Wikileaks

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Let me put it very plainly for you. Assange claimed the fundamental principles he believed in were transparency of government and freedom of information, and he is now working for a state television network that censors criticism of its own political leaders.

 

He's not God, and the Diana-like worship he invokes from braindead morons deserves ridicule. I hope he is released from house arrest.

[trophyshy 7083]

http://tubedubber.com/#vNqd4hW98sQ:61rFY4VPADE:0:100:0:0:1

[Happy Face 29]

Let me put it very plainly for you. Assange claimed the fundamental principles he believed in were transparency of government and freedom of information, and he is now working for a state television network that censors criticism of its own political leaders.

 

He's not God, and the Diana-like worship he invokes from braindead morons deserves ridicule. I hope he is released from house arrest.

 

He believes in transparency of government and freedom of information yet he still lives in England. What a cunt.

 

So do you not believe in transparency of government and freedom of information?

 

Do you disagree with the actual content of the show?

 

Are you saying he's being censored here?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

He believes in transparency of government and freedom of information yet he still lives in England. What a cunt.

 

So do you not believe in transparency of government and freedom of information?

 

Do you disagree with the actual content of the show?

 

Are you saying he's being censored here?

 

For a start, he lives in England because he's under house arrest. And if you can't recognize the difference between living somewhere and working for an organisation, you don't know anything. To conflate the two is dumb, and a clear sign that you aren't willing to be objective when it comes to matters concerning Assange, but we knew that already.

 

I can see I'm going to have to be very simples with you. So be it.

 

Yes, I believe transparency of government and freedom of information are generally a good thing. If I didn't, I would have probably written a sentence like this: "I do not agree with transparency of government and freedom of information." If you hadn't gleaned from my previous posts that I'd be in favour of this sort of thing, then I worry about your cognitive abilities.

 

No, I don't disagree with the content of the show. If I did, I would have probably written a sentence like this: "I disagree with the content of the show." It's like the Charlie Rose show, if it were presented by an albino hippy with no social skills. He should definitely open the show with a dance to increase viewers though.

 

RT censors criticism of its own corrupt political leaders, ie Putin/Medvedev. Working for an organisation such as this is in conflict with Assange's claimed principles.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

For a start, he lives in England because he's under house arrest. And if you can't recognize the difference between living somewhere and working for an organisation, you don't know anything. To conflate the two is dumb, and a clear sign that you aren't willing to be objective when it comes to matters concerning Assange, but we knew that already.

 

I can see I'm going to have to be very simples with you. So be it.

 

Yes, I believe transparency of government and freedom of information are generally a good thing. If I didn't, I would have probably written a sentence like this: "I do not agree with transparency of government and freedom of information." If you hadn't gleaned from my previous posts that I'd be in favour of this sort of thing, then I worry about your cognitive abilities.

 

No, I don't disagree with the content of the show. If I did, I would have probably written a sentence like this: "I disagree with the content of the show." It's like the Charlie Rose show, if it were presented by an albino hippy with no social skills. He should definitely open the show with a dance to increase viewers though.

 

RT censors criticism of its own corrupt political leaders, ie Putin/Medvedev. Working for an organisation such as this is in conflict with Assange's claimed principles.

 

You have higher standards than me.

 

I work with IBM, a company that helped facilitate the holocaust.

 

I've got little interest in assange the man. Tend to think he attracts so much scorn because there is no arguing that his organisation have been responsible for revealing more about the world elites than any other this century.

[Park Life 71]

Funny he's gone to RT. That will further irritate his detractors.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

He could easily have made a podcast and it would have been very successful. All the cyber-geeks would be creaming themselves over it. He could do current affairs and then do a diary update thing:

 

"Woke up early today, spot of interpretive dance followed by rape. Pretty standard."

Edited April 22, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Andrew 4748]

Lost his extradition appeal and is heading to sweden

[Park Life 71]

Talk about an organised persecution. Sweden right now are just the message boys, the Americans are waiting in the wings.

[NJS 4386]

It will be funny to see what happens to a liberal bastion like Sweden when he ends up in Guantanamo.

[Happy Face 29]

It's a shame he looks like an Albino victim of schoolyard bullying, because the "free media" have been entirely co-opted by western governments and corporations. His is the widest known independent worldwide news outlet with more substantial revelations of government secrecy and wrongdoing than the rest of them put together.

 

But people aren't interested because he busts an awkward move on the dancefloor.

[Park Life 71]

It's a shame he looks like an Albino victim of schoolyard bullying, because the "free media" have been entirely co-opted by western governments and corporations. His is the widest known independent worldwide news outlet with more substantial revelations of government secrecy and wrongdoing than the rest of them put together.

 

But people aren't interested because he busts an awkward move on the dancefloor.

 

[Park Life 71]

I have zero interest in this prat , i know i probably should but the fact he seems like a total knob has put me in the "couldn't care less" category

 

If you knew just a little of the backstory you'd be interested oh lush voiced one.

 

Tyler (or Tiler) is the name of the office of outer guard of a Masonic Lodge. Early speculative Masonic lodges met in rooms in taverns and other public meeting places, and all Lodges appoint a Tyler to guard the door from unqualified, malicious or simply curious people.

 

You do not talk about fight club..............

 

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I guess 'sex by surprise' is considered a very serious offence in Sweden.

[Park Life 71]

I guess 'sex by surprise' is considered a very serious offence in Sweden.

 

Julian Assange was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by Swedish authorities after the rape allegations were made last week, but it was later withdrawn.

Prosecutors are still considering whether to charge the campaigning 39-year-old with a lesser charge of molestation.

Claes Borgstrom of the Swedish law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom said the two women he represents have nothing to do with any kind of conspiracy.

He said: 'What I can say is that those rumours that the Pentagon or the CIA are supposed to be involved lack all connection with reality.'

[Park Life 71]

"In the morning, Miss W left the apartment to buy breakfast. She went back to sleep on her return, and woke to find Assange having sex with her. He was not wearing a condom, and according to the police report, “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time” to wear one."

 

I mean really what is this shit?!! He stayed there with her for a week. Now I imagine if I had been raped I wouldn't be casually doing the dishes, or having a nap AFTER BREAKFAST with Julian Wilidick prowling da house....Well not till the CIA called and offerred me loads of money.

 

Edited May 30, 2012 by Park Life

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Julian Assange was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by Swedish authorities after the rape allegations were made last week, but it was later withdrawn.

Prosecutors are still considering whether to charge the campaigning 39-year-old with a lesser charge of molestation.

Claes Borgstrom of the Swedish law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom said the two women he represents have nothing to do with any kind of conspiracy.

He said: 'What I can say is that those rumours that the Pentagon or the CIA are supposed to be involved lack all connection with reality.'

 

 

 

The rape allegations were withdrawn and a lesser charge was put in its place. I can't remember exactly what the charge is, but it is called something like (translation) 'sex by surprise'. It means he said he was going to wear a condom, and then slipped his willy in sans condom, thus surprising the woman--but this is a bad surprise, like if you found out you were adopted.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Imagine if you woke up to find Assange humping you. For the vast majority of people, this would be a horrible invasion of your personal privacy. For Happy Face, it would merely be like waking up into the dream he was actually having.

[Happy Face 29]

This note explains what happens next now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Arrest Warrant is valid and that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden. The note explains what will happen to Julian once he is taken to Sweden, the bail system there, possible pre-trial restrictions that he could endure, and whether he is able to review his detention conditions.

 

http://www.fairtrials.net/publications/article/julian-assange-and-detention-before-trial-in-sweden

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18258990

 

[Park Life 71]

ulian Assange's fight against extradition to Sweden may stagger on to a second round at the supreme court after he was granted permission to submit fresh arguments.

Despite losing by a majority of five to two, his lawyers have been given 14 days to consider whether to challenge a central point of the judgment on the correct interpretation of international treaties.

The highly unusual legal development came after the supreme court justices decided that a public prosecutor was a "judicial authority" and that therefore Assange's arrest warrant had been lawfully issued.

Assange, who is wanted in connection with accusations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden, was not in court; there was no legal requirement for him to be present. According to his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, he was stuck in central London traffic and never made it to the court in Westminster. Assange denies the accusations.

The obscure but potentially pivotal issue raised by Dinah Rose QC, Assange's barrister, relates to Article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It states that treaties can be interpreted bearing in mind the "subsequent practice" of their application."

[Happy Face 29]

It's a shame he looks like an Albino victim of schoolyard bullying, because the "free media" have been entirely co-opted by western governments and corporations. His is the widest known independent worldwide news outlet with more substantial revelations of government secrecy and wrongdoing than the rest of them put together.

 

But people aren't interested because he busts an awkward move on the dancefloor.

 

GG has made my point with much more words...

 

When, many years ago, I first read about the Nixon administration’s infamous break-in to the office of Daniel Ellberg’s psychiatrist as a means to discredit the Pentagon Papers leak, I was baffled by the motivation. The Pentagon Papers revealed systematic lying on the part of the U.S. Government to the American public about the Vietnam War. Why, I wondered with a not insubstantial amount of naïveté, would public revelations about Ellsberg’s personality and psyche have any impact on how those leaks were perceived?

 

But the answer to that is obvious, as Nixon well knew: by demonizing Ellsberg personally, even those inclined to defend the leak would be reluctant to be associated with him. If Ellsberg became associated in the public mind not with his noble exposure of government lies but rather with “strange” psychological drives or bizarre sexual fantasies — the sort of thing one is supposed to reveal to one’s psychoanalyst — then he would become a figure of derision, an embarrassment, and nobody would want anything to do with him for fear of having his foibles reflect negatively on them. You smear the messenger, and the message is smeared along with him — or, just as good, the message is forgotten and the messenger is abandoned to whatever punishments are doled out.

 

This has been exactly the strategy used to ward off support for Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Bradley Manning, with one difference: leaving aside Joe Biden, who denounced Assange as a “high-tech terrorist,” this time the role of Nixonian henchmen is played by establishment-defending or Obama-loyal media figures rather than the administration itself. The New York Times — led by John Burns and Bill Keller — has continuously obsessed on Assange’s alleged personality flaws while all but ignoring the vital disclosures about the U.S. Government for which he is partially responsible (Keller, the son of a Chevron CEO, wrote an article infamously complaining that Assange’s socks were “filthy” and that he “smelled”).

 

The NYT and numerous other media outlets also aggressively promoted a new group, “Open Leaks,” started by former WikiLeaks volunteers offended by Assange’s “imperious behavior” — a group which, to date, has failed to produce a single leak. Meanwhile, people like this former Obama campaign press aide and current MSNBC contributor (a virtual redundancy) have continually demeaned Bradley Manning as “a guy seeking anarchy as a salve for his own personal, psychological torment” caused by his sexuality while ominously alluding to “plenty of other evidence that something wasn’t quite right with Manning.”

 

As Ellsberg himself has repeatedly pointed out, this is the same sleazy strategy employed by Nixon to personally smear whistleblowers and demonize their psyches in order to discredit the substance of their disclosures and make it uncomfortable for anyone to support them. And it works.

 

While WikiLeaks enjoyed widespread support just a couple of years ago, the personal attacks on Assange and Manning — along with the unproven and even uncharged sexual assault allegations in Sweden — have dried up much of that support. Who wants to be seen advocating for an unhygienic, abusive egomaniac or a psychologically crippled, gender-confused, vengeful freak: the caricatures of Assange and Manning that have been successfully implanted in the public mind by today’s Nixonian smear artists? The truth or falsity of these caricatures matters little for this tactic to work: once someone is rendered sufficiently radioactive in Decent Society, even many who are sympathetic to their cause will turn away, become unwilling to defend them, lest any of the slime relentlessly poured on the whistleblowers splatter onto their defenders.

 

But given what is at stake in the Manning case and especially the potential prosecution of WikiLeaks and Assange, this tactic must not be permitted to succeed. The judicial process in Sweden should and will be permitted to resolve the sexual allegations against Assange one way or the other — given that he’s not even charged, let alone convicted, he should enjoy the presumption of innocence — but whatever the outcome of that case, the personal attributes or failings of Assange or Manning have no bearing on the threat posed by the U.S. Government’s prosecution for the publishing WikiLeaks has done.

 

A coalition of leading journalists and media outlets in Australia have explained: WikiLeaks “is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret” and prosecuting them “would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press“; they added: “To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks . . . is a serious threat to democracy.” The Committee to Protect Journalists sent a letter to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder expressing “deep concern” over “reports about a potential WikiLeaks prosecution,” which “would threaten grave damage to the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and the press.” Although American journalists were reluctant at first to speak out, even they have come around to recognizing what a profound threat an Assange indictment would be to press freedoms, with The Washington Post Editorial Page denouncing any indictment on the ground that it “would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations,” and even editors of the Guardian and Keller himself — with whom Assange has feuded — are now vowing to defend Assange if he were to be prosecuted.

 

All of this merits particular emphasis now in light of yesterday’s ruling by Britain’s Supreme Court that Assange must be extradited to Sweden. There is a very well-grounded fear that this extradition is intended to be the first step in his inevitable rendering to the U.S. for prosecution. Ample evidence, including my prior reporting, proves the Obama DOJ has an active Grand Jury investigation of WikiLeaks. Some evidence, albeit not entirely reliable, has emerged stating that they have already obtained a sealed indictment. That there is now a flurry of recent activity at exactly the time when it was known the British Supreme Court would issue its extradition ruling — suspected WikiLeaks supporters being aggressively accosted by the FBI while Hillary Clinton is now meeting with top officials in Sweden — adds to the reasonable suspicion that the U.S. is seeking to exploit Assange’s extradition to Sweden as a means of bringing him to the U.S. to face prosecution under espionage charges. That this administration has an unprecedented fixation on secrecy and prosecuting whistleblowers — while key Democratic Senators such as Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein have publicly called for Assange’s prosecution for espionage — makes this all the more likely.

 

It’s vital that this not be permitted to happen. Whatever one’s discomfort with Assange’s supposed personal flaws, that must not deter anyone from standing against what would truly be an odious indictment for the publication by WikiLeaks of critical information in the public interest. Last December in The Guardian, I argued that Bradley Manning deserves a medal, not imprisonment, if he actually did what he is alleged to have done. Here is a two-minute clip from my Democracy Now appearance where I made the case for why defending WikiLeaks is so crucial (this was not included in the segment I posted yesterday):

 

 

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Oooohhh, GG. OOhh you hit my G-spot GG

[Happy Face 29]

Aww, you started a new page so no-one else gets to enjoy his accurate and arousing arguments.

[Park Life 71]

• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 20.45 BST
  

Julian Assange has asked for asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has sought political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He walked into the embassy in Knightsbridge, London on Tuesday afternoon and asked for asylum under the United Nations human rights declaration.

A statement issued on behalf of the embassy said: "This afternoon Mr Julian Assange arrived at the Ecuadorian embassy seeking political asylum from the Ecuadorian government.

"As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito."

 

Edited June 19, 2012 by Park Life