Assange vows to drop 'insurance' files on Rupert Murdoch 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.
This post has been deleted by its author
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?"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/bradley_manning_wikileaks/
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.
Vic.
Ok, Vic...
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.
Absolutely incorrect.
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.
Vic.
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.
Vic.
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[1].
> 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...
Vic.
[1] 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.
http://www.marymonson.co.uk/blackmail.php
"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?
Vic.
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:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed
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.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusive---julian-assange-extended-interview
I watch both shows on Comedy Central.
With respect to ViagraFalls post...
Spot on!
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
