Results 1 to 20 of 61
Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative
I knew it would have been just too convenient for Assange to have actually committed rape around the time he pissed off a great imperial power.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
How suprising.
extensive (yet seeming a bit demisve of actual sexism) article on counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html
sounds like an textbook honeytrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandes...nd_recruitment), if not instigated by the CIA then at least by an adventurous wannabe spy.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...aks/index.htmlAnti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more
By Glenn Greenwald
AP
WikiLeak's Julian Assange.
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
(1) In The New Republic today, Todd Gitlin writes an entire anti-WikiLeaks column that is based on an absolute factual falsehood. Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin -- in the course of denouncing Julian Assange -- bolsters this falsehood: "Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate" and Assange is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
The reality is the exact opposite -- literally -- of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm. Here is an AP article from yesterday detailing this process:
[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks -- according to AP -- "appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released." Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld. And Assange's frequent commitments to engage in "harm minimization" when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin's assertion that he is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters. . . .
"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday.
I understand that the media has repeated over and over the false claim that WikiLeaks "dumped" all 250,000 diplomatic cables on the Internet -- which is presumably how this falsehood made its way into Gitlin's brain and then into his column -- but that's no excuse for him and TNR editors failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks' website) before publishing this claim. I've emailed Gitlin and TNR Editor-in-Chief Franklin Foer early this morning and advised them of the need for a correction, but have heard nothing. I will post any reply I get. They're entitled to condemn WikiLeaks all they want, but not to propagate this factual falsehood.
(2) According to The New York Times' Brian Stelter, Matt Lauer -- when announcing Assange's arrest in London this morning -- proclaimed: "The international manhunt for Julian Assange is over" -- as though Assange is Osama bin Laden or something. I don't know if it's sheer empty-headedness or excessive servile-to-power syndrome -- probably both, as is usually the case -- but that claim is both painfully dumb and misleading. There was no valid arrest warrant in England for Assange until yesterday; he then immediately turned himself into British law enforcement. There was no "international manhunt." How long before Matt Lauer and his friends start featuring playing cards with all the WikiLeaks Villains on the them ("and here we have Julian Assange, the Terrorist Mastermind, who is the Ace of Spades!")? Answer: as soon as the Government produces them and hands them to the media with instructions to use them.
(3) Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein ran today to The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page to call for the prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917. Legal experts overwhelmingly believe that any such prosecution under that law would be extremely difficult and "extremely dangerous," but that's of no concern to the Surveillance-State-protecting, Iraq-War-supporting, defense-contractor-plutocrat: the "liberal" Democratic Senator from California. To argue this, she invokes the most tired and simple-minded platitude beloved by all those who want to curtail basic press and speech freedoms: "Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."
Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists -- including especially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does. How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables?
In 2006, Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute The New York Times for revealing Bush's illegal NSA program, and The Weekly Standard ran numerous articles calling for the prosecution of NYT journalists and editors under the Espionage Act for having done so. Bill Bennett demanded the prosecution of The Washington Post's Dana Priest for revealing the CIA black sites. How can all the Good Democrats who condemned that mentality possibly not condemn Dianne Feinstein and those who think like her? What's the difference?
(4) Here is the American justice system under Obama in a nutshell:
The New York Times, January 11, 2009:
The New York Times, June 11, 2010:
Salon, yesterday:
To recap "Obama justice": if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected. But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions -- by publishing the truth about what was done -- then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.
(5) I was on Democracy Now this morning talking about Assange's arrest; in particular, I was describing why and how I believe that these attacks on WikiLeaks are a literal war over who controls the Internet and the purposes to which it can be used (see my post yesterday for some of that explanation):
At 11:30 am this morning, I'll be on Al Jazeera debating WikiLeaks.
UPDATE: Visa has now joined Master Card -- and Paypal -- in refusing to process donations to WikiLeaks or Assange. Assange has an Op-Ed in The Australian today that is very worth reading. And Assange was denied bail today by a London court despite having several people willing to post a $150,000 bond for him; as a result, he will remain in jail until at least December 13, though WikiLeaks will continue publishing cables.
UPDATE II: In an excellent comment here, Evan Harper documents how dishonest was Feinstein's Op-Ed.
UPDATE III: Several hours ago, Gitlin emailed me to say: "I'm thinking about your points, and will reply more discriminately, as it were . . . ." He then complained that I accused of him of "lying" -- as opposed to making false statements unintentionally -- which I didn't do. The full email exchange is here. He must still be "thinking," because, hours later, there's still no correction to his false statements. Just take your time, New Republic, and allow knowingly false claims to sit there without any correction: no need to hurry yourselves.
Meanwhile, on FOX News today, Joe Lieberman suggested that not only Assange, but also The New York Times, may have committed crimes by publishing these cables (see the 5:15 entry). Journalists cheering for the prosecution of Assange are laying the foundation for the criminalization of their own profession, or at least of the few who actually do investigative journalism. There is simply no coherent way to argue that what WikiLeaks did with these cables is criminal, but what the NYT, the Guardian and other papers did is not.
Finally, in light of all of this, I challenge anyone to get through this State Department Press Release without repeatedly cackling aloud. I don't believe it can be done.
- More: Glenn Greenwald
Related Stories
- WikiLeaks: Assange's arrest won't stop group
Spokesman says arrest will not derail the release of more secret documents
Associated PressTuesday, Dec 7, 2010- Read all of Salon's WikiLeaks coverage
Sunday, Dec 31, 1899
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
I'd say the article actually points out actual sexism, but doesn't expand on it further because it's not really the scope. But yeah, it's a good piece of exposure that explains a lot.
It's not even really conspiratorial, it's just that different types of scum tend to interlink. That's why one can easily find seemingly surprising overlap between Cuban "dissidents", Cuban-American terrorists and the effort to smear Assange. Interesting stuff indeed.
That's a brilliant article that deserves to be reposted again and again and again, just like this one. I say we forget about this socialism stuff and make Glenn Greenwald king of the world.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
Haha, damn.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
I'd go much further. Every column Glenn writes is a brilliant article that deserves to be reposted again and again by people who care about the world even the slightest bit.
Greenwald has been the best guy to read on this. He was an elite lawyer and his arguments are superb.
Really wish the original source was better than Shamir though. Holy hell will they discredit the fuck out the source once the article becomes more widespread.
Regarding the "rape" cases, really sad thing to have happened. I'm sure Assange knows what he's doing though, by turning himself in... I honestly don't think he will go to jail over this. It is too ridiculous.
Btw, does any one kno how often people are sentenced to jail in sweden for consensual sex without condom? I don't have time to research it myself.
Just to add, it does indeed seem like a honey trap and he certainly took the bait. For that I cannot offer any support for him regarding the case, however it doesn't taint his image as a journalist and a whistle blower in my eyes.
Uh, never.
Can someone plz elaborate the sex case for me. I am thoroughly confused as to how someone can go to jail for not using a condom during consensual sex!
Swedish prosecutors aren't calling it rape anymore. They're calling it "sex by surprise"!
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...probe/19741444
I think the case is flimsy, in fact I heard Sweden dismissed charges at one point (and now are re-making them; some claim allegedly due to US/etc pressure). If they put him in-jail for
that's obviously just ridiculous.
The way the US government, pundits, et.al. reacts and suggest what should be done should be shocking to normal citizens (it's seemingly like what a totalitarian state would do, when it comes to serious shit the US will act just the same as a totalitarian state), but no. (Aside from the stupidity of US politicians saying that Assange, a foreigner, should be tried for treason...hahah)
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
The whole case is based on the plaintiffs' claims that the sex was initially consensual but that Assange later continued without a condom, or something.
Can someone get a copy of the actual warrants? The reporting on this has been so bad.
From what I gather, the latest charges hinge on the following:
1) That the condom broke with the first woman, she said stop, and he pinned her down.
This is ridiculous on every level one thinks about it, and apparently runs counter to how she behaved over SMS texts, twitter, and at a party she threw for him after the incident. Coincidentally, of course, she was one of the organizers responsible for bringing him into Sweden in the first place.
2) That he had sex with the second woman while she was sleeping, without a condom.
This is also contradicted by how she behaved afterword and previous testimony given.
The Swedish government is going to force these women to most likely perjure themselves.
Well, that certainly explains why his attorney feels "as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls".Swedish prosecutors aren't calling it rape anymore. They're calling it "sex by surprise"!
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...probe/19741444
Anyway, if he is sent to Sweden, it can have some consequences. After all, as Assange noted in his opinion piece, "Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament." Olof Palme may be turning in his grave, but Sweden's neutrality and ability to deal with Assange fairly is very much in doubt. But I suppose that is not very surprising when they arrest him on unclear charges of "surprise sex"...
Last edited by Wanted Man; 8th December 2010 at 12:30.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
Yeah. Of course females lie when they say they are raped or getting sexually abused. It's so good to be back in the 19th century again! Next time someone is acused of being a rapist and says he's not guilty, i really hope you guys come to his support.
I am pretty much horrified at how people has reacted to this, and i hope you know that you're part of an anti-feminist crusade. Frankly, get a fucking grip of reality and realise that Assange's the biggest threat to Wikileaks today, and nothing else.
It really wouldn't be the first time someone with power (and yes, Assange has that) fucks everything up by trying to use it for his own gain.
Just because someone messes with the United States and the west, doesn't mean they're somekind of saint...
And by the way, Olof Palme was involved in anti-communist operations in Sweden, read this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair
An Injury to One is an Injury to All
