The motives of Wikileaks' Julian Assange

[sjw]

"US State department using lawless thug like tactics on Assange's lawyer" would be a more rational, factual and less prejudiced statement...correct?

You seem a bit touchy about the word "mafia"... correct?

Shayne

[Selene]

"US State department using lawless thug like tactics on Assange's lawyer" would be a more rational, factual and less prejudiced statement...correct?

You seem a bit touchy about the word "mafia"... correct?

Shayne

Good mirror. I detest the use of the word except as a reference to the original Sicilian families. That is correct.

[sjw]

The Atlantic: "The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange":

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/the-shameful-attacks-on-julian-assange/67440

[Mikee]

"Julian Assange, Information Anarchist"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html

[sjw]

"Julian Assange, Information Anarchist"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html

So now neocons care about collateral damage. I guess that's a step in the right direction. (I also disagree with the leaking of information regarding the dentist, and that's not the only mistake Wikileaks has made).

The aspect of the issue this article misses is that precisely to the degree to which the US government operates without the consent of the governed is the precise degree to which it is in fact a criminal enterprise. It's mixed, but there is a very big dose of criminality in government. The point is to subdue the criminal aspect of the government and reclaim the rule of law, and not just any law, but rights-respecting law. Wikileaks should be judged relative to that standard.

Shayne

[sjw]

Wired Magazine takes a stand: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-editorial

[sjw]

"The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks": http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/06/wikileaks/index.html

[sjw]

Judge Napolitano: "If we allow the governments of the world to label Assange a terrorist

and allow them to shut down Wikileaks it will be one giant leap toward

tyranny."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4449749/understanding-free-speech

[Brant Gaede]

Judge Napolitano & Congressman Mack:

http://www.foxbusine...ylist_id=157991

Nice to hear some sanity.

Shayne

Let me propose a hypothetical case. Suppose the Soviet spy scientist Klaus Fuchs, instead of turning the details of how to make a plutonium bomb over the agents of the Soviet government, turned the data over to Nation Magazine. And suppose further that Nation Magazine published the material complete with diagrams. Should the management or employers of Nation Magazine been prosecuted for espionage or treason?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The real point, Bob, is you cannot use imposed ignorance on the other guy as a basis of national defense, for example. The information will out, sooner or later. And Shakarov was just as good as Teller = H-Bomb for them and H-Bomb for us. Teller, knew this, and advocated declassifying of classified information after a rather short period of time. Why? Because free men need knowledge while unfree men are constrained by lack of both knowledge and freedom and the free men could always make better and more effective use of same sooner than the catch-up guys. The USSR couldn't even afford to play catchup and busted out for that and other reasons. All China does is play or try to play catchup. Japan is another case, a culture of conformity and not losing face. What gets invented in Japan? Some things do, but not much, not compared to the US.

Years ago China purchased a Boeing 707 and tried to copy it. Perfect-enough copy, except for one thing: they forgot about the center of balance. That plane never flew. Why? It couldn't safely get off the ground. Maybe it couldn't even get off the ground. I have no info about the engines. I suspect they were going to buy them from those who knew how to make them.

The USSR got ahold of one or more B-29s and made a pretty good copy. Meanwhile the US turned the B-29 into the B-50. Then came the B-47, 36 and 52. Over 50 years ago I watched B-36s fly into Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson. Gigantic bombers on their last flights. They were going to the graveyard to be melted down, replaced by the B-52, still flying today. The B-36 lasted less than a decade. The B-52 is into its sixth decade. The USSR was still flying its prop-driven bombers down our Atlantic coast to Cuba in the late 1980s.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ted Keer

[sjw]

So now Assange is threatening to release a list of vulnerable and vital US sights if he is arrested.

So if bin Laden had had this list, do you suppose he would have picked different targets? For each of these alleged targets, how difficult do you suppose it would be to find them through civilian means (google maps, etc.)?

What guilty person does that shame and what innocent person does that protect. It simply shows Assange's true motive, the desire to Harm America. He would release this sooner or later.

He has already answered this point. He would rather release everything with intelligent redactions, but in his judgment if the choice is to release everything or nothing, he views it as less harmful to civilization to release everything.

Now you can argue with his judgment call, or be a little child making up fictional accounts of his motives (as per usual for you Ted).

Shayne

PS: I notice that Ted redacted his previous post and then added another one below mine saying pretty much the same thing. Why?

Edited December 7, 2010 by sjw

[kiaer.ts]

So now Assange is threatening to release a list of vulnerable and vital US sights if he is arrested. What guilty person does that shame and what innocent person does that protect? It simply shows Assange's true motive, the desire to harm America. He would have released this sooner or later.

The latest from Christopher Hitchens:

Turn Yourself In, Julian Assange

Edited December 8, 2010 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[sjw]

Assange: Don't shoot the messenger:

http://www.theaustra...q-1225967241332

[Peter]

Shayne wrote:

. . . but in his judgment if the choice is to release everything or nothing, he views it as less harmful to civilization to release everything.

End quote

I have Julian's cell phone number.

Julian? Listen to me. You and Wikileaks surrendered one day after your money was cut off. Doesn't that prove what a wimp you are? If you want to be a real cyber terrorist, slash - journalist, you should hide out in a cave, in the wilds of northern Pakistan or share a hut with your brother-in-spirit, a pirate in Somalia.

Is Wikileaks an agent of Anarchism, Mon-sewer Assange? I was thinking about your call for a more limited, transparent, government. That's fine, however the people who are seeking to destroy all government are delusional. How ready, willing and able are you to defend your own rights without a government?

Aren't you being hypocritical Julian? Aren't you now painting the Swedish government as oppressively making up rape charges against you? What did you do anyway? Just dope two women with ruffies so you could have your way with them? How dare Sweden spoil your fun! They were wearing tight clothes and make-up. The hussies were asking for it, in your opinion, and your *will* is paramount.

Destroy governments? But Jules, could you have defended yourself against Japan or Hitler's Germany? Of course not. Could you keep any latter day hostile regime like China, North Korea, Radical Islam, or Mafia run Russia off your doorstep? No. Two poor "alleged" victims are going to bring you down because "a government" is protecting their rights. I know Julian, you already said that they asked for it.

Your argument is that your territory would be neutral or not worthy of invasion like Switzerland. That is not realistic. If there were anything of value in your territory, including the bare land, or the cyber domain of your terrorist hiding place, then government would quickly colonize you. They have "the power." China could move in tomorrow with a million colonists to ease their population problem. "It is patriotic to have seven children!"

Could "rational anarchists" like you, Julian, even fight their way out of a paper bag, if society crumbles, and hordes of modern day savages stream out of the foodless cities? Your argument is once again unrealistic. Your "defense agency" would protect you, you say, but I have a different vision of wild Indians circling the doomed fort.

And Jules? If you hate governments so much why do you declare yourself to be a citizen of so many of them?

Release your crap Julian. There is nothing else to extort.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

I can't figure out what happened. I will send my reply again.

Shayne wrote:

. . . but in his judgment if the choice is to release everything or nothing, he views it as less harmful to civilization to release everything.

End quote

I have Julian's cell phone number.

Julian? Listen to me. You and Wikileaks surrendered one day after your money was cut off. Doesn't that prove what a wimp you are? If you want to be a real cyber terrorist, slash - journalist, you should hide out in a cave, in the wilds of northern Pakistan or share a hut with your brother-in-spirit, a pirate in Somalia.

Is Wikileaks an agent of Anarchism, Mon-sewer Assange? I was thinking about your call for a more limited, transparent, government. That's fine, however the people who are seeking to destroy all government are delusional. How ready, willing and able are you to defend your own rights without a government?

Aren't you being hypocritical Julian? Aren't you now painting the Swedish government as oppressively making up rape charges against you? What did you do anyway? Just dope two women with ruffies so you could have your way with them? How dare Sweden spoil your fun! They were wearing tight clothes and make-up. The hussies were asking for it, in your opinion, and your *will* is paramount.

Destroy governments? But Jules, could you have defended yourself against Japan or Hitler's Germany? Of course not. Could you keep any latter day hostile regime like China, North Korea, Radical Islam, or Mafia run Russia off your doorstep? No. Two poor "alleged" victims are going to bring you down because "a government" is protecting their rights. I know Julian, you already said that they asked for it.

Your argument is that your territory would be neutral or not worthy of invasion like Switzerland. That is not realistic. If there were anything of value in your territory, including the bare land, or the cyber domain of your terrorist hiding place, then government would quickly colonize you. They have "the power." China could move in tomorrow with a million colonists to ease their population problem. "It is patriotic to have seven children!"

Could "rational anarchists" like you, Julian, even fight their way out of a paper bag, if society crumbles, and hordes of modern day savages stream out of the foodless cities? Your argument is once again unrealistic. Your "defense agency" would protect you, you say, but I have a different vision of wild Indians circling the doomed fort.

And Jules? If you hate governments so much why do you declare yourself to be a citizen of so many of them?

Release your crap Julian. There is nothing else to extort.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

"What did you do anyway? Just dope two women with ruffies so you could have your way with them?"

What deranged moral principle that you hold permits you to make up slanderous lies like this?

Shayne

[sjw]

Note: something Ted has done is messing up the formatting for all subsequent posts.

[George H. Smith]

TEST POST

On my screen every post on this thread past #112 is really messed up and virtually unreadale. Is anyone else having this problem?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

testa testa testa

[BaalChatzaf]

Yup. I does not show up on display, but on final posting of the reply.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[sjw]

False patriot Wikileak bashers invited to explain themselves: http://www.objectivi...?showtopic=9680

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I fixed the formatting in Ted's post.

I have no idea what he did, but it looked like a mess from the edit (for instance, it had a lot of h1 and h2 tags that were out of place wit the code itself bolded), so I imagine it was a copy/paste problem. Sometimes hidden formatting code doesn't translate well from one site to another.

As to the following posts, they looked weird, so I messed with them. I noticed that some stuff would pop up and disappear when I opened a post for editing. As it looked normal after that, all I did was save it. Then the published post looked normal, too. I did this with every post following Ted's post.

In other words, I didn't mess with anyone's content. I just opened their post for editing and saved it as if I had made an edit. I think this fixed the problem. Please let me know if it continues with anyone.

Also, it would be a good idea for everyone to clean their browser cookies since this code might be "remembered" on their browser. (Cleaning cookies is safe, will not damage your computer, new cookies will become formed automatically, and cleaning them periodically is something you should do anyway.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"What did you do anyway? Just dope two women with ruffies so you could have your way with them?"

What deranged moral principle that you hold permits you to make up slanderous lies like this?

The moral principle of getting away with it.

--Brant

[Selene]

Rush said something today that almost made me spit out my coffee as I was walking from a meeting to the parking lot...

He said isn't it ironic that the head of Wikileaks was arrested because of an allegedly defective condom!!!! Now you have to admit, despite the seriousness of this case, that is a hilarious piece of satire.

At any rate, if the details of the following British newspaper article are correct, there was no rape.

"This is only one of several puzzling flaws in the prosecution case.

A few hours after that party, Sarah apparently Tweeted: ‘Sitting outside ... nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!’ She was later to try to erase this message.

During the party, Assange apparently phoned Jessica and a few hours later she was boasting to friends about her flirtation with him. At that point, according to police reports, her friends advised her ‘the ball is in your court’.

So it was that on the Monday, Jessica called Assange and they arranged to get together in Stockholm. When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn’t want to use a credit card because he would be ‘tracked’ (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).

So Jessica bought both their tickets.

She had snagged perhaps the world’s most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.

Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.

Again there is scant evidence — in the public domain at least — of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.

What’s more, the following morning, on the Tuesday, the pair amicably went out to have breakfast together and, at her prompting, Assange promised to stay in touch. He then returned to Stockholm, with Jessica again paying for his ticket.

It has been suggested that the two women had discussed approaching a tabloid newspaper to maximize Assange’s discomfort

What happened next is difficult to explain. The most likely interpretation of events is that as a result of a one-night stand, one participant came to regret what had happened.

Jessica was worried she could have caught a sexual disease, or even be pregnant: and this is where the story takes an intriguing turn. She then decided to phone Sarah — whom she had met at the ­seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying — and apparently confided to her that she’d had unprotected sex with him.

At that point, Sarah said that she, too, had slept with him.

As a result of this conversation, Sarah reportedly phoned an acquaintance of Assange and said that she wanted him to leave her apartment. (He refused to do so, and maintains that she only asked him to leave three days later, on the Friday of that week.)

How must Sarah have felt to ­discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? ­Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.

Having taken stock of their options for a day or so, on Friday, August 20, Sarah and Jessica took drastic action.

They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Jessica against Assange.

According to one source, Jessica wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Sarah, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Jessica. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.

The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the ­second, concluded that both women were victims: that ­Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.

Assange continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong, and that his sexual encounters with both women were consensual

It was Friday evening. A duty prosecuting attorney, Maria ­Kjellstrand, was called. She agreed that Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17Tcb2uta

Hmmm for a guy who did not want to leave tracks, he doesn't use condoms????

Adam

a member of the current income tax hostage takers brigade

[George H. Smith]

Rush said something today that almost made me spit out my coffee as I was walking from a meeting to the parking lot...

He said isn't it ironic that the head of Wikileaks was arrested because of an allegedly defective condom!!!! Now you have to admit, despite the seriousness of this case, that is a hilarious piece of satire.

At any rate, if the details of the following British newspaper article are correct, there was no rape....

Glenn Beck presented the same info on his television show this evening. Even though Beck is very anti-Assange, he thinks the rape allegations are BS and possibly a conspiracy.

Ghs