the company as a potential content producer and consumer, so there is no hassle for a user who wants to move from simply flattering the articles they like on the web to producing content that can be flattered.
Wikileaks implemented Flattr on August 1st, and its Afghanistan War Diary content has received 1120 flatters as of today. While each of those flatters will donate a different amount to Wikileaks, this number is simply massive when you consider that Flattr is still in invite-only closed beta.
While Wikileaks is the first high-profile site to implement Flattr, I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of this service as it moves into open beta and then opens to the public. It is beyond simple, and doesn’t require logging in at every “Support” button – a big deterrence of current micropayment options. Once users log in to their Flattr account, they can go on a flattering spree without dealing with more than a single button click. Flattr also prevents the “Farmville coin splurge” that happens when users get hooked and start dumping in money to micropayment services little bits at a time, realizing only days later that they’ve spent over $100 on virtual hay bales. Because you have control over the total sum that you donate every month, you’ll never go over your limit without consciously raising it.
I can envisions Flattr being used by niche bloggers and mainstream news sites alike. If users can be coaxed into paying for the content they find valuable – just a few cents for each article or video they really enjoyed that month – I think Flattr will find great success in the coming months.
http://www.socialtimes.com/2010/08/flattr-wikileaks-donation/
perdurabo
12-13-2010, 14:41
This link has been making the rounds, today. Quite a sultry lad.
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison
1stindoor
12-14-2010, 12:53
Who didn't see this coming?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/14/michael-moore-contributes-k-julian-assanges-bail/