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 …
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.
Problem-Reaction-Solution
Assange-Leaks Bad!-Obama Internet Kill Switch US Bill passed last year.
Internet switched off upto 120 Days!
Connect the dots. Read this...
http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?olo=rss
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
