HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » WikiLeaks' Julian Assange...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:01 AM

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange says US gave 'tacit approval' to embassy attacks

Source: Indian Express

Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks declared that the United States had effectively given groups an opening to attack its embassies by supporting the siege of its founder Julian Assange ...

On Tuesday, the US embassy compound in Cairo was invaded by protesters angered by an online film they saw as offensive to Islam, while the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by armed militants.

Four US officials, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed, but WikiLeaks accused US authorities of undermining the safety of all diplomatic missions by not opposing Britain's police cordon around the London embassy.

"By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadoran embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world," the group said, in a message posted on its main Twitter account yesterday ...

Read more: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wikileaks-julian-assange-says-us-gave-tacit-approval-to-embassy-attacks/1001995/

126 replies, 15302 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 126 replies Author Time Post
Reply WikiLeaks' Julian Assange says US gave 'tacit approval' to embassy attacks (Original post)
struggle4progress Sep 2012 OP
gateley Sep 2012 #1
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #8
dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #29
gateley Sep 2012 #32
randome Sep 2012 #33
Wild Thing Sep 2012 #36
mitchtv Sep 2012 #49
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #57
pnwmom Sep 2012 #79
navarth Sep 2012 #103
randome Sep 2012 #106
navarth Sep 2012 #110
randome Sep 2012 #111
navarth Sep 2012 #112
randome Sep 2012 #114
pnwmom Sep 2012 #107
navarth Sep 2012 #113
pnwmom Sep 2012 #116
navarth Sep 2012 #119
pnwmom Sep 2012 #123
awoke_in_2003 Sep 2012 #38
jethro_troll Sep 2012 #83
ohiosmith Sep 2012 #93
mzmolly Sep 2012 #2
Socal31 Sep 2012 #3
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #75
orwell Sep 2012 #4
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #72
Joe Shlabotnik Sep 2012 #5
SoapBox Sep 2012 #6
davidthegnome Sep 2012 #7
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #9
davidthegnome Sep 2012 #12
SkyDaddy7 Sep 2012 #31
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #74
Swagman Sep 2012 #18
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #14
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #53
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #104
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #105
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #125
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #71
pnwmom Sep 2012 #78
LineLineReply .
mzmolly Sep 2012 #90
octothorpe Sep 2012 #124
DeltaLitProf Sep 2012 #10
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #16
Swagman Sep 2012 #19
longship Sep 2012 #11
awoke_in_2003 Sep 2012 #39
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #48
ljm2002 Sep 2012 #13
tama Sep 2012 #15
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #37
tama Sep 2012 #40
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #58
tama Sep 2012 #61
navarth Sep 2012 #101
Swagman Sep 2012 #20
Swagman Sep 2012 #17
ladjf Sep 2012 #21
rucky Sep 2012 #22
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #73
BlueMTexpat Sep 2012 #23
navarth Sep 2012 #30
frylock Sep 2012 #46
navarth Sep 2012 #92
GeorgeGist Sep 2012 #24
George II Sep 2012 #25
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #26
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #35
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #41
msanthrope Sep 2012 #42
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #45
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #43
SidDithers Sep 2012 #27
leftynyc Sep 2012 #28
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #70
navarth Sep 2012 #34
randome Sep 2012 #50
navarth Sep 2012 #51
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #55
navarth Sep 2012 #64
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #66
navarth Sep 2012 #67
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #68
navarth Sep 2012 #69
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #59
navarth Sep 2012 #65
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #85
navarth Sep 2012 #87
pnwmom Sep 2012 #80
navarth Sep 2012 #82
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #86
navarth Sep 2012 #88
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #91
pnwmom Sep 2012 #95
navarth Sep 2012 #98
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #117
navarth Sep 2012 #118
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #122
pnwmom Sep 2012 #94
navarth Sep 2012 #99
pnwmom Sep 2012 #108
navarth Sep 2012 #109
pnwmom Sep 2012 #115
navarth Sep 2012 #120
pnwmom Sep 2012 #121
randome Sep 2012 #96
navarth Sep 2012 #100
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #44
frylock Sep 2012 #47
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #52
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #54
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2012 #56
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #60
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #63
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #62
harun Sep 2012 #76
pnwmom Sep 2012 #81
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #84
davidthegnome Sep 2012 #89
JohnnyRingo Sep 2012 #77
freshwest Sep 2012 #97
WeekendWarrior Sep 2012 #102
greyl Sep 2012 #126

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:02 AM

1. Did he just join the Republican party?

Talk about a stretch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:37 AM

8. Unfortunately, it isn't a stretch.

The problem is that a law or rule has to apply equally to everyone. When you do something to others, then others will assume they have the right to do the same thing to you.

A lot of people don't understand that concept that everyone is equal before the law and that when you deprive another of a right or a protection or even a privilege, you are in a sense giving up your claim to that same right or protection or privilege. That is what is called equal justice, universal justice, equality before the law, the universality of the law.

It's tough, but that is true. It isn't a stretch at all.

And this is precisely why I sometimes criticize our government on a lot of civil liberties and privacy issues.

I don't like many of the things, the snooping and interfering that Anonymous does. It is very distasteful. But then, our very own government and corporations set the example in secrecy for the things that Anonymous does. Same for Wikileaks.

With Wikileaks, the government does not like it when its "secrets" or claimed secrets are published for all to see. But the government takes the liberty of reading all of our private e-mails, intimate love letters (not at my age), family gossip, shopping preferences, etc. It even collects them. And private corporations do the same.

You have to have one law for all -- and that law has to apply with only very limited exceptions even to our very government.

Assange makes a good point. As I have pointed out, we kept Cardinal Mindszenty, a Catholic, in our US embassy in Hungary for a very long time -- 15 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Mindszenty

Yet we complain when Ecuador grants the same right to Assange. We disagree on the grounds of ideology. We judge what Assange did as illegal. The Hungarian government judged what Mindszenty did as illegal. Who knows? We think we are right, but that is our judgment -- and it reflects our bias. The law, the real law, knows no bias.

Hard for people to understand, but that is the way it is if you have government by laws and not by privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:51 AM

29. Very well stated.

I am disheartened tho, to hear so many folks here who do not understand/agree with the concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:26 AM

32. You know, you're right. And after reading your post, I agree.

I think maybe, like me, the Administration looked at this as being "different", you know? Thanks for presenting this in a sane, reasoned way, rather than just snapping back at my instant reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:34 AM

33. You seem to have lost sight of the entire charade.

Assange is wanted by Sweden. His work for Wikileaks has nothing to do with that.

He is no martyr. He is a coward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #33)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:41 AM

36. Uh.......

....I think the charade is that he is wanted by Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #33)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:58 PM

49. well, that is one point of view

I would err on the side of caution if I were Mr Assange. Trust no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #33)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:38 PM

57. "His work for Wikileaks has nothing to do with that." Yeah, sure.

It's just how Swedish prosecutors go after every boorish lover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #57)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

79. If the women's claims are true, he's a rapist, not a boorish lover.

Inserting yourself into an unconscious woman is rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #79)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:46 AM

103. So the entire Military Industrial Complex goes after an alleged rapist.

Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #103)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:33 AM

106. Where is this MIC you speak of?

I haven't seen them 'going after' Assange. Do we have warships stationed in the area?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #106)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

110. Do you need to see warships as proof?

Do you seriously believe that powers in the US aren't trying to make an example Assange after what he revealed, much like they did with Ellsberg? To me it seems obvious. I guess it isn't to you. This is or course your right and priviledge, just as it is mine to wonder what's going on in people's heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #110)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:32 AM

111. What he and Wikileaks proved to us all is that...

...diplomats sometimes lie. My God, Assange must die!

And again, if the U.S. wants him, why go through this ridiculous 2+ years charade to 'get' him?

You know what this takes to support your conspiracy theory, don't you?

The Swedish government has to be in on it.
The Swedish prosecutor has to be in on it.
The women who want Assange tested have to be in on it.
The Australian government -who seem to be embarrassed by Assange's behavior- have to be in on it.
The U.K. government needs to be in on it.
Interpol needs to be in on it.
The U.K. prosecution and appeals process has to be in on it.
And, of course, the big bad wolf himself, the U.S.

Do you really believe that all this effort is being coordinated to 'get' Assange for the ultimate crime of embarrassing some mid-level diplomats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #111)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:49 AM

112. I think the terminology 'conspiracy theory' is

not comprehensive, but rather discrediting. I believe that conspiracies happen. I think it's entirely plausible that all these items on your list could be 'in on it'. Why? Because it happened to Daniel Ellsberg. It happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Are you, on the other hand, telling me that this CAN'T be the explanation? Then you know more than I do.

In any event, I still don't feel satisfied with the explanations for this level of carpet-bombing threads against Assange. I just feel more suspicious of the motives at work.

Could I be wrong? Sure! But my bullshit detector is still near the top. Not that you should care about what I think, or that what I think amounts to a hill of beans. But I will continue to have questions in my mind about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #112)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:59 AM

114. Speaking only for myself, I find the subject fascinating.

The same way I found the OWS threads fascinating. I agree, not much productive is accomplished with these threads. Few people change their minds. But in the case of this specific thread, it was the tweet -whether from Assange or from someone else at Wikileaks- that brought the subject up again.

It didn't need to be posted at DU, sure, but it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #103)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:35 AM

107. No, just the Swedish justice system. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #107)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:53 AM

113. and you know this absolutely?

How can you possibly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #113)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:37 PM

116. I know it just as absolutely as you "know"

that he's the target of a Euro-US conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #116)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

119. okay then, in other words,

you DON'T know. I believe that he's targeted for reasons I've already stated, but I can't possibly know. What I DO know is that people I trust, like Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky support him. And I refer to my memory of what was done to Ellsberg, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, etc. I do not trust my country's security apparatus. If you do, that's your option; but I can't imagine why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #119)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:57 PM

123. I don't put Obama and Bush in the same category of trustworthiness.

And that quote of Ellsberg's is two years old. I would like to know what he thinks of Assange's self-serving, world-revolves-around-me quote about the Libya attack. Just because Ellsberg supported Assange in the initial years of Wikileaks doesn't mean he supports everything Assange has ever done or said since. Assange has lost many allies over the years. He has an amazing ability to alienate supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:59 AM

38. +1000. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #1)


Response to jethro_troll (Reply #83)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:04 PM

93. This post was alerted on! Tick Tock!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:03 AM

2. What a

dumb ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:04 AM

3. Sorry.

I am just not so US-centric that I think that if our government doesn't denounce something, it means we support it or deserve to be attacked for it.

There are thousands of heinous acts in this world daily that the "United States" doesn't comment on. I do not consider this malice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:19 PM

75. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:11 AM

4. Jumped...the...shark n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orwell (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:06 PM

72. Short simple and to the point. Agreed. Love your user name -- when I sign up for a grocery store

card to get the lowest prices ( hate those cards) I use the name Georgia Orwell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:24 AM

5. oh ffs, not this shit again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Shlabotnik (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:56 AM

6. A big ditto to your post Joe!

Yup...again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:07 AM

7. I've been cautious in my judgment of Assange

I've reached the conclusion now though, that he's a total asshole. This narcissist has yet to show a shred of integrity, honor, decency, or courage. As far as I'm concerned he's now irrelevant. This seems to me to be an attempt to direct attention back to himself by making outrageous comments to stir the pot. What a creep. I am sincerely regretting any sympathy or empathy I may have felt for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:45 AM

9. I disagree. He is just pointing out that the US should do unto others as it would have others

do unto it.

Respecting the diplomatic immunity and sovereignty of embassies has to be universal.

We send our diplomats to foreign countries where they sometimes serve in great jeopardy, at great danger to themselves. International law demands that we respect and provide the utmost security to all diplomatic missions on our soil. We have the reciprocal right to demand that from other countries.

Today that was brought home.

President Obama does not appear to believe that the Libyan government denied us the right under international law to a secure embassy. He seemed less certain about the Egyptian government, perhaps because the intentions of the Egyptian government toward us are not yet clear.

I have often posted on this. It isn't a matter of what we think of Assange. He may be a wonderful person. He may be a total creep. We cannot really know based on the tiny image we have of him. We only see a silhouette of people like Assange. We cannot know who such a person really is.

But we can apply a universal code for right and wrong behavior. And I believe that, whether we agree with what goes on in embassies or not, we have to respect the right of other countries' diplomats and diplomatic missions to peace and security when they are in foreign countries. That goes for Ecuador. That goes for our embassies no matter where they are.

We were rightfully incensed when our Tehran embassy was taken over by the Iranians in the 1970s. That was a terrible violation of international law. And we have not forgotten it. Nor should we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:21 AM

12. I agree with the idea of a universal code

to an extent. What I can't see is how under any code this man's latest remarks could be seen as anything other than self serving and attention seeking.

When the Brits threatened to raid the embassy, I had sympathy for Assange, I was outraged that they would consider doing such a thing. It would still be wrong, regardless of what kind of man Assange is. The fact remains though, that it was an embassy in Britain and not in the US that was threatened. I'm not sure what that particular incident has to do with Obama. I've heard plenty of suggestions that he was involved, that he was urging them on... but I have yet to see proof.

To quote the OP,

"Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks declared that the United States had effectively given groups an opening to attack its embassies by supporting the siege of its founder Julian Assange ... "

It seems to me that Assange thinks this is all about Assange. Frankly, I no longer have the least amount of respect for the man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:25 AM

31. EXACTLY!!!

"self serving and attention seeking."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:14 PM

74. Good response, indeed. I support universal principles, but I have no respect for Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:04 AM

18. an intelligent repsonse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:41 AM

14. Sigh. The headline is dishonest. We don't know that Assange wrote that tweet. Also, it was retracted

and rewritten, which OP conveniently left out, too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange

A post on the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed, which is generally presumed to be operated by Assange, read: "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorean embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world."

As a series of other Twitter users objected to the language – one early response read: "@wikileaks you are losing supporters fast with comments like that." – the initial tweet was deleted, though not before some Twitter users saved images of it.

The tweet was then re-sent in two slightly amended forms, firstly: "By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies," and later: "By the UK threatening to breach the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies, in general. It must retract."

Yet another tweet attempted to explain the change, arguing that people had misunderstood the initial tweet because of the use of the "rare" term tacit. It read: "We have deleted and rephrased a previous tweet with the word 'tacit' in it, since the word is rare and was being misinterpreted."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:20 PM

53. ... the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed ... is generally presumed to be operated by Assange ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #53)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:46 AM

104. I posted that. Duh.

"generally assumed," as in, we don't know so why are we saying it is so if we are a real journalism outlet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #104)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:30 AM

105. There's good reason to presume Assange controls the Twitter feed:

... "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange wrote to one of his Icelandic volunteers, Herbert Snorrason ...

How WikiLeaks Blew It
The sad downfall of Julian Assange and his empire of secrets.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
AUGUST 16, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/how_wikileaks_blew_it?page=0,0

By now, it's well-documented that Assange regards himself as the creator and absolute dictator of Wikileaks:

... "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project" ...

12/01/2010
Dissatisfaction with Assange Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dissatisfaction-with-assange-former-wikileaks-activists-to-launch-new-whistleblowing-site-a-732212.html

... Several WikiLeaks members abandoned the site following perceived autocratic behaviour by Mr Assange. They said he failed to consult them on many decisions and put himself front and centre of everything WikiLeaks did ... "You are not anyone's king or god," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Mr Assange in an online chat, a transcript of which was obtained and published by Wired.com. "And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."
Mr Assange shot back, saying he was suspending Mr Domscheit-Berg for a month and that if he wanted to appeal, "you will be heard on Tuesday" ...

Anger at 'slave trader' Assange: WikiLeaks loyalists decide to break away
December 10, 2010
Asher Moses
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-at-slave-trader-assange-wikileaks-loyalists-decide-to-break-away-20101210-18s0w.html

Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
09.27.10 9:07 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/

He has been asked to step down temporarily, until the sexual accusations can be resolved, but he has refused:

.... "I think it would be very good for WikiLeaks if there was another spokesperson or even many spokespersons," said Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who, with WikiLeaks' help, recently launched an initiative to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers.
"It would be convenient if he <Assange> would step aside as a spokesman," she told AFP, stressing, however, that "he has my support in all the other parts he plays in WikiLeaks."
"I think it is always a bit dangerous to mix personal matters and to be a spokesperson for a movement like <WikiLeaks>," said the 43-year-old media freedom champion, who in June oversaw the passing of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) ...

Iceland MP: Assange should resign
Published: 8 Sep 10 08:03 CET
http://www.thelocal.se/28840/20100908/

Here's the bottom line:

This tweet doesn't come from a professional organization, devoted to government transparency. The tweet is unprofessional, and the tweet isn't about government transparency -- it's about the personal problems of the dude who controls the organization. And since he runs the organization with an iron fist, he's clearly responsible for whatever the organization sends out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:17 AM

125. Yes, the best journalism is presumption-based, not fact-based.

Or they could have just written an accurate headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:04 PM

71. I WISH he was irrelevant. He still gets media coverage and DU threads. I'm tired of the creep, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:44 PM

78. A narcissist is exactly what he is. Everything's always about HIM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:52 PM

90. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:27 PM

124. This guy was a hero of sorts to many not that long ago, but he seems to be losing supporters

these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:00 AM

10. I like this man less and less every time he opens his mouth.

There happen to be national security secrets well worth keeping, the disclosure of which endangers lives. Assange made no distinction between these and the other material he revealed. No sympathy for him. Let him face trial for the rape allegations. Then we'd like a word with him here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeltaLitProf (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:56 AM

16. That's all the easier when the yellow press...

puts the words in his mouth for you.

The real headline here:

Indian Express spins a Wikileaks tweet into red meat for Assange haters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeltaLitProf (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:06 AM

19. I hope you blame those who published them as well in that case

and that includes virtually every newspaper and TV news program in the world.

Although only Assange seems to be carrying the can for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:13 AM

11. Indian Express? Say no more!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:04 PM

39. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:51 PM

48. Well, here are some other sources:

Here's an article from the Guardian
WikiLeaks criticised for linking Benghazi attack to Julian Assange case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange

Here's an article by Andy Greenberg at Forbes, who did a very positive interview of Assange a while back
9/12/2012 @ 7:35PM |883 views
WikiLeaks' Lamest Claim Ever: Benghazi Embassy Violence Linked To U.K. Threat To Arrest Assange
If WikiLeaks’ goal is to offend every last supporter it might have retained after nearly six years of constant controversy, its Twitter feed has just pulled a master stroke ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/09/12/wikileaks-lamest-claim-ever-benghazi-embassy-violence-linked-to-uk-threat-to-arrest-assange/

And here are two articles from the Torygraph
WikiLeaks blames US stance on Julian Assange for Libyan embassy attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9540728/WikiLeaks-blames-US-stance-on-Julian-Assange-for-Libyan-embassy-attack.html
Wikileaks: US gave its 'tacit approval' for attacks on embassies by supporting UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9540770/Wikileaks-US-gave-its-tacit-approval-for-attacks-on-embassies-by-supporting-UK.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:42 AM

13. Hmmm, didn't I see pretty much this same post in GD...

...posted hours before this one?

Yep:

Assange: US has “given tacit approval for attacks on embassies”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021330806

Same assertion, different news source. Only in that thread it has been pointed out repeatedly that Julian Assange is not the person who currently posts on the Wikileaks Twitter account.

This is a public service announcement for those who are tempted to post a knee-jerk 5-minute-hate post about Assange. If after reading the other thread you still think Assange wrote that tweet, then have at it. But at least go take a look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:50 AM

15. Jury voted to hide it

 

I was on the jury and voted to leave it even though I disagree with the content and motive. But reposting what jury has voted to hide is not cool. Not cool at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:45 AM

37. Nice try, but I posted this here in LBN before the jury hid my other OP

The jury hiding that post, of course, was an abuse of the jury

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #37)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:10 PM

40. Yes, on second thought you must have

 

as there is 24h(?) ban for starting new threads after getting a hide it from a jury. My bad.

Discussions on what is abuse of the jury belong to the Meta, but I'll just say here that it's a democratic form of self-regulation (or social learning experiment towards such) of an Internet community and as such, jury is currently the highest collective authority and cannot in that sense "abuse". Responsibility grows from freedom of course we have lot to learn in that regard, collectively and individually. I voted in the minority of that jury but accept it's decision as all other jury decisions.

For further development of the jury I support stronger sanctions for jury alerters who constantly get 'leave' it decisions. In a balanced system also unnecessary accusers need to face sanctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #40)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:41 PM

58. Assangists support Assange on free speech grounds -- then censor his critics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #58)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:52 PM

61. You throw that to me

 

who voted not to censor but to leave it and must count as "Assangist" in your book!??? WHAT AN EARTH CAN YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE by throwing that line at me???

Most jury members didn't give explanation for their post, but the rule that was cited by alerter would point to that they consider you and your posting style crackpottery. And for that fame you need to first take a look in the mirror, as once valued member of DU community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #58)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

101. "Assangists"

You continue to disappoint. How about "Anti-Assange Personal Vendetta-For-No-Apparent-Reasonists"?

Really nice to stereotype.

I'm asking about motives here. Nobody can tell me why they hate this guy so much. I don't get it. On DU, not Free Republic!!! Amazing.

For the record: I don't support censoring you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I just call bullshit when I smell it.

I've always felt sympathetic to Assange, because he exposed some really ugly things that needed to come to light. TRANSPARENCY. Is he a jerk? Whatever. I'm sure Daniel Ellsberg did something bad at one time or another. Big Fucking Deal. It's not enough to make me want to persecute him. For some, that makes me an 'Assangist' or a 'hero worshipper'.

What is it about Assange that makes YOU want to persecute him? Why this personal vendetta?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:09 AM

20. in that case I've just become disgusted by the jury service and will never

participate in it again.

If this thread was censored it is a disgrace and I'm very disappointed with DU because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:01 AM

17. this occurred to me when I heard the news

I think the Home Office in Britain make an extraordinarily bad mistake when they threatened to enter the Ecuador Embassy and seize Assange.

However despite this occurring to me that doesn't make it true.

But many learned people said that it was a shocking blunder by the UK that could have terrible consequences.

Assange is in a no win state at the moment..anything he says will be used by his detractors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:28 AM

21. This is the dumbest and craziest thing Assange has ever said. He needs to keep his trap shut. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:41 AM

22. Life on the lam is eating away at his brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rucky (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:10 PM

73. and it is just going to get worse. He's barely begun his self-imprisonment in the embassy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:36 AM

23. The tenor of most replies here shows that posters

already have their minds made up about Assange (anti), even when Assange didn't actually post the tweets in question.

I expect better of fellow DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:59 AM

30. agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:31 PM

46. expecting better was your first mistake..

this place is every bit as knee-jerk as FR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #46)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:03 PM

92. That's what gets me

I can't figure why DUers would have it in for Assange to this extent. Some seem to have a full-time job of it. I wonder why. Something smells funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:41 AM

24. Guilty ...

of being an Asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:12 AM

25. Those people have zero credibility - who cares what they say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:16 AM

26. Clever headline - guilt by association.

Clearly states in the article that Wikileaks, not Assange , posted this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:39 AM

35. ... "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original

coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange wrote to one of his Icelandic volunteers, Herbert Snorrason ...
How WikiLeaks Blew It
The sad downfall of Julian Assange and his empire of secrets.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
AUGUST 16, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/how_wikileaks_blew_it?page=0,0

By now, it's well-documented that Assange regards himself as the creator and absolute dictator of Wikileaks:

... "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project" ...
12/01/2010
Dissatisfaction with Assange Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dissatisfaction-with-assange-former-wikileaks-activists-to-launch-new-whistleblowing-site-a-732212.html

... Several WikiLeaks members abandoned the site following perceived autocratic behaviour by Mr Assange. They said he failed to consult them on many decisions and put himself front and centre of everything WikiLeaks did ... "You are not anyone's king or god," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Mr Assange in an online chat, a transcript of which was obtained and published by Wired.com. "And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."
Mr Assange shot back, saying he was suspending Mr Domscheit-Berg for a month and that if he wanted to appeal, "you will be heard on Tuesday" ...
Anger at 'slave trader' Assange: WikiLeaks loyalists decide to break away
December 10, 2010
Asher Moses
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/anger-at-slave-trader-assange-wikileaks-loyalists-decide-to-break-away-20101210-18s0w.html

Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
09.27.10 9:07 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/

He has been asked to step down temporarily, until the sexual accusations can be resolved, but he has refused:

.... "I think it would be very good for WikiLeaks if there was another spokesperson or even many spokespersons," said Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who, with WikiLeaks' help, recently launched an initiative to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers.
"It would be convenient if he <Assange> would step aside as a spokesman," she told AFP, stressing, however, that "he has my support in all the other parts he plays in WikiLeaks."
"I think it is always a bit dangerous to mix personal matters and to be a spokesperson for a movement like <WikiLeaks>," said the 43-year-old media freedom champion, who in June oversaw the passing of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) ...
Iceland MP: Assange should resign

Published: 8 Sep 10 08:03 CET
http://www.thelocal.se/28840/20100908/

Here's the bottom line:

This tweet doesn't come from a professional organization, devoted to government transparency. The tweet is unprofessional, and the tweet isn't about government transparency -- it's about the personal problems of the dude who controls the organization. And since he runs the organization with an iron fist, he's clearly responsible for whatever the organization sends out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:13 PM

41. I am a corrupt moron flying jumbo jets loaded with entire nations, says Julian Assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #41)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:18 PM

42. You gotta love that article---how one's drunk tweets from England hit the Aussies mid-day....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:11 PM

45. "They'll believe we're real journalists if we get hammered and post dumb shizz!"

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:18 PM

43. ... the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed ... is generally presumed to be operated by Assange ...

WikiLeaks criticised for linking Benghazi attack to Julian Assange case
Tweet says US 'gave tacit approval for attacks' by accepting 'UK siege on Ecuadorean embassy' where Assange is taking refuge

Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 September 2012 04.07 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:21 AM

27. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:43 AM

28. I stayed out of the Assange worship

because he always seemed to be a self serving asshole - I love when I'm proved right as it happens so rarely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #28)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:02 PM

70. +1 Rare for me, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:43 AM

34. Daniel Ellsberg said in 2010

“EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

WHY so many attacks on Assange on DU? Something smells funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:59 PM

50. Wikileaks is cool. Assange is not.

Ray Bradbury was a brilliant author. His politics? Not so much.
Scott Ritter was an important whistle-blower. His personal life was not so admirable.
Michael Crichton? Some people think he is a brilliant writer. I don't but his politics certainly suck.

Human beings -even heroes- are often flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #50)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:14 PM

51. realtive coolness is irrelevant

He's being persecuted for being a truth-teller. I don't care if he has personal flaws (within reason, of course).

I'm offended by the chorus of trolls that are trying to discredit him; I am even more offended by the disingenuous attitude that pretends to forget that he will be black-bagged and stuck in the cell next to Bradley Manning if he comes out of that building. (Not necessarily referring to you.)

As long as Daniel Ellsberg says he's ok, my opinion is unchanging.

I don't buy these phony rape charges; they're just a bit too convenient. And I question the motives of people that continuously post negative threads about him. Smells like they're trying to create an atmosphere wherein it's perfectly ok to do the dirty to him. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #51)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:22 PM

55. Trolls? The contortions and conspiracy hoops you guys have to jump through to keep from...

objectively looking at this man is just astounding. The level of hero worship surrounding this egomaniac is kinda frightening. There's something really REALLY broken, and I don't think it's the system Assange claims to be fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #55)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:18 PM

64. contortions and conspiracy hoops?

I just find it interesting that many DU posters seem to have a full-time job looking up dirt on Assange. To me that's mighty curious.

I think he's a whistle blower. I don't care if he's an egomaniac. He exposed some of the filth the country does in my name with my tax dollars and the security apparatus is throwing everything at him but the kitchen sink.

Who are the 'you guys' you're referring to? I speak for myself. I'm entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is there's something fishy here.

If I frightened you, I'm sorry. You don't have to be scared of me. I'm just calling bullshit when my bullshit meter gets tweaked.

AGAIN I say: Daniel Ellsberg says Assange is ok. I'll take Ellsberg's word over anybody here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #64)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:25 PM

66. Translation = Governments should be held accountable. Julian Assange? Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #66)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:30 PM

67. Thank you for putting words in my mouth

I think it's fine if Assange gets held accountable if he does something wrong. But not with a witch hunt like this.

Let me ask you: do you care if he gets black bagged?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:38 PM

68. Frankly, I think he should be put away so he's not a danger to himself or others, but that's just me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #68)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:51 PM

69. please explain how he is a danger to himself or others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #51)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

59. Assangists support Assange on free speech grounds -- then censor his critics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #59)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:23 PM

65. pfft

how sweet. you don't seem very 'censored' to me.

I question your motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to struggle4progress (Reply #85)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:36 PM

87. I had nothing to do with that. When I serve on a jury

I will vote to hide a post that uses excessive ad hominem, not facts I dislike.

I STILL question your motives. You still haven't answered. I'd really like to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:47 PM

80. So? Ellsburg wouldn't say that the Libya attack had anything to do with Wikileaks.

What Ellsburg said was based on what he knew about Assange at the time.

Why attacks on Assange on DU? Because he's hiding from rape charges and using Wikileaks to give him cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:07 PM

82. WTF?

What the hell does the Libya attack have to do with Daniel Ellsberg??

He's hiding from RAPE CHARGES?? Suuuure. That's all he's scared of. NO WAY he would get extradited here and black bagged. My anti-sarcasm cooling system is having to work overtime here.

The Swedes say they just want to talk to him, why don't they do a teleconference?

And it's the RAPE CHARGES that are the reason for so many attacks on DU? OH the lameness of this. You don't convince me. Not one little bit.

Please post me a link where Ellsberg has changed his mind.

I think these rape charges are phony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #82)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:36 PM

86. Why does Assange have to go to Sweden before being extradited here and black bagged?

He was in the control of the UK police and courts, why was he not extradited from the UK to the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #86)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:40 PM

88. At this point all he's got to do is walk out of that embassy in London.

Would you like that? I'm asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #88)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:52 PM

91. Why didn't it happen when Assange was on bail in the UK, living at his friend's mansion?

My like or dislike is irrelevant. For the record, I don't want anyone treated as Bradley Manning has been treated.

I'm seriously trying to understand why you believe that extradition to Sweden leads to being black bagged in a cell next to Manning. I personally don't see that the black bag result is any more or less likely from UK or Sweden.
If you'd like to explain your reasoning, I'd like to hear it. Sincere question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #91)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:44 PM

95. I agree. If we were going to extradite, it would be simpler straight from the UK.

If he ends up in Sweden, we'd actually have to get both countries to approve another extradition.

But we aren't because we don't have any laws that would allow us to prosecute a non-citizen for what Assange did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #91)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:23 AM

98. ok. if you're sincere

and open-minded, start with these:


http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/julian-assange-right-fear-prosecution

http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/julian-assange-arrest-tactics

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/pursuit-julian-assange-assault-freedom-and-mockery-journalism

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/31/julian-assange-on-the-persecution-of-wikileaks-sweden-decay-of-rule-of-law/

http://news.sky.com/story/973139/no-safe-passage-out-of-uk-for-assange

But seriously, do you think he's going to be able to whistleblow on the US MIC and walk away scot free?

Here's a sincere question for you: what do YOU think will happen to him if he walks out of that embassy?

As to your question about why they didn't grab him when he was on bail at his friend's house: we can't really know why, but I'm thinking it's because the UK is an ally and they don't want to interfere with their justice system; it would look bad, just like it would look bad for the UK to storm the Ecuadorian embassy.

AGAIN: I wonder at the vitriol displayed towards him on DU. What are the motives?

(sorry I took so long to get back to you, when work is over I commute home and try to relax.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #98)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:39 PM

117. Sweden is also a US ally. Why would the US be willing to interfere with the Swedish justice system

but not the UKs?

As far as vitriol toward Assange on DU, I can't speak to that, of course. I can only say that my anger and disdain toward Assange is a result of his callous comments about the Afghan informants that were killed after Wikileaks revealed their names.

I have every bit as much sympathy and compassion for Assange as he showed for the Afghan informants -- absolute zero.

If Assange were to walk out of the embassy, I expect that he would be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he would be questioned and perhaps charged with rape. If charged, I would expect that he would be put into jail, since he absconded on bail in the UK. It would be a media dog and pony show, similar to the DSK incident. I would expect that Assange would be tried in accordance with Swedish law, in spite of the media circus.

Assange should have known that he would be watched like a hawk, and any infraction on his part would not be overlooked but would be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. That's what anyone who confronts the MIC should expect. If Assange really feels that Sweden is the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' and he is an anti-feminist, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

Thank you for responding to my note. I will take a look at your links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #117)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:02 PM

118. I also would be willing to look at any links

about Afghan informants and his so-called callous comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #118)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:53 PM

122. Pretty damn callous:

"At an early meeting with international reporters in a restaurant he (Assange) told them: " 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' There was, for a moment, silence around the table."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-press-office/guardian-books-publishes-wikileaks-book

(my bad, apparently he said this about Iraq informants, not Afghani)


Wikileaks did in fact release the names of hundreds of Afghani informants:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #82)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:42 PM

94. What the hell does the Libya attack have to do with Daniel Ellsburg? You tell me.

You were the one who brought up Ellsburg's entirely unrelated quote in response to the OP. Ellsburg said that everything that happened to Assange happened to him. Well, no one charged Ellsburg with rape, did they?

There are no US laws that would allow the prosecution of a non-citizen like Assange, unlike a service member such as Manning.

However, if there were, and the US wanted to extradite Assange, they could have easily done it straight from the UK. We have a perfectly good extradition agreement with them. The US didn't have to wait for Sweden to extradite him from the UK, so we could extradite from Sweden. That would make no sense. If he were extradited to Sweden now, we would actually have to get permission from two countries -- Sweden AND the UK -- for him to be extradited here.

You think the rape charges are phony, but many other DUers think they should be investigated. Sweden is at the point of charging him, but -- according to their justice system-- they need to have him in custody to do so. It's way beyond a teleconference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #94)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:31 AM

99. My reference to Ellsberg

is because of the staggering amount of persecution evident in these personal vendettas. I simply state that I'm going to take the word of Ellsberg over DU posters with questionable motives.

Yes I DO think the rape charges are phony. You don't?? In my opinion this is disingenuous.

No, nobody charged Ellsberg with phony rape charges, they used a myriad of other BS. So what? The idea remains the same for me. A whistleblower exposes great evil being done with our tax dollars in our name, and the MIC throws everything but the kitchen sink at them. How about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? This is just more of that.

And here is why I am perplexed with these personal vendettas on DU. Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a possiblity that this is a huge smear campaign against a whistle blower?? I just don't get it. I question the motives of these vendettas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #99)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:43 AM

108. There isn't a personal vendetta on DU. There are simply some people here

who think it is possible that Assange is a multi-faceted person capable of both good and evil -- not some persecuted superhero. Even in his work at Wikileaks, I think he did both good and evil, and that he didn't care, since he thought -- but I don't -- that transparency was an ultimate good that overrode everything else.

I think that when he released the unredacted files while his associated media partners were still trying to go through them, he did harm to innocent people. I also think that he has a giant ego, that he think the world revolves around him (hence, his ludicrous Libya statement) and that it is quite possible that he could have forced himself on a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #108)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:12 AM

109. On the contrary

none of what you have described would explain the overwhelming amount of carpet-bombing threads attacking Assange. If I thought like you do (which I don't) I would probably ignore him or place a snarky comment once in a while. Maybe I would say I don't care what happens to him.

What's going on here is way out of proportion IMO. Hence my curiosity.

"....think it is possible that Assange is a multi-faceted person capable of both good and evil -- not some persecuted superhero" That's it? "think it's possible"?? That does not justify the amount of hate I'm seeing. I remain curious about real motives.

And for the record I don't think he's a super hero. But he is persecuted. Just sayin'. And I don't think his Libya statement is ludicrous. I don't care if he has a giant ego. Please demonstrate for me where he's hurt innocent people; I've yet to see any proof. I have an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #109)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:35 PM

115. No one can provide proof of the innocent people he hurt when he released the

unredacted files without putting other innocent people at risk. But all the news orgs that were working with him were concerned about the risk to people named in those documents. That's why they were working so hard to go through them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #115)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:06 PM

120. okay then.

It's still possible. I don't rule it out. But I haven't seen it. And I remain perplexed about the amount of vitriol directed at Assange here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #120)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:40 PM

121. Narcissists tend to attract both hero-worship and vitriol.

It's what happens when you're always bragging about yourself.

Why the vitriol? Here is what one of his supporters says about him (in connection with the rape charges):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/928/a-textbook-paranoid-narcissist

The first question is easier to answer: I do not know, you do not know, Owen Jones and the others baying for his blood do not know; nor does William Hague or the king of Sweden. This, again, should be obvious; but there is a certain tendency for those who are accused of rape to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Still, there is a complication: this is the person of Assange himself.

On a charitable view, he is eccentric. To be less charitable, he has a screw loose. In the last two years, he has managed to alienate almost every ally he has had through his unstable behaviour. He has touted the crackpot theories of Israel Shamir. He has at least as much the public profile of a textbook paranoid narcissist as of a crusading journalist - and he is on record in simply too many places, saying too many odd things about too many people, for it all to be a CIA concoction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to navarth (Reply #82)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:04 PM

96. He's hiding from having his poor performance as a lover made public.

Some people will do anything to avoid personal embarrassment on that level.

That's only speculation on my part. Much like the speculation that the U.S. has spent more than two years trying to 'get' Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #96)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:33 AM

100. What a disappointing post

I don't think you even deserve a response for that. Shame on you. There are serious issues here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:09 PM

44. WikiLeaks' Lamest Claim Ever: Benghazi Embassy Violence Linked To U.K. Threat To Arrest Assange

9/12/2012 @ 7:35PM
WikiLeaks' Lamest Claim Ever: Benghazi Embassy Violence Linked To U.K. Threat To Arrest Assange
Andy Greenberg
Forbes Staff
If WikiLeaks’ goal is to offend every last supporter it might have retained after nearly six years of constant controversy, its Twitter feed has just pulled a master stroke ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/09/12/wikileaks-lamest-claim-ever-benghazi-embassy-violence-linked-to-uk-threat-to-arrest-assange/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:32 PM

47. GOLDSTEIN!!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:15 PM

52. Can't we all chip in and buy this mf'er a remote island so we never have to hear from him again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #52)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:22 PM

54. I'm guessing the Swedes will deport him to Australia after they acquit him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:33 PM

56. Yes, but that'll mean we'll still have to hear his name occasionally. I'd prefer he just went away,

and had a meeting with his inevitable irrelevance. He's Sarah Palin, with blond hair, and an Australian accent, and far less interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:44 PM

60. After they acquit him?

Are you suggesting he will be found not guilty of any charges against him in Sweden?

If that's the case, why go through this whole charade of charging and hassling him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #60)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:16 PM

63. If you prefer "I'm guessing the Swedes will deport him to Australia after they convict him" then

read it that way

I don't care one way or the other

Some Assangists here seem to think that Sweden is a nightmare of feminist fury and that Assange will be torn apart by the harpies there, while other Assangists here seem to think Sweden hardly ever convicts anyone of rape

I actually have no stance on the truth of the Swedish accusations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

62. Assange and Bacile, 2 peas in a pod

I see Julian Assange/Wikileaks as morally equivalent to the idiot movie maker. Both publicly distributed words and images that any reasonable person would know would lead to violence and likely death for victims that had no say in their actions.

Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants then Assange made callous comments about their inevitable deaths resulting from Wikileaks' actions. Assange is militantly demanding freedom of speech for Wikileaks/Assange no matter who dies as a result. They don't even take care to redact names of people who will obviously be exposed to significant danger as a result of Wikileaks' actions.

Pretty much the same as the stupid film maker who released this inflammatory crap, then claims free speech and demands police protection from the inevitable results of his own actions.

I wonder if Assange will recognize Sam Bacile/Nakoula as his philosophic twin. Maybe Sam can join him in self-imprisonment in the embassy.


I posted the note below (excerpt) a couple of days ago, and it's even more true today-- still irritated at the Assange ego and his mess. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014224942

The whole Assange mess irritates me. I am a staunch supporter of Bradley Manning. Assange, not so much.

Truly, I don't understand why Assange and his supporters are so adamant that he not be extradited to Sweden. If the US wanted to kidnap Assange and take him to Gitmo, they can do so from the UK, even from the Ecuador embassy. I don't see why it is such an enormous threat that Sweden might extradite Assange to the US -- UK might do the same. I don't see why they think Assange is safe in the UK, but would be at risk in Sweden. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Really, it appears to me that Assange has been neutralized by a 'honey trap' (that he opened himself up to by being an egotistical jerk, by all reports), even without his being extradited to Sweden. Locked in an embassy, unable to have secure communications with Wikileaks staffers (because you know the UK can totally monitor anything coming in or out of that embassy), it appears to me that Assange has imprisoned himself already. I don't see how being locked up in a Swedish jail would be any different.....

Like I said, the whole Assange-ego mess is an annoying distraction from the real issues of Bradley Manning's treatment, the war in Afghanistan, and government transparency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:20 PM

76. Discouraging how many in this thread 1. Don't know the definition of "tacit"

and

2. Don't understand what Assange actually did.

If you are one of those people, go back to your television set, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:50 PM

81. The US gave no approval to these attacks, tacit or otherwise.

What Assange did has nothing to do with why this Embassy was attacked, except in the incredibly grandiose mind of Assange, who thinks the entire world revolves around him.

A police cordon around an Embassy in Britain, preventing Assange from escaping unnoticed into that country, has nothing to do with murders of Embassy personnel by terrorists in other parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:14 PM

84. The US took the position: "this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom"


Assange is an Australian, who (having lost his suits in the UK) was scheduled for extradition to Sweden, until Ecuador interfered

The US diplomatic professionals, who contemplated this matter carefully, observed that: (1) Australia is not the US; (2) the UK is not the US; (3) Sweden is not the US; (4) and Ecuador is not the US

They thus discovered that the proper diplomatic stance was based on the theory "we don't have a dog in that fight"

Various noises ensued, while the US tried not to be seen anywhere in the neighborhood

Ecuador wanted to tell everyone that the UK had threatened to raid their London embassy; and the UK was equally insistent that the UK had not threatened to raid anybody's embassy. But Ecuador and the UK took that particular disagreement off the table a few weeks back -- as Wikileaks would know, if Wikileaks actually read the news




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:44 PM

89. What I find discouraging

Is that there is nothing that this man can say that will turn off the hero worship some seem to have for him. Yes, I know what tacit means, I'm not convinced that you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:25 PM

77. It's not always about you Julian...

I know his ego is huge, but the world doesn't revolve around his presence. Sometimes shit happens that has nothing to do with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:15 PM

97. Sweden + UK > Ecaudor Embassy + Assange does not = Movie + Mob > USA Embassy.

There is no equivalency here. A mob does not ask permission and is largely unidenified as they act. The parties involved are not equal in power, or they would not be rioting.

Everything going on in London is being hyped in the news since the UK and the USA are still *superpowers* and are arguing with a smaller but still impressive power, a *nation.* Ecaudor is standing on a point of law. That narrow point is being respected, despite all claims otherwise, or this matter would have been resolved in a violent way some weeks ago.

Mobs do not rise up from a position of power or they would not use their crude methods. Those with power don't riot, they have bombers, tanks, missiles and other high tech weaponry that will take out any mob. This is not the same thing. There is a reason that people in Libya are pleading for forgiveness. The world knows what a *superpower* can do to them. They are justly concerned.

I don't think Assange is in control of Wikileaks. I don't think Wikileaks is in control of who is posting what is said on Twitter or most of what they distribute at all.

I do think Twitter is in the hands of TPTB and nothing is private. That these shows of outrage are all manufactured and the information is already in the hands of the operators of Twitter who will giggle as they turn the information over to whatever government wants it, when presented with enough paper to calm the masses down.

Most communication is wireless, and it is a utopian view that this is protected by law, when the technology is there to pick it up and record it and can be used and abused by all of the corporations, governments and individuals, by hackers for political purposes, theft by criminals, etc. It's in the air, it belongs to no one and everyone.

So we have another media story to generate arguments about something we have no control over, but sure as hell wish and pray we did. Wishing and praying won't change the ownership or operation of these systems.

We use them at the sufferance of the plutocrats who own social networking systems. It is offered 'free' to mine data and make profit. They are not there for altruistic, freedom of speech and thought reasons.

Those who use these networks not protected by the First Amendment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or a privacy law.

First, all users volunteered and gave permission to join. Second, the owners of the technology and businesses don't let any kind of law or regulation get in their way. All fines are taken into account as a cost of doing business.

We are entering into a technocracy we have empowered, and it has nothing to do with privacy or civil rights. This is just a diversion. I might change my mind tomorrow. Sorry if that offends, but I don't think this is legitimate.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

102. This guy is JUST so full of himself, isn't he? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:19 AM

126. Great guy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread