Were the other veg cooked more to your liking?
An intriguing mini-drama has emerged from backstage at the WikiLeaks theatre. Julian Assange has fallen out with the two senior Guardian journalists who have been central figures in the global publishing of classified US military and diplomatic documents this year. Arguably, he's not a man who can afford to lose friends at the …
>>"So now he's signed up "exclusively" with Murdoch's Times. Gosh."
>Many would consider that a real dumb move, totally at odds with the spirit of Wikileaks.
Speaking of 'Mammon', the saintly aura surrounding St. Jules (partially clipped away to reveal a hoary lower layer) fades daily. He intends to profit from his racket:
Not so squeaky clean then, eh? No longer St. Julian from Heaven, but El Diablo Julian from Hades. Think on the possibilities here.
This story epitomises why I have little or no time for either Assange, or Wikileaks. Aside from the rampant hypocrisy of Assange, it shows that he is not a whistleblower calling time on nefarious dealings. He is just dumping stuff on the web as a means of either self promotion, or spurious justification of his wrong doings.
It is indeed nice to see the tables have been turned for a change.
So Assange's reaction to being fitted up is "conspiratorial" and is mockingly attributed to (woooo) "unseen dark forces".
So the Reg joins the ranks. This shameful Wikileaks hunt has been more revealing than any popular conspiracy theory could ever hope to achieve. I ashamed to be human, frankly.
I think you will find it was Assanges lawyer who attriuted the allegations to 'dark forces'. So who is mocking who?.
I think you will also find its Assange and co who attribute this extradition busniess to some kind of giant conspiracy relating to his entirely unrelated wikileaks shennanigans.
He says that during the humphries interview. The allegations of rape have nothing to do with wikileaks.
So boo shucks to you!
Oh, yeah whilst typing this post I was listening to the humphries interview. He is a creep, I have no sympathy. Thats my impression.
I heard John Humphrys' s interview with him this morning and I thought that Humphrys pwned him. Assange came over as an arrogant whiner. Whether his is or not is a different matter but he seemed it in the interview.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm for the interview
I have no opinion on whether or not Julian Assange is guilty or even has a case to answer in Sweden. But a lot of people listening to that interview form their opinions based on how he sounds. And sad as it may seem, a lot of people base their opinions on how people look or sound.
Going on Today was a bad move for Assange. John Humphries technique was honed on politicians with skins so thick they're sought after in Chinese medicine. Assange's lawyers or publicists should have spent enough time with him to know he wasn't going to come across well.
Maybe he would have come across better on the One Show with Chris Evans?
Assange put himself in the spotlight. Either he should receive proper media training or he should pick and choose who he is interviewed by (i.e. definitely not Paxo & chums) , or he should keep his mouth shut and confine interviews to email. The latter is probably more in keeping with his character anyway. While there are some people who can't or won't accept it, everytime he opens his yap in the non-specialist media he is undermining himself and wikileaks.
"Either he should receive proper media training or he should pick and choose who he is interviewed by (i.e. definitely not Paxo & chums) , or he should keep his mouth shut and confine interviews to email."
<Irony>Buhbuhbubuh^but he's a journalist an' an editor, didn't you know?</Irony>
I listened to 2 minutes of the same interview and turned the radio off. I'd rather drive in (relative) silence than listen to John Humphrys' forthright wittering.
There are lots of people in this world who have opinions, and lots of people who are able to ask awkward questions and that alone should tell you that the ability to have an opinion and ask awkward questions isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
Maybe Assange is creepy - that doesn't make him guilty.
Maybe Assange is guilty - that doesn't mean WikiLeaks is doing the wrong thing.
Rarely in the field of human conflict can such an unappealing set of combatants have entered the same ring. In no particular order...
Divers crooked governments
At a pinch I'd still back the underdingo - but wish rather they would all just annihilate each other in a puff of hadrons.
Personally, I tend to think of egos sort of like the magnetic field of an inductor. Ever charged up a powerful inductor and then severed the connection on both ends? The magnetic field collapses with nowhere to go but the inductor itself and the inductor rather suddenly isn't very happy. I personally wish that all four of the entities mentioned would very suddenly and abruptly have everyone ignore them. The lack of attention would cause their egos to collapse suddenly and abruptly, hopefully converting the lot of them into a pink mist.
I am quite convinced it is a honeypot, just not a CIA honeypot.
It's a honeypot from a different branch of the anarchists mob. It got sprung at this point in time because he wasn't important enough before now for the accusations to catch much wind. Best part for them is not only does it advance their specific subcause (all sex is rape) it also helps undermine trust in government because they can play the fascist CIA card.
Not that Beck played that angle. He didn't seem to know what was going on, just that it was all rather fishy.
I can believe that that is certainly possible but please tell me you do know that Glenn Beck is full of shit though, don't you?
He recently connected the student protests in London with Assange and then a circular nonsensical connection to George Soros. The student protests were not about attacking Royals or Wikileaks even remotely, quite simply they were about many young voters who had their first opportunity to vote, voted for the Lib Dems as they had a policy pledge that affected them directly and were let down badly.
I actually think that there is a case for a rise in fees or a reduction of the number of students but you can't get away from the fact that the voters were lied to. (yeah, yeah - colation this, compromise that - Bullshit, it was a direct lie to a large section of their voters)
Anyway i digress - Glenn Beck is an idiot!
Mr Assange should remember there is no honour amongst journalists. If you make yourself the story, your former journalistic comrades will turn on you and treat you like you're just another story. In the meantime, I'm off to a flashmob snowball fight in Regents Park. Should I get hit by too many snowballs I will be hiring Mr Assange's legal team and loudly proclaiming it was all a big conspiracy, as shown by the mobile records....
Merry Chrimbo one and all! Merry Traditional December Gift Day to those less inclined to the Christian fable.
There is a degree of honour amongst journalists, and I am glad to see it return: the good ones report without bias, and dig out the lies. Here are 3 free media tips for you:
1 - assume "off the record" does not exist.
2 - never, ever lie to a journalist, because you'll pay for that when (s)he finds out.
3 - never mention any assumptions either.
Assange cannot claim it's OK to disclose confidential information without agreeing to the same treatment. The information of the Swedish case against him clearly shows he's been telling stories that have no basis in reality, so I can well imagine he's pissed off. It shows, for instance, that this would not have blown up if Mr Ego would have done the decent thing.
Those women were not out to hang him, they were simply trying to get assurance that he had not infected them. By not bothering to respond to what I personally think was not an unreasonable request to get himself tested he basically dug his own hole, especially as he appeared to have been too impressed with himself to listen to these people.
He's a t*sser. Or I bet he wished he was one now..
This post has been deleted by a moderator
This article doesn't seem particularly biased to me, the key point seems to be that Assange missed an appointment with the Swedish police. This presumably is why they have issued an arrest warrant for him.
The article does then go on to mention text messages and so on that might suggest that the women concerned could have cooked the whole thing up for money, or not as the case may be. It seems pretty even handed as a discussion of the events.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"the key point seems to be that Assange missed an appointment with the Swedish police"
'No, that's merely a claim in the article, there's no evidence whatsoever that that is actually the case.'
Oh, so that's /alright/ then! You Konstabel know *exactly* what's going on here, and the international arrest warrant is either a figment of the Guardian journalist's imagination, or completely unrelated:
"The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October."
So even Assange's friends are lying about his comments that he was supposed to return, and the police documents are either forgeries, a CIA plot, or figments of the Guardian journalist's mind, right?
<Harry Dean Stanton>Riiiiiiiight</Harry Dean Stanton>
I started to read it - and upon getting to this point:
Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange
Looked at how much more drivel there was - and gave up.
Bottom line :
a) No sex crimes of any note.
b) Hes a creepy wierdo
c) It all deflects attention away from the real issues - which is the main point of this story.
"Bottom line :
a) No sex crimes of any note."
Of course you're thinking in terms of laws outside of Sweden.
The fact that he attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he was committing non-consensual sex, or Rape.
Under the laws in Sweden, the accusal is enough to warrant and investigation along with possible charges.
His crimes in Sweden are *the* story with respect to his current legal problems. The other shoe, the US issue, hasn't dropped yet.
In another thread a poster has posted links to Assange's criminal past where he was convicted of hacking the US when he was in Australia. Being a convict does have some limitations too. Just ask Martha Stewart or Paris Hilton.
"The fact that he attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he was committing non-consensual sex, or Rape."
Erm, one moment...
"The fact that he is accused of attempted to have sex without a condom, meant that he is accused of non-consensual sex, or Rape."
Might as well be accurate, eh?
Nope, the article still doesn't seem biased to me, it discusses the highlighted flaws in the evidence of the women, and Assanges failure to turn up for a police interview.
So onto the subject of prevarication it is now emerging that Assange's claims that Sweden’s actions are part of a CIA (or other US organisation conspiracy) are in fact less than truthful. I guess it is just difficult for the 'Cult of Assange' to accept what is now hitting them in the face.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
as are you Mr Fail. We are all reading what we read and interpreting it according to our thoughts. What I do is when a lot of the written material is suggesting an interpretation of events I tend to go with this more obvious speculation than perhaps some fanciful interpretation.
The Swedish Police, Assanage, the woman concerned, and perhaps the Guardian have the evidence. Now then one of the above has made logically inconsistent statements which suggest to me that he is prevaricating. Perhaps you could point out why you consider beatification rather more appropriate?
"I just read the Guardian article, and when you consider that it's based on the inherently one-sided view of the accusers it just seems to confirm Assange has little to answer for."
Trans: 'The Guardian article agrees with other articles that I do not like, they all agree with the official material from Sweden, this is not the truth. The truth is that St. Julian Assange is innocent, he could never be guilty, he could never be wrong.". This is how conspiracy theories originate, and tyrannies too. It is all there in the history books, should you care to read them.
"In June he contacted Assange in Brussels and suggested that professional reporters should comb the gigabytes of data WikiLeaks had obtained for stories.
The site's previous practice had been to dump raw material on its own website and hope it would be picked up by journalists. It was only moderately successful."
By this admission alone, taken at face value... Wikileaks isn't a newspaper, nor are their 'staff' reporters or journalists. So that any argument regarding Wikileaks as part of the press and should be afforded the protections of the press are misguided.
At the same time, it meant that Wikileaks didn't really censor or edit what they were dumping. Just tossing anything out there for the world to see.
But I digress... the point of the article is important.
It seems that Assange didn't quite understand that when you tell a reporter something you both know to be a bold face lie and to cry wolf, that the reporter will actually call you out on it.
Assange == Amateur
Nick Davies == Professional Journalist.
some interesting reading here
A Supposed Assange essay from 2006 - his definition of conspiracy is fairly banal and probably rather disappointing to any illuminati hunters out there, but you can see why powerful people might take issue with him.
An interesting critique of said Essay here:
All a bit intellectual but worth taking the time to read. I think it becomes pretty clear why Governments have lashed out, might all be the plan.
I'm not really bothered if Assange is a nice bloke or not and people who are trumpeting the irony of having details of the allegation leaked are essentially missing the main point. Irony aside, there is a significant difference between transparency of government officials actions and the privacy of individuals.
For example, if i were a US citizen, I don't think i should have the right to know what colour knickers Hilary Clinton wears but i should know what is done in regards to Foreign policy issues.
History is littered with example after example of leaders engaged in abuses of power and covering them up, there should be transparency and mechanisms to allow for these people to be held accountable by the people that vote for them.
Time has shown that the whistleblower is often the most effective way to enact change. Assange may come across as a bit of a dick, but he certainly has the courage to stand up for what he believes. He has certainly upped the paranoia level of the US government, we'll have to wait and see what the long term results are.
AC 'cos the walls have eyes....
" History is littered with example after example of leaders engaged in abuses of power and covering them up, there should be transparency and mechanisms to allow for these people to be held accountable by the people that vote for them. "
Yes. And it was his self-assumed position of authority that Assange allegedly used to get his way with these women. He met them through an event he was invited to specifically because of Wikileaks.
As an self-selected leader, he more than anyone should be exposed if it seems that he has abused his power.
"As far as I'm aware "coming over as creepy" isn't an arrestable offence (yet). He just came over as softly spoken and extremely careful with his words to me."
Just wait until PC Suvidge catchs Mr A looking at him in a funny manner or, god forbid, urinating in a public convenience, then he'll be for it.
This was meant to be a joke until I relaised that if I'd used 'taking a photograph in a public place' then he could be under arrest
"In a rare and wide-ranging interview, the attorney general disclosed chilling, new details about the evolving threat of homegrown terror, and touched on topics ranging from Wikileaks to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
What was uppermost on his mind, however, is the alarming rise in the number of Americans who are more than willing to attack and kill their fellow citizens. " ....... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-eric-holders-blunt-warning-terror-attacks/story?id=12444727&tqkw=&tqshow=GMA&tqkw=&tqshow=GMA
Of course, because of mess the administration has made of everything with its financial meltdown and serial wars, is the real fear that those they have abused and lied to, come looking for them to settle the score. It is the frightened powers-that-be that keep pimping the terrorist outrages against the people threat, but that is just to stop you realising that it is their policies which are causing all the pain. And the people are getting wise to where the problems are originating from, and it aint from a cave in a foreign mountain range, that's for sure.
As usual, the Daily Mash says it best.
"the Today programme's John Humphrys accused Wikileaks of peddling 'tittle-tattle', while deploying a straight fucking face.
But the interview with Julian Assange was cut short as the Wikileaks editor choked violently on his tea and was rendered clinically speechless while the flagship Radio Four programme devoted the next 20 minutes to following up some piece of bullshit they read in the Times."
The problem isn't WikiLeaks, it's not Assange - it's news reporting in general.
It's all rubbish, until you get to the more specialised stuff. A writer for El Reg, for example, knows he will likely get torn to pieces if there are glaring errors in his work.
Otherwise it's lowest common denominator stuff, to titillate the plebs. As usual.
It's not double standards at all. The only thing in common with wiki leaks and this is that they mechanism is a leak. wikileaks is a means to getting information which our governments are not telling us willingly with a goal to hard the government more accountable to the people. i.e. justice for the people in a sense. If they did this of their own accord there would be no need. This leak over his case is an attempt to break justice for the people, or person in this case. The fact that it is via a leak itself is rather not the point of the whole thing. Look beyond your noses.
I'm saddened by teaming up with Murdoch though if you see some of the massively biased and stupid interviews on the fox network I can't see this one working out well at all. Shame Vince Cable blew his chance to stop Sky News turning into Fox news. I think a better strategy may have been to simply swallow pride and remain with the Guardian as now we will never get to hear anything of value.
Mr. A asserts that he has evidence of messaging between the two victims of them setting up the sting.
He also claims this evidence is in the hands of Swedish law enforcement who refuse to add it to the file because they would sink their own boat.
Additionally, he claims to be able to prove the invovement of one of the victims with the CIA through a CIA controlled front organization.
If he can do these things, he will be exhonorated.
Belief does not enter into the matter.
... why wikileaks is no longer ensconsed on the front page of the guardian, about bloody time too.
I like my neo-left-wing-liberal rhetoric reading without a massive helping of leeks.
I thought it was some sort of joke at first, the fact that there was no wikileaks splurged all over the front page - if you'd told me the indi had ceased splurging so-ridiculously-left-wing-liberal-I-wet-my-pants-soaked environmental anguish all over thier front page, I'd be less suprised.
Luckily, to balance things, I've now got my so-far-right-it-hurts-but-i've-got-my-steel-toe-capped-docs helping of Daily Express complete with Russian porn spam to fall back on.
Oh, how I love the media. Leeks and Spam. Mmmmmm.
.. spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, leeeeeks.
'Not a honey trap' 'not sorry', hmm. Probably not at all happy that the searchlight's glare is turned on him, all in the cause of 'transparency'.
This is not over by a long chalk. There are many bends left in this road, and I have a feeling that as Assange turns one of them something rather spectacular will be revealed or happen. It's just not possible for one human to stir such a big pot filled with so much merde and for them to evade the consequences. He's, hmm, mercurial (perhaps to the extent of the Chloris part of the myth, especially his use of the 'net'!), and this is clear from both the Cryptome page and now the Grauniad.
He looks a bit funny doesn't he -- you know -- Village of the Damned.. and all that. But it's not fair to go on about physical characteristics, though, as it's totally irrelevant.
Not sure I understand the point of Wikileaks when it's just publishing any old "secret stuff", rather than hypocritical dirt.
What I really don't understand though, is why US Military IT security isn't being put through the wringer.
Now I'm sure many other countries are guilty of very many security lapses -- so I'm not picking on anyone. What's with the Assange/Wikileaks sideshow? There are bigger fish to fry here.
During Assange's extradition hearings, the Swodish authorities were asked to provide evidence for their claim. They couldn't and didn't. So Assange was released on bail. Then these police documents miraculously appear. So many forged documents have been published indiscriminately in the press - the Niger yellow cake documents being one recent example. Have the Guardian journalists verified the legitimacy of these documents? If they are legitimate, why were they not produced by the Swedes as evidence at the bail hearings. If they are not legitimate ....
Oh ffs, why are we still talking about how creepy or not Julian Assange is? This is a tech website, I'm pretty sure 70% of the people reading it score high on the creepy and useless with women scale. Certainly, his creepiness is no indication of his guilt. In any case, his guilt or not is irrelevant - he could have murdered those women and fed them to his dog, it doesn't change the fact that the story is elsewhere. The Guardian and everybody else should focus less on the messenger and more on the great steaming pile of dog turds that are contained in the message. I'm sick of Julian Assange - why is this important and the international criminality regularly undertaken by our collective governments given a pass?
Personally I support Assange, it sounds like something kinda messy may have happened there, and if the women (as the Guardian article says, unless I misread that) just want him to be tested for STDs I think he should make the time and do it (surely in the UK would do though?).
I don't like the fact that he was so evasive about it initially (no idea who they are; sure, if anything even vaguely like that happened, the only way that's true is if he does this all the time). The conspiracy allegations are even odder, but then if I was in his position I might tend to jump to that conclusion as well.
It would be a bit of a shame if Assange ended up 'falling down some stairs' in an American prison after being extradited on espionage charges after being arrested just because he's a bit odd sexually and refused to go get tested when they asked him to in the first place.
I'm not an Assange follower, but he is interviewed by David Frost on Al-Jazeera and has an interesting angle on the Swedish 'leaks'. He says that they are not leaks at all, but are carefully selected propaganda put out by someone connected to the Swedish prosecutor's offices. He also states that these 'leaks' were given to a journalist known to be unsympathetic to him.
The interview can be seen here: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html
Furthermore, John Pilger has come out in support of Wikileaks and Assange in his documentary "The War You Don't See", where he theorises that the western media has become little more than a propaganda machine serving the interests of the western military-industrial complex. If Pilger is correct then Wikileaks is a vital element in the battle to get the media back on track.
I gave up watching the propaganda-box many years ago, but I believe that ITV has shown Pilger's documentary, and it can also be found on: http://pkpolitics.com/2010/12/21/the-war-you-dont-see-on-free-media/ (part 6 of the documentary mentions Wikileaks and interviews Assange - but it's worth watching it all, to understand why Pilger is so squarely behind Wikileaks.)
Pilger looks in depth at the way the media has handled the war in Iraq, the similarities in media coverage of Iran to that preceding the war in Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Israeli propaganda machine, and the attacks on media organisations like Al-Jazeera (physical attacks with explosive ordinance) and Wikileaks (legal and financial attacks), which are not part of the propaganda machine. Consequently you will not see much mention of Pilger's documentary in the western media.
While Assange comes across as being a bit OTT, Pilger does not, and he gives huge kudos to Wikileaks. Whether he's correct to do so or not, the case that this documentary makes demands investigation and resolution. If he IS right then the Swedish legal 'case' (?) and 'leak' is exactly the type of attack one would expect on Wikileaks and its identifiable representative. Pilger's theorises that trial by media is a preliminary step that is often used to build public support for action that could otherwise be regarded as unjustifiable.
Whether Assange has really broken any laws or not, the Swedish 'case' is certainly an attack on Wikileaks. It may not be a deliberate attack, in the sense that Wikileaks is not ostensibly its target, but this does not alter the fact that it is likely to harm both Assange and Wikileaks. If I wanted to demonise some public figure, what better attack could I find than to accuse them of sexual crimes?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021