I'm sure he's getting wood over this
By which I mean the cross that he's chosen to nail himself to. Come on, don't persecute the martyr - you'll just engorge his already tumescent ego.
Swedish prosecutors made public accusations of rape and molestation against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and then quickly dropped them over the weekend. An arrest warrant was issued, in absentia, on Friday night, then withdrawn on Saturday. Two women aged 20 and 30 made the claims about two separate incidents to Swedish …
I agree that since Assange let himself become part of the story, he has woven his own rope. Having said that - I cannot believe how much traction stories about him have gained.
Surely the bigger story here remains the fact that wikileaks has got some extremely sensitive information that has been kept from the public eye by interested parties:
1. Should this information remain secret? Who does that serve best? What is the risk of revealing it? Is that risk worth it?
2. Does wikileaks serve a vital purpose, bigger than (according to some of you lot) massaging someone's ego? In other words, is it actually important that a by-product of wikileaks' existence and purpose creates an annoying celebrity? Or is wikileaks just a big fake vanity project? Really??
I must admit the irony, which may have been intentional.
After all, how did a prosecution notice become public. Ah, ahem, well, I think it's called a leak.
Following Assange's modus operandi, the information was checked for veracity (check: it's true) and if Assange could still keep himself safe when published (check: it was about him, after all) and presto, we are live in 3..2..1.
In this case too there was little check for the further consequences of publication, *precisely* following Assange's own MO. I rather like principles of confidentiality maintained, because the knock-on effect of uncontrolled publication can be severe - boosting a deficient ego being one of the most minor side effects - so pardon me if I'm not exactly overflowing with sympathy for Mr Assange here.
Petard, hoist, etcetera..
They can't assassinate him because it would be too public, would make him a martyr and wouldn't damage WikiLeaks. So they attempt to destroy his character and thereby damage his creation. I'm only surprised the didn't accuse him of child porn.
Conspiracies really aren't what they used to be. This is WAY too obvious.
How about this:
WIkileaks as a front for intelligence agencies. They can leak information they require/desire, all the while building up this image of a complete twatdangle over the years to slowly but surely discredit the image and concept of whilteblowers. From the hero/martyr fighting the man to the egoist out to make a name for himself, the public conciousness’ perception of a whistleblower is changing thanks to wikileaks and Ass.
Now, it’s not at all likely that this conspiracy theory is true…but it beats the hell out of Roswell…
Wikileaks is clearly being used as a channel to distribute propaganda and the military data release seemed like a way to announce unofficially that the war in Afghanistan wasn't going according to the offical propagandised version of events being promoted in the mainstream media.
Being inherently dodgy and having lots of stuff to hide these spooky types love hiding their operations behind facades such as pseudo religious cults and using untraceable anonymous "spam" email and the like to spread their messages.
Your summary of shifting the story in the hope of discrediting whistleblowers also makes perfect sense when you consider a lot of PR and advertising works on the basis of association - project the idea that whistleblower Assange is a dodgy egocentric creep and people will associate whistleblowers with dodgy egocentric creeps.
This story isn't about Julien Assange or Wikileaks - it is about the futile inhumane butchery and industrial slaughter that the US and UK armed forces have unleashed on behalf of their paymasters in the middle east and afghanistan.
Bulletproof hosting is only as bulletproof as the people behind the hosting. This is all hosted somewhere. Find al the various places it is hosted and you can get anything taken down. If you honestly believe for a fraction of a second that US.Gov doesn’t have it’s ways you are delusional.
What do I mean by have its ways? I mean you find the person who runs the datacenter and you put a gun to the head of someone they care about. Very quickly the server you don’t like goes away. I don’t care how many places the damned thing is hosted, you can rinse and repeat for each datacenter owner until the task is completed.
If US.gov truly and honestly didn’t want Wikileaks hosted, it wouldn’t be. The same is true for any of the large world powers. What this means is that while WIkilieaks is mildly irritating and potentially embarrassing, it isn’t an actually threat to the folks in power quite yet. A threat perhaps to some grunts on the ground or denizens of Afghanistan, but since when has any politician given a rat’s about them?
There is no such thing as bulletproof hosting. All that Wikileaks’ continued existence demonstrates is that they aren’t yet enough of a nuisance to expend the effort required to make them go away.
I hope Assange offers due congratulations to the prosecutors for leaking the information. After all, he's the poster boy for full disclosure.
I don't believe the dirty tricks claims myself.
It's entirely possible that it was a genuine claim that was genuinely kicked out*, but that whoever leaked it just saw the opportunity for a bit of delicious irony.
* Thinking of another story (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/18/police_online_images_warning/), it's completely plausible that the victim had been raped by someone with a resemblance to Assange, and Assange's current press profile means she saw his face enough that she slowly convinced herself it was him.
I think they might view it as largely a success. It all depends on what they're after and whether they're in it for the long haul. The latter is almost certainly true; secretive bureaucrazies tend to harbour and nurture their pet hates. And fertile grounds they are. Think Starr practically jerking himself off over the idea of nailing Clinton, or the dirty little nameless fed that coming after Roman Polanski ad nauseam.
It's a distraction. Two of them. One to make a big impact, one to linger and fester and sap his strength. The former only lived for a week-end, and I'm reasonably sure someone's behind it and that a bit surer that if so they wouldn't've minded it living a bit longer but regardless, it didn't need to stray around. It's done the job. The other is still there, and notice how you have to read to the second or third paragraph to notice that. It's not in the headlines. Most people will gloss over it, but it's there and it'll pop up again.
It's so obvious nobody is believing it could really be that orchestrated, so it gets away with it. Think _True Colours_ or _Wag the Dog_. And remember: American Politics doesn't come with a Hollywood Ending.
Come on!? How can my comment possibly be downvoted when it was so useful as a set-up for the clearly great pun that followed it? Hmm? Who was it, eh? Admit it! I don't claim any major skill in my minor pun, but what's to downvote about it?
I mean, really, I expect it when I say anything (positive or negative) about Apple, or if I suggest I still like Firefox despite it being uncool, or when I promote eugenicist ideals as a good way forward for humanity, but when I make a slightly bad pun? This would never have happened in Nazi Germany.
I have seen the beginning stage of this myself, but didn't take that trap because the male control officer could be identified as a merkin from 100 meters distance.
And I figured that this kind of relationship won't be very good on the long run. Now I know what their real plans are....
If this was something to do with spooks ( and it certainly doesn't seem like a legit claim at this point, so someone with an agenda seems to be involved ) why on earth would they do it so obviously and so badly? This is playground stuff.
Either this is a deliberately clumsy distraction or conspiracy theorists everywhere really need to re-evaluate their beliefs about the abilities of the international intelligence community.
"Either this is a deliberately clumsy distraction or conspiracy theorists everywhere really need to re-evaluate their beliefs about the abilities of the international intelligence community."
The phrase intelligence community is an oxymoron. Hardly amazing really given that they do seem to employ an awful lot of morons. There are any number of examples of the less than "George Smiley" level of these tossers' performance of their "duties". That they might be involved in a less than amazingly skillful attempt to smear somebody is scarcely surprising.
.. of voting in politicians based on their press presence instead of their capabilities.
Intelligence is a service like any other, and can thus likewise be manned by competent people whose decisions are overridden by complete morons who are better at licking political rear ends. In other words, not unlike any business. If you need an example of how disastrous that can be, just look at what caused the Wall Street crisis (which was accelerated by the ability of those responsible to escape any kind of impact on their own life).
There is intelligence in Intelligence, it would be nice if they let those people actually do their job again. But that would take intelligent leadership - which depends on who you vote for..
This was a public service announcement. Send no money. No politicians were harmed during the construction of this message, for which we apologise. Author may sue, contents may settle. Only created with recycled keystrokes.
AFAIK, FBI is US internal, federal, CIA is the uncontrolled lot that goes about sponsoring people who then become terrorists or otherwise a pain in the neck for the US.
You could say they invest in their own future - without the problems they create themselves there would be no longer be a need for them, but that would naturally be the cynical way of looking at it..
When I read the allegations, the first thought through my mind was "I'll be the little nomad is using his fame and lifestyle choice to get into all sorts of trouble. Since he never seems to stay in the same place twice, it would seem like he has arranged the perfect lifestyle to accomplish it...."
It wasn’t until I read about it on the Register and had to deal with the rather sycophantic wikileaks crowd here in the comments that I thought for a second he didn’t do it. He’s not the pure and virginal messiah come to save us all. He’s an egotistical little twatdangle who has risen to fame quite quickly of late. I am not saying that makes him a rapist, but I am certainly cynical enough to look at the whole thing and go “meh, he wouldn’t be the first” and then move on to reading about DRAM or something.
The minute I heard of this I thought 'set up'.
For those with good memories, you will recall in 2003, the U.S. ex-Marine and U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who by then was one of the most persuasive opponents of the attack on Iraq, repeatedly and forcefully protesting that there was no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, was the subject of a media smear campaign, accusing him of having engaged in criminal sex acts with teenagers.
The accusations faded to black when proof was sought.
One media rabble rouser wrote: "But it seems to me this Scott Ritter kiddie-sex bust might explain Ritter's sudden and inexplicable 180 on Iraq. Maybe they set him up in a sting? That sort of thing was standard op for the KGB. Just a thought."
Of course, Bush lies prevailed, and Ritters truth was proven. The CIA didn't even fake WMD - how dumb could they get?
Even the Pentagon has admitted Assange is smart and smart people make sure they don't damage their mission, unlike the U.S. government spooks.
Much as I love the idea of some very daft CIA spook orgainising a rubbish story and then realising no-one will believe it, I can't imagine anyone being *that* stupid. All this story has done is make Assange more of a martyr and add to his reputation as a fearless champion of the truth despite the efforts of 'the Man' to silence him.
My (very cynical) money is on this being a black propaganda exercise by the pro-Assange camp.
Hmm .. there's a novel approach to the conspiracy theory. I can just hear Assange: "I'm in deep shit, the US govt is out to get me,, the CIA, FBI and god knows who else is after me. What can I do to improve things .. <thinks> I know, I'll get myself accused of two counts of rape. That should do it"
D'ya know, it does my heart good to realize that there's always going to be someone more cynical than me.
I may be overthinking things, but if Assange knew a smear was coming, is it not possible that he could have arranged for this to happen so that if/when a serious (and probably better-planned) allegation is made people are already thinking 'smear campaign'.
Such a fast U-turn and the fact that it was actually made public suggests something is going on does it not?
That's what they want you to think.
Unless Assange arranged it, so that you'd think that the FBI had arranged it, so that it would look like Assange arranged it to look like the FBI had arranged it..
Or maybe that's what *he* wants you to think....
Aren't conspiracy theories great? They telescope down a recursive hole that dwindles into ever increasing realms of ludicrous detail.... but it's all still possible!
The oh-so-predictable efforts by "intelligence" to try to discredit Assange have already started, it would seem.
Only this time, they have let the office juniors have a go, and they've made such a mess of it that the results are so painfully obviously a set-up.
Alas, I fear, this is only the beginning rather than the end of the attempts to frame him.
They are active in propagating similar colouring in a campaign aimed at manufacturing popular consent to justify an invasion of Iran, presumably to securitise control of the Oil wealth. Notice how Iran is constantly headline news? How the stories about Iran always focus on some negative aspect or attempt to convey the impression that it represents a threat?
Remember how they also a similar campaign about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
As Chomsky has highlighted corporate news media appear more and the subservient propaganda arm of the wealthy, powerful and corrupt. How many other repressive militaristic regimes with poor human rights records receieve the kind of present attention directed at projecting the threat narrative into public conciousness? Has journalistic integrity, fact checking and independant research been entirely replaced by vertbatum copy and paste of the news wire?
There is plenty of evidence to go to war against Iran (or at least help in going to war with them) - kidnapping of other states' citizens/subjects, detaining of members from other states' military who were in international waters. The continued development (and attempted concealment) of enrichment plants. There is also the matter of the training and materials for the roadside bombs in Iraq coming from Iran. The continued aggressive stance towards Israel, who like or not have a right to their own lands (although not that of others') Then there's the human rights issues, the extra judicial beatings, detainment without trial, corrupt elections, etc.etc. If our governments wanted to go to war with Iran they've got all the reason they need, it's just that they really don't want to go to war with Iran, clearly lots of blind eyes are being turned while the issue is being forced by those in power in Iran.
"Assange told Al Jazeera TV he had no direct evidence of spook involvement but had been warned 11 August by Australian intelligence services to expect such a slander campaign."
Being Australian, I doubt that our intelligence services would have had the competence to discover a possible slander campaign. Nor am I convinced that they would have informed Assange if such a campaign existed.
What a load of conspiracist tripe. It's not even quality. Go back & re-read the Illuminatus Trilogy, learn how the real conspiracy thing is done. You don't even get the tinfoil lined snoopy helmet award for this.
I highly doubt that Assange has the 'nads to do rape -- from the looks of him, he'd have to leave mummy's basement and a whole mess of cheetos first. I also highly doubt that a government that has gotten permission to kill terrorists without trial would waste time with something like this, when they could just snuff him, or better.
I hate to break it to ol' Julian, but he didn't just make enemies in the USA -- his playing loose cannon with other nations' facts gives him a nice long enemies list. Many of those don't bother getting laws passed to say that it is OK to kill foreigners engaged in terroristic acts. Many might pull the trigger if they even think he will leak something sensitive.
I don't see him so much as a hero as I do a dumbshit who got himself well and truly in over his head believing his own sanctimonious bull shit about how the truth belongs to everybody. So far as his demise being justifiable -- the several hundred people who will die as a direct result of his naive belief that this information belongs out in the public weigh pretty heavily in the balance against him.
I'd say that the US is exercising commendable restraint, but more cynically, I'd say that it is more Obama's nutless approach to national security than anything else. (Terrorist? We banned the word, so we've solved the problem by renaming it! Aren't we special! Now people only get killed by man-caused disasters! PARTY IN SPAIN!!! W00T!!)
Before this episode, Assange was viewed as a harmless, naive crackpot. Now, he's become a dangerous naive crackpot. If he isn't running seriously scared, he should be, and his worst enemy is his mouth -- I don't think he has any idea how to STFU (the whole point behind wikileaks, eh?). I do not think that other nations' intelligence services play as nice as CIA/NSA, and their solutions to such problems are usually of the 9mm category. It would probably please them immensely to have him wake up dead and the US blamed for it. Not a good idea to hand them motive and iron-clad alibi, but again, can't STFU. The more he goes off on the US, the sooner that day comes.
As far as conspiracies go, it'd take about 5 minutes to cock up some data embarrassing to one of those countries, spread the word that he has it and is ready to post it, and wait for the popping noise. A couple weeks pass of nobody knowing exactly who did it, and problem solved.
RIP dumbshit. I'd say I was sorry, but you got a lot of people better than you killed.
Fact is the security wonks at the CIA *started* a blood feud
back when they were using dirty trix on the Soviets in 'Ghan.
The kind that makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a pissin'
match in a kindergarten.
Things like bombs wrapped in kiddie toys with Russian lettering
seem to be part of the issue...
The message should have been clear when that Pashtu Hashashin
parked his ass across from the CIA headquarters and whacked
some of the "brains" involved. But nooo. We had to go to war
to protect these assholes.
Just the long-assed way to make the observation that nobody in their right mind (barring Loki) loves a loose cannon, and you'd be surprised at who will find a way to get along just long enough to deal with it. Nobody but an idiot wants a messy extradition, hearing some geek bleating about how he's being repressed all over the press. The only reason for that is to make an object lesson out of someone, and I don't think this is like embarrassing the pentagon by hacking their server or setting up a gambling website and having some ignorant nancy get his panties in a wad over it. I think that certain people are well and truly pissed.
As to the blood feuds -- I have no doubt. There's payback, there's fuckback, and a whole lot more going on. I can't say so much as who started them -- I think you'd need to go back a lot further to really figure out who started what. We have absolutely no idea what exactly is really going on out there right now, and me, I'd prefer to stay as far out of it as possible. But Assange willingly inserted himself into it, even if he wasn't fully aware of the consequences. As you mentioned, dirty tricks in the pro league tend to leave grease spots on or largish holes in the pavement. At the very minimum, he has become a pawn in a much larger game.
As to the assholes being protected, in all fairness, you should include a lot of people in that crowd. The genesis of this situation goes back a long ways, and there's plenty of blame to go around. US ineptness in Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan ranging from well before the 1980's was inexcusable, but we weren't the only country backing the wrong guy or setting up deals with the wrong country. In a lot of ways, the only people that could keep peace there were the Turks, and they used appalling brutality as the weapon of choice.
Seems like it was some other country that 'liberated' the region from the Turks when the Ottoman empire fell apart (or was it pushed?). Can't blame them for doing that, for their self-preservation, for their good intentions, or their needing oil. Also can't blame anyone for saying 'no' if they didn't want to go there and fight those battles. Just damned glad to have good people along as reliable people are hard to find. I just wish that my country could treat them better. *That* embarrasses me.
.. you've got one guy whom you *know* to be an idiot. Popping this one could create the risk of a smarter one taking his place, and you can only pop so many people before it becomes somewhat embarrassing to local authorities.
Besides, about the last thing anyone would like to see happening is Assange becoming some sort of martyr. I suspect the reason he hasn't met with an accident yet is that he probably isn't quite as "public" as alleged, and there is more information held back for release after "accidents". I can see that as about the only reason he is still polluting the press. You already know Assange's definition of "public" is "everyone who pays me to get first publishing rights", so the idea of him being selective isn't as alien as it may appear at first glance.
I agree with some other commentards, it was probably a smear campaign but until they properly entrap him to be found teaming up with Roman Catholic priests helping themselves to small choir boys I don't think much is going to stick (pardon the unintentional pun)..
"So far as his demise being justifiable -- the several hundred people who will die as a direct result of his naive belief that this information belongs out in the public weigh pretty heavily in the balance against him."
This has come up in other discussions regarding the leaks. Everyone is going around claiming people will/have died as a result of the identities contained in the leaked data. The number varies (several hundred being one of the larger figures I've heard), but, given that the data is publicly available, I have yet to see anyone actually produce any evidence to backup the claims - you know, hard facts rather than waffle & spin.
So, I'm sorry, unless you can back up your claim, I'm calling BS on this one.
I love all this insistence on evidence masquerading as thoughtful discourse, implying everything else is by definition 'waffle and spin'.. You force a dichotomy on an argument that isn't there.
Sorry -- I do not know the names of the people as released. Further, if I did, I would not be irresponsible and do so to satisfy a juvenile urge to prove myself and impress someone that either a) knows that doing so endangers people and so an ethical person would not, or b) wouldn't care even if I were to prove them. What next after their names to satisfy you? addresses, next of kin? What if you decided that their getting murdered on satellite TV while the murderer screamed that this is what happens to informers wasn't enough 'evidence', since he wasn't convicted in a court of law in a country recognized by you? Am I supposed to supply more names? You're asking me to compound the moron Assange's murder by foolhardiness with murder by incitement. Do your local police know about your pushing me to commit murder by incitement?
Surely you are aware that information has value. In a desert, if you know where to find water, you live. In al-qaeda, if you know where an informant is, make him dead, then nobody else wants to inform on you, you live (long enough to whack a few more unbelievers or people that just happen to be in the way).
What a reasonable person would know, and in this any prosecuting attorney would refer to the standard of reasonableness and prudence -- is that sensitive information, especially informant information, can be used if known to identify the informant via triangulation. It is the same knowledge that tells you that if you lay down in the middle of a busy street at rush hour, you may get ran over and you may die, so don't do it.
The particular people in this case have motive to kill, have done so in the past, and make it perfectly clear that that's their intention if they find said informants. These are not nice people. Therefore, if the information is released, the reasonable and prudent test pretty much says that people will die because of it.
You want numbers? Good luck with that. I estimate at several hundred judging by the volume of information, and the fact that life is apparently cheap in that neck of the woods -- al-qaeda et al has not had a problem with collateral damage in the past, and blowing away an entire family just enhances their desired deterrent value. The number could be higher, could be lower. If it was "just" 199 and I could prove it, admit it -- you'd still say I was spreading "waffle and spin".
You want me to hold your hand and tell you what you want to hear? Not coming from me.
I know that I will not convince you or anybody else that truly wants to believe the fairy tale that information just wants to run free. But if anybody else sees this and sees any logic in it, I've done my part.
I got a cool idea. Since you're so damned smart about what happens with actionable intelligence in a war zone, go to Iraq. I'll pass a rumor to wikileaks that you gave information to the US about al-qaida. Wait a week, see what happens. I call cowardice on you if you don't. It's only a week, it'd be a blast of a holiday!
He should expect his taxes to be audited as well as never getting laid again.
The newspapers will talk to him about details of his private life and he will
hear voices telling him all sorts of weird shit. And when the ground pork
tastes like monkey seasoned with ambergris, he'll need to practice a
shit-eater's grin and tell 'em "it's all just meat".
there are plenty of self-destructive types out there of either persuasion. Just last month some shrink got herself killed by choosing to date the man she met at the anger management clinic she was running. Evidently he had anger issues. Who knew?
But it would be an interesting trick to feed him a little acid until he starts talking in amanfrommars-ese -- if nobody believes him anymore, then he's about as safe as he can hope to be.
Thought this also - as long as Wikileaks remains in the current headlines, cha-ching, donations keep pouring in.
Ofcourse its also quite feasable that some intelligence service that has been monitoring Assange and his associates, arranged for these two women to 'find out about each other' , perhaps spicing up emotions with choice audio or (oh god no, please) video clips as proof.
Paris, because i'll watch all her spiced-up video footage any time. But hope and pray to the baby jesus that my senses are never 'molested' by Assanges spiced-up video footage...
*note - your freedoms may be subject to limitations. freedoms are dependent on patriotism, support for the commander in chief, armed forces and allegiance to the flag. freedom must not include vocal or material support for "the enemy". freedom means you will do exactly as we say. non-cooperation will result in our taking your freedoms by force. all your freedoms belong to us. you are either with us or against us. why do you hate our freedom?
This is not conspiracy surrounding Assange's arrest attempt, this is fact and the question begs as to who is going to stand with him during the many attempts to undermine him in the future. Most people will not stand with him unless it affects them personally as we are all fickle like that. However given the financial crisis that has been thrust upon us by the elites I think the army will be 300 million strong. Notice the number here for those who know!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019