57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:06 pm
@msolga,
That's one of the best explanations I've seen - thanks. One question - what does material mean in the following?

Quote:
I'm delighted that this has been officially cleared up & that this material can no longer be used for this purpose.
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:16 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

No one ever spoke of conspiracy, that's grown on failure Arts head.
He's dissecting and turning words around just as he chooses to and then comes back for some more picking, dissecting and what not.

I'll take that challenge!

How long do you think I would have to read from the beginning of this thread to find the suggestion that the Swedish charges are phoney; are a part of a conspiracy to imprison Assange?

The first happens on page 9 unless I missed one. It is also the first time the Swedish accusations are introduced to the thread.

second

third

etc
etc
etc

By time I join the thread, the idea of this being a part of conspiracy has well been introduced. how can you say no one ever spoke of the Swedish charges in terms of conspiracy? I found the above with a pretty quick read through.

Perhaps things are different outside of this thread? Or maybe I'm not making it up at all. There is plenty of paranoia out there. Let's both admit that.

I didn't bring it into the thread. It was already here.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:28 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Clearly there is no procedure in place to test critical security processes. If SOX procedures, mandated by congress, are important for corporations at least something similiar should be implemented in the military. I doubt this is a one-off technology failure.

That's what I'm reading. The tech fix is only treating a symptom of otherwise poor data management policy.

A topic I read on today introduced the idea that lax usage of classification should apply in both directions. In other words over classifying documents could also be viewed as a security violation in the future. Many already agree we are classifying way too much. Sec Gates has said as much, along with the ODNI.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This is what I mean about fearing incompetence more than malevolence.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Similarly, I think right now the US is making some serious stupid legal postures on the Assange bit. I think they will have their bluff called in the end. Bad hand of cards for sure. No matter how poorly the US behaves though, it doesn't negatively or positively speak to Assange's philosophy or methods.

I'm pretty tired, but I have a big post for tomorrow. I saved my best read and share for last. This one is actually from the WWW but I got to read it in PDF form today so I still have to find the original source so I can share it here. It definitely re-frames in my mind what has played out. I think reporting on WL has missed many things that Assange has been saying very plainly. Perhaps it's worth it's own thread.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:29 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Sorry, Finn?


As I have understood the evolving conspiracy theory:

1) The Swedish sex crime charges were the first salvo by the Forces of Shadowy Secrets fired against Assange
2) Once it was revealed that it was the UK and not Sweden that opposed bail (in the UK) there was a temporary new branch of the theory that suggested the UK was up to no good and might be coming up with its own charges. (I'm not sure if this has branch has been fully discarded)
3) Australia, upon orders from the US, was preparing a case of its own against Assange and if the Swedish charges were dismissed or Assange was acquitted they would fire the second salvo.
4) Assuming the Swedish and Australian moves fail the big guns of the US come to play. An indictment is obtained and the extradition wars begin

It appears from what you have posted that #3 has been eliminated from the theory, so if Assange isn't going to spend time in a Swedish prison, the Forces of Shadowy Secrets will jump to #4.

Don't you find it odd that Australia's Forces of Shadowy Secrets weren't able to exert the necessary control over the AFP and not a single possible charge was found?

Or do you think the hundreds of Aussie protesters taking to the streets forced your government to stand up to the bullying US and refuse to continue with the conspiracy?

If so it will make a hell of a movie.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Hope you've got fresh batteries.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:41 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Hope you've got fresh batteries.


Don't need them. I'm a member in high standing of the Forces of Shadowy Secrets and am sustained by a secret mixture of infant's blood and morphine.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:42 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
That's one of the best explanations I've seen - thanks. One question - what does material mean in the following?
Quote:
I'm delighted that this has been officially cleared up & that this material can no longer be used for this purpose.


This is what I meant:

Quote:
Our prime minister declared Julian Assange's Wikileaks activities "illegal" in support of the US position.
The attorney-general's request for the AFP to investigate Assange came at pretty much the same time that he declared that Assange "was not welcome" to return to Australia. And that his passport could be revoked.


I'm delighted that this sort of information (ie the blue bits) can no longer be used in the campaign against Wikileaks.

In other words, it has now been officially declared, by the Australian federal police, that Julian Asange (& Wilileaks) has breached no Australian laws.

I hope that clears that up, Bill.
Apologies for my clumsy expression.
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:54 pm
@msolga,
No - I don't think clumsy, maybe just a little to brief right there. I do disagree with you about it helps him though. With what you write here, he is a man without a country. Now, in his cause this may make him ideologically pure(r), but, he doesn't have a country fighting his causes. In his case, it may be best for him to get England to be his supporter, if they will firmly back his cause. It is the "Mother" country as I said yesterday and still a fairly strong international entity.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:02 pm
@BillW,
Well, he's got Geoffrey Robertson.

One would hope, at least, that the Oz Government will feel a little shy about enthusiastically endorsing his incarceration in Gitmo for torture and other joys, as it did for another Oz citizen who, although dumb and rather pathetic in his embracing of another culture's excesses, had broken no Australian law.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:04 pm
@dlowan,
Dang, I hadn't thought about Gitmo. That could be a logical future.......
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:05 pm
@failures art,
Then you fail the challenge

first
Olga posts two quotes, one from Crikey (a respected web only Australian news outlet) and one from the national broadcaster.

second
Cyclo says "eerily reminiscent of the efforts to destroy scott ritter"
noting echoes is not the same as accusing

third
Olga talks about the media's focus on Assange rather than leaks, then offers quotes from an interpol page, and a quote from Assange's lawyer

etc
I make the distinction that the accusation is not rape as codified by US law, and stress that the accusations against are Assange are separate to the accusations against wikileak, the only link being IF the accusations against Assange are being promoted for political ends

etc
JTT talks about bail - and asks why it was withheld in this particular case (and doesn't mention US war crimes once!)

etc
Olga does stray into 'the sex charges are 'their' best bet' but given her Wink we can give her some leeway on 'tongue in cheek'

Not one mention of the word conspiracy from the people you named. It's Finn and you who bring that word to board - because it's a loaded word. In a strict definitional sense it has a few meanings: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:conspiracy but in the sense you and Finn are using it is code for 'people who believe this, OR EVEN CONSIDER IT, are paranoid and delusional and their opinions are stupid'.

Then you post a google search with the keywords "conspiracy against assange sweden" and it gives results and that proves it? I just put in a search for "Conspiracy of horses to hump pot plants" and got only 25% less hits than your search (1.76 million against 2.3 million).

That whole post was sloppy - I expect better of you.


hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:12 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
While I appreciate your quirky sarcasm you can't hide from the fact that you labelled a bunch of questions and posts by individuals as an organised belief in a conspiracy, then sought to debunk it, and then did a little dance. Maybe you need two torches.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
As I have understood the evolving conspiracy theory:


What "conspiracy"?

Finn, if you could possibly re-word that in slightly less colourful language (eg "the Forces of Shadowy Secrets" ... or "Australia, upon orders from the US ..."
.... I might see if I can have a go at responding or not. Wink


For starters, no one has said the Australian government had received "orders" from the US.
I know I didn't.
I said they (our PM & attorney-general) were "supporting" the US position ... which they were.
They've gone rather quiet Wikileaks & Julian Assange recently, though.
Not all that surprisingly


Secondly
Quote:
..the hundreds of Aussie protesters taking to the streets forced your government to stand up to the bullying US and refuse to continue with the conspiracy?


Most of the Australian "campaign" has occurred on the internet, not all that surprisingly I would have thought, given that a major concern has been about freedom of information on the internet, as well as the print & other information media, of course ...

And the focus of the campaign has been our government's position on Wikileaks & Julian Assange's rights as an Australian citizen, for very good reason.

Support of Wikileaks has not been a demonstrating the streets sort of movement. Well not so far. The internet is where we're getting the latest information on Wikileaks & that's where people have tended to respond.

Anyway, I'll give you a couple of examples, if that helps you get some idea.:

This one, an open letter to our prime minister, endorsed by thousands of Australians. (I've already posted the open letter here, so I won't do it a second time.)


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html


Another example. This is another open letter to our PM. Endorsed by a whose who of Australian publishers & journalists..

Quote:
Dear Prime Minister,

STATEMENT FROM AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER EDITORS, TELEVISION AND RADIO DIRECTORS AND ONLINE MEDIA EDITORS

The leaking of 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables is the most astonishing leak of official information in recent history, and its full implications are yet to emerge. But some things are clear. In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.

In this case, WikiLeaks, founded by Australian Julian Assange, worked with five major newspapers around the world, which published and analysed the embassy cables. Diplomatic correspondence relating to Australia has begun to be published here.

The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new. We, as editors and news directors of major media organisations, believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling. We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal. Any such action would impact not only on WikiLeaks, but every media organisation in the world that aims to inform the public about decisions made on their behalf. WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support.

Already, the chairman of the US Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, is suggesting The New York Times should face investigation for publishing some of the documents. The newspaper told its readers that it had ‘‘taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security.’’ Such an approach is responsible — we do not support the publication of material that threatens national security or anything which would put individual lives in danger. Those judgements are never easy, but there has been no evidence to date that the WikiLeaks material has done either.

There is no evidence, either, that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have broken any Australian law. The Australian government is investigating whether Mr Assange has committed an offence, and the Prime Minister has condemned WikiLeaks’ actions as ‘‘illegal’’. So far, it has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached.

To prosecute a media organisation for publishing a leak would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press. In Australia, it would seriously curtail Australian media organisations reporting on subjects the government decides are against its interests.

WikiLeaks has no doubt made errors. But many of its revelations have been significant. It has given citizens an insight into US thinking about some of the most complex foreign policy issues of our age, including North Korea, Iran and China.

It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.

Yours faithfully

Clinton Maynard, news director, 2UE
David Penberthy, editor-in-chief, news.com.au
Eric Beecher, chairman, Crikey, Smart Company, Business Spectator, The Eureka Report
Gay Alcorn, editor, The Sunday Age
Garry Bailey, editor, The Mercury (Hobart)
Garry Linnell, editor, The Daily Telegraph
Ian Ferguson, director of news and programs, Sky News Australia/New Zealand
Jim Carroll, network director of news and public affairs, Ten Network
Julian Ricci, editor, Northern Territory News
Kate Torney, director of news, ABC
Mark Calvert, director of news and current affairs, Nine Network
Melvin Mansell, editor, The Advertiser (Adelaide)
Megan Lloyd, editor, Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
Michael Crutcher, editor, The Courier Mail,
Mike van Niekerk, editor in chief, Fairfax online
Paul Cutler, news director, SBS
Paul Ramadge, editor-in-chief, The Age
Peter Fray, editor-in-chief, The Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Meakin, director of news and public affairs, Seven Network
Rick Feneley, editor, The Sun-Herald
Rob Curtain, news director, 3AW
Rod Quinn, editor, The Canberra Times
Sam Weir, editor, The Sunday Times
Scott Thompson, The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
Simon Pristel, editor, Herald Sun
Tory Maguire, editor, The Punch

Walkley Advisory Board


Gay Alcorn
Mike Carlton
Helen Dalley
John Donegan
Peter Meakin
Laurie Oakes
Jeni O'Dowd
Alan Kennedy
Malcolm Schmidtke
Fenella Souter


http://www.walkleys.com/news/1076/










msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:55 pm
@BillW,
Well we will have to agree to disagree, Bill.
I was simply trying to clarify a post of mine you'd apparently had some difficulty understanding.
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:01 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Then you fail the challenge

You sure?

hingehead wrote:

first
Olga posts two quotes, one from Crikey (a respected web only Australian news outlet) and one from the national broadcaster.

First she notes:
Quote:
If Interpol has issued an international alert in response to this, it really does make you wonder.

Makes us wonder what?

hingehead wrote:

second
Cyclo says "eerily reminiscent of the efforts to destroy scott ritter"
noting echoes is not the same as accusing

What is the functional difference? Is it not the point to suggest that the charges are "to destroy" Assange?

hingehead wrote:

third
Olga talks about the media's focus on Assange rather than leaks, then offers quotes from an interpol page, and a quote from Assange's lawyer

Olga's quote:
Quote:
Personally, I feel this sort of focus on Assange in the media (criminal or modern day cult hero, depending where you stand) has detracted from the far more important issues raised by the leaks themselves. (But maybe that's exactly the intention? Wink )

Intention?

She in the same post notes:
Quote:
Though the timing of the Interpol Red Notice is rather impeccable, isn’t it?


hingehead wrote:

etc
I make the distinction that the accusation is not rape as codified by US law, and stress that the accusations against are Assange are separate to the accusations against wikileak, the only link being IF the accusations against Assange are being promoted for political ends

You suggest in clear terms that Assange could be made into an example by harassment. A means to detour others.

Discourage others from "sex by surprize?" or from participating in WL?

hingehead wrote:

etc
JTT talks about bail - and asks why it was withheld in this particular case (and doesn't mention US war crimes once!)

He suggests the arrest is due to politics. That's the point right? (he does mention crimes, although omits "US" and "war". Tired fingers?)

hingehead wrote:

etc
Olga does stray into 'the sex charges are 'their' best bet' but given her Wink we can give her some leeway on 'tongue in cheek'

Wasn't I proving that I didn't introduce this idea into the thread? You don't think at this point we've achieve gymnastics in denying the tacit and more than tacit suggestion that Assange's arrest, and the Swedish charges are a means to affect WL activity or intimidate?

That was what I had to prove right? CJ said this was in my head and yet there are plenty of examples.

hingehead wrote:

Not one mention of the word conspiracy from the people you named. It's Finn and you who bring that word to board - because it's a loaded word. In a strict definitional sense it has a few meanings: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:conspiracy but in the sense you and Finn are using it is code for 'people who believe this, OR EVEN CONSIDER IT, are paranoid and delusional and their opinions are stupid'.

No. I'm saying that there has been a theme in promoting a conspiracy which no one can support.

hingehead wrote:

Then you post a google search with the keywords "conspiracy against assange sweden" and it gives results and that proves it? I just put in a search for "Conspiracy of horses to hump pot plants" and got only 25% less hits than your search (1.76 million against 2.3 million).

I'll admit this part was lazy on my behalf but frankly I was tired of flipping through old pages. Remind yourself what I'm trying to establish here: That this conspiracy meme exists and is being promoted.

hingehead wrote:

That whole post was sloppy - I expect better of you.

Sorry to let you down, but I'm not sure what more I could have done here. I went back and found posts where members suggested the charges in Sweden are about WL and not about the sexual allegations. That is what a conspiracy theory is: That things aren't as they seem, but rather the orchestration of others to fulfill and unspoken agenda.

Lots of people are being sloppy around here: This is why I posted that we should not be making assumptions in the first place. It very well could be a conspired effort! I conceded this directly to you.

A
R
T
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:13 am
@failures art,
Quote:
First she notes:
Quote:
Quote:

If Interpol has issued an international alert in response to this, it really does make you wonder.

Makes us wonder what?

Haven't you read the thread, Art?
I explained perfectly well what I meant by that.
On a couple of occasions, actually.
You can go back & read what I said & disagree, if you like.
I also posted information on Interpol red notices.
As did Walter.
I responded to his post.
Thomas has posted a comment on the Interpol red notice for Assange, too.
You seem to expect people to re-post the same information, over & over at your beck & call ...
Jeez it's tiring.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:24 am
@msolga,
That's a non-answer olga.

I did read the post. You suggest that it is odd for Assange to be issued a Red Notice. The tacit suggestion that this normally wouldn't happen. Finish your thought: It makes you wonder what?

We're two degrees off from my initial statement RE: The women (now woman) who accused Assange. I said it would be hard enough to go through this kind of thing even if it wasn't high profile. Certainly, the response in this thread is evidence of that.

Can you say with a straight face that if Assange was convicted in Sweden (and had to pay about $750.00) that you'd not draw any connection to it being a part of some concealed effort to intimidate, harass, or frighten him or others?

A
R
T
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:26 am
@failures art,
I'm still at a loss at what you perceive you are attacking.

Do you see how many times you ask me what people are suggesting? How many times, 'could', 'if', - even cyclo's you're suggesting that if certain aspects of one event remind me of another event - then they must be exactly the same. Each of them posts a thought or a question and each time your answer is that they must be suggesting a conspiracy - but that's your interpretation. There's a whole bunch of perfectly valid statements, questions, quotes and postulations in those posts - but you're the one who reads conspiracy, and gets up in arms about (slight exaggeration) . We are just being Jeffersonian - the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

It seems to me you don't want us to even hint at the possibility of a conspiracy - when that's the conclusion you've drawn from our various observations of what the media and agencies have published on the web - and that seems odd. We talk about a lot less lucid **** than that. A lot less lucidly.

You haven't really let me down (I know you were genuinely worried Wink . You just seem overly sensitive about this. Instead of saying we've all gone looney why not point out the bits that aren't anomolous and do adhere to normal protocols and processes?

What I really want to see is some stuff about DoD procurement Wink
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:30 am
@BillW,
Quote:
With what you write here, he is a man without a country.

Bill, I've just noticed this, re-reading your post.
I have not said, nor implied, any such thing.
Those are your words.
I have also made no comment what-so-ever about which would be the "best country" for Julian Assange to be in.
How would I know?
I have said that he is an Australian citizen who has broken no Australian laws, therefore should have the right to return here if he wants to. (Despite our attorney-general's earlier suggestions to the contrary.)
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 12:42 am
@failures art,
Quote:
That's a non-answer olga.

I did read the post. You suggest that it is odd for Assange to be issued a Red Notice. The tacit suggestion that this normally wouldn't happen. Finish your thought: It makes you wonder what?

Because, Art, an Interpol red notice would not normally be issued in similar circumstances. This is highly unusual.

If you can find an example of anyone who has been issued with a red notice, though not even formally charged with any crime, for a similar offense (though I think that could be difficult with "sex by surprise" . Something along the same lines will do. Wink ), then please post it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 01:59:24