WikiLeaks

[BarTopDancer]

Supporters of Assange cripple MasterCard (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/operation-payback-mastercard-website-wikileaks).
MasterCard announced on Monday that it would no longer process donations to WikiLeaks, which it claimed was engaged in illegal activity.

Visa, Amazon, Swiss bank PostFinance and others have also announced in recent days that they will cease trading with the whistleblowing site.

The moves have led to concerted attempts by hackers to target companies they deem guilty of "censoring" WikiLeaks.

Lots of thoughts on it and not enough time to type them out right now...

But it's sure interesting watching a Tom Clancyesque novel come to life.

[CoasterMatt]

It's terrifying.

[BarTopDancer]

The people doing the DDoS attacks aren't helping their cause. DDoS attacks are already illegal.

[innerSpaceman]

I think what bothers me most in this situation is that Eric Holder (the U.S. Attorney General) and various senators acknowledge that Assange broke no laws - because he did not steal the secrets himself - but want to pass new laws and make them retroactive, specifically so that Assange may be guilty of criminal espionage.

Of all the fascist moves since 9/11 - many of which Obama said he would reverse, but has NOT - this has got to be the most Stalinesque.

(Is Godwin triggered if I invoke Stalin?)


Anyway, Assange is under arrest for - get this: sexual assault by virtue of CONSENSUAL sex without a condom - and he is likely going to be extradited from the U.K. to Sweden to face these absurd charges, and then will be gulaged by the U.S.A. once they pass laws in order to find him guilty of them.


What.The.Fock?

[JWBear]

Moral of the story: don't embarrass the US Government.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm kinds glad there's a band of cyber anarchists out there ready to take on corporations and governments.

I also think the concentration on wikileaks is a way to deflect the fact that the reason this information is out there was poor security practices of our own government. The greatest revelation is the amount of stuff probably already know by savvy governments and individuals. Security, like privacy is but an illusion.

[Stan4dSteph]

Anyway, Assange is under arrest for - get this: sexual assault by virtue of CONSENSUAL sex without a condomIt's more than that. The charges are for assaults on two women:


Used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
Had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom.
Molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep.
Source, BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110)

[JWBear]

In other words, people weren't sufficiently horrified by the previous charges so they had to be made worse in order to smear him.

[BarTopDancer]

In other words, people weren't sufficiently horrified by the previous charges so they had to be made worse in order to smear him.
Or he really did assault those women. I feel badly for them. With all the other sh*t surrounding him I can see them being harassed and dragged through the mud more than a normal investigation/trial for sexual assault.

[Stan4dSteph]

In other words, people weren't sufficiently horrified by the previous charges so they had to be made worse in order to smear him.Innocent until proven guilty (at least in the USA, I have no idea about the UK/Swedish courts), but I find it rather disturbing that people dismiss these charges off hand just because they view this guy as some sort of internet hero. He could still be a scumbag rapist.

[Moonliner]

Or he really did assault those women. I feel badly for them. With all the other sh*t surrounding him I can see them being harassed and dragged through the mud more than a normal investigation/trial for sexual assault.

I can also see men in black hats carrying satchels full of cash going to these women and saying "Are you sure you weren't assaulted?"

[JWBear]

There are some reports that one of the women works for the CIA.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

If she didn't, she might now.

[Alex]

There are some reports that one of the women works for the CIA.

There are also some reports that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster and Ron Brown kiled.

Would you mind providing links to some of these reports? I'd be interested in seeing their context.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The reports are that she was once worked with a feminist group that worked with the CIA. Not that she works for the CIA.

[Alex]

All I know is that whenever I see an allegation of rape the first question I ask myself is "How much do I like the accused" so that I know if I should embrace or dismiss out of hand the allegation. The second thing is what is the relative attractiveness of the accuser and the accused since hot guys don't assault ugly girls.

Only as a last resort and when in my cups do I fall back on "I don't really have much information for making any evaluation so I'll just watch how it shakes out." Fortunately, I don't drink much.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Retroactive laws????????

Really, really not acceptable.

[innerSpaceman]

Does anyone besides me think it's awesome that hackers are attacking Amazon and Paypal and Visa and Mastercard in retribution?

[JWBear]

When a man who releases information that is highly embarrassing to the most powerful government in the word is suddenly and conveniently embroiled in a sex scandal, and the accusations get progressively worse, sorry... but I'm going to take everything that is said against him with a very large grain of salt.

If you don't think our government will do everything in their power - legal or illegal, moral or immoral - to destroy him, then you are beyond naïve.

[Ghoulish Delight]

When a man who releases information that is highly embarrassing to the most powerful government in the word is suddenly and conveniently embroiled in a sex scandal, and the accusations get progressively worse, sorry... but I'm going to take everything that is said against him with a very large grain of salt.

If you don't think our government will do everything in their power - legal or illegal, moral or immoral - to destroy him, then you are beyond naïve.
You're right that's very likely.

However, you are equally beyond naive if you don't think that cases of borderline sexual assault/abuse are not routinely ignored and marginalized until the accused becomes noteworthy. Perhaps these women's decision to pursue charges now can be interpreted as opportunistic, and perhaps it IS opportunistic, but that doesn't mean he's innocent. Perhaps he's just a big enough prick that he's kept his accusers too intimidated to come forward, and only now that they knew there'd be media scrutiny did they feel safe enough to do so.

There are untold details that you and I are not privy to. There are countless reasons (both in the accusers' favor and in Assange's) that these women may have waited until now to come forward. No one, other than the actual people involved, has even a fraction of enough information to be as sure as people seem to think they are about which side they think is in the right here.

[Alex]

If you don't think our government will do everything in their power - legal or illegal, moral or immoral - to destroy him, then you are beyond naïve.

If you believe that, why is he still alive? You seem to be defining "everything with it's power - legal or illegal" very narrowly.

Also, the beginning if the sex charges issue predates this recent release by several months. Sure, it could have been in response to the earlier releases (which were, in my view more dangerous if less embarrassing to so many politicians) but then the government is doing a piss poor job of doing "everything in its power" if all it can manufacture is a weak case that won't begin to really embarrass him until after he's already done the damage of this last release.

Now, I'm not saying that the entire situation isn't fabricated. Just that there's no particular evidence that it is beyond fitting into the narrative you've predefined. Assuming to be true that for which there is no evidence but is merely possible is not the same thing as a "giant grain of salt."


As for Holder, I doubt they'd pass any ex post facto legislation (and if they did I doubt it would stand for long) but I've no doubt they could pass legislation that would criminalize ongoing activity to the same effect. We do that all the time and generally there isn't anything particularly controversial about it.

[JWBear]

If you believe that, why is he still alive?

Because he would become a martyr if he were killed. They wasnt to destroy his reputation and his life.

[Alex]

So they set up a rape scenario that looks pretty borderline by most standards, and didn't arrange for any strong evidence? They didn't have the women claim they woke up in the middle of the night find that their house guest had tied them down and had his way with them all night. That he violently coerced them?

They didn't trick him into sleeping with a 14 year old? They didn't arrange for the body of a dead hooker to be discovered in bed with him. They didn't plant child pornography on his computers.

So they're simultaneously really devious and really stupid at their jobs in that they decided to smear him but only do it half-assedly.

Again, doing everything in their power to destroy him seems to be defined very narrowly here.

[innerSpaceman]

Without doubting the logic of the sarcastic scenario you just pointed out, Alex, I'd have to assert the entire WikiLeak system itself reveals how simultaneously devious and stupid the U.S. government really is.

[Alex]

Oh, I have no problem with the government being simultaneously devious and stupid. This is more in the realm of the same person being simultaneously devious and stupid.

And that can certainly happen too. I just find it less than satisfying when supposing a conspiracy for which there's little direct evidence requires it in order to make sense.

[innerSpaceman]

I am living proof of a person simultaneously devious and stupid. ;)


I agree with all your points of logic, Alex, but it's very difficult to avoid conspiratorial theorizing on a subject where conspiracies are so rife.


However, I think the sexual assault charges are more "trumped up" than conspiratorial, per se - and yet I'm assuming we'll see much more conspiracies to come in the Assange case. Does a conspiracy have to be secret? Because otherwise I find the "plan" to pass new laws specifically to find Assange guilty of them to be quite conspiratorial.

[Alex]

I think what is more likely is that the zeal with which the charges are being pursued is opportunistic (based on what I'd read as of a couple days ago it sounded like this mostly blew up out of a desire to find a way to force Assange into an STD test) than that the charges were manufactured out of whole cloth.

That said, my reading has taught me that that agents of the Swedish government are not above intentionally misdiagnose a child as mentally incompetent and then abusing her in institutions all to protect a secret Russian spy that defected. And if they'll do that, they can do anything.

[Kevy Baby]

I am living proof of a person simultaneously devious and stupid. ;) You're devious?

[innerSpaceman]

OMG Alex, my reading leads me to the same conclusions about Sweden! Never going there! Cesspit of pulp.

[Alex]

You don't want to now the horrors my other recent reading on Sweden has taught me.

[innerSpaceman]

the bad part is ... maybe I do.

[CoasterMatt]

HEY! What's all the smacktalk about Sweden? I've got family there, and have had nothing but great times there. That I can remember.

[€uroMeinke]

Netherlands teenager arrested - makes me wonder about the generational divide in this in which many of Anonymous' members/follower not being adults, don't have a political say except to participate in this sort of internet vandalism - are they the equivalent of African child soldiers? don't know but I find the whole thing fascinating.

[Alex]

Just in case anybody thinks I was talking about a real case:

That last bit about misdiagnosing a child is a plot in the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books

And Steve,

It involves vampires, and in the book the deviance details are significantly expanded from what's in the documentary film.

[innerSpaceman]

even better!

[JWBear]

Wow... Ron Paul gave a speech that I agree with 100%! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/ron-paul-wikileaks-defense_n_795014.html)

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

[Kevy Baby]

You forgot to include his 10th question:

Number 10: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Alex]

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the entirety of the Wikileaks exposure. Nor does deserving to know the truth mean the exact documents and raw words should be revealed. Sunlight may be a great disinfectant but it is also a great prevaricator.

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Sure, but this access is to a large degree a result of Congresses insistence following 9/11 that government agencies allow information to flow more freely between them. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

I don't know. Why's the anger directed at Uncle Bob for announcing at Christmas dinner that Sue is cheating on her husband and not at Aunt Sally for telling Uncle Bob?

That said, I've seen a lot of hostility directed at the government for such a leak being possible.

I'm curious why more anger isn't being directed at the person believed to have leaked it all to him (how many here can name that person)?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Always a valid question, I just don't see its particular relevance to this situation as this leak does not include anything "top secret" and therefore the meat of our intelligence gathering remains unrevealed.

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Certainly a valid question, but this is just another form of "this isn't bad because there are other things that are worse."

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

It would say a lot. But frankly I'll wait and see if anything like that actually happens beyond political bluster before I worry about it too much.

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Frankly, this question doesn't make any sense. But, yes, I suppose it could be about that. But as a rhetorical statement it has no real content.

Personally I think the big contributor to all of the outrage this time around is nothing so grandiose. It is simply that many more people with connections to the political tools of government are embarrassed this time around for having been caught in the act of being undiplomatically honest in supposedly private communications. The previous, much more damaging, leaks were mostly embarrassing to members of the military, who don't have that access to scream bloody murder.

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Yes, of course. Is it Paul's contention that every document released falls into the latter category?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

No, I don't think this country has ever really believed that. Subgroups have, but which group tends to shift around based on whether they agree with the government or not. That said, we've always thought it patriotic for people in OTHER countries to stand up when their government is wrong.


My question 10 to Ron Paul would be:

If this release is so patriotic (though applying that word to Assange is as stupid as Palin calling him un-American), and since Paul had access to many of these documents, plus many that are much more secret and informative, what is the source of his moral and patriotic failure in not releasing them himself?

[Strangler Lewis]

Someone named Julian Assange is obviously a fictional character in a spy thriller. That we take any of this seriously is proof that we have all entered an alternate reality.

[Kevy Baby]

Someone named Julian Assange is obviously a fictional character in a spy thriller. That we take any of this seriously is proof that we have all entered an alternate reality.Alright... who took the red pill?

[Alex]

And out of curiosity, int he first paragraph of his speech did Ron Paul call Obama a neocon? Or is he saying that neocons form a shadow government and Obama is not really a national leader? (Which, knowing some of the wackier things Paul believes, could be what he means).

[innerSpaceman]

Executive Order 12958, issued by Bill Clinton in 1995, gave just 20 officials, including the President, authority to classify documents as top secret. Sounds good, huh? Yeah, but it allowed those 20 to delegate their authority to 1,336 others. As it turned out, that derivative authority was eventually handed to some 2 million government officials and a million industrial contractors (per a 1997 bipartisan congressional report).

Yeah, um, do the math. To paraphrase The Incredibles ... when everything is secret, nothing is.

[Alex]

To classify as secret or top secret? Unless my initial reading was wrong, nothing in these releases through Wikileaks has been rated higher than secret.

[innerSpaceman]

Top secret. And from what I understand, there may be top secret documents yet to be released by WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst who downloaded the cables, did so from both the SPIRNet system (garden variety secrets) and from JWICS, the system used to transmit top secret documents.

In any event, I think going, within 2 years, from 20 people to 3 million people authorized to classify documents as top secret means many more things have been classified as top secret than can possibly be kept under wraps.


Meanwhile, the focus seems to be on Assange, with a subsidiary focus on the leaky state of U.S. intelligence - but where's the focus on the content of the leaks? All this blaming the messenger and the source security stuff is weaksauce, imo.

It seems to be deflection, deflection and working. I'd have to agree that the previous leaks about Iraq and Afghanistan didn't cause this much of a stir because the military didn't have nearly as much ability to scream bloody murder.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There are some reports that one of the women works for the CIA.
Reports spread by a Holocaust denier (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/24/holocaust-denying-cr.html) associated with Wikileaks.

[JWBear]

Reports spread by a Holocaust denier (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/24/holocaust-denying-cr.html) associated with Wikileaks.

Ah, well then... I knew it was too good to be true.

[Alex]

Obviously, the CIA caught him up in a jewypot. They fall for it every time.