Assange relishes US banks 'squirming' over 'megaleak' WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he enjoys watching US banks "squirm" as he threatens to expose them with a "megaleak" of confidential documents. "I think it's great," Assange told the venerable US television news magazine 60 Minutes on Sunday evening. "We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe it's them." "You …
Except when he publishes documents that potentially put people such as our soilders, peace keepers and diplomats in danger that is, right?
Sometimes secret documents are secret for a very good reason - even if not immidiately apparent - and not just hiding a coverup or some other nasty they don't want us to know about.
I think Assange is on a bit of a power-trip from this, and that's not really a good thing.
"Another user of the War On Terror Firefox plugin I see?
Download and install WoT Firefox plugin.
Receive alerts on 'critical' articles and surveys.
Click alerts to easily voice your deluded opinion!"
Why is one persons opinion deluded whereas yours isn't? Oh yeah, because some you said so.
Opinions are like arseholes - the internet is full of them.
"Except when he publishes documents that potentially put people such as our soilders, peace keepers and diplomats in danger that is, right?"
The ones putting soldiers in danger are the idiots at the top who send them into an illegal war just so they can keep control of the oil. If leaked documents forced the US / UK from shoving its nose where it doesn't belong that could only be a good thing.
I could buy the "idiots at the top" argument except that:
1) There have always been idiots at the top. Never has there been a time when there have not been idiots at the top sending soldiers into unnecessary battles with deadly outcomes.
2) Signing up for HM Armed Forces is voluntary. The soldiers can read their history books and figure out that they will end up in conflicts, many of them planned by complete bozos who don't value them like mum does.
Please get your facts straight.
The War in Iraq was in fact a legal war. Congress et al all voted on it. Was it a smart move? Maybe. Was it legal, yes.
I wonder how much money from Iran has been funneled to Wikileaks?
What would happen if someone leaked on wikileaks and exposed their sources for 'contributions'?
When 2.5million people had, potentially, access to the information before Assange and his crew got hold of it it is very hard to argue that He put armed forces at risk. I'd suggest that the real culprits for that offense live in capital cities at public expense. Or have retired to the lecture circuit and come back occasionally as sophists and book publicists
And sometime secret documents are secret because they show the government up for the bunch of criminally insane psychotics they and their officials sometimes are. I'm thinking here about mass experiments on soldiers and sailors when it was thought - We'll never get the public to buy this so we'll keep it secret and ignore the requests.
Assange is on a power trip - but so what?
"Except when he publishes documents that potentially put people such as our soilders, peace keepers and diplomats in danger that is, right?"
I'm an ex-military officer, and as far as I can tell nothing that wikileaks has published has put people in danger. Holding politicians to account is one of the most important duties of the press. Doing this during a period of war is even more important. Especially when that war is as asymmetric as current ones.
Think about this. During a very symmetric war (one where each side is almost equally powerful) some of the extremes are avoided because of fear that the other side will reciprocate. It is largely believed that chemical and biological weapons were avoided in the second world war because of fear that the other side would reciprocate. Reciprocity kept the nuclear weapon genie in the bottle for the entire cold war. In an asymmetric war, there is very little to prevent excess. America has got away with illegal detention and torture largely because there is very little risk of that happening to their troops. The only way the illegal detention and torture got scaled back is because the press heard about it and published.
Wikileaks is a key part of that press function in the modern digital age.
"I'm an ex-military officer, and as far as I can tell nothing that wikileaks has published has put people in danger."
AFAICT being the operative phrase. Since, on the basis of need to know, you do not know what is currently taking place, you are not very well positioned to assess the matter.
Also, many ex military officers were commanders of OFPs, MTs and other support functions. Were you at the tip of the spear? Is your knowledge up to date?
'Ex-Military officer' ?
Yeah right. My spook friends and ex-military friends say otherwise.
After action reports can provide key details that can have impact on future operations.
Leaks that don't redact identities (which did happen) can cause harm to those who aided the US and their allies. Yet there is no way to verify this information.
So give me a break,
when others capture, detain & torture? Really now... If you're going to go about making an absurd argument at least make sure you're balanced in it and not coming off as a putz. Raise hell about anything the US does but don't say a word about those who dismember innocent civilians and stone women for sport. GOOD CALL!
I really do wish there were a system of maintaining a minimum IQ & level of common sense on the internet. :(
Didn't you know that all of the ills in the world today are because of the 'Merikins?
If the US didn't do anything like prop up the UN, supply relief aid and economic support to the rest of the world for the past 60+ years, none of the ills you mention would have happened.
I mean heck... those mass graves in Iraq? Blame America for Saddam's reign of terror.
The stories of Saddam's kids torturing their own people for sport? Blame America.
C'mon, facts? What are they! Its all lies that are all outed on the internet.
Just ask Iran about the Holocaust.
There was an expression used during the housing bubble burst... "Tell that to main street."
This was in reference that during the banking melt down, businesses had their lines of credit frozen.
No credit, no money to pay suppliers, employees, etc ...
No money, business goes belly up.
Grow up junior and start to think 2-3 steps down the food chain.
Anyone who wants to get to the top of their chosen "field" has to have a certain arrogance, not so much "Can I succeed?", more "I have succeeded, you lot just haven't realised yet!".
I too think he's an obnoxious prat but seems to excel at what he has chosen to do, so fair play to him.
Wikileaks was never about whistle blowing.
Its all about Assange.
Why do you think the smarter chums left to do it right? (Openleaks)
Why 60 minutes put him on the air is beyond me. The NYT already exposed him for what he is.
(A media attention whore.)
I guess they had it in the bank before Egypt went under....
What's that? Not releasing the information he was given to the public, but keep it to blackmail people who can hurt him personally?
Yeah, that's great, I'm also considering losing my job and being sued by giving him information that he will hog for his own purpose. I'm sure he'd pay a "substantial" chunk of my legal fees... that is about 10% of what I need... and about half a year late.
When Wikileaks publishes docs people cry it's a disaster because it endangers innocent people. When he postpones or slows the tempo of publication people cry Wikileaks blackmails people.
As long as people let the media focus our attention on Assange and not the critical facts Wikileaks tries to expose, we're all lost.
It was also reasonable to disdain the absolute and unaccountable authority of monarchs once the printing press technology had made a more pluralistic model of authority (i.e. industrial democracy) feasible. A potential further shift in the same direction, towards a more decentralised model of authority is overdue, but the structure of money needs to be changed in order to break many current monopolies and other principalities.
Part of the process of creating space for new systems to fill the void has to involve holding current power mongers to account and exposing their leadership as lacking moral purpose. It's not most of the politicians of democratic parties I'm particularly concerned about here. Many must qualify, e.g. for expenses fraud and leading us into illegal wars. But high on the accountability needed list we have to include the crats, bankers and corpexecs who decide the political agenda for the most part.
I hope his threat to expose their practices and methods of manipulation has those who have done wrong quaking in their boots.
No its just as easy to kill Assange whether he is 'high profile' or not.
Face the facts that if someone with enough power wants you dead, you're dead.
Being an obnoxious prick just makes it easier.
Thank god for Assange is that we Americans have a very thick skin and it takes a lot to piss us off. Russians? Not so much. Islamic Extremists? Just make a joke with a cartoon and they go jihad on your ass.
China, now that's one I haven't figured out. Do they go Russian or just laugh you off as you keep buying products made in their country?
But i am sure its not going to be long before he gets assassinated...
I mean how long does he think he's going to get away with publishing documents that are "potentially" going to get rich people in trouble?
eventually one of them will crack and pay a hefty amount to get him out of the picture... its a numbers game.
>>I mean how long does he think he's going to get away with publishing documents that are "potentially" going to get rich people in trouble?
Well, if he's killed the stuff gets automatically released, plus the key to the encrypted military files (including the unfiltered stuff), so while the stuff remainst unreleased he's safe, at least from Government and Banking, but not safe from those who would have the stuff released now, Al Qaeda for example would much prefer all the docs released now and unfiltered (the filtering process is slow but it ensures that individuals are not at risk), so if anyone is going to kill him it's the very opposite of those that are being targetted.
Let me get this right. Assange gets information that has been obtained illegally (let's not forget that trivial fact - you may get less in court because of whistleblowing but it IS a crime), and then uses it to protect himself? So he's quite willing to ignore any kind of damage he may cause if someone harms him.
Hang that man now, and switch to Openleaks. At least they don't (yet) have a megalomaniac to run the ship..
but how much have you - and others who complain about WikiLeaks - contributed to the Bradley Manning defence fund ? Have you signed the petition (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/bradleymanning) to stop the inhumane treatment to which Mr Manning is being subjected at the tender hands of those defenders of democracy, freedom of information, etc, etc, the US military ?...
Henri
I read «Simon 11»'s posting as a criticism of WikiLeaks - and Julian Assange - for not contributing more (15000USD hardly constitutes «lack of action» in my book, but perhaps you have made better career choices than I) to the Bradley Manning defence fund. From this, I drew the conclusion that «Simon 11» - and other's posting similar criticisms - believe that generously contributing to the defence fund is a virtuous thing to do - a notion, by the way, that «Simon 11» could easily have dispelled by himself (?) posting a reply, instead of allowing a (still more) anonymous coward to do so - and therefore asked what his (?) own actions in that respect had been. Supporting - or not supporting, as the case may be - Bradley Manning in the situation in which he finds himself is one thing, and entirely up to the person concerned, but hypocrisy is quite another....
Henri
1) No here posts with their real name. So the whole AC/not AC thing is spurious.
2) Whether or not Simon 11 donated is not the topic he raised.
3) Assange claims to offer support - so where is that support?
The only hypocrite is Assange, he is the only one who claims to offer support but has not done so (in my opinion).
"1) No here posts with their real name. So the whole AC/not AC thing is spurious."
Except if you post openly we can check your previous comments and see if you're a shill or not.
"2) Whether or not Simon 11 donated is not the topic he raised."
He accused Assange of hypocrisy so if he's so keen on supporting Manning's defence he must have contributed, right.
"3) Assange claims to offer support - so where is that support?"
How good do you think it will look for Manning if Wikileaks gives him huge amounts of money? The prosecution will jump on it as evidence of a conspiracy and claim that he is a paid spy.
This would put Manning in a far worse position than he is now.
--"Except if you post openly we can check your previous comments and see if you're a shill or not."
How would you (who's 'we') decide if someone is a shill?
if someone had a consistent approach to the issue which you don't agree with, does that qualify them as a shill, rather than simply a person with different opinions?
Generally, when I see people crying "shill!!!", it usually seems to be someone from a particular group who's convinced themselves they're speaking for the majority of citizens, or at least the majority of thinking citizens, and who isn't prepared to doubt that conclusion, and instead invents the pleasant humble fiction that they're so obviously right that anyone doubting them must be being paid to do it.
--"How good do you think it will look for Manning if Wikileaks gives him huge amounts of money?"
Why did Wikileaks ask for donations to be used to defend Manning?
Is the potential downside of doing that not something that they had ever really thought about before?
Are you suggesting that wikileaks is run by impulsive idiots?
<QUOTE>he makes himself the story rather than the cases of corruption and naughtiness his organisation are uncovering.</QUOTE>
I think it more likely that others are making Assange the story. If you can do nothing about the embarrassing details of the story then change the focus of where everyone is looking to divert their attention from the details. Standard technique, surely.
"It's unclear whether the US government has pressured US operations to remove WikiLeaks from their services... " ..... Really? Those operations just took it upon themselves to lose all street cred and render themselves as puppets to a right dodgy regime into exchanging pretty printed paper currency notes and treasury IOUs for foreign wealth and global industry and alien intellectual property rights. Yeah, ok, I can believe that too in the shadow of a big ignorant stick.
Err.... if the US government has NOT pressured US operations to remove WikiLeaks from their services, is Wikileaks a covert US government operation?
Would IT be BetaTesting the Power of the Internet with Advanced IntelAIgent Media Controls in a Novel MkUltraSensitive Neuro-Linguistic Programming Project, or is that just something else and quite different that NIRobotIQs is Flashing and Floating into and onto Markets, Hearts and Minds?
As someone that was born and raised surrounded by technology and as someone that truly values what the Internet has brought to us in terms of convenience and access to information, I have to say that I am Assange's side all the way. Whistle-blowing is a right we should stand for and make sure is kept. The internet is our tool, not the US government tool.
He is the only man in history that had a been accused of rape and was investigated by the Interpol. That shows how low governments have gone in order to eleminate any opposition to their status quo. If the US, Swiss, UK and Swedish governments are concerned with this man, there is a good chance he is doing something good (as he is not a terrorist).
Assange is the man of the decade in my opinion.
--"In most modern countries what he did isn't even a criminal offense, if an offense at all."
That rather sounds like you've already decided that you know exactly what he did, and that it is a criminal offense in Sweden, you're just blaming Sweden for what they decide is illegal.
That's more than /I've/ done, and I'm no fan of Assange.
For non-Scandinavian types, ALL sex can be deemed "rape" in sweden, even consensual sex. This may seem counter intuitive to the anglo-saxon legal tradition, but it is never the less a statement of absolute fact.
I would suggest that the lack of nuance in the reporting of Assange's alleged sexual misdemenours reflects badly on those who report it and those who mindelessly and ignorantly repeat it.
What assange "did" and the chronology is not really in question. Whether these actions constituted a sexual offense under the Swedish criminal code "is" in question.
Uhm... what pressure is Polanski under?
Seriously, the man gets convicted of statutory rape, meaning he had sex with a minor. Trial and everything. He then jumps bail and flees the country. Now when did this happen? OVER 30 YEARS AGO.
He's been working in the film industry (his chosen profession prior to his conviction for rape) in Europe and had even won awards for his work. So what, and I mean what pressure had he been under? The only thing he can't do is come back to the US where he'd be incarcerated.
If the US wanted to flex their muscle on a guy who sleeps with underage girls, they would have had Polanski in custody a long time ago.
So dont defend Assange or pretend you know anything about the Swedish law. Why doesn't Assange go back and face the music and get himself tested? Oh wait, that would blow away his mythos that he's just a regular guy who could be carrying an STD.
He needs to get on with publishing these (starting to at least, understand there is a lot to go through). Otherwise it seems more and more like self-enrichment and self-promotion rather than the mythical free information campaign he's on. Or perhaps he's waiting for the pay-off from our financial overlords.
If he's got goodies, and genuinely wants to expose them, he should just publish already.
I know he's a massive self-publicist and everything but it's reaching the point where I'm starting to genuinely doubt he has any real commitment to getting anything published except column inches about Julian Assange.
I truly dont mind them squirming , rolling in their beds at night and being nervous.
I for one LOVE IT .But explain one thing. Why wait ?
Why wait to publish and let the banks handle the mess they created ? No reason seem to hold.
Same thing with the collection of cables . Why wait ?
Wikileaks is a " we may but we dont " leak documents site ?
Something's fishy. Either leak or shut up Julian :)
"if you have nothing to hide..." yah-de-yah.
Then you won't mind if I just trawl your email, bank statements, household bills etc. Or why stop there? Lets have a rummage through your office drawers...or how about your bedroom...? How trawling through your kids homework? Maybe I'll post on facebook all the juicy stuff? What - you're overdrawn and the credit card is maxed out, and the wife didn't know? Aw, shame that...but afterall - you have nothing to hide.
See where that stupid and dangerous statement can lead?
Be aware - 'personal' privacy is a f*ing right *I* will be retaining until they pull it from my cold, dead fingers. You - the public - (or the goverment) do not need to know *everything* about me.
Personally, I'd be pretty bloody pissed if someone started publishing my bank statements online, which is tantamount to what Asssange is doing. A lot of people here are getting confused as to what information he intends to publish.
Publishing the shady operations of the banks is fair game; but when he start publishing what the mega-rich spend their money on, or how much money they have, he's crossed a privacy line IMO. Rich or not - they're entitled to the same personal privacy we are.
Assange would do well to highlight any shady dealings the banks get up to...and kudos to him for doing so. But he should know to draw the line at publishing actual account information. Or it'll be your information next.
Please...don't start *any* privacy comment with "If you have nothing to hide..." crap ever again.
"If you're a whistleblower and you have material that is important, we will accept it, we will defend you"
Really Mr. Assange? Really, really? So how much help have you given Manning, eh? He's been rotting in a military jail, faces about 52 years if convicted and beyond a pathetic sop of a donation to his defence, you appear to have done the some total to sod all to help him.
Surely you could give some of the $1.5million you got for the book deal to Manning? 10% would cover his entire defence FFS. Less, as others have managed to raise about $100k, so you would only need to give a paltry 3.5%. And that is ignoring whatever other donation you (and WikiLeaks) have received.
If we've learned anything from the past two or three years, it's that the banks essentially dictate the economy. If the info on the banks is so damaging it will cause banks to go under and more government bailouts to occur, I fail to see how that is good for anyone.
I assume that most people on here are paid in cash and not goats or potato's for the jobs they do. What do you do when the money dries up because the banks are in a mess?
Exaggeration? Perhaps. But I fail to see how attacking banks in order to cause siginificant damage can be for the good of man.
No.
But for the most part those who praise Assange don't have a pot to piss in, thus nothing to lose.
Those that have a pot to piss in... see Assange for the danger he represents.
Of course any corporation and government are fair game. Individuals like Assange or his company Wikileaks are not fair game. (He did go in to the press w lawyers threatening to sue...)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
