pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Can't wait for further cables revealing the details on the Stockwell station murder...
Wikileaks: Heroes of free speech or dangerous subversives?
- Thread starter ItWillNeverWork
- Start date
Can't wait for further cables revealing the details on the Stockwell station murder...
That Sir Jams Goldsmith was not exactly renowned as a rabid advocate of openness and transparency ...
What the fuck are you talking about witnesses in Court for?
I was referring to people who set themselves up as some fsort of saviour of mankind. If he really IS doing the whole Wikileaks thing because he honestly believes he is better than everyone else who is not doing it (which appears to be the case from his pronouncements) then, yes, he should to have lived a less blameless life than those he is slagging off. Otherwise he's a fucking hypocrite ...
Yeah ... I was, like, fucking hell!! Shell!!! A fucking stranglehold on fucking Nigeria!!! Like wtf!!! Thank God for Wikileaks, I'd never have thought it otherwise ...
If there's anything that was improperly withheld then any leak will clearly be in the public interest.
But I'm pretty sure there won't be ... probably lots of stuff between senior officers / politicians, etc. along the lines of "Oh fuck, how the fuck did this happen?!" but nothing of actual significance or actual importance.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Quietly shitting yourself in the new age of cameraphones and ID cards, are we??
I guess your pals need to be on their best behaviour from now on...
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
Condoleezza Rice.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That I know you're not joking.
and so his offspring (or is that grand offsping) are to be held forever responsible for his politics? That's a somewhat strange (and eugenic) scenario, is it not?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
The article in The Guardian, by Libby Brooks, quoted and linked to in an earlier post and described by the poster as an "excellent analysis" (not an editorial as inferred btw).
I Have little, if any agreement with that brief summary offered up by Spymaster.
As an example, Libby Brooks has "condemned" Naomi Wolf's comments, based on a letter Wolf has penned to Interpol and posted on-line. Here's some content, including the line Brooks condemned.
In the letter on a page with the title "Julian Assange Captured by World's Dating Police", that gives a sense of how serious a letter it is, Naomi Wolf is "overjoyed" to find out about Interpol's new found commitment in the global hunt to arrest and prosecute men who behave like "narcissistic jerks" to women.
Naomi Wolf is basing this obvious ride out of Interpol, on actual media reports of complaints made and, are as of now, what is known so far.
These being:
A man having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke.
A man reading stories on-line about himself in a cab.
A man texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one woman's apartment, while on a date with another.
A man having two relationships.
This "new commitment" by Interpol, or as stated by Women Against Rape, "unusual zeal" (a term Brooks "queried" in her Guardian article), reflects doubt about the arrest, charge, denial of bail and accusations made against Assange.
Further to this on-line letter (the next bit highlighted by Brooks), sees Naomi Wolf, tongue still firmly stuck in cheek, stating, as a feminist: "I am also pleased the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law, to assuage what appears to be their personal injured feelings." Wolf adds with exclamation: "That's what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!"
Crass? Not that particularly funny even? Condemnation on the scale meant by Libby Brooks? Somewhat exaggerated methinks.
Read the full letter here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html
We hear of others, who have dismissed the charges calling it a "political stunt".
A mention of CIA links, with one of the women, apparently 'tweeted'?
This, Brooks tells us, is intentionally, or not, left-wing and liberal opinion; "shoulder to shoulder with a motley assemblage of conspiracy theorists and internet attack dogs".
I'm not convinced by this guilt by association hackery, but it does go some way to explain why Spymaster believes it to be an "excellent analysis".
The idea that it can be taken as an analysis, "excellent", or not, is further diminished, by the assertion, from Brooks, that Assange's status as "embattled warrior for free speech" is taken as 'giving permission' for character assassination, indulging in the "basest slut-shaming and misogyny". Really?
Moving to Libby Brooks observation of how: "It's terrifying to witness how swiftly rape orthodoxies reassert themselves, that impugning a man's sexual propriety is a political act", doesn't enhance the feeling I have already towards the writer and her analysis.
However, in more calmer mode, an explanation is offered as to why the cases have been re-opened now.
After noting that the Swedish system doesn't employ a broader definition of rape than in other countries, Brooks states that:
It's taken the length of time it has and coincidently re-opened just now is the conclusion drawn
Not much at all in the way of analysis it turns out then, but despite that, Brooks could be right?
I see The New York Times reports that the US have been going after Assange for sometime now, over the separate issue of the leaked cables.
The US, also reportedly struggling to find a way to indict him, will continue to leave people doubting the complaints and accusations made against Assuage and see these charges as politically motivated .
Very likely to strengthen the belief in others and lead them to conclude, that a 'honey-trap' operation has taken place, which could also turn out to be right, but possibly now, being even less likely to be found out about and exposed as such?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08assange.html?_r=1&hp
Apparently, Assange's final remarks in full:
I Have little, if any agreement with that brief summary offered up by Spymaster.
As an example, Libby Brooks has "condemned" Naomi Wolf's comments, based on a letter Wolf has penned to Interpol and posted on-line. Here's some content, including the line Brooks condemned.
In the letter on a page with the title "Julian Assange Captured by World's Dating Police", that gives a sense of how serious a letter it is, Naomi Wolf is "overjoyed" to find out about Interpol's new found commitment in the global hunt to arrest and prosecute men who behave like "narcissistic jerks" to women.
Naomi Wolf is basing this obvious ride out of Interpol, on actual media reports of complaints made and, are as of now, what is known so far.
These being:
A man having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke.
A man reading stories on-line about himself in a cab.
A man texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one woman's apartment, while on a date with another.
A man having two relationships.
This "new commitment" by Interpol, or as stated by Women Against Rape, "unusual zeal" (a term Brooks "queried" in her Guardian article), reflects doubt about the arrest, charge, denial of bail and accusations made against Assange.
Further to this on-line letter (the next bit highlighted by Brooks), sees Naomi Wolf, tongue still firmly stuck in cheek, stating, as a feminist: "I am also pleased the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law, to assuage what appears to be their personal injured feelings." Wolf adds with exclamation: "That's what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!"
Crass? Not that particularly funny even? Condemnation on the scale meant by Libby Brooks? Somewhat exaggerated methinks.
Read the full letter here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html
We hear of others, who have dismissed the charges calling it a "political stunt".
A mention of CIA links, with one of the women, apparently 'tweeted'?
This, Brooks tells us, is intentionally, or not, left-wing and liberal opinion; "shoulder to shoulder with a motley assemblage of conspiracy theorists and internet attack dogs".
I'm not convinced by this guilt by association hackery, but it does go some way to explain why Spymaster believes it to be an "excellent analysis".
The idea that it can be taken as an analysis, "excellent", or not, is further diminished, by the assertion, from Brooks, that Assange's status as "embattled warrior for free speech" is taken as 'giving permission' for character assassination, indulging in the "basest slut-shaming and misogyny". Really?
Moving to Libby Brooks observation of how: "It's terrifying to witness how swiftly rape orthodoxies reassert themselves, that impugning a man's sexual propriety is a political act", doesn't enhance the feeling I have already towards the writer and her analysis.
However, in more calmer mode, an explanation is offered as to why the cases have been re-opened now.
After noting that the Swedish system doesn't employ a broader definition of rape than in other countries, Brooks states that:
It's taken the length of time it has and coincidently re-opened just now is the conclusion drawn
Not much at all in the way of analysis it turns out then, but despite that, Brooks could be right?
I see The New York Times reports that the US have been going after Assange for sometime now, over the separate issue of the leaked cables.
The US, also reportedly struggling to find a way to indict him, will continue to leave people doubting the complaints and accusations made against Assuage and see these charges as politically motivated .
Very likely to strengthen the belief in others and lead them to conclude, that a 'honey-trap' operation has taken place, which could also turn out to be right, but possibly now, being even less likely to be found out about and exposed as such?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08assange.html?_r=1&hp
Apparently, Assange's final remarks in full:
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Yeah ... I was, like, fucking hell!! Shell!!! A fucking stranglehold on fucking Nigeria!!! Like wtf!!! Thank God for Wikileaks, I'd never have thought it otherwise ...
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
one of the women has allegedly stopped talking to the police. see thread on world politics.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
the fact that people like Detective Boy only manage some eye rolling half assed comment to a multi-national controlling Nigeria's political process shows you all you need to know about how desensitized people are to such wrongdoing. They can't even be arsed to condemn it, they'd rather just bounce the issue back by becoming one of those wanky posters who turns up and says 'that's old news'...
If he lived up to his name he could go search through the cables and find lots of stuff he doesn't know. But as the saying goes 'you cant educate pork'.
If he lived up to his name he could go search through the cables and find lots of stuff he doesn't know. But as the saying goes 'you cant educate pork'.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
2 weeks ago if someone had said something nice about Jemima Khan you'd have denounced her as a worthless, privileged oxygen thief. She offers surety for JA and suddenly she's some kind of paragon of virtue.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
'Using internet technologies in new ways to report the truth'? Not a bad idea, although some could believe, naively put. With perfect timing an email from the US state department, 'concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information', announces that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011. The rest of the 364 days?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Sarah Palin asking: "Why was he [Assauge] not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" This suggests Palin will not be invited to participant in 'World Press Freedom Day'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Sarah Palin asking: "Why was he [Assauge] not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" This suggests Palin will not be invited to participant in 'World Press Freedom Day'?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It's indeed reassuring that potentially the next President of the USA examines issues of the day so thoroughly.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
A point Lilly Brooks made in The Guardian with regards to Swedish Law, I quoted earlier?
Seems to be some basis to this in a report by Reuters.
However, there are other "circumstances, that according to "sources" remain deeply "murky"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B669H20101207?pageNumber=2
Seems to be some basis to this in a report by Reuters.
However, there are other "circumstances, that according to "sources" remain deeply "murky"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B669H20101207?pageNumber=2
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
Going to Sweden may be Assange's best option
I think we need to be open to the possibility that in fact it is Assange's friends in Sweden who are trying to get him to safety in Sweden because they fear he is under threat from an extradition to the US, so they are making up, inventing a sex offence complaint to give some grounds, any grounds, to ask the UK to hand him over to Sweden rather than to the USA.
Now you know why the USA might want Assange, see my post above.
Advice to Assange supporters regarding WikiLeaks-vs-The-Machine
If I was speaking to Assange, his legal advisors or supporters, here is what I would say to them.
I think we need to be open to the possibility that in fact it is Assange's friends in Sweden who are trying to get him to safety in Sweden because they fear he is under threat from an extradition to the US, so they are making up, inventing a sex offence complaint to give some grounds, any grounds, to ask the UK to hand him over to Sweden rather than to the USA.
Now you know why the USA might want Assange, see my post above.
Advice to Assange supporters regarding WikiLeaks-vs-The-Machine
If I was speaking to Assange, his legal advisors or supporters, here is what I would say to them.
Now if you think Julian Assange should decide what gets published in this world and not Condi then I trust that you have some political videos, with or without music, to post in defence of your man or some other evidence showing how many millions of people Assange has saved from tyranny and disease? No? Oh dear. Assange's defence - strike one.
There is no legal defence to an accusation by Condi because it is primarily a political offence, not just a legal offence.
One course of action is a guilty plea to whatever charge they come up with, agree to co-operate and be very, very sure to get the best possible water-tight plea bargain you can get. No really. You need it written in blood from the US president and you need to give them whatever they want to guarantee the plea bargain.
Either that or flee to sanctuary somewhere. Russia wants to recommend Assange for the Nobel Peace prize I hear and President Putin has described the arrest of Assange as "not democratic" so maybe Assange might get asylum in Russia IF he can get to Russia and maybe via Sweden is the best way to Russia?
Condoleezza Rice walks on this earth without living parallel, IMHO. She is the nearest thing to a messenger of God, and that's coming from an atheist! She is here to save us from our worst selves and we should be grateful.
So I would think Assange's best tactic to ever be a free man in the West is to apologise a lot, salute Condi, or better yet grovel low to Condi, get in line and start taking orders from Condi or rather from her staff because he is too low in the food chain to get direct access to Condi.
Otherwise Assange could be in for a very, very long hard time in a US jail. Some in the US want to execute him. The US is not very forgiving about this kind of thing. Research "Jonathan Pollard" if you doubt me in any way.
I have tried to put in a word for mercy for Pollard as have many others but still he suffers, and that was for maybe a suitcase worth of documents, not the masses of volumes Assange has distributed.
Next to Pollard's 25 years and counting years in prison, a stretch in a Swedish prison for a sexual offence and maybe an exit to Russia afterwards if he can avoid extradition to the US after the Swedish case is disposed of, is like a slap on the wrist.
I am not sure why I am giving any advice to Assange at all. I am such a soft touch for a loser I guess, being a loser myself.
I guess I feel sorry for Pollard, think he has had too hard a time and don't wish that on anybody with naive fantasies of doing good by leaking documents.
The Swedish extradition is not Assange's real problem. It may be his best option if he can't square things with Condi and that is going to be very, very hard to achieve.
Maybe I could have, should have tried to warn WikiLeaks about this before they got themselves in such difficulty but I didn't see this far ahead.
There is no legal defence to an accusation by Condi because it is primarily a political offence, not just a legal offence.
One course of action is a guilty plea to whatever charge they come up with, agree to co-operate and be very, very sure to get the best possible water-tight plea bargain you can get. No really. You need it written in blood from the US president and you need to give them whatever they want to guarantee the plea bargain.
Either that or flee to sanctuary somewhere. Russia wants to recommend Assange for the Nobel Peace prize I hear and President Putin has described the arrest of Assange as "not democratic" so maybe Assange might get asylum in Russia IF he can get to Russia and maybe via Sweden is the best way to Russia?
Condoleezza Rice walks on this earth without living parallel, IMHO. She is the nearest thing to a messenger of God, and that's coming from an atheist! She is here to save us from our worst selves and we should be grateful.
So I would think Assange's best tactic to ever be a free man in the West is to apologise a lot, salute Condi, or better yet grovel low to Condi, get in line and start taking orders from Condi or rather from her staff because he is too low in the food chain to get direct access to Condi.
Otherwise Assange could be in for a very, very long hard time in a US jail. Some in the US want to execute him. The US is not very forgiving about this kind of thing. Research "Jonathan Pollard" if you doubt me in any way.
I have tried to put in a word for mercy for Pollard as have many others but still he suffers, and that was for maybe a suitcase worth of documents, not the masses of volumes Assange has distributed.
Next to Pollard's 25 years and counting years in prison, a stretch in a Swedish prison for a sexual offence and maybe an exit to Russia afterwards if he can avoid extradition to the US after the Swedish case is disposed of, is like a slap on the wrist.
I am not sure why I am giving any advice to Assange at all. I am such a soft touch for a loser I guess, being a loser myself.
I guess I feel sorry for Pollard, think he has had too hard a time and don't wish that on anybody with naive fantasies of doing good by leaking documents.
The Swedish extradition is not Assange's real problem. It may be his best option if he can't square things with Condi and that is going to be very, very hard to achieve.
Maybe I could have, should have tried to warn WikiLeaks about this before they got themselves in such difficulty but I didn't see this far ahead.
Some random bloke with unknown motives / associates / origins / interest, obviously ...
No. (And which "new age of ... ID cards" are you on about anyway ...
)All police officers should always be on their best behaviour at all times. And strangely enough I recall telling my officers that they should assume that they were on video and audio at all times as long ago as 1989 ...
I haven't exactly seen her demonstrating her personal dedication to openness by revealing all her late father's secrets and the history of her own fantastic wealth ...
Have you?
(Or is she now your latest poster girl just because she loves Julian ...
)
free spirit
more tea vicar?
ah, but if you're both negotiating in good faith and wanting to develop a long trust based partnership with each other then negotiating in a more open fashion where both sides open their books and let the other know what their bottom line actually is, then work together to find common ground and a compromise that both sides are happy with.
Otherwise both sides in the negotiation are just making educated guesses about the other sides position, and trying to get the better of them in the negotiations through bluff and bullshit, which is no basis for a long term relationship, and is likely to leave at least one side pissed off when they sus out they've been done over. Eg the difference between feeling like you've been done over by a hard selling double glazing salesman, and someone taking the time to find out your requirements, budget and work with you to come up with the best soluation to match your requirements at a reasonable price that leaves both parties happy.
Open negotiations are the way forward IMO. Cloak and dagger bullshit and lies should have no place in modern diplomacy.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
On the contrary, I think it is obvious it needs to be someone with a university doctorate ...
... and the ability to travel effortlessly through time and space.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
The Times in India is reporting that an "obscure" Swedish law was invoked against Assuage. It says in essence:
This of course is to be proved in court — a Swedish one.
A former US Attorney, General Michael Mukasey, quoted this week on The Guardian live feed, implied that the Swedish sex accusations maybe a "holding charge"?
However, Mukasey doesn't refer to any US law that either WikiLeaks or Assange has broken?
Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, whilst being interviewed in Afghanistan, showed what the US really thinks about the arrest of Assuage, by smirking on camera and stating:"That sounds like good news to me" some might say, gives added weight to the comments made by the former US Attorney.
Senator Joe Lieberman, the head of the Senate's homeland security committee, who on Fox News suggested that the New York Times and other news organisations, using the WikiLeaks cables, maybe investigated for breaking the US's espionage laws, ups the ante beyond just WikiLeaks.
Professor Emily Bell, formerly of The Guardian, in an analysis of what the dramatic impact of the WikiLeaks deluge has had on the media had this to say:
As well as Bell's analysis, a group of whistle-blowers, including Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers; Katharine Gun, the former GCHQ translator, who leaked documents about the Iraq war; and Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to Uzebekistan, who was sacked after revealing torture, have put out a statement in support of WikiLeaks beginning with this:
Ellsberg is also quoted as saying:
Even before proof of any accusations of "rape" have been decided in a court of law, it has come to stick to Assange's name and his creation, WikiLeaks.
As the Times in India point out, 'a Google search for "wikileaks rape" returns 3.09 million results'.
One horse may be out of the stable, but the US wants the door firmly bolted, to keep the others locked inside. Ultimately of course, those powerful interests in the US, are trying to put-down the one that refuses to be corralled and they'll administer anything that comes to hand, to assist them in doing that.
This of course is to be proved in court — a Swedish one.
A former US Attorney, General Michael Mukasey, quoted this week on The Guardian live feed, implied that the Swedish sex accusations maybe a "holding charge"?
However, Mukasey doesn't refer to any US law that either WikiLeaks or Assange has broken?
Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, whilst being interviewed in Afghanistan, showed what the US really thinks about the arrest of Assuage, by smirking on camera and stating:"That sounds like good news to me" some might say, gives added weight to the comments made by the former US Attorney.
Senator Joe Lieberman, the head of the Senate's homeland security committee, who on Fox News suggested that the New York Times and other news organisations, using the WikiLeaks cables, maybe investigated for breaking the US's espionage laws, ups the ante beyond just WikiLeaks.
Professor Emily Bell, formerly of The Guardian, in an analysis of what the dramatic impact of the WikiLeaks deluge has had on the media had this to say:
As well as Bell's analysis, a group of whistle-blowers, including Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers; Katharine Gun, the former GCHQ translator, who leaked documents about the Iraq war; and Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to Uzebekistan, who was sacked after revealing torture, have put out a statement in support of WikiLeaks beginning with this:
Ellsberg is also quoted as saying:
Even before proof of any accusations of "rape" have been decided in a court of law, it has come to stick to Assange's name and his creation, WikiLeaks.
As the Times in India point out, 'a Google search for "wikileaks rape" returns 3.09 million results'.
One horse may be out of the stable, but the US wants the door firmly bolted, to keep the others locked inside. Ultimately of course, those powerful interests in the US, are trying to put-down the one that refuses to be corralled and they'll administer anything that comes to hand, to assist them in doing that.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
that is the law in the UK too, as it should be. There is no need to attack Sweden's laws on rape (which are probably better than the UK's, altho even less well implemented) to defend Assange.
Yeah ... I was, like, fucking hell!! Shell!!! A fucking stranglehold on fucking Nigeria!!! Like wtf!!! Thank God for Wikileaks, I'd never have thought it otherwise ...
You couldn't have proved it otherwise. And Shell could (and did) deny it otherwise.
Not to mention the fact that most people had no idea of the extent of Shell's reach. And now they do.
I truly think that you're reacting to this with the instincts of an authoritarian.
Similar threads
- Poll
