Assange's WikiLeaks: Give generously this Xmas – for statue of our dear leader Julian Assange has alerted Wikileakers to an important Kickstarter campaign that aims to create a bronze statue of the snowy-haired founder, billed as a “monument to courage”. How the bronze statue of Assange, Snowden and Manning would look How the statue will look if they can get another £80,000 The proposed artwork, …
Not pictured is the noose.
Sorry, but the moral of the story... if you want to be a rebel without a clue and claim to be a whistle blower, be prepared to put an end to having a normal life.
Assange - hanging out with his best buds in the Ecuadorian Embassy as he dodges his arrest in Sweden on Rape Charges.
Manning - sitting in prison because he trusted Assange and did a snarf of classified documents, with no real whistle blowing having occurred. (What crimes had he uncovered that the US Government has been charged with in International court? Hint: NONE. )
Snowden - Some say he was FSB, but in the end... his sitting in Russian still releasing blurbs.
I guess he must really enjoy vodka and not being able to leave the country in fear of the CIA rendition trips.
The only guy missing is the clown in Switzerland who gave Wikileaks Swiss banking records which is illegal under Swiss law. I think he's already completed his sentence by now...
Manning - sitting in prison because he trusted Assange and did a snarf of classified documents, with no real whistle blowing having occurred. (What crimes had he uncovered that the US Government has been charged with in International court? Hint: NONE. )
I've got to agree with this, but for a different reason than the one you gave.
What Manning did took personal sacrifice, but it wasn't whistle-blowing. He nabbed a huge stash of documents and released them to Wikileaks with little to no idea of what was in them, the fact that it highlighted anything was the result of luck and not judgement. Whistle-blowing is speaking up about something because you're morally opposed, not misusing your access to release anything and everything you can find and then getting lucky because there was something in there.
Snowden on the other hand, may have walked away with a veritable treasure trove of info, but he spoke up because he was morally opposed to something in particular, and released evidence to show what had been happening.
be prepared to put an end to having a normal life
Definitely the one assured outcome of whistle-blowing on the state. You can't guarantee that society will feel the same way as you about the behaviour you're highlighting, you definitely can't guarantee that change will happen, but you can 100% guarantee that the state will do what it can to make life very difficult for you
Manning was a soldier, I appreciate the blown whistle, but am not too sure about the ethics of it.
In the end, it was a betrayal of the service. I hope the prison sentence is shortened, but I would not have dreamt of such a thing when in uniform. Keeping things in-house is part of the contract.
I feel uncomfortable to think of it, it is a real ethical dilemma, I think Manning was right to release the video that became 'collateral murder', but as a soldier in uniform ...?
Wikileaks is still sitting on most of what they have, much that they have will never be released, but Domsc***t may be the most responsible there, for wiping files and handing them to Bundeswhatever.
You, Tasker, are right about Wikileaks sort of exploiting Manning.
I like the tale of Mr. Snowden, exploited by many journalists, now has work and a new home, reunion with his girlfriend, I was so happy to hear the latter.
I remembered this from 4 years ago (linked here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/18/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_denied_swedish_resident_permit/ ):
"Yeah...
...what you do is you go to a country (Sweden) that's at war in another country (Afghanistan), release a load of confidential documents with the potential to damage the Swedish/coalition effort whilst all the time complaining loudly about how Sweden is being manipulated by the USA to blacken your name and have you arrested... and then you can complain a bit more when they don't let you stay.
My heart bleeds."
and
"Goes With The Turf
I support freedom of speech and the people who make public what 'they' would rather be kept from us. But really, this guy shouldn't be surprised when this sort of thing happens.
If you're going to try and stick it to 'the man' then be prepared for the repercussions.
"Never get off the boat. Unless you're going all the way.""
After more than 4 years I found it interesting to revisit the sad affair, and feel these early reactions from Reg readers provide a stark contrast to Assange today, now allegedly a bit rapey, wanted by Sweden so they can charge him for an offence that a senior British police officer said would result in charges in this country. A man holed up in an embassy, reduced to trying to manipulate the world into taking his side. A man convicted in Australia on 17 counts for hacking government and other computers, including a USAAF network.
You are making a good point and without ill-humour. ... but Assange has been trapped in the embassy for over two years. They seem to have house-trained him a little, to their credit.
Still, no matter how much of an egomaniac he is, he doesn't deserve the situation.
The chief justice minister of the UK tried to resolve the situation only a few weeks ago, begging the Swedish moron prosecutor to interview Assange in the embassy, the request was predictably refused.
But he's trapped by his own actions to some extent. He's there because he broke bail in the UK and is avoiding going to Sweden. He can leave anytime he chooses, albeit he's already forfeited some freedom by going there in the first place.
He could have avoided all of this by just going to Sweden. Why is Sweden more likely to give him to the CIA than the UK?
Still, no matter how much of an egomaniac he is, he doesn't deserve the situation.
He does. He had some many options to resolve the situation, the easiest would have been to man up and take a blood test so the girls could be certain he left nothing more than a bad impression. It was only because he couldn't be arsed to do the decent thing that the situation descended into a rape investigation, and he has wasted enough court resources in the UK to make it clear the UK would concur.
To that he added breaking bail and creating a diplomatic situation by becoming an Australian hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy in the UK to avoid investigations in Sweden.
I have no pity for him whatsoever. If I had to pick from the 3 I'd go with Snowden - he's the only one who actually been a "proper" whistleblower, with full acceptance of the consequences. I see Manning more as a slightly deluded patsy for Assange and Assange .. doesn't matter anymore, hence this stupid idea. Assange first has to pay Manning what he said he would, then clean up his own mess in Sweden and pay back the bail money - after that I may be able to pay attention to him. For the moment he's just a jerk who seems to be a legend in his own mind and mainly lives off others. Sorry if that is harsh, but I get fed up with people proclaiming themselves heroes while we don't even properly support injured soldiers and their families.
"Still, no matter how much of an egomaniac he is, he doesn't deserve the situation."
Sure he does! Assange seems to be on the verge of being charged in Sweden (and quite possibly the only reason he hasn't been charged is that he has not been available for the interview Swedish cops perform before they make a decision to charge someone). To top that off he most definitely skipped bail in the UK, which means that the minute he steps outside the Ecuadorean embassy, Her Majesty is waiting to scoop him up and toss him in the slammer for violating his bail conditions.
Regardless of whether Sweden may or may not extradite him to the U.S., the guy has earned his place, spending precious years of his life couch-surfing in the Ecuadorean embassy
This post has been deleted by its author
If my recollection is correct, that mock up looks like they've set the statue in Milan, in the plaza shared by the Duomo and the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II. I'm sure they think it's a lovely piece of work, but there are more appropriate places. (The bottom of the sea comes to mind).
What next? Perhaps they'll sensitively position it outside the Taj Mahal, or at Stonehenge on its world tour.
It might be that they've all made some contributions, but as far as my loose impressions go, which I will admit isn't exactly rock solid proof, two of them are worthy of statues and wouldn't necessarily say so and one of them thinks they're more than worthy of a statue and whether they are or not is quite questionable.
I don't like them all being grouped together like that. It's sort of character defamation by association.
Was also my first thought, two of them have definitely made supreme personal sacrifices in pursuit of what they think is right. The other has voluntarily locked himself in a small building to avoid a police interview.
Even leaving that aside, Assange has simply been an information broker, and it's reasonably clear from early plans for Wikileaks that the intent was always that it'd be a profitable venture
Sorry, but if it were just that simple.
Were Julian just an 'information broker' he wouldn't be afraid of the US.
In 1971 SCOTUS had a ruling that gave the press a shield. And it would give the US enough pause over Julian as to do nothing.
However... it appears that Julian may have had a hand in the actual theft. This issue was raised in Mannings Article 32 hearing. Note that the evidence was taken as fact, but never really debated during Manning's trial.
If this were true, then Julian was more than just an 'information broker' and would have reason to fear a US extradition.
However... it appears that Julian may have had a hand in the actual theft. This issue was raised in Mannings Article 32 hearing. Note that the evidence was taken as fact, but never really debated during Manning's trial.
If this were true, then Julian was more than just an 'information broker' and would have reason to fear a US extradition.
Being (allegedly) complicit in the theft of state secrets is a far cry from being the person who puts their employment on the line by finding and disclosing that information.
Admittedly calling him just an information broker may have been an over-simplification on my part, but what I was getting at is that, aside from his own theatrics, hasn't made the same sacrifice that the other two have, and certainly hasn't been doing it on quite the same moral basis as Snowden.
".....Were Julian just an 'information broker' he wouldn't be afraid of the US....." A$$nut's original fears are his own creation due to his paranoia and 'interesting' upbringing. His actions at Wikileaks simply made those paranoias into realities.
".....In 1971 SCOTUS had a ruling that gave the press a shield....." All great if A$$nut was an actual accredited journalist, but he never has been. Remember, that was the whole reason for his jaunt to Sweden, a local Leftie rag having given him a column in an attempt to give Wikileaks some actual journalistic cover, but St Jules got his rape on with his followers too soon. So no protection for St Jules there.
"....If this were true, then Julian was more than just an 'information broker' and would have reason to fear a US extradition." St Jules has plenty to fear because he is accused of being directly involved with (if not actually controlling) Manning's theft of secret material. That puts A$$nut in breach of the Espionage Act. But, St Jules has nothing to fear in the UK because the Swedish-issued EAW trumps any US request (and one hasn't even been made), and the Swedes will not extradite St Jules to anywhere for a political or military charge. So, once again, going on and on and on about extradition is just a smokescreen used by A$$nut and his followers to try and justify his not facing up to his rape charges in Sweden.
There are no rape charges
Not yet, because Swedish law requires an interview before charges are laid, and Assange is hiding under the bed and won't come out. Only after the interview can the prosecutor decide if he will be charged with rape. To suggest that this means that there will be no charges is plain disingenuous.
".....There are no rape charges...." What, are some of The Followers of St Jules still trying to resurrect that 'zombie fact'?!? As already established twice in the English courts where St Jules tried and failed get the EAW rejected, what St Jules is alleged to have done in Sweden would constitute rape under English law. I suggest you go read this
(http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition) before attempting CPR on any more zombies.
As I have told you before, Assange is not my hero. He is also not a rapist, sleazy perhaps.
The British justice system tried to overcome the impasse only last month, the Swedish prosecutor absolutely refused to co-operate, gave no good reason, that is a simple fact.
The initial report to the Swedish authorities only followed collusion between his groupies, both of whom are on record as having even been somewhat proud of their conquests at the time. Both stated that they didn't want him charged, the prosecutor forgot it, another prosecutor oddly decided to attack much later.
There are good reasons to suspect the initial groupie of being at least 'an agent of influence' for some other place, I am sure you will be aware of her political past and of where she went to hide out in the immediate aftermath of creating the problem for Assange.
Assange seems to have been trying to parlay Wikileaks information for cash, while drip-feeding even the least sensitive information. Such a slow drip-feed that Domsh**sse was able to delete or give away important documents on banking scandals, I would be very surprised if Domsh**sse received no financial reward for destroying or passing on information on financial crimes by banks.
I would love to see any record of above-expenses payments by, for example, the NYT, to Wikileaks.
I am also aware of Cryptome's claims about Wikileaks, but the man running that is also very selective about what information is released, and IMHO would have an axe to grind regardless of how Wikileaks operated, seeing them as operating on *his* turf.
That is not to say that all of his points were invalid, I am just a little suspicious of the motives for his statements re. Wikileaks.
I do suspect that you may be more interested in propaganda than any truth, at least on this issue.
Will leave off there.
Merry Christmas to you, Matt, and to all Reg. commentards!
"....He is also not a rapist....." That is your opinion. Unfortunately, St Jules seems more intent on dodging justice rather than clearing his name, so he will remain a rapist in the opinion of the majority of people.
"....The British justice system tried to overcome the impasse only last month, the Swedish prosecutor absolutely refused to co-operate, gave no good reason...." Not so. The reason was quite simple, it is not how Swedish law operates, and - despite St Jules's own conviction he is the Second Coming Squared - St Jules does not warrant special treatment.
".....only followed collusion between his groupies...." You mean they spoke to each other and realised St Jules had been a 'naughty boy' with both of them, then decided to ask for a blood test (which Julie refused), so decided to go to the cops. None of which amounts to collusion as it happened after the events, not before.
".....There are good reasons to suspect the initial groupie of being at least 'an agent of influence' for some other place....." LOL, are you going to resurrect another zombie and insist Anna Ardin was 'a CIA spy'? Seriously? That Shamir and Bennet rubbish was debunked years ago - http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/
".....I do suspect that you may be more interested in propaganda than any truth, at least on this issue....." Says the poster desperately digging out one tired zombie after another! Go on, just for fun, accuse me of working for the CIA if it helps you cope with your hero's tumble from his pedestal. Hopefully Santa can bring you an extra-long stick so you can try and stretch for reality.
There are no rape charges. Assange is not my hero, but it is clear that the Swedish prosecutor's intention is just to make trouble for him.
There is an investigation into rape, and Assange has gone through the entire stack of progressive courts to only receive the verdict that the events qualify as "rape" under UK law as well (it was one of his attempts to annul the extradition). So I'd say that "rape" is pretty much on the cards, and not just an "invention" to "cause trouble". It's more that "asylum" is an excuse for avoiding due process.
If this were true, then Julian was more than just an 'information broker' and would have reason to fear a US extradition.
Julian seems to overestimate his worth and importance, but that isn't exactly news. I cannot see the US being dumb enough to go after him - they know it'll be rather hard to prove he had his mitts in this. I can see any half decent solicitor create enough reasonable doubt to clear him, and all they would have done is give this guy again publicity which he needs like an addict needs another fix.
In Assange's case, there is no credible reason to worry about the US other than to pump up his own importance. This is also why I would not contribute to any statue that has him in it, but gladly to a one way ticket to Sweden: I suspect he'll have a 30 minute hearing, will offer to roll up his sleeve for a blood test and be kicked out of the door with a €100 fine, end of story. At which point he will officially cease to be of any importance whatsoever.
An alternative possibility is that Assange gets to Sweden, gets formally charged and convicted of rape and causing bodily harm, and thrown in jail. What everyone seems to forget is that we have as yet not heard a single word from the girls, and their solicitor also keeps very quiet. Imagine he's saddled them with an STD, that too would pretty much render him irrelevant.
So, as far as I can see, Assange only remains of some interest to the press as long as he's holed up in that embassy, and that embassy will eventually run out of patience too.
Tick .. tock .. tick .. tock ..
"Assange has simply been an information broker" - hmmm., yeah, the telegraph was just an "information transfer enabler" - just a bunch of dots & dashes even - quite an irrelevant invention, right?
"Heroes" may not come with the cape & tights you prefer, but without these guys (and arguably John Kiriakou who now sits in jail for exposing & confirming torture), this week's controversial torture report would have never appeared for inspection.
<snip>
"I don't like them all being grouped together like that. It's sort of character defamation by association."
Exactly. I do not like any of them but think that if the statue could be used to attract vandals away from other more cultural entities then it might be worth while. I suppose at a pinch it could be used as a boat anchor.
I wonder what the wonderful Dubliners will call it when they bring it to Dublin? They have a statue their of a woman in water called Ana Liviia, colloquially the locals call it either the "Whooer in the Sewer" or the "Floozy in the Jacuzzi"
Well the hardship can be appalling! It's a little known fact that the Vienna Convention bans all forms of chocolate in embassies, other than Ferrero Rocher. And that stuff is vile. So the poor lamb has gone ages without proper sustenance.
Incidentally the Times did an interview with the Russian ambassador a couple of years ago, and in the waiting room they have a big platter of the things. So either those adverts were based on truth, or have created a very lucractive stereotype, that certain members of the diplomatic commmunity feel they have to live up (down) to...
Either that, or the Russian ambassador has no taste, or a great sense of humour.
This post has been deleted by its author
No, no, no. That way you'd end up with a bronze Assange(tm) mould.
The correct way is to immerse Assange(tm) head down in a big vat of plaster and wait for it to set. Then, after a few weeks, bake the whole arrangement at high temperature to burn out the putrefying remains and then pour in molten bronze. Finally, break the plaster off.
Nah. They make a hollow _larger-than-life-sized_ Assange(tm) statue, roll it in for him to view, he jumps inside, and discovers that they neglected to make any air holes. And the ship carrying the statue to Australia for display has a bit of trouble in the Roaring Forties and the statue accidentally slips over the side in 2000 metres of water.
And just to try and hide the fact it's happened, they (whoever they are) neglect to tell us after the fact, so our beloved government look like complete and utter tits when it eventually comes out we've been paying to guard an embassy for 6 months after he's vanished.
Mind you, Assange disappearing like that would drive the conspiracy theorists nuts. Though, to be fair, he could choke to death on a peanut and someone somewhere would be looking for a link to the CIA
"....doesn't mean that any city/town would want it or even allow it....." Oh, they'll have no problems getting permission in places like Glasgow, where they'd burn the US and English flags twice daily if they could afford to. Also it would be welcomed at student union bars the World over, just so all the 'young-and-righteous' wannabes could sit on the extra chair. That's why the extra chair is there - the sculptor is smart enough to recognize that shoutie narcissism drives the followers just as much as it does St Jules.
-when you're so loud that everyone sees and knows about you.
Once Wikileaks became public knowledge as a source of bigtime intel exchange, the big, secret money was gonna go elsewhere.
The first rule of running an intel or propaganda clearinghouse (that only leaks from "one side") is to not talk about it. Like the Mafia when even Hoover was claiming there was no such organization. Once it has a name, it is useless for its original purpose.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to sell my intel (or release it with 'plausible deniability') on something so brazenly open.
...That if they can only make it to 1/3 of the desired amount, they'll "decide" to do the project in stages and so do Julian's "first" and do the others "later -- when we have the money"?
Although, if someone ever DID do a statue of Assange, it might entice me to convert to one of the religions that believes in reincarnation, in hopes of coming back as a pigeon!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
