Sounds like extrotion
And, frankly, extortion aimed at someone who's likely to say 'Publish and be damned to you.' And then make certain that if you published you would be utterly damned. That boy's playing with fire.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has a trove of private documents on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp empire and is prepared to release them in the event the whistle-blower website is taken down. “If something happens to me or to WikiLeaks, 'insurance' files will be released,” he told The New Statesman. “There are 504 …
So this is how many people and organisations who actually have the money and influence to quite literally have him whacked is he pissing off? Eventually, he won't be martyred when he's whacked...because there will be no possible way to know who did it. Everyone would have a conflicting theory, but he'll have pissed off so many people it would be impossible to know the who, or the why.
Blackmail I believe. That would seem to be a genuine criminal offence committed in the UK. Well, I guess that's one way not to get extradited.
It also completely and utterly stuffs any credibility he had left in my mind. If he was genuinely of the moral conviction that everything should be published he'd be publishing it, not using it to make threats.
At the risk of getting a flood of thumbs down for agreeing with the minority, I'll say it anyway: I completely agree with JimC.
1 - it is blackmail, which I never condone.
2 - Assange shows once again that his goal is not to release information "because we have the right to know", but because he wants us to know (i.e. in this case because it suits him).
Each time I read a Wikileaks news item, it seems to shred a bit more of the credibility they have (not much left now I'm afraid).
By the way, how's the payment to Andy Manning's lawyer going? Still "in progress" of transferring the donations that they specifically collected for this purpose months ago?
"By the way, how's the payment to Andy Manning's lawyer going? Still "in progress" of transferring the donations that they specifically collected for this purpose months ago?"
It seems that he is not worth as must as Julian is (about 90k wage I last heard), even though he is the source of Julian's intended pay wall income and memoirs. Julian talks of protecting sources, I think from his reaction about the Guardian's use of 'his property' (leaked material) he is referring to the property, rather than the giver. ;-)
It might be excusable blackmail but it's still blackmail. But I don't - yet - see the relevance of your question. Assange is not about to be murdered. Locked up for committing a crime, perhaps. Maybe you should be asking:
'Is it blackmail if you're just trying to avoid going to prison'
..and the answer to that is a resounding 'Yes!'. Arguably that makes the offence even worse. Last I heard he claimed to want to cooperate with legal authorities to clear his name. Now you're suggesting he's using blackmail to subvert the legal process?
“If something happens to me or to WikiLeaks, 'insurance' files will be released”
Hmm, I suppose we'd need to know what the "something" he's referring to is.
Rendition or Gitmo or murder would presumably qualify.
Mere detention would apparently not (as it's already happened, and no decryption keys appeared).
Still lots of ambiguous middle ground there.
Also, is he referring to the Wikileaks site itself, or Wikileaks plus all its numerous mirrors? Presumably the latter, as hasn't the main site been taken down before?
Another consideration - Assange might not even be able to control whether the keys will be released or not by this point. We can assume he has trusted associates who will release them based on some pre-determined conditions (e.g. his death). I would doubt that these conditions are in any way affected by anything Assange says now - too much risk of him making statements under duress.
> It might be excusable blackmail but it's still blackmail.
Do you want to cite reference for that position?
Under UK law, it *probably* isn't blackmail. Blackmail is defined in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 (which every single DVD owner in the UK should read from beginning to end). It states :-
"(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
So for this to be blackmail, the demand would need to be "unwarranted", and it is not so if Assange has reasonable ground for that demand and the menaces are a proper means of enforcing it.
Assange clearly *does* think he has reasonable grounds - even if others disagree. So it boils down to whether or not his threat to reveal info about Murdoch can be considered a "menace" and if so, whether that would constitute a "proper means" for enforcing his demand. This would need to be thrashed out in court to be certain, but I don't think we can take for granted that he would be convicted of blackmail if it were to come to that.
If this wasn't blackmail or grandstanding, then he would have said this quietly, through counsel, to those that he felt would do him harm.
The fact that he is publicly making this 'threat' is in fact blackmail. Based on the definition you posted, there is enough evidence in the public eye that he could in fact be charged for committing blackmail.
'Oh if something should happen to me, I'm going to release the consulate documents that relate to Fox News... (Murdoch).' That sir by your definition is blackmail. "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces;"
Legally speaking thats enough to bring charges. The second part..."and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
This is what is known as an affirmative defense.
Since you want to play lawyer, you do know what an affirmative defense is right? So he can be charged, being found guilty is another matter, and Assange would have to show that his fears are documented. Going to jail for having committed a crime is not ample justification.
You are correct that while he can be charged, there is the chance that he may be found innocent of the charge.
IMHO This is grandstanding being done for profit. So not only is he threatening harm to others, he is clearly profiting from this... You don't believe that he's not soliciting funds to keep wikileaks going and to also draw attention to his soon to be released book?
Oh and thats another thing. He'd better release the book before he's charged by the US. There's a law on the books where he can't profit from his crimes... (I kid you not).
> If this wasn't blackmail or grandstanding, then he would have said this quietly, through counsel
That is your inference. It has no basis.
> The fact that he is publicly making this 'threat' is in fact blackmail.
Read the definition from the legislation - I posted it earlier. The fact that Assange said something in public does not make it blackmail.
> That sir by your definition is blackmail.
No, it is not. Several requirements need to be met for it to be blackmail. Making a threat in public does not of itself fulfil those requirements.
> So he can be charged
If the CPS consider that there is a case against him, then yes - he can be charged. That does not make the action blackmail - it would merely indicate that the CPS believe it so. The CPS has been known to be wrong.
> being found guilty is another matter
Exactly so. And *if* he is charged, and subsequently acquitted, then he did not commit the offence of blackmail. Simple, really - it just means that the due process of law must be followed to determine if this is blackmail, rather that just accepting as gospel truth the rants of some fake identity on an Internet forum.
> IMHO This is grandstanding being done for profit
Yes, we're all aware of your opinion. But that is irrelevant here - whether you are right or wrong, that does not necessarily make his actions "blackmail". You have fallen into the classic Daily Fail position of deciding that, just because someone is a total cock, he *must* be guilty of whatever allegations we can make up today. This is not the case; his guilt or innocence of the charge of blackmail is something to be decided by a court, should he ever be charged with such.
> You don't believe that he's not soliciting funds to keep wikileaks going
I have not expressed an opinion about that. What I have said is that the poster above needs to cite evidence before claiming that Assange's actions are assuredly blackmail. And his motives WRT getting more money for his project do not affect that.
reread my post.
Based on the definition, there is enough evidence in the public eye where one could reasonably charge Assange with blackmail. It is a clear threat. And it was made for his own personal gain.
You may not like that, but hey when you run your own country you can decide.
With respect to Assange actually getting charged... thats up to the UK, the US and whatever other nations want to get involved based on Murdoch's residency.
But seriously, you've gone off in to fantasy land in defense of Assange.
Didn't he threaten to sue the Guardian for their release of information that was leaked to them from a wikileaks insider? (Naw, that was all a right wing conspiracy concocted by the CIA to discredit him, right?)
What about all of the detailed back room discussions about who gets involved and then his releasing the stuff on TV blowing the Guardian's scoop. You're going to tell me 'donations' weren't made to Assange or Wikileaks ... yeah right. I know.. you want me to prove it knowing that I can't.
(But you can bet sooner or later that would have to come out.)
The fact that this did come to light is a clear indication that there were and are much more discussions going on.
There's more to this... after all Assange is currently enjoying his freedom due to the assistance of Britain's wealthy liberal elitists that he has conned.
The more you read, the more you know and your best bud Assange starts to show his true colors.
> reread my post.
I've read your post. It is no more accurate for repeated readings.
> Based on the definition, there is enough evidence in the public eye
> where one could reasonably charge Assange with blackmail.
Says you. The CPS, on the other hand, have not charged him. Why is it, do you think, that the organisation with the duty of initiating prosecution for criminal offences in the UK sees it one way and you, some guy on an Internet forum, sees it differently?
> It is a clear threat. And it was made for his own personal gain.
Says you. I do not agree with either of those points, and nor could I demonstrate that, if it did constitute a menace, it would not also constitute reasonable means.
Nor does the UK police agree with you. And nor does the CPS. But you seem to know better than all of us.
> You may not like that, but hey when you run your own country you can decide.
But I'm not deciding. The people who *do* run the country are deciding. Assange has not been charged with blackmail - the police and the CPS are siding with me, not with you.
Why is it, therefore, that you think you can decide what is and is not the law in the UK? You're not even resident here, are you?
> With respect to Assange actually getting charged... thats up to the UK
It is. It's up to the UK. It's not up to some guy that calls himself Gumby. Are you getting the story yet? You don't decide what is blackmail, the UK authorities do. And they have chosen not to take action against Assange for blackmail. There's a connection there, I can't quite put my finger on it...
> But seriously, you've gone off in to fantasy land in defense of Assange.
No, I haven't. I'm not defending him - I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to dictate what is the law in the UK. Can you really not see the difference?
> Didn't he threaten to sue the Guardian for their release of information
Is that in any way pertinent to your claim that he is a blackmailer? If not, it's irrelevant.
> What about all of the detailed back room discussions about who gets involved
Is that in any way pertinent to your claim that he is a blackmailer? If not, it's irrelevant.
> You're going to tell me 'donations' weren't made to Assange or Wikileaks
Is that in any way pertinent to your claim that he is a blackmailer? If not, it's irrelevant.
> ... yeah right. I know.. you want me to prove it knowing that I can't.
Not really. what I want is for you to stick to the point at hand. Everyone here knows you dislike Assange - but your dislike of him does not inherently make him guilty of blackmail.
If you want to accuse him of such, substantiate your position. Pulling assorted gripes out of your arse does not do that. Few here are trying to portray him as some sort of saint; what we're discussing at present is whether or not he is a blackmailer. Your argument seems to be that, as he is less than perfect as a human being, he must be a blackmailer. I hope you can see how nonsensical is that position.
> (But you can bet sooner or later that would have to come out.)
Will that prove that he is a blackmailer? Because if it doesn't, it's irrelevant.
> There's more to this... after all Assange is currently enjoying his freedom due
> to the assistance of Britain's wealthy liberal elitists that he has conned.
Not so. A number of people have stood bail because they do not believe he should be incarcerated over the allegations that are as yet unproven. That's how bail works.
> The more you read, the more you know and your best bud Assange starts to
> show his true colors.
Well the first thing you ought to realise is that he is most certainly not my "best bud". I dislike the man intensely. I have made no secret of this.
But he is as yet innocent of the various allegations against him - indeed, he has not even been charged with anything. So telling the world of his guilt just makes you look foolish. Wait until there is a conviction before spraying your vitriol; at the moment, he is innocent because he has not been proven guilty.
I guess you fail to understand what it means when someone here calls Assange's actions blackmail.
It means that they are exercising their free speech rights. In the US that's protected by the First Amendment.
They are expressing an opinion. Whether or not Assange is charged with Blackmail remains to be seen.
I called Assange a sociopath. Many would agree with my opinion. Were a paper to call Assange a sociopath as a matter of fact, it would be a different matter unless they reported that there are those who consider his actions to be those of a sociopath. (When a news organization reports something as fact, and it isn't they face potential legal action. When they report the opinions as a matter of fact, this is not actionable when there is enough information in the public eye to justify the opinion.)
You also seem to confuse the fact that if a person is not charged that it doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Since you're a bit slow... I'll give you a very good example of this...
In Chicago, until the Supreme Court overturned the city's anti-handgun ownership law, it was illegal to be in possession of a handgun with a few exceptions... (Active Military, Job Requirement, Police Officer, or a member of City or County Government.) And of course if you had the gun registered w the police prior to 1982 when the gun ban went in to effect.
While the case was being heard in the US Supreme Court, there was an incident where a Korean War vet woke to hear someone trying to break in to his house. He illegally had his .45 and when confronting the burglar who was still outside, the burglar shot at him and missed. The vet returned fire and killed the burglar.
The man was never charged for illegally possessing a gun which would have been a felony.
(I don't even think they confiscated his gun.)
No one denies that a crime (Illegal possession of a hand gun) occurred. He was never charged because the DA knew that he would 1) Never get a conviction. 2) Would be more bad press for the City of Chicago.
So, here is a situation where a man was guilty of committing a crime yet was never charged. Talk to any cop and they'll tell you that not everyone who is guilty of committing a crime gets charged. (Oooh now that's a shocker.)
As to Assange,.. the clock is still ticking and more and more evidence is piling up. The US Government is very methodical and moves slowly.
I suggest you learn more about the legal system and well in fact reality about how the world works before you post. Larry Niven did a short story on Anarchy... I forget which anthology contains the story and its title. I'm sure someone else here can pop it up. Read it... you might learn something.
> I guess you fail to understand what it means when someone here calls
> Assange's actions blackmail.
Well, one of us does. I've quoted legislation in defence of my position, and you've responded with vitriol and anecdote. Which of those is the more rational way to advance an argument? And which is merely grandstanding to try to overcome opposition by excess verbiage?
> It means that they are exercising their free speech rights
The first point you need to clarify is whether or not those rights actually exist. At first sight here, it would appear that none of us have any such rights.
> In the US that's protected by the First Amendment.
Is this website in the US? It does have a .co.uk domain. The UK has no such rights to freedom of speech.
> They are expressing an opinion.
And opinions are fine. But stating as fact that someone is guilty of a crime is not merely a statement of opinion; it is a claim of fact which, in this case at least, is entirely false. It's the sort of thing that gets Justice Eady involved, and that way has lain prison for some individuals. UK legislation just doesn't allow you to mouth off in a slanderous manner without the opportunity of recompense.
> Whether or not Assange is charged with Blackmail remains to be seen.
Indeed. And for that reason alone, he currently has no convictions for blackmail. Claiming he has is simply lying.
<Snip stupidity - my demonstrating your being factually incorrect does not make me "slow", it simply makes you wrong>
> I suggest you learn more about the legal system
I'm going to suggest the same thing for you - you don't actually appear to know in which jurisdiction you're operating. That's kinda critical to knowing what the laws are...
 theregister.co.uk is a UK domain, owned by a UK Sole Trader, and it is hosted on a Rackspace server. I checked this morning, and it is definitely hosted in the UK, and therefore subject to UK legislation. However, since Rackspace is a US organisation, and since they have a large amount of hosting capability, it is entirely feasible that the site might on occasion be transferred to the US. But I doubt it.
I came across this from a firm of Lawyers who claim they specialise in the subject.
"There is a defence if the demand is made on reasonable
" grounds and the threat is a proper way to make the demand.
"This exists to cover those chasing legal debts such as banks
"when they send letters threatening repossession of a home
"unless they get paid."
I rather suspect that you're interpreting "menace" and "proper means" in a very odd manner, but I don't doubt that a lawyer would happly charge him a lot of money to do so. I rather doubt that a court would see it like that, but I imagine it would be 6 months and a ton of readies for the lawyers before he got convicted or not.
> I rather suspect that you're interpreting "menace" and "proper means" in a very odd manner
I rather suspect I'm not interpreting those terms at all.
The whole of my message is that someone on an Internet forum claiming something to be blackmail does not make it so - that is for a court to decide, not twelve good trolls and true.
I'm not saying whether Assange is guilty or innocent of anything - all I'm saying is that someone stating blankly that he is needs to provide some substantiation for that point.
Or do you disagree that a man is innocent unless proven guilty?
how can revealing information (presumably about illegal activities) be considered a menace.
- surely that is the duty of every good citizen - the government keep telling us often enough to be the eyes and ears of the police. does this not mean that if he has committed a crime here, the crime that he has (already) comitted is NOT having released the information previously? (i.e. withholding evidence)
(and is that a crime if there was no police investigation to release evidence to?... oay maybe his crime is to not already have reported another crime)
If you can be prosecuted for getting other motorists to slow down, the police will convict you just for looking at them funny:
Apparently counts as "obstructing the police". It beggars belief.
British justice - what a joke.
I wonder how many students they could prosecute for tweeting the locations of police kettles...
Everyone knows that Murdoch and especially Fox have more to do with running America than any President could ever wish for.
It would be awfully ironic if he had evidence that could jail the GOP's propaganda general.
You might say this is speculation or even conspiracy theory but I bet Murdoch isn't so complacent.
Murdoch, just like every other media puke, thinks that the best way to make money is over sensationalize the news. They might choose to put a Conversative spin on things, but don't believe for one second that Murdoch even remotely cares about that, any more than CNN cares about the Liberal spin they put on their stories.
In general, media outlets are for entertainment, not reporting facts. El Reg is bonafide proof of that. That's certainly the chief reason I don't follow major news outlets.
If anything, Wikileaks is really doing the job that used to be done by the news outlets, only they take the one extra step of publishing the actual documents.
Jon Stewart is a comedian on Comedy Central with his Daily Show followed up by the Colbert report.
You should google him and CNN. There was a story where Stewart actually has more influence in terms of making sense of the news than the pundits on CNN and Fox who claim to be real journalists.
(Thats not to say that CNN and Fox don't have real journalists. They do. But the 24 hour news channels' anchors aren't them...)
There's a clip of Colbert grilling Assange over the video of the killing of the journalists, where Assange pretty much acknowledges that the title given to it "collateral murder" was added by him. In other words, Assange has no interest in objective journalism, but intentionally guides the public into a certain emotional state.
I watch both shows on Comedy Central.
With respect to ViagraFalls post...
Collateral Damage is one thing. Using the term murder is another and yes, all objectivity is lost.
If you look back at Viet Nam, there was a prize wining photograph of a South Vietnamese officer executing a man on the city streets. The photo was actually a frame in some footage the journalist shot.
What the world saw was an injustice. What really happened is that the incident took place during the Tet Offensive and the man who was executed was the man who had just killed the Officer's family. (It was the journalist who conveyed the story which was somehow lost when the papers picked up the photo.)
The point of that story is that without knowing all of the facts people jump to conclusions. Truth be told, were I that officer, I'd have pulled the trigger too. (And so would many of you...)
Releasing footage out of context allows one to draw the wrong conclusion... not good.
Premeditated murder is just that--planned and carried out as planned. That's why it's considered among the most serious crimes in most criminal codes. Manslaughter is a lesser crime, usually considered as having been committed in an out of control state, either because of a rage (voluntary, "heat of passion") or because of lack of care or attention (vehicular manslaughter--running over someone by accident).
In between are things like second-degree murder: usually the result of an attempted premeditated murder gone wrong (as in you don't hit the "hit") or a reckless disregard for life (waving around a gun and it goes off).
Why is Assange waiting until News Corp do something to him? He hasn't displayed any such scruples before, releasing anything and everything into the public domain even if it isn't in the public interest (i.e. sites of security significance).
So whatever you have on Murdoch, Julian, please get on and publish it at once - you'll be doing the planet a public service.
"So whatever you have on Murdoch, Julian, please get on and publish it at once - you'll be doing the planet a public service."
...And then let's see how empty or otherwise your threat really was/is.
Mr Assange long ago forfeited any credibility in my mind, as he was all for open-ness and no secrets, BUT very selectively.
He wanted the documents of the USA to be exposed to all the world, but not the documents of other nations, NOR was he happy that documents about his own life could not be kept secret.
He speak with forked tongue, Kemosabe!
He says this..... and he gets his lawyers to whine that he may get sent to guantanamo or even given the death penalty, despite the fact he's done nowhere near enough to warrent that sort of punishment. There ought to be an academy award for this kind of self absorbtion.
You are NOT that important Julian.
Well...politicians in the US have called for him to be branded a traitor, convicted of treason (although I don't quite know how that would work) and various public figures have called for him to be executed.
Given that the US have form for grabbing people that they don't like illegally and sticking them in G'Bay I think that his fears are perfectly justified.
Personally, I wish he gets what he is *alleging* to be afraid of. He and his lawyer know full well that it's absolute and total BS that the US would consider rendition - nobody wants to give him the chance to claim martyrdom.
With respect to the death penalty, I don't think that's even viable as he did not commit the original crime of disclosure, just made good use of it to boost his own ego (oh, and supporting, cough, "freedom of information"", cough by jeopardising lives in countries where Assange would have suffered an abrupt shortening of posture himself).
The first time I heard of this sort of blackmail (it's not a new threat) I already said: call that BS. Given that WL are planning to release "everything" anyway without any consideration of what the US calls "collateral damage" (and with a similar lack of regard for it) I would say, party on. Arrest him and pull that sting - get it over with. Personally, an "all" release would actually help rather than hinder anyone who has something to hide because it makes for a bigger haystack. It's utter BS.
The moment you'd call their BS you'd see some Wikileaks in Assange underwear because he'd realise that his days as press magnet are over, as his ability to screw Swedish groupies. Even that problem was of his own making - all he needed to do was the decent thing and have himself tested - that's all the girls asked for. His refusal triggered the rest, so in a sort of poetic justice he ended up screwing himself by not testing himself as asked.
It makes you wonder: what has he got to hide? A nice collection of STDs? I think that should be leaked..
>>"cough by jeopardising lives in countries where Assange would have suffered an abrupt shortening of posture himself"
You are aware that even the Pentagon has stated that it doesn't think any lives are at risk from the leaked cables right? Nice little strawman you got goin' on there but it's FUD plain and simple. The only person whose life is at risk is Assange. Not that I support all this posturing and media whoring that he's engaged in recently but we should at least be honest about who is or isn't at risk here.
I wish it wasn't true either, but it has been reported that the side effect of releasing US diplomatic cables was detection and, umm, "correcting" of people in Iraq voicing their opinion to the US.
I would also not really trust the Pentagon to be truthful, but that may be just prudence..
"and he gets his lawyers to whine that he may get sent to guantanamo or even given the death penalty, despite the fact he's done nowhere near enough to warrent that sort of punishment"
Well, Joe Biden, the second in command of the USA called him a 'terrorist'. What happens to foreign citizens that the US brands terrorists? A full jury trial within the US with full constitutional protections? Or a small cell, simulated drowning and regular beatings, rape and other 'robust' interrogate measures followed by a military court and execution if you're lucky enough to survive the torture?
And interesting aside. If the US could reduce its murder rate to the level of western European nations such as the UK (a not-unreasonable target considering the similarity of legal systems, culture, wealth, etc.), you'd save around 11,000 lives a year - roughly one 911 every 3 months. A few troops on the street in major US cities and you'd soon get things under control.
But no... the US spends billions on sending them round the other side of the world to 'save American lives'.
What a lot of nonsense.
and release the damn documents already.
The diplomatic cables are just high school gossip on a grander scale. I don't see where they've changed the world.
Something which could have a major detrimental effect on shameless, greedy, toxic, lying sack-of-shit corporations like News Corp or BofA, now THAT is something the world could use and benefit from.
Sorry, but you do mean that you were unaware of the fact that many of the Arab states view Iran as a threat because of the power vacuum created when the US took out Saddam.
That wasn't news to anyone who follows Middle East politics.
But you prove my point. Nothing being released is of 'whistle blowing' quality.
No crimes have been uncovered.
Just an egomaniac trying to keep his face in the news and try to rake in those donations in to his personal pocket. Speaking of which. Has Wikileaks sent any money for Manning's defense fund yet?
"Just an egomaniac trying to keep his face in the news and try to rake in those donations in to his personal pocket. Speaking of which. Has Wikileaks sent any money for Manning's defense fund yet?" .... Ian Michael Gumby Posted Thursday 13th January 2011 01:23 GMT
Speaking of which, Ian Michael Gumby, has the British Legion received its multi-million pound donation yet .......
12 January 2011 4:13PM
"A Journey sold 92,060 copies in its first four days on sale, the strongest ever opening-week sale of a memoir since Nielsen BookScan records began in 1998" ..... scouserlee 12 January 2011 1:24PM
Does anyone know if the British Legion have received all, or even any of the monies promised to them by Mr Blair with regard to his journeys and flights of fancy, with at least £4million [apparently the advance given to him by the publishers] being part of the total? Or is that outstanding for some reason or other?
And whereas there are a few who may be calling for Julian Assange to be tried for treason, in Tony Blair's case, there are millions who want him dealt with as a war monger and criminal conspirator, and their case is rock solid, with reams of evidence to boot.
"You mean apart from a direct order from the current serving secretary of state to illegaly spy on UN diplomats in UN territory?"
Excuse me? Define how Hilary Clinton's request entails anything illegal?
Yeah, thats the thing. Nothing illegal in what she requested. Only you don't seem to grok what she asked or what is legal and what is not.
So get your facts straight.
Can you also cite the RoE in Afganistan, Iraq or any other theater of operations in which the US currently has military personnel? Didn't think so.
Actually some of the stuff released about Denmark is creating quite a stir.
The government was mandated by parliament to investigate the CIA flights going through Denmark, but communication between the American ambassador, shows that the investigation wasn't actually done, on what seems to be orders by the Danish foreign minister. This could cost him an impeachment. Not to mention that the current danish government is made to look like fools in most of the telegrams. So at least they will play a role in toppling the current administration.
It's good that it gets out in the light when government is breaking the law. Cause we have way to little transparency here. So honestly I don't give a f-word about this being an embarrassment.
"Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing."
- Dr Strangelove
"Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?"
"It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises."
- Dr Strangelove & Russian Ambassador
... is that the TSA is probably is probably expending thousands of man hours trying to find out just what awful secrets are in that Bill of Rights.
YES, Madame Secretary, we're working on it. NO, nothing yet. YES, we Googled it, page after page about the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution but nothing about a Bill of Rights. Assange must have hacked Google! He's an evil genius! YES, we'll call as soon as we have something!
Let's face border patrol IT training would simply be:
1. Start Windows laptop
2. Plug in SUB key
3. Click on USB drive letter when it appears
4. CTRL +A or "circle" all files
5. Right-click COPY
6. Click drive C:
7. Right click PASTE
8. Read copied files for evidence of anti-US sentiments!
When this doens't work, detain crimi...sorry, suspect until they tell you why Windows won't copy the files!
the child is put back in the crib.
I was pro wikileaks when this all started but it's been exposed as being very selective in what companies and people are brought into the cross hairs of the leaks.
it's a soros front group and he couldn't of picked a weaker character to head it.
assange lost me at (if im arrested the insurance file gets decrypted). Well he was arrested and the insurance file is still sealed.
They called your bluff wuss and you lost. Now go hang out in the mansions of the leftist elite while confused freedom lovers defend your smear campaign.
what surprises me is why hasn't there been an investigation into why all the supposedly top secret stuff is bunked all into one silo that is trawlable by a bored low level operative. Hope fully the US doesn't keep all the nuke passwords or whatever with the same 'bung it anywhere and google it web 2.0' methodology.
Manning had access to classified networks and classified material. Of course these networks and databases are monitored. How else do you think that they caught him so fast?
The really good juicy stuff isn't somewhere that a guy like Manning had access. You know those files on Area 51 and reports out of Wright Pat AFB? Or who really shot JFK...
Ok, I'm sorry for being a bit silly but the point is that there is a lot of Classified, Secret, and Top Secret documents that Manning didn't have access to and is in a much more secure environment.
That's why Assange is all smoke and no fire. Where's the Whistle Blowing issue in all of his releases?
None. Its no wonder his insiders are defecting to go back to their grass roots and launching their own leak site.
Wrong - there were plenty of Secret documents stolen from SIPR
They caught him by monitoring the network?
Wrong - He confessed to a known hacker who narced him to the feds
Yes he didn't steal any TS/SCI stuff which is all on a separate network but lets not understate the fact that he stole 100s of thousands of documents in pretty much all the classification levels apart from the highest.
He did this using nothing more sophisticated than the CD writer of a machine on the air gapped network because some clot changed the security policy to allow the use of external media.
It's really quite simple to explain. Internet Explorer Six. Yes, the primary, if not the only, blessed data handling tool utilized by the US gubbermint. When you're forced to manage all your top super duper secret data with colander style security tools... yeah. It boggles even Paris.
Assange threatens an "insurance" plan to release more cables about News corporations...
oooh! Wow. So what whistle blowing is really happening except Assange airing 'dirty laundry'.
Anything criminal about a consulate employee's opinion? Or even shocking that one may find a Fox Broadcasting reporter boring and full of himself?
So why is Assange promising more releases? I mean if wikileaks was about whistle blowing then he would have already vetted the material and released it.
What one wonders is what sort of back room conversations are taking place?
You know... the type of conversations where Assange threatens to sue the paper for releasing information before he says its ok, or by unilaterally adding competing newspapers to deal and leaking stuff to the TV reporters a day before the papers go to press?
Yeah. Its all about being above the greed and for profit opportunities and cashing in. Its all about providing the truth and whistle blowing. (Did you get the sarcasm?)
I would have to say he's blackmailing someone and while we don't hear the actual threat, you can bet it was delivered quietly behind closed doors.
"Rarely do you see anyone so obsessed with a particular guy that they will post so many falsehoods, so many times, in such rapid succession, so obsessively, with so much irrationality and sometimes sounding so paranoid as Dear Mr Gumby is."
Somehow I don't believe obsession is the problem here. Much more likely is that Mr Gumby is a US Government employee just doing his job.
"....Much more likely is that Mr Gumby is a US Government employee....." Man, conspiracy theorists are just so damnably lazy nowadays! Not like the nutters of yesteryear, makes you dispair for the kids of today. Try doing some homework rather than just wallowing in your paranoia.
Is IMG a Yank? Well, yes, he has posted on El Reg before that he's a Septic. I'm guessing located around the New York area. Is he a "US Government employee"? Hardly likely, seeing as he has also posted some titbits on the hardware (IBM pref) and database software (open source and IBM) he works with, and the combination doesn't look like the stuff the CIA or any other US Government org would be using. The info is there in his posts, go take a look. More clues might be on the eggheadcafe.com forums, assuming it's the same IMG.....
(Should keep Mr Fail busy for a while.)
"....you cant mix ranting with sarcasm...." Really? Why not? I suppose it might be beyond the intellectual capabillity of the sheeple being herded around by Assange, but others would consider it quite trivial to mix taunting of the logically-challenged with tired annoyance at their continued obtuseness.
"...do you think saying the same thing in every post is productive?" I suspect that Gumby is merely responding to the manner in which you Assange supporters seem incapable of seeing the facts, despite them being repeatedly presented to you. So, a bit like an adult trying to explain something quite basic to a reticent child, Gumby is probably hoping that repitition will allow the obvious to batter it's way through the padding of misplaced zeal currently impinging on your mental faculties.
Now, do you have anything to actually say as to whether you think Assange's "threat" is blackmail, grandstanding for publicity, or just the paranoid squeallings of an attention-seeker? After all, when their attack on the financial institutions failed, Anonymous switched to an easier target (Grace Mugabe) in an attempt to bolster their public image, so it's hardly surprising that Assange feels the need to rally his sheeple by promising dirt on two arch capitalist targets ("them nasty bankers" and one of the richest media tycoons in the World). I'm sure that Murdoch's ownership of right-of-centre Fox has nothing to do with the appeal to the majority of his sheeple (that was the sarcasm bit, just for the really thick sheeple).
"....if it weren't for the fact that much of what Gumby said is trivially and verifiably wrong...." Aw, now I'm going to have to go back and look again just so I can poke fun at you!
IMG posted - "...So why is Assange promising more releases? I mean if wikileaks was about whistle blowing then he would have already vetted the material and released it...." Hmmm, seems a reasonable question to me, wondering why Assange is not doing the real "leaker" but only releasing stuff when it is of financial gain to himself or when he perceives a threat. Please explain why this is "trivially" (trivial?) or "verifiably worng"? Assange has not released all the info he cliams to hold, he says he has maintained a cache "for insurance", so therefore Ian's question is factual (Assange says he has not released all the info) and verifiable (as verified by reports of what Assange said). It would seem that you are the one that is wrong! Insert look of faux surprise here.
IMG also posted - ".....Yeah. Its all about being above the greed and for profit opportunities and cashing in. Its all about providing the truth and whistle blowing...." Now, I suppose this is harder to verify seeing as it preposes a state of mind on Assange's part, and seeing as the only person that can truly see into Assange's mind (or would probably want to) is Assange himself, that's a bit harder to verify. But, the alledged evidence (his anger at the possible financial impact of losing "control" of his info, plus his not releasing all the info like a true "leaker" would) would seem to support the view that Assange is only in it for the money and the egotrip, so IMG's sarcasm seems quite justified. So far, IMG is two up and you've yet to score. Not that I'd want to imply scoring of any form is a rarity in your life.
IMG finally posts - ".....I would have to say he's blackmailing someone...." This is an opion, it doesn't need to be "verifiable" other than any preceding arguments. In fact, IMG's post seems to be reasoning followed by an opinion. Your post, on the other hand, is simply a blanket denial without the merest shred of reasoning. Your post maintains that IMG is verifiably wrong on all counts yet fails to provide any form of supporting counter-arguments, just lots of bleating.
You posted "....So defend him all you want, but in defending him and suggesting those who disagree with him are stupid you only serve to demonstrate that you yourself are simply as ignorant as he is....." Well, actually it looks like I have merely shown more of your own inability to take your head out of Mr Assange's rectal passage. Of course, I am assuming that, should your head be freed of the Assange a$$hat, you would have the ability to look dispassionately at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion, but I fear I am giving you far too much credit. Probably best if you remain a sheeple and let Assange and co tell you what to think (which will also leave far more grounds for poking fun at you!).
Apologies if it caused you annoyance, Ms Bee, I'll buy you a Bud 66 some time to make it up. ;)
As to the use of "sheeple", are we now only allowed to apply it to fanbois? I thought that affliction had enough descriptives ("fanbois", "iSheep", etc), and I'm pretty sure "sheeple" originated many years before Apple? With reference to the Wikileakers faithful, can you please indicate if any of the following is accpetable for use in future posts:
A$$bots (may be misconstrued)
fosjays (Followers of St Julian)
Yeah, no, none of those. It's a stupid word in all circumstances, and it is also now about as old as a first-episode Friends joke. If you can't find a less smug and hackneyed way to lambast people who you consider unable to think for themselves, it doesn't say anything good about you.
So please stop. It pains me. Ta.
The reason I tend to say the same things over and over is that you and the other Assange fan boys who are of the leftist liberal bent don't seen to get it.
He's pulling a con and you've taken the bait.
You're too young to know 20th Century History or to really grok its importance.
I gave you an example where a picture taken out of context was printed and it showed the horrors of war where an apparent civilian was shot... When put in to context the action becomes understandable.
(The 'civilian' was a known Viet Kong who just killed that officer's family during the '68 Tet.)
I've given you examples where someone breaks the law, yet is never charged.
I've given you examples of how something is blackmail. Or that what Assange is saying doesn't jive with reality.
The irony is that if you get the chance to live as long as I have, you might start to see things differently. Take a look at the bulk of the Hippies of the 60's. Those that are alive today are totally different people because reality has crushed their ideals.
In 20 years time, I doubt you'd remember this post but if you do, maybe then you'd understand.
BTW, the problems in India, Pakistan, Middle East, and other places are all based on British Colonialism. So while you blame the US... for all of its sins.. Look to home first.
(And while we're at it. Viet Nam? That was due to the US supporting the French.)
We can go further back in to history, but us Yanks were too busy conquering our own continent while Europe was raping the world for themselves.
>>"We can go further back in to history, but us Yanks were too busy conquering our own continent while Europe was raping the world for themselves."
I do hope you're not trying to claim some kind of moral high ground there.
It wasn't exactly 'yours' at the time, any more than the next bit of territory one or other empire had designs on was 'theirs'.
Blind as well as thick
That picture is Steve Jobs
Your ranting and blatant disregard of the facts just makes you out to be just like your namesake
Please can we have a Gumby icon to represent someone of below average intelligence? (Paris doesn't count)
I'd like to learn more about what Mr Murdoch and his evil empire get up to behind the scenes. Rupert isn't just the guy who owns the News of the World; he also heads up Fox (I could've phrased that a little better, but what the hey) and the odious Fox News channel and lobbies world leaders personally and forcefully. He's an unelected powerhouse behind too many thrones, including our own government, and his less than cute Machiavellian ways should be exposed to us all.
Julian, if you never wiki another leak after this, make it one last one about Murdoch.
People seem to have been banging the freedom of speech drum for some time, but ever since Manning appears to be claimed pre-leaking contact with Assange, the US government's best option seemed like it might be charges of conspiracy before the fact in the stealing of classified information, rather than the publication of such information, and I think some recent US comments seemed to support that idea.
That way they can comfortably ignore any proper news organisations and allegations of censorship, and focus all the blame on Assange and Manning.
I'd imagine that from their point of view, the more blame can be put on Assange, the better.
The above isn't making any judgement on what's *right*, but just what seems possible or even probable.
There's not much point talking about what they can't get him for if that isn't what they're likely to try and get him for.
Last time I went to the US I was questioned at length about the fact I had teabags with me.
Everyone, aside from US customs, knows that you can't get a decent cuppa there so I took my own. They had a hell of a time understanding it.
That said I was guilty of being suspiciously brown without due care and attention.
Yeah, same thing happened to a friend and myself when visiting the US for the first time back in the '90s. I have no idea what they wanted; and, I suspect, neither did they: probably the novelty factor of finding the only two non-Americans on the flight and jerking us about. Three hours in 40+ degrees with nothing to drink was a bit of a bummer and not quite the welcome we'd anticipated, though apparently not that uncommon.
...and I almost cackled in malicious glee at those voting so, clearly so far in denial that they apparently forgotten what "whistleblowing" actually means, and being incapable to see that their golden idol is starting to look like it's actually made of sh*t.
Of course if you hated Newscorp or BoA or just the USA govt in general then you might be seriously tempted to wack ol' Jules for the exact reason that you want the secret insurance to see the light of day and do lots of harm. His magical nuclear-option insurance is what we want to see anyway if it is so juicy and he just told us how to ensure it gets released.
Motive can be attributed to dozens of groups now. I think we might start seeing him being even more paranoid than usual now....
>>"Motive can be attributed to dozens of groups now. I think we might start seeing him being even more paranoid than usual now...."
Just wait until the conspiracy nuts realise that if *they* whack him...
Especially if they can make it look like an almost successful attempt to fake a suicide.
I agree with Assange.
He isn't releasing stuff about News Corp because it isn't in the public interest. Those cables can be put to the bottom of the pile.
If however News Corp decide to play the game and interfere in something that isn't their business then they make the cables that mention them public interest. If the "free" press is acting as an agent of the state then they deserve everything they get.
If News Corp are independent and honest then they won't have anything to worry about.
It isn't blackmail. It is merely a statement. He's just giving them a heads up. They don't have to do anything Assange says. It is no more blackmail than any of the statements made by the US Government.
As we are often told by politicians "if you've got nothing to hide ..."
Well now it is their turn.
I look forward to reading all about News Corp and their dealings around the World. I'm sure as an upstanding and honest beacon of democracy we will all be impressed.
"....He isn't releasing stuff about News Corp because it isn't in the public interest...." But surely, nothing could be of more interest to the public? A rich individual alledgedly using his power to influence democraticly elected individuals to his own ends - sounds bang-on for public interest! It would seem that it is more of a case that Assange doesn't see it as "in the public interest" but more as "in Assange's interest". There could be no more glaring example of why you should be pushing Assange to release the information now.
Personally, I want Assange to release anything he has on Murdoch. Not that I'm really expecting some amazing revellations, but it's always fun watching Murdoch froth!
A word of advice for all visiting here who don't want to be automatically included on a terrorist watch list ..... don't visit and root around in the website provided by StooMonster ... Who you gonna call? Posted Thursday 13th January 2011 10:40 GMT .... http://hitman.us/
Or is that advice too late? Ah well, take care, and just try to plead ignorance or even better, natural curiosity. :-)
"If News Corp are independent and honest then they won't have anything to worry about." ..... Matt Hawkins Posted Thursday 13th January 2011 12:35 GMT
Well, I think we take it for granted that they are extremely worried to the point of apoplexy, Matt Hawkins.
And what has not been mentioned, and is quite probably the real concern of the "Establishment", in whatever form and phorms that it may be, is that reading between the lines of the communications, allows the more intelligent being and any budding wannabe Great Game Player to know how things are made to happen around the world, with Media fanning the flames and spreading the tales. And that would then have ..... well, the "Establishment" battling against itself and Real SMART Virtual Players, who under Cotonou defined rules are also Non State Actors. And the reality then is, whenever they cannot be defeated and vanquished, is that they can always be bought, and although the best of them are always exorbitantly expensive, it is the cheapest and best option, given the irreparable damage that can be inflicted on a vast range of Establishment players.
And there is a fabulous bonus too freely available, for the very best of best of the new breed of Non State Actors will probably definitely also have an extremely clever novel program to offer the System in order to protect itself from itself, thus making any exorbitantly expensive purchase, as aforementioned, a really cheap bargain and a very astute move.
Rome has declared the pope to be infallible and after it declared Murdoch to be of "unblemished character" and made him a knight.
Obviously this had nothing to do with his giving millions of dollars to the church, whose coffers are kind of light after paying damages for all the paedo's it employs, a few months earlier.
So what can Wikileaks have that the pope doesn't know about?
between the pope being declared infallible and Murdoch being declared to be of unblemished character although you wouldn't know it reading your comment.
Papal infallibility refers solely to the popes pronouncements about the catholic faith and nothing else. Since he is head of the catholic faith I have no objection to him being declared infallible in those matters. Pronouncements by the pope about somebody's character are regarded are fallible by the church.
"Just an egomaniac trying to keep his face in the news and try to rake in those donations in to his personal pocket. Speaking of which. Has Wikileaks sent any money for Manning's defense fund yet?" .... Ian Michael Gumby Posted Thursday 13th January 2011 01:23 GMT
Yes. ....... http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-15100.htm
Still no word from the British Legion or Tony Blair though ....."Softly softly, catchee wannabe" , Posted Thursday 13th January 2011 09:52 GMT
Wake up people.
Assange-Leaks Bad!-Obama Internet Kill Switch US Bill passed last year.
Internet switched off upto 120 Days!
Connect the dots. Read this...
2010 the year internet free speech died :(
It does make you wonder who Senator Joe Lieberman is really working for, doesn't it. Is there any treatment for paranoid schizophrenia or is that which fuels the parasitic lobby system in a fascist state?
...half-illiterate idiot, not being able to understand even the most basic things - ie blackmail implies he shot first, as in "unwarranted" - aka "highly opinionated but barely educated" loudmouth, nothing else.
Stop typing and start thinking, bums.
Blackmail implies no such thing. Just because that is the inference you draw from the term blackmail does not mean that the term blackmail implies that. I don't think any reasonable definition of the term blackmail includes any mention of "shooting first" .
Personally however I don't think we're talking about blackmail. I think we're talking about coercion. The funny thing is that I wouldn't be particularly worried if I were the target of his latest threats. Remember the "insurance" file from last year? All we need is the key to open that particular Pandora's box. But the key still isn't forthcoming. What inference can we draw from that? The file is worthless? Or maybe he's already released the stuff that's in there? One thing I think we can say is that that particular threat was empty.
Every "revelation" from Mr Assange is weaker than the last and has less to do with "whistle blowing". And yet with every leak he shouts louder. Do you really believe he's got anything less when he's threatening to blow the lid off a man and a corporation that the whole world knows to be corrupt anyway?
Oh and your post does read like the rantings of a "highly opinionated..." well you get the point.
...to post video of an Apache gunship killing Reuters journalists.
There is a need for an organization that can highlight abuses of power and trust in the public and private sectors.
That organization should sagely choose what to publish or not to let the people be informed and keep an educated electorate.
However, that organization should not blanket-publish secret documents unless the above applies. The Pentagon Papers were classified, but revealed abuses in all levels of government from the Vietnam War. Their publication was justified. The exposure of the majority of recent Wikileaks material is not.
Julian Assange is trying for sainthood, but fails to remember that most saints were burned at the stake prior to beatification. The vast majority of folks who were burned got nothing.
"The real question is ...... when will Assange get whacked? You know he knows it's coming but he just don't know how or when. It should be a fun game, whack the whack-job." ..... Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 14th January 2011 00:39 GMT
AC, Do you not think, and do you not think that that will declare open season on politicians and bankers and media moguls too, who are all quite directly responsible for what everyone and you do and believe, via their networking present controls with flash cash and neuro linguistic programming?
Whack the whack-job is hardly a fun game though, whenever it delivers such psychotic episodes and perverse guaranteed consequences .... although it is a Great Game Changer, to be sure. It is though much more the low road route to anarchy rather than being any high road freeway to a more organised chaos, ..... and sub prime to its core, don't you think?
I don't think there's any particular need to whack the guy. At the moment between himself, the Swedes and the yanks his credibility is being hammered. The way it's going he'll have no credibility left among the majority and then the yanks will be able to safely ignore him.
Take for example Manning's defence fund. Private Eye have jumped on that particular issue in their new year edition. I doubt it will be long before most of the mainstream press are running similar stories. Depending on which version of the "truth" you believe Wikileaks raised anything between $15K and $95K for Manning's defence fund and promised $115K, but then only handed over $15K. Now any or all of that could be true, but the point is that an awful lot of people will be down on Assange and Wikileaks on reading any version of that story. One thing most people believe is that you should protect your sources, it is commonly believed that Wikileaks have done little or nothing to protect Manning. How many people are going to want to leak things to Assange now?
It doesn't matter whether or not you personally believe the smears or whether they are true, if enough people believe them you can shout in defence of Assange all you like, people won't listen.
And then there's his ability to smear himself. Threatening to sue newspapers for leaking "his" leaks before he does? Quite appart from the legal rights and wrongs of this it's not going to make him popular with the news media is it? Once the news media are against you it can't be long before public opinion turns too.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019