Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure... [Archive] - HungAngels

Ben

08-03-2010, 11:26 PM

Thanks to WikiLeaker, Afghan War Will End Soon

by Ted Rall

MUMBAI--"An appalling irresponsible act." That's how General James Nattis, fresh at the helm of U.S. Central Command, characterizes the release of more than 76,000 classified Pentagon reports released by the website WikiLeaks.
You may recall that the Pentagon, headquarters of the Department of Defense, is the same outfit that loaded $24 billion in $100 bills onto shrinkwrapped pallets and loaded the cash onto C-130 transport planes bound for Iraq--guarded by enlisted men who earn $20,000 a year. Not one of those Benjamins has ever heard from since. Which, given that the money was supposed to be paid to corrupt tribal sheikhs, is just as well. Don't be surprised if you see contractors installing one of those great a new Gunnite pool at the house belonging to your recently discharged veteran neighbor.

So anyway, when a Pentagon biggie calls someone irresponsible, take them seriously. These guys know from irresponsibility.

Speaking of behavior that falls short of the highest ethical standards (and is highly amusing), the involuntarily declassified material contains some real gems. My current fave--there will, no doubt, be others, for I am fickle and the material is vast--comes from an August 2007 report that explains some of the ways Pakistan uses the billions in U.S. taxdollars Bush and Obama send it.

Based in Waziristan in Pakistan's western Tribal Areas, the Haqqani network is a neo-Taliban-affiliated Islamist organization led by Sirajuddin Haqqani and his father Jalaluddin Haqqani. Officially, the Haqqanis are American targets because they harbor members of Al Qaeda and are involved in weapons smuggling across the Afghan border. Unofficially--on the ground, as they say--things are different.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (its equivalent of our CIA), is supposed to help the U.S. arrest and/or kill the Haqqanis. That's why the U.S. pays the ISI. Instead, the ISI pays the Haqqanis. With U.S. money.

Which is why, when you lose your house to foreclosure, the only help you get from Obama is a feigned expression of vague concern.

Anyway, the ISI hires the Haqqanis to carry out interesting projects. For example, Pakistan used your money to hire Haqqani assassins to kill Indian road engineers and workers in Nimruz province, in western Afghanistan. Going rate: $15,000 to $30,000 each.

Hey, the Haqqanis still have their houses. No doubt with Gunnite pools.

The coolest and weirdest ISI-Haqqani business deal concerns 1,000 motorcycles. The ISI shipped the bikes to the Haqqanis for use in suicide bomb attacks in Khost and Logar provinces. Let's hope they at least had the decency to buy cool, American-made Harleys so that some of our dough makes its way back here. Besides, who wants to spend the afterlife tooling around on a moped?

So, back to the issue of irresponsible behavior. U.S. government, meet kettle.

It has been pointed out that the WikiLeaks documents don't reveal much that is new. We already knew that Pakistan was our frenemy. We knew that drone planes kill more wedding guests than terrorists. We didn't want to admit it, but we already kind of knew we were losing. The starred headline involves the likelihood that the Taliban have surface-to-air missiles.

But the Wikileaks leaks are nevertheless a game-changer. They confirm what those few of us who opposed this war from the start have been saying all along. They prove that the military sees things the same way we do. So that's the end of the debate. The war is an atrocity and a mistake. Everyone agrees.

Public support for the war was already waning. Just 43 percent of the public still backs "the good war." The leaks mark the beginning of the end of one of a stupid country's countless stupid misadventures. I don't see what else might have accomplished the same thing so quickly.

Thanks to the leaker, thousands of lives will be saved in Afghanistan. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers will live out normal lives. Billions of dollars will stop pouring into the pockets of the Pakistanis. If that's irresponsible, well, call me a fan of irresponsibility.
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
Ted Rall is in Afghanistan to cover the war and research a book. He is the author of "The Anti-American Manifesto," which will be published in September by Seven Stories Press. His website is tedrall.com (http://tedrall.com/).

NYBURBS

08-04-2010, 07:43 AM

this case is getting more and more interesting...
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20100803/NEWS01/100803008/Rogers-War-leak-constitutes-treason

The congressman in that article is a retard. First of all, it takes two witnesses to the same overt act or an admission in open court by the person so charged. It also requires making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

That kid sitting in a military brig has balls that smack his ankles when he walks, and should be Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

Ben

08-04-2010, 11:30 AM

YouTube- Chomsky on the WikiLeaks' Coverage in the Press (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk&feature=player_embedded)

Ben

08-04-2010, 11:36 AM

this case is getting more and more interesting...
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20100803/NEWS01/100803008/Rogers-War-leak-constitutes-treason

Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/) wrote that he understands the world [he was being facetious]: that it's okay to commit crimes but NOT okay to expose them.
Glenn Greenwald also explicated that we've been inculcated or taught to think that politicians are above the law.

Cuchulain

08-04-2010, 03:18 PM

this case is getting more and more interesting...
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20100803/NEWS01/100803008/Rogers-War-leak-constitutes-treason

No doubt that REICHwing Congressman would also have demanded the death penalty for Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Pentagon Papers, which exposed US illegalities and helped end the Vietnam debacle.

"it's okay to commit crimes but NOT okay to expose them" Yep, that seems to be the way our Govt is heading. Of course, many among the powerful have always held that view.

Ben

08-05-2010, 02:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/user/AfghanWarDiary

NYBURBS

08-05-2010, 08:24 AM

No doubt that REICHwing Congressman would also have demanded the death penalty for Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Pentagon Papers, which exposed US illegalities and helped end the Vietnam debacle.

"it's okay to commit crimes but NOT okay to expose them" Yep, that seems to be the way our Govt is heading. Of course, many among the powerful have always held that view.

Yea, though it's not necessarily limited to the neo-cons, but they do wave that flag more than most. Troubling times indeed.

Ben

08-07-2010, 04:52 AM

Published on Thursday, August 5, 2010 by The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHANISTAN_WIKILEAKS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME) 'Insurance': WikiLeaks Posts Huge Encrypted File to Web

by Raphael G. Satter

LONDON -- Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website (http://wikileaks.org/), sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if authorities interfere with them.
http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/assange-wikileaks.jpgPENTAGON THREATENS WIKILEAKS -- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange holds up a copy of a newspaper during a press conference at the Frontline Club in central London, July 26, 2010. The Pentagon demanded on Thursday that whistle-blower web site WikiLeaks immediately hand over about 15,000 secret documents it had not yet released over the war in Afghanistan and erase material it had already put online.
Bloggers have noted that it's 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped onto the Web last month. Contributors to tech sites such as CNet have speculated that the file could be a way of threatening to disclose more information if WikiLeaks' staffers were detained or if the site was attacked, although the organization itself has kept mum. "As a matter of policy, we do not discuss security procedures," WikiLeaks said Thursday in an e-mail response to questions about the 1.4 gigabyte file.
Editor-in-chief Julian Assange was a bit more expansive - if equally cryptic - in his response to the same line of questioning in a television interview with independent U.S. news network Democracy Now!
"I think it's better that we don't comment on that," Assange said, according to the network's transcript of the interview. "But, you know, one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring that important parts of history do not disappear."
Assange, a former computer hacker, has expressed concern over his safety in the past, complaining of surveillance and telling interviewers that he's been warned away from visiting the United States.
Since the publication of the Afghanistan files, at least one activist associated with the site has been questioned by U.S. authorities. Programmer Jacob Appelbaum, who filled in for Assange at a conference last month, was reportedly detained and questioned about the site by officials after arriving in the U.S. on a flight from the Netherlands.
U.S. officials have had harsh words for Assange, with Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he and his colleagues had disclosed potentially life-threatening information and might already have blood on their hands.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has refused to rule out the possibility that Assange could be a target into the military's investigation into the leak.
Online:
Wikileaks Website: http://wikileaks.org/
Democracy Now! interview: http://bit.ly/cDw1LX

Ben

08-07-2010, 04:54 AM

YouTube- ‪'WikiLeaks prove Afghan pullout damn lucky for US'‬&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md644EQQAv4)

YouTube- ‪Julian Assange at TCIJ 1/7‬&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iksZG_1ZqNs&feature=related)

Rogers

08-07-2010, 04:15 PM

Darkness is the absence of light.

Light is the symbol of truth.

"The truth is found when men are free to pursue it." - F.D.R.

"Lights on. Rats out." - WikiLeaks.

loveburst

08-09-2010, 04:17 PM

It's good we have people who have their moral compasses in good shape, and are determined towards sharing the truth to the people.

It is actually quite ridiculous to say, it would be better in any case not to tell the truth about something to the public, since they are supposed to be the ones to elect others to run their countries basing their votes on their presumptions - as to what is going on..

..for there to be benefit to the whole mankind - these presumptions would need to be truthbased.

Ben

08-15-2010, 01:13 PM

Eric Margolis (http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/)

Punishing the WikiLeaker misses the point

By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI Agency
August 15, 2010

George Orwell wrote: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
A true journalist’s job is to expose government wrongdoing and propaganda, skewer hypocrites, and speak for those with no voice. And wage war against mankind’s two worst scourges: Nationalism and religious bigotry. Not to lick the boots of government.
I’ve always felt kinship for free thinkers, rebels, and heretics.
That’s why I am drawn to the plight of Pte. Bradley Manning who apparently believed Ernest Hemingway’s dictum: “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”
The 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst caused a worldwide furor by releasing to WikiLeaks secret military logs that exposed ugly truths about the brutal conflict in Afghanistan, including widespread killing of civilians.
To again quote Orwell: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
Manning also released a suppressed tape of a U.S. Army helicopter gunship killing two Reuters journalists and a civilian.
A civilian hacker, employed by some shadowy U.S. government intelligence “contractor” spying on the Internet turned Manning in.
Revenge was swift.
Manning was thrown into solitary confinement and faces a long prison term.
His case recalls another courageous whistleblower, Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, was kidnapped, served 17 years in solitary, and still remains a semi-prisoner.
WikiGate provoked a flood of bombastic pro-war propaganda from America’s mainstream (read: Government guided) media, its rent-a-journalists, and Canada’s wannabe Republican neocons.
Manning’s revelations were blamed on his being gay, a loner, or maladjusted.
The Soviets used to lock away such “anti-state elements” and dissenters in mental institutions.
The neocons tried to divert attention by trumpeting the plight of a wretched Afghan girl whose nose had been cut off by her backwards tribal in-laws.
She was turned into a pro-war martyr.
This crime was immediately blamed without evidence on Taliban and served up as the reason why the Western powers had to garrison Afghanistan.
No pictures of Afghans blown to bits or maimed by U.S. bombs were published. No mention of oil and gas.
Uncoincidentally, a few months ago, in response to Europe’s growing opposition to the Afghan War, the CIA reportedly advised NATO the best way to keep marketing the Afghan War to the public was claiming it was a crusade to protect women’s rights.
Inconveniently, the U.S. and Canada’s Afghan allies — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara — mistreat their women as badly as Taliban’s Pashtun.
When I served in the U.S. Army, we were taught it was our duty to report up the chain of command all violations of the Geneva Conventions and war crimes. These included killing civilians, torture, reprisals, and executions.
Manning reportedly sought to report to his superiors just such crimes committed in Afghanistan by some U.S. forces and their local allies and mercenaries.
He was ignored. Just as was the courageous Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin when he warned Ottawa that prisoners were being handed over to the brutal Afghan secret police for torture and execution.
Manning’s motivations for whistleblowing matter not. What does matter is he revealed to the public the brutal nature of the colonial war in Afghanistan and the bodyguard of lies protecting it from public scrutiny.
If Americans and Canadians really knew the truth of this resource-driven war, and its carefully concealed cost, they would end it very quickly.

Ben

08-15-2010, 01:17 PM

Published on Saturday, August 14, 2010 by Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/) WikiLeaks says It Won't be Threatened by Pentagon

by Keith Moore

STOCKHOLM — WikiLeaks will publish its remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents within a month, despite warnings from the U.S. government, the organization's founder said Saturday.
http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/assange_stockholm.jpg WikiLeaks will publish 15,000 documents from the Afghan war within weeks, Assange told reporters in Stockholm, saying "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material." although U.S. Pentagon says the information would be more damaging to security and risk more lives.
The Pentagon has said that secret information will be even more damaging to security and risk more lives than WikiLeaks' initial release of some 76,000 war documents."This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group," Assange told reporters in Stockholm. "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material."
In an interview with The Associated Press, he said that if U.S. defense officials want to be seen as promoting democracy then they "must protect what the United States' founders considered to be their central value, which is freedom of the press."
"For the Pentagon to be making threatening demands for censorship of a press organization is a cause for concern, not just for the press but for the Pentagon itself," the Australian added.
He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a "line-by-line review" of the 15,000 documents and that "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" would be redacted from the material.
"It should be approximately two weeks before that process is complete," Assange told AP. "There will then be a journalistic review, so you're talking two weeks to a month."
Wikileaks would be working with media partners in releasing the remaining documents, he said, but declined to name them.
The first files in WikiLeaks' "Afghan War Diary" laid bare classified military documents covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The release angered U.S. officials, energized critics of the NATO-led campaign, and drew the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors.
That has aroused the concern of several human rights group operating in Afghanistan and the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which has accused WikiLeaks of recklessness. Jean-Francois Julliard, the group's secretary-general, said Thursday that WikiLeaks showed "incredible irresponsibility" when posting the documents online.
WikiLeaks describes itself as a public service organization for whistleblowers, journalists and activists.
"There are no easy choices for our organization," Assange said. "We have a duty to the people most directly affected by this material, the people of Afghanistan and the course of this war which is killing hundreds every week. We have a duty to the broader historical record and its accuracy and its integrity. And we have a duty to our sources to try and protect them where we can."
Assange told the AP that while no country has taken steps to shut down WikiLeaks, some have been gathering intelligence on the organization.
"There has been extensive surveillance in Australia, there has been surveillance in the United Kingdom, there has been the detainment of one of our volunteers who entered the United States a week and a half ago. But he was released after four hours," Assange said. He didn't give details of that incident.
In addition to speaking at a seminar, Assange was in Sweden to investigate claims that the website was not covered by laws protecting anonymous sources in the Scandinavian country.
Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks passes information through Belgium and Sweden to take advantage of press freedom laws there. But some experts say the site doesn't have the publishing certificate needed for full protection in Sweden.
Assange said two Swedish publications had offered their publication certificates to WikiLeaks, "but we will soon be registering our own this week."
He declined to disclose what other countries house WikiLeaks' technical infrastructure.
© 2010 Associated Press

Ben

08-22-2010, 03:44 AM

There is now an active smear campaign against Julian Assange. (The arrest warrant was withdrawn.)

YouTube- WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Accused Of Rape & Molestation In Sweden! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOALmoK2fN8)

YouTube- Wiki Leak's Julian Assange - All Charges Dropped one day later!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3btHMQlbLw)

Ben

08-22-2010, 04:07 AM

Sweden withdraws warrant for WikiLeaks founder
By KARL RITTER (AP) – 10 hours ago
STOCKHOLM — Swedish prosecutors withdrew an arrest warrant for the founder of WikiLeaks on Saturday, saying less than a day after the document was issued that it was based on an unfounded accusation of rape.
The accusation had been labeled a dirty trick by Julian Assange and his group, who are preparing to release a fresh batch of classified U.S. documents from the Afghan war.
Swedish prosecutors had urged Assange — a nomadic 39-year-old Australian whose whereabouts were unclear — to turn himself in to police to face questioning in one case involving suspicions of rape and another based on an accusation of molestation.
"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, in announcing the withdrawal of the warrant. She did not address the status of the molestation case, a less serious charge that would not lead to an arrest warrant.
Prosecutors did not answer phone calls seeking further comment.
Assange had dismissed the rape allegations in a statement on WikiLeaks' Twitter page, saying "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing." His whereabouts were not immediately known.
He was in Sweden last week seeking legal protection for the whistle-blower website, which angered the Obama administration for publishing thousands of leaked documents about U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The first files in Wikileaks' "Afghan War Diary" revealed classified military documents covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. Assange said Wednesday that WikiLeaks plans to release a new batch of 15,000 documents from the Afghan war within weeks.
The Pentagon says the information could risk the lives of U.S. troops and their Afghan helpers and have demanded WikiLeaks return all leaked documents and remove them from the Internet.
Assange has no permanent address and travels frequently — jumping from one friend's place to the next. He disappears from public view for months at a time, only to reappear in the full glare of the cameras at packed news conferences to discuss his site's latest disclosure.
Assange declined to talk about his background at a news conference in Stockholm a week ago. Equally secretive is the small team behind WikiLeaks, reportedly just a half-dozen people and casual volunteers who offer their services as needed.
A WikiLeaks spokesman, who says he goes by the name Daniel Schmitt in order to protect his identity, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Iceland that the "extremely serious allegations" came as a complete surprise.
Apart from the comment from Assange, WikiLeaks' Twitter page had a link to an article in Swedish tabloid Expressen, which first reported the allegations.
"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks.' Now we have the first one," it said.
Assange was in Sweden last week partly to apply for a publishing certificate to make sure the website, which has servers in Sweden, can take full advantage of Swedish laws protecting whistle-blowers.
He also spoke at a seminar hosted by the Christian faction of the opposition Social Democratic party and announced he would write bimonthly columns for a left-wing Swedish newspaper.
Associated Press Writer Juergen Baetz in Berlin contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Ben

08-22-2010, 09:42 PM

A Moving World (http://amovingworld.blogspot.com/): BlogSpot...

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Why Did Swedish Prosecutors Break Their Own Policy in the Assange Case? (http://amovingworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-was-leak-on-wikileaks-conducted.html)

The "why" of the quickly-withdrawn 'case' against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seems clear enough--it has all the initial indicators of a fabricated attempt to defame him. But the "how" of this attempt is murky. Here's an admittedly rough translation of part of the Swedish Prosecution Authority FAQ (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.aklagare.se/&ei=qyNxTM72AoOC8gaS6LiuCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25C3%2585klagarmyndigheten%26hl%3Den %26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D3nV%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official)on their actions to date regarding Assange (Google translation edited for clarity):

Why was Julian Assange's name published?
Prosecutors do not normally publish the names of arrested persons, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority was not the source [cause] of Assange's name in this case. Assange's information reached - [B]in a way that the authority does not know - a news service. The prosecutor's office merely confirmed the information.If the above is true, why didn't the Authority simply issue a "no-comment / ongoing investigation" statement rather than confirming that Assange was indeed the subject of investigation? If it is indeed the Prosecution Authority's policy not to release identities, the act of confirming an identity and making it public is no less a violation of policy than announcing Assange's name outright.

And if the Prosecution Authority is being truthful that it did not leak Assange's name as part of a false smear effort, who did?

So far, the explanations offered by the Prosecution Authority do not even begin to explain an apparent failure to follow their own policies. All this, needless to say, doesn't even touch on the remarkable flimsiness of the case, which was withdrawn within hours of being issued.

Ben

08-22-2010, 09:51 PM

YouTube- Julian Assange slams sexual abuse charges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzaDtt5VGuw)

Amsterdamage

08-22-2010, 09:52 PM

i dont know...i'm having doubts about wikileaks...i think it's weird that in all these 90.000+ so called secret documents, there is not one single mention about the poppy fields and opium transport going on over there (conducted by the CIA in asociation with the pakistani secret service). i'm starting to suspect that this whole wikileaks-gate is a distraction to make us THINK we now know the 'leaked truth', whereas the most important stuff is left out. just a feeling. let's see where this whole affair leads to.

Ben

10-16-2010, 01:53 AM

YouTube - WikiLeaks Claims Funding Has Been Blocked And Is A Victim Of 'Financial Warfare' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkS1iw6TmzM)

Ben

11-28-2010, 12:05 AM

Official Washington Worries WikiLeak Will Reveal Inconsistent Approach to Terror

by John Nichols
Usually, when a WikiLeaks document dump is in the offering, US officials play like it could not possibly matter.
"More of the same," "nothing new," "just a repeat of what everyone was already aware of": these have been the standard lines.
But not this time. Washington is abuzz (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/pentagon-warns-house-senate-defense-panels-of-more-wikileaks-documents.html) with Holiday weekend talk about how officials at the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department are "holding their breath" in troubled anticipation of an imminent release of thousands of classified documents by the controversial website.
WikiLeaks is tweeting that officials in Washington are "hyperventilating again over fears of being held to account."
That's not hype. They really are worried this time.
Why so? Because this release of documents could pull back the curtain on how the United States practices international diplomacy.
To understand why this matters, consider two related realities:
1. Many, if not all, of the US officials who deal on the international stage tend to like secrecy, as it allows them to play by different rules when dealing with countries that are deemed "allies" or "rogues." In other words, despite the blunt official talk about how the "war of terror" is a universal endeavor, the United States sometimes casts a blind eye toward-or even works with-groups that are identified as practicing terrorism.
2. These powerful players often feel threatened by transparency, as it reveals when they are allow allied states to act like rogue states. This gets especially messy when "friendly" governments are allowed to get away with actions that the U.S. otherwise identifies as being so serious that might justify economic sanctions or even a military response.
Understand these facts and you will understand why official Washington is worried by this particular WikiLeak.
Reportedly, the next leak-which could come this weekend-will include "hundreds of thousands of classified State cables that detail private diplomatic discussions with other governments, potentially compromising discussions with dissidents, and even, reportedly, corruption allegations against foreign governments."
Among other things, international press accounts (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=196752) suggest, the new WikiLeak will include a military report revealing that the US officials were aware that the Turkish government allowed its citizens to aid Al Qaeda in Iraq. An additional document will, according to London's Al-Hayat newspaper (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=196752), reveal that the U.S. aided Kurdish separatist rebels whose group, the PKK, is listed by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.
Turkey is a complex country located at a critical crossroads for the United States. It is no secret that U.S. officials have always applied different sets of rules when dealing with it.
The problem is that the public revelation of the differences between US treatment of Turkey and, say, Iran, could be more than embarrassing. It could call into question whether US officials are consistent in their condemnation of terrorism and of countries that condone terrorism.
Of course, that's not what State Department officials are saying publicly.
They're talking about protecting diplomatic secrecy.
"When this confidence is betrayed and ends up on the front pages of newspapers or lead stories on television and radio it has an impact," says spokesperson P.J. Crowley. "We decry what has happened. These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests. They are going to create tension in our relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world. We wish that this would not happen. But we are, obviously, prepared for the possibility that it will."
What should US citizens make of such revelations?
Don't expect an outcry. Americans will not be shocked to learn that their government is inconsistent in its relations with other countries.
We don't yet know what exactly this WikiLeak will reveal.
But these sorts of revelations, which so unsettle official Washington, could well improve the domestic debate.
No one wants to see the world become a more dangerous place; nor is there anyone who wants to play fast and loose with the safety of US troops, diplomats or innocents abroad
With those provisions, however, a case can certainly be made that transparency brings nuance to the discussion of how the United States engages with other countries, and to debates about the standards that are applied with regard to supposedly "terrorist" activity and supposedly "terrorist" groups.
A broader consciousness of these realities could make it tougher for the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department to suggest that the United States faces only black-and-white choices, that this country's only options are absolutes, and that America cannot possibly negotiate with countries or groups that engage in actions that the US offically condemns.
In other words, this WikiLeak might just make it harder for officials in Washington to "sell" hardline responses, covert actions and military interventions.
Washington insiders might be bothered by that prospect. (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130733-administration-braces-for-massive-wikileaks-dump-that-includes-damaging-cables)
But the citizens of the United States can handle diplomatic reality-and transparency.
© 2010 The Nation
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.

Ben

01-16-2011, 10:45 PM

Teresa Scanlan wins Miss America 2011; Miss Nebraska slams WikiLeaks during … – New York Daily News

Teresa Scanlan wins Miss America 2011; Miss Nebraska slams WikiLeaks during … – New York Daily News
BY Soraya Roberts

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, January 16th 2011, 11:37 AM

Miss America 2011

Becoming the first Cornhusker State resident to win the crown, Scanlan beat out 52 other beauty queens to win a $ 50,000 scholarship at the Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas on Saturday night.

Scanlan won over the seven judges after strutting down the stage in a black bikini and playing “White Water Chopped Sticks” at the piano.
The blond teen told the Associated Press she plans to register to vote when she turns 18 next month and will defer her enrollment at Virginia’s Patrick Henry College to complete her reign.
She then plans to go to law school and eventually become a politician and “stand up for what’s right, stand up for integrity and honesty.
“At this point, attorneys and politicians are looked down on and have terrible reputations for being greedy and power hungry and I really think it’s important for people who have their heart and mind in the right place get into those powerful positions,” she told the AP.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/01/17/alg_miss_america-split.jpg
Teresa Scanlan shows off her wares during the Miss America pageant. (AP)

On Saturday night, she spoke out about national security in response to a question about the WikiLeaks scandal.
“You know when it came to that situation, it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation, we have to focus on security first and then people’s right to know, because it’s so important that everybody who’s in our borders is safe and so we can’t let things like that happen, and they must be handled properly,” she said.
Scanlan, whose platform issue was eating disorders, said she “never passed up a cookie” while traveling to the pageant.
She is reportedly the youngest Miss America to win since the 90-year-old pageant put in age limits in 1938 (though in 1921, its first year, the pageant crowned 15-year-old Margaret Gorman from District of Columbia queen).
“From 17 to 24, that can be a huge age range,” Scanlan told the AP. “But with these girls, they are all at the highest level imaginable.”
Among them was Miss Arkansas Alyse Eady, who as first runner-up won $ 25,000. Miss Hawaii Jalee Fuselier came in third place and won $ 20,000.
With News Wire Services

Ben

01-21-2011, 04:10 AM

Wikileaks are now going after the banks:

YouTube - Johann Hari attacks tax-dodgers - and calls for their exposure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKhxCNkWOw)

Ben

01-21-2011, 04:12 AM

You pay your taxes, or go to prison. Unless you are super-rich, or a corporation... (http://www.johannhari.com/2011/01/17/you-pay-your-taxes-or-go-to-prison-unless-you-are-super-rich-or-a-corporation)

by Johann Hari
Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist who writes twice-weekly for the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/), one of Britain's leading newspapers.

Imagine that tomorrow you cancelled all your tax payments, and when a bill came from the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, you told them they could have ten percent of what’s due, or nothing. Try haggling. Try telling them you think it’s unfair to tax you because you made it all yourself. Try telling them that you “really” live in a Caribbean island, or Switzerland, or Jersey, and give them an address over there. Try pointing to some obscure loophole you found in the tax code and say it means you owe nothing. See what they say, and remember to send me a nice postcard from your prison cell.
Yet for the people who can most afford to pay their taxes – the super-rich, and massive corporations – this is how Britain works. While we struggle, they are skipping free of paying their share, or any share, of keeping our country running. The notorious billionaire tax fraudster Leona Helmsley said that “taxes are for the little people.” It could be the motto for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs today. It was loose enough under New Labour, but under the Conservatives the few polite coughs and queries directed at the rich are being abolished – and it is you who picks up the bill. The less they pay, the more you pay.
Nearly a third of the richest 700 companies in Britain pay no tax whatsoever. That’s zero. Here’s an example of how it works. For years now, Vodafone has been refusing to pay its taxes, and offering reams of accountancy excuses. Private Eye, based on interviews with people within the Inland Revenue, has calculated they owed in excess of £6bn. But when the Tories came to power, they simply cancelled almost all of the bill. George Osborne then immediately went to India to promote Vodafone, and appointed its head as an official advisor on how we should handle corporation tax. Not long after, Osborne announced £7bn in cuts for the poor – all of which would have been unnecessary if he had got this one company run by his chum to pay its bill.
Similarly, extremely wealthy individuals usually pay nothing. Let’s look at another example of somebody David Cameron thought was doing it so right he appointed him to an official role advising the government: Sir Philip Greene, Britain’s sixth richest man. He runs BHS, TopShop, and Miss Selfridge. These businesses exist on our streets. You can see them every day. Yet for tax purposes, they are “registered” in a small building next to a dentist in Jersey, and with Greene’s wife in Monaco. So he avoids more than £250m a year that you and I have to pay instead. It adds up pretty quickly. Tax Research UK puts the figure from tax evasion and avoidance at £95bn a year – the bill for most of the cuts and tax increases by the government. None of it would have to happen if the rich paid their legal share.
Of course, they argue that they owe nothing to the British people: I made this money, so I’m keeping it. It’s absolutely true they put in a lot of effort and skill and deserve a big share of the rewards. But did they do it entirely alone? Think about Greene again. Imagine if the police didn’t turn up when there was a theft from his shops, and the fire brigade didn’t turn up when they caught fire. Imagine if the bin-men didn’t collect the rubbish at the back. Imagine if the roads that deliver the goods weren’t paved and maintained. Imagine if the staff who worked in his shops couldn’t read or count because they had never been given an education, and simply died when they got sick. All these services are provided by the taxes you and I pay. Greene depends on our services to make his money, but he doesn’t want to contribute a penny towards them, and the government applauds him. There’s a term for that: parasitism.
In public, the government insists, as Nick Clegg puts it: “We will crack down on the super-rich who hide away money overseas.” But the reality is the exact opposite. These people are now being asked to pay even less by the new government.
The Financial Times put it plainly on its front page after the Conservatives won: “Tax office to soften stance on tax avoidance.” In the story, Dave Hartnett, head of tax at the Inland Revenue, apologized to the rich for being “too black and white about the law.” Osborne is sacking great swathes of the tax inspectors who monitor the rich – even though they make their wages back many times over. A senior tax inspector costs us £50,000 a year, and brings in £1.5m. A lower-level tax inspector costs is £25,000 a year, and brings in £300,000. It is ten times more profitable for us to set these inspectors on the wealthy than on benefit fraudsters. But Osborne is firing 25 percent of them, meaning you will have to pay more.
Their actions again and again let the rich off from contributing anything towards the society they live in. The Cayman Islands have been demanding a bailout from the British government since the crash, and the last government – in a rare moment of spine – said they would have to stop being a tax haven and hand over crucial information if they wanted it. It was a golden opportunity to catch some of Britain’s worst tax-dodgers. As soon as he came to power, Cameron cancelled it and gave the money to the Caymans without conditions. Similarly, they just cut a deal with Switzerland that lets £40bn of due tax leech away to secret accounts in what Richard Murphy, the head of Tax Research, calls “a total tax amnesty for UK tax evaders who have used Switzerland.”
Why would the government do this? There are several reasons. The first is that they personally benefit from it. For example, Osborne’s family wealth is held in an off-shore trust so he will pay no taxes when he inherits his unearned millions. The second is that they are funded by people who benefit from it even more. The Tory election campaign was largely paid for from a tax haven in Belize, courtesy of Lord Ashcroft. Osborne’s personal office as shadow chancellor was given large sums by hedge fund managers based in the Cayman Islands. As Robert Peston, the BBC’s Business editor, puts it: “Hedge funds and investment managers are a very important source of finance for the Tories.” And partly, it is ideological: these are Thatcher’s children, who believe in an overclass of rich people with no responsiblities to the rest.
None of this has to happen. Many governments across the world have found ways to stop the rich ripping off the tax-payer. Some countries have signed a General Anti-Avoidance Principle into the law, stating that the taxman can bust anything that blatantly breaches the spirit of the tax laws, so you can’t hide behind extremely technical loopholes. The US requires you to pay taxes to the American state wherever you live in the world: if you want to stop, you have to renounce your citizenship. It kills the concept of the tax exile overnight. It says: if you don’t want to pay the membership fee to live in a civilized society, you can’t be in the club. Have fun in Dubai!
If you have the political will, these havens can be closed fast. A few days after 9/11, every single one had been forced to shut al Qaeda related accounts. When Monaco refused to release tax details to France in the 1950s, Charles De Gaulle surrounded it with tanks and cut off their water supply until they relented.
Yet we are moving in the opposite direction, while our government offers a deceitful covering chorus of “we’re all in this together.” You pay the bill for their failure. They will try to stop you from noticing by smearing anybody who explains this situation as some kind of Trotskyite class warrior. When they do, remember the words of billionaire Warren Buffet: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war. And we’re winning.”

Ben

09-28-2011, 04:29 AM

Why Wikileaks is good! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ5exLTZBXU)

Ben

11-02-2011, 10:13 PM

Julian Assange to be extradited [CNN 11-02-2011] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aouXFZVnfAs)

Ben

11-27-2011, 03:58 PM

WikiLeaks wins major journalism award in Australia (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/27/wikileaks_wins_major_journalism_award_in_australia/singleton)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)

The Walkley Awards are the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzers: that nation’s most prestigious award for excellence in journalism. Last night, the Walkley Foundation awarded (http://www.walkleys.com/news/5131/) its highest distinction — for “Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism” — to WikiLeaks, whose leader, Julian Assange, is an Australian citizen. The panel cited (http://www.walkleys.com/2011winners#most-outstanding-contribution-to-journalism) the group’s “courageous and controversial commitment to the finest traditions of journalism: justice through transparency,” and hailed it for having “applied new technology to penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup.” As I’ve noted before, WikiLeaks easily produced more newsworthy scoops over the last year (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/) than every other media outlet combined, and the Foundation noted: “so many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime.” In sum: “by designing and constructing a means to encourage whistleblowers, WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief Julian Assange took a brave, determined and independent stand for freedom of speech and transparency that has empowered people all over the world.”
What makes this award so notable is that the United States — for exactly the same reasons that the Foundation cited in honoring WikiLeaks’ journalism achievements — has spent the last year trying to criminalize and destroy the group, with some success (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/24/wikileaks-suspends-publishing). Showing the true colors of America’s political class, U.S. politicians like Dianne Feinstein plotted to prosecute (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html) WikiLeaks for its journalism and Joe Lieberman thuggishly demanded (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/02/lieberman_55/) that private corporations cut off all funds to the group (most of which complied), while others, like Newt Gingrich (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/5454-gingrich-calls-assange-an-qenemy-combatantq) and Sarah Palin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8171269/Sarah-Palin-hunt-WikiLeaks-founder-like-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-leaders.html), branded them Enemy Combatants and called for them to be treated lik Terrorists. Meanwhile, the Obama administration — while parading around the world as defenders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/24/wikileaks-suspends-publishing) of Internet freedom and a free press — harassed its supporters with laptop (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/05/supporter_of_wi.html) seizures (http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/laptops/) at airports and Twitter subpoenas (http://owni.eu/2011/11/22/us-ruling-sets-troubling-precedent-for-social-media-privacy/#wikileaks). Recall that the Pentagon, all the way back in a top secret 2008 report (http://wlstorage.net/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf), declared WikiLeaks — which also received (http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/06/wikileaks_receives_amnesty_international.php) the 2009 award from Amnesty International for excellence in New Media — an enemy of the state (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html) and plotted how to destroy it (http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/singleton/).
It is telling indeed that the U.S. — with the backing of its subservient (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-acts-illegal-gillard-government/story-fn775xjq-1225968584365) allied governments (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1434991/gillard-red-faced-after-calling-wikileaks-illegal) — has devoted itself to the destruction of the world’s most effective journalistic outlet. It is equally telling that the Obama administration has subjected the accused WikiLeaks leaker, Bradley Manning — who is accused of (more accurately: credited with) having exposed endless amounts of illegality and corruption (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/) – to pre-trial detention conditions so harsh and inhumane that its own State Department spokesman vehemently denounced that treatment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/pj-crowley-bradley-manning-treatment-_n_834611.html) and ultimately resigned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/pj-crowley-resigns-after-bradley-manning-comments/2011/03/13/AB1CvgT_blog.html) over it. As I argued (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/) last weekend in the UC-Davis pepper-spraying context, the U.S. loves to flamboyantly offer rights . . . provided they are not effectively exercised to challenge those in power; as soon as they are, the exercise rights of those rights is severely punished rather than protected.
That is exactly what has been done to WikiLeaks by the U.S. Government — serious threats and punishment meted out to this group for the crime of adversarial journalistic exposure of government wrongdoing (in contrast to the large media outlets that typically serve the Government’s interests) — and the awarding of this prestigious journalism award in Australia makes that even more vividly clear. Equally telling is that while Australian journalists have vocally defended (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/14/australian-journalists-support-wikileaks/) WikiLeaks for engaging in pure journalism, the American actors who play the role of journalists on TV in the U.S. have almost unanimously scorned and denounced (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/28/cnnn/) WikiLeaks for the greatest sin in their eyes: undermining, exposing and defying political authorities. In sum, China revealingly imprisons (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39569947/ns/world_news-europe/t/obama-china-free-nobel-winning-dissident/) the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize winner while the U.S. Government works to destroy the group that has uniquely displayed “courageous and controversial commitment to the finest traditions of journalism: justice through transparency.”

russtafa

11-27-2011, 11:33 PM

Ben i don't understand how you can say completely unfounded rape allegation until he is tried in a court of law and if he has committed these rapes he must be locked up

Ben

11-28-2011, 08:48 PM

Ben i don't understand how you can say completely unfounded rape allegation until he is tried in a court of law and if he has committed these rapes he must be locked up

Julian Assange hasn't been charged with anything. He's wanted for questioning. Even Wikileaks hasn't been charged with anything.
And, yes!, if he did commit rape and is found guilty in a court of law [not the court of public opinion] I want him thrown in a cage for a very long time. But, again, at present, he hasn't even been charged. Which is odd. I mean, why haven't they even charged him? Why is he under house arrest when NO charges have been brought against him?
I mean, charge him with rape. What are they waiting for???
To treat Assange in such a manner is quite despicable. As, once again, no charges have been brought against him -- or even wikileaks. I mean, why don't they charge wikileaks????
They whole thing is odd. Not entirely sure what the U.S and British -- and Swedish -- governments are playing at.

runningdownthatdream

11-28-2011, 09:50 PM

Julian Assange hasn't been charged with anything. He's wanted for questioning. Even Wikileaks hasn't been charged with anything.
And, yes!, if he did commit rape and is found guilty in a court of law [not the court of public opinion] I want him thrown in a cage for a very long time. But, again, at present, he hasn't even been charged. Which is odd. I mean, why haven't they even charged him? Why is he under house arrest when NO charges have been brought against him?
I mean, charge him with rape. What are they waiting for???
To treat Assange in such a manner is quite despicable. As, once again, no charges have been brought against him -- or even wikileaks. I mean, why don't they charge wikileaks????
They whole thing is odd. Not entirely sure what the U.S and British -- and Swedish -- governments are playing at.

It's not so odd that he hasn't been charged based on how the Swedish system works.

Incidentally their criteria for rape would make the majority of men and women I know to be rapists....i.e.: if a man said he was a doctor and had sex with a woman and it turned out he had a doctorate in quilting instead of medicine, said woman could charge him with rape because he used false pretenses to get her in the sack. Apparently the charge by one of the women is that Assange abused his power over her (based on his popularity) to convince her to sleep with him. She willingly did so but afterwards felt 'violated'! I wonder how many people over here roll over in the mornings without the beer goggles on and have regrets!? Here, you'd make an excuse and head for the door, apparently in Sweden you can accuse the other person of rape!

hippifried

11-29-2011, 12:35 AM

I thought the rape charge was because the rubber broke. If memory serves, they were her rubbers. I haven't seem nuch about this for a while, but the story I got was that she went on a stalking trip to find & meet the dude. She seduced him (of course he's a guy so it doesn't take much), Invited him to her place in another town, paid for his round trip ticket, & fucked him at least 3 times that she admitted to. But the rubber broke. The mainstream press hasn't said whether it broke in her pussy or her ass. I wonder if Sweden has tried to extradite the CEO of the Trojan co or maybe KY...

Of course he hasn't been charged with anything.

Stavros

11-29-2011, 07:28 AM

Julian Assange hasn't been charged with anything. He's wanted for questioning. Even Wikileaks hasn't been charged with anything.
And, yes!, if he did commit rape and is found guilty in a court of law [not the court of public opinion] I want him thrown in a cage for a very long time. But, again, at present, he hasn't even been charged. Which is odd. I mean, why haven't they even charged him? Why is he under house arrest when NO charges have been brought against him?
I mean, charge him with rape. What are they waiting for???
To treat Assange in such a manner is quite despicable. As, once again, no charges have been brought against him -- or even wikileaks. I mean, why don't they charge wikileaks????
They whole thing is odd. Not entirely sure what the U.S and British -- and Swedish -- governments are playing at.

Ben, the situation is quite simple -Assange was in the UK when the allegations were made and Sweden applied for an extradition order which was granted by a UK court -various appeals mean that Assange's final judgement should be before our Supreme Court possibly before Christmas -the Supreme Court was set up the last Labour govt to replace the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Assange's problem was that when asked to give an address, he gave a post office box number in London, which is not acceptable to the Court. The only other address he could give was his mother's house in Australia, because he has been a wanderer with no permanent address, which is why he was refused bail. Subsequently he was released from prison when a friend applied to the court for bail on the basis he live at her address in Suffolk.

Ben

01-07-2012, 10:18 PM

Julian Assange says Facebook is the most appalling spying machine that's ever been invented - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5sVZgE8Gzg)

CIA Admits to Monitoring Twitter and Facebook - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1sv96BS1zg)

Ben

06-01-2012, 03:03 AM

A reminder about WikiLeaks

As the risk intensifies that Assange may be prosecuted for his journalism, it is vital to remember what's at stake

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/31/a_reminder_about_wikileaks/singleton/

Ben

06-20-2012, 03:26 AM

Wikileaks' Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

Ben

07-06-2012, 06:49 AM

WikiLeaks unveils Syria Files - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeDYLW8noTg)

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/

Stavros

08-17-2012, 02:01 AM

Most of you will have read that Assange walked into the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London to claim and then receive political asylum. It has raised some interesting issues of international diplomatic law. I wonder though if Britain were to make it clear that it was going to take action Ecuador might wonder how important Assange is, and whether or not he is worth the risk. However, the President, Rafael Correa who seems to be part of the anti-American bloc one associates with Hugo Chavez, seems to relish the prospect of a conflict with Britain -Ecuador has backed Argentina's claims to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas (see the link below), so oddly enough Assange could find himself being used as a political football -whichever way you look at it, I wonder just how important he is. Had he died of a heart attack last year, would Wikileaks have survived? Apparently he has few backers in Sweden, which may be why he is afraid of going there to face the allegations of rape.

For some Ecuador might be yet another example of the 'Resource curse' that accompanies petroleum development. Oil development has empowered the institutions f the state at the expense of the people, notably those in the interior, notwithstanding Ecuador's legal battles with Texaco and Chevron. The third largest producer in the Southern Cone, most of its exports go to China, which has invested heavily in the country. A link to the profile of Ecuador's oil economy follows the Assange link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/ecuadoreans-correa-julian-assange-asylum

http://www.eia.gov/cabs/Ecuador/Full.html

Ben

08-19-2012, 04:55 AM

Ecuador Asylum: Victory for Assange, loss for US? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMrR-RUP1E&feature=plcp)

Ben

08-22-2012, 05:11 AM

'Assange Stalemate: Can't stay, can't go' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNuz0PNdKak&feature=plcp)

hippifried

08-22-2012, 08:08 PM

The Brts aren't going to invade the Ecuadoran embassy. That would be an act of war. Why? To retieve someone who's been granted political assylum? Another foreigner no less. So he can be extradited to another country over charges for which he has not been indicted? So that country #2 can extradite him to country #3 to face other charges for which he hasn't been indicted? This whole thing is bogus.

Stavros

08-23-2012, 02:47 AM

In fact, a clause in the 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Act does give the British Government the right to enter Embassy and Consular premises if it believes that said premises are not being used for the purposes they are there for under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the agreement that governs Embassies and Consulates. The 1987 Act was introduced after the Policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead during an anti-Qadhafi demonstration in St James's Square where the Libyan People's Bureau was based at the time. It was claimed the shot was fired from within the Embassy; in the subsequent siege the Govt of Margaret Thatcher reached an agreement with Qadhafi to evacuate the embassy, but the sight of the staff walking out one by one to get on a bus that took them to the airport and home, caused an enormous amount of outrage here (even though it has since been claimed the gunman left by the back door not long after firing the shot). The obvious problem is that the 1987 Act conflicts with the 1961 Agreement, and it didn't help that the British Foreign Office -or rather, William Hague [against the advice of his civil servants] blasted the Ecuadorians with the threat of entry instead of approaching it diplomatically.

It seems to me that by delivering a political speech critical of the British, Swedish and US Governments from the Balcony of the Embassy, Assange was allowed to use Embassy premises for something the Embassy is not there for. Is someone from Ecuador allowed to stand at the same balcony and call for the abolition of the Royal Family? Suppose that Embassy or any other, opened its windows and began throwing out counterfeit money -daft examples, but what happens if an Embassy is used for something other than its purpose?

I don't know what is happening, but I assume the feeling is that eventually Assange will get bored -but will he try and make a run for it?

hippifried

08-23-2012, 10:45 PM

What if?????
What a bunch of bullshit!

Ecuador hasn't done anything to warrant such rude behavior toward them. Granting political assylum to someone whom they perceive as needing it is a legitimate function of the embassy. We do it all the time. So do the Brits & the Swedes. What? Suddenly the rules change because they're interfering with plans to screw Assange? All anybody has on him is a broken rubber. Is there an actual indictment on him from Sweden, or is this all just a ruse to get him turned over to the US? There's no indictment here either. What law got broken by releasing those emails or anything else that was sent to him unsolicited?

Stavros

08-24-2012, 01:49 AM

I think you do understand the situation, Hippifried -Assange arrived in the UK and was then asked by Sweden to extradite him to face charges -I have no idea if there is any substance in them, but the UK police arrested Assange and granted him bail pending a decision-when they decided to extradite him he decamped to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I can see there is a suggestion of harassment, because Assange is viewed as a reckless pest for publishing leaked documents. Whatever, the fact is that the UK has extradited people directly to the US, I think it is 99 since 2004, seven since the start of 2012. Fewer extraditions happen the other way. The key point as has been made before, is that if Assange is innocent, then what is the problem in him going to Sweden? As for Ecuador, I find it hard to think anyone would depict it as a haven of freedom and democracy, and allowing someone to make political speeches from a balcony window would not be tolerated in Washington DC, would it?

hippifried

08-24-2012, 07:29 AM

...allowing someone to make political speeches from a balcony window would not be tolerated in Washington DC, would it?

Huh? What would make you think that? What could they possibly do about someone speaking from what is essentially a foreign nation? I didn't see the speech. Who was the audience? Just anybody on the street, or was the press invited for a statement? Until he got off of Btitish soil, he couldn't really say anything.

All this has gotten totally out of hand. If Sweden is willing to entertain this bogus rape charge, then there's no reason to go back. If the Brits are willing to entertain the bogus charges, in order to keep the vengeance chain going, then he doesn't owe them anything either. Maybe a bank in Ecuador will allow his donations to start coming back in. Say what you want about Ecuador, but they're not part of this muoltinational persecution being carried out by the so called bastions of liberty.. Where was all this outrage when the global warming emails were released by a third party? Oh that's right. Those folks didn't have the wherewithal to bring the ower of NATO down on the leakers.

Stavros

08-24-2012, 07:59 AM

Hippifried, you may or may not know that 'errant Embassies' have form in London -during the Great People's Cultural Revolution in China in 1966 there were at one time scuffles between the police and Embassy staff on Portland Place (opposite the HQ of the BBC) who deliberately flouted diplomatic convention by standing on the steps of the Embassy or at the back entrance -which technically was not China- waving the Red Book, chanting slogans, and being filmed thus proving to the revolutionaries back home that they were in the vanguard of the movement abroad.

In 1979 members of the 'Democratic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Arabistan' stormed the Iranian Embassy and remained there for six days before the SAS entered it, killing all but one of the 'Front' (he is in prison) -its never been clear to me who these people were and whether or not they were an Iranian or an Iraqi front outfit.

In 1984 a former Nigerian Minister, Umaru Dikko, who had fled to the UK in 1983 when the government of Shehu Shagari was overthrown by the military, was kidnapped by Nigerians working for the new government. They picked him up on the street and, with the help of the Mossad, Dikku was drugged, and taken into the Nigerian Embassy. He was then put in a 'diplomatic crate' which was taken to Heathrow Airport before the police were tipped off and he was rescued.

And I do think that if Embassies in Washington DC opened their windows to broadcast political messages it would at least be seen as a breach of protocol.

I am not opposed to Freedom of Information, and Ecuador in 2004 did pass a transparency law, something that does not exist in most other South American countries, but it has not been translated into the 'forest languages' so that people living in the Amazon Basin don't know what their rights are unless someone else tells them. I don't suppose any system is perfect.

I have no idea if the allegations made against Assange in Sweden are likely to stand up in court. Assange is not bigger than the 'message', had he died of a heart attack last year Wikileaks would probably still be there.

broncofan

08-24-2012, 11:52 PM

I believe it is a stretch to say that Assange has violated the Espionage Act given his status as a Journalist and the fact that he was not the primary source of the information.

Ben

08-25-2012, 05:22 AM

I believe it is a stretch to say that Assange has violated the Espionage Act given his status as a Journalist and the fact that he was not the primary source of the information.

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange

hippifried

08-25-2012, 06:28 AM

I really have no interest in cherry-picked history lessons, attempting to justify the beligerant stance taken toward the nation of Ecuador. None of the examples even remotely resemble what's happening in this case. There's no excuse for violating international law & treaties that have been signed. It would be a breach of trust, & there'd be no reason for anyone to maintain an embassy or even diplomatic relations with the UK.

Stavros

08-25-2012, 11:15 AM

I wasn't 'cherry picking' events from history but drawing attention to the examples of recent history where Embassies have caused significant problems for the police and the diplomatic service in London. There is no 'belligerent' stance toward Ecuador -the UK has not declared war on it; there is a real sense of frustration, even embarrassment with the inability to arrest Assange, who has violated the terms of his bail, and and as I have shown, though it may contradict the 1961 protocol, the UK does have a legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy, that you don't like it is irrelevant. There have been several instances in the past when officials at the USSR Embassy were 'sent home' for activities 'incommensurate with their diplomatic status', usually when a spy had been caught and there were tit-for-tat expulsions, it didn't irreperably damage UK-USSR relations. Most recently, in 2007, four Russian diplomats were expelled from the Russian Embassy in London when the government in Moscow refused to extradite Andrei Lugavoi who is wanted for questioning in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, but even that case has not ruined UK-Russian relations.

Those who put up some of the money for Assange's bail are now liable, but I don't know if those who did cough up expected that Assange would decide that anyway the law doesn't apply to him and he will do whatever he wants not to face the music. The Courts were not obliged to grant him bail, and his assumption that the rule of law will not apply to him -and in fact, should not apply to him- either in the UK or in Sweden -or for that matter, the USA is a simple case of arrogance and frankly indefensible. Daniel Ellsberg, who freely admitted photocopying secret documents when he was employed at the Rand Corporation, did not 'run away' to Canada or Peru he stayed, gave himself up and was put on trial in California and although, arguably, the documents on military strategy in Vietnam were more explosive than what has so far emerged from the Wikileaks trove, the case against him was dismissed. The New York TImes, who published the papers, also eventually was exonerated by the Supreme Court. In comparison to Ellsberg, Assange is a vain prima donna convinced of his own supreme importance.

broncofan

08-25-2012, 03:16 PM

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange
Good article Ben. I agree that the fact that he is not American and was not in the U.S seems significant. I had written a long post on whether there should be jurisdictional issues; whether a U.S court should be able to try a foreign national who purportedly broke a domestic law while outside of U.S territories, but the truth is jurisdiction is a tricky thing and I'm not sure whether we would have it. It certainly seems unreasonable to be able to prosecute someone who did not in any way avail himself of the benefits of citizenship, was not in our sovereign territory, but is still subject to our penal law.

At the very least, the First Amendment should provide protection for someone publishing such information; if not in procuring the information, deciding it is newsworthy and publishing it.

As you said, Manning did break the law, and though I am not sympathetic to the entire enterprise, there should be a limit to the vigor with which journalists who decide to publish such information are threatened with the full force of our espionage and sedition acts.

hippifried

08-26-2012, 02:54 AM

Prospero

08-26-2012, 12:09 PM

Tell me all you Assange supporters how this can be justified as freedom of speech?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/28/iraq-jews-in-baghdad-live-in-fear_n_1115965.html

The coward should break cover and face the allegations of sex crimes. Maybe then we could begin to take him a bit more seriously.

Stavros

08-28-2012, 02:02 PM

Again, Stavros: Your examples don't fit the current scenario in the least little bit. You just seem to be grasping at straws, looking for excuses to justify the belligerent stance of the UK. & what? You don't consider a threat to invade the Ecuadoran embassy by force (an act of war) a belligerence?

The people who donated money for bail did just that. It's a donation, not a loan. You don't expect repayment on a donation. They have no liability in this.

The nation of Ecuador... Oh excuse me: The independent nation of Ecuador, who isn't part of the commonwealth & doesn't owe any ass kissing to the UK, granted political assylum to Assange because he was/is the target of a multi-national political persecution. Treaties take precident in "the rule of law" that's getting all this lip service. The UK being one of the persecuters doen't negate the protocol. Neither does the feelings & frustrations of bureaucrats.

What else ya got?

Well, once again, the British government is more sensitive to the 'abuse' of Embassies than some other governments -a policewoman was after all shot dead from the Libyan People's Bureau in London, that is hardly a minor incident. Treaties do not take precedence to Acts of Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign -Parliament can, in fact, ignore directives from the European Union, and as it has given itself the legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in an extreme situation, the violation of protocol, though regretable, would not be the key issue: if for example, British visitors to the Embassy were being murdered one by one, do you think the government would do nothing? Isn't there a precedent for this (without the law of intervention) when the SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy in 1979?

Given how protocol -rather than law- governs much of diplomatic relations, I think it matters that the threatening (not belligerent) message sent to the Ecuadorian government was sent against the advice of Foreign Office civil servants, and I believe Hague does privately regret sending it.

I don't have a problem with Ecuador, the issue is the arrogance of Julian Assange issuing instructions to the governments of the UK and the USA while refusing to comply with the terms of his bail, and refusing to travel to Sweden to answer in person allegations of lawbreaking of which he insists he is innocent.

Ben

11-24-2012, 06:28 PM

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The US and allied governments exploit both law and cyber-attacks as a weapon to punish groups that challenge it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/anonymous-trial-wikileaks-internet-freedom

Ben

02-11-2013, 12:19 AM

Bill Maher interviews Assange:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-urges-lea

fivekatz

02-11-2013, 08:01 AM

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assangeIn part because Richard Nixon was more "liberal" than Barack Obama and certainly within the US the politics of the time in Ellsburg case made revealing state secrets regarding Vietnam a public service and post 9/11 the American people are willing to forego much of the Bill of Rights and first Bush and now Obama know it and govern their actions accordingly. Sadly perhaps, since John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act to the Patriot Act the one constant is the Bill of Rights is a very fluid document in face of fear. It matters little that WikiLeaks source is off shore it has if anything made life a little better for the leaker.

Stavros

06-09-2013, 12:36 PM

For anyone interested, Ecuador's Ambassador to the UK has been recalled, partly, or manly because she has not been able to reach a conclusion to get Assange out of the Embassy in London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ios-exclusive-someones-leaving-ecuadors-embassy-but-its-not-julian-assange-8650773.html

Ben

06-09-2013, 08:45 PM

The source behind the Guardian's NSA files talks to Glenn Greenwald about his motives for the biggest intelligence leak in a generation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

Stavros

08-12-2015, 09:36 AM

For anyone interested in this story,
The statute of limitations on allegations of unlawful coercion and one count of sexual molestation, made against Assange by two Swedish women, expires on Thursday, and on one count of sexual molestation next Tuesday.

Attempts have been made on all sides to bring this matter to a conclusion, Assange has been in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London now for three years at a cost in policing of around £10 million. Full story is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-assange-case-progress-sweden-ecuador-negotiations-wikileaks

yodajazz

08-15-2015, 09:27 AM

I read a very interesting, Iraq war story, which was backed up by video footage released from WikiLeaks. In was from a soldier, who was on the ground, as a follow-up to an incident in which several people were killed, when remote surveillance, mistook a camera and a mic, for weapons. The two reporters were friendly to the US side. They just wanted to interview people on the street. So as well as the two reporters, the three men they were interviewed were hit. Then a man driving a van which included two of his children, was hit with heavy fire, killing him and his 9 year old son. The thought from surveillance, was that this was someone who was assisting enemy fighters, but they were not. Stuff like, specific incidents of killing innocent Iraqis, is hidden from the general public. The soldier, who had the 9 year old die in his arms, was telling the story only to small groups. however the WikiLeaks video made his story very real. Not only is war about the dead. In the video footage, you could make a a little girl who was sitting in the passenger seat window, before the van was hit. She has to live with seeing her father and brother killed. We Americans can pretend stuff like this doesn't happen. And people who talk about the reality of things such as this are called "America bashers". Now certain people are beating the war drums for Iran. Anyway, that war story, for me brought home, the value of WikiLeaks.

Stavros

08-16-2015, 01:38 PM

The incident you are referring to is sometimes known as 'Collateral Murder' and involved the killing of two Reuters journalists by fire from an Apache helicopter. The incident took place in 2007, and shortly after Reuters sought more detail from the US military through Freedom of Information requests which were denied on the grounds the material was classified, and it was the full disclosure of the incident in the material passed by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks in 2010 that exposed the full truth of the incident. Moreover, the video appears to contradict the justification given on the day as reported here:

The first US account of the incident said that the men were armed insurgents. That was later officially revised to say that the helicopters opened fire after being attacked from the ground. Since, Reuters has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the footage of the incident, to no avail. ''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force", Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman in Baghdad, told the New York Times on the day of the incident.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0405/Wikileaks-releases-video-depicting-US-forces-killing-of-two-Reuters-journalists-in-Iraq

A fairly close description of the incident first surfaced two years after it, in a 2009 book by Washington Post journalist David Finkel -'The Good Soldiers'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html

The important point from here on, is that Bradley Manning (as he then was), had already seen the video but had not considered it of any special value until he heard the voice-recordings from he cockpit, and was shocked by the language used by the service personnel. In his further investigations, using Google, Manning identified the victims as the Reuters journalists, but crucially, came across Finkel's book and concluded that Finkel had already seen the video and had given a sanitized version for his publication. As Manning said during the trial:

It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as ‘payback’ for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier.

Manning then burned the video and other material onto a CD with the intention of sending it, not to Wikileaks, but to Reuters, but changed his mind when some other classified material appeared on the Wikileaks website.

The transcript of Manning's evidence, including much of the detail, can be found here:
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2013/03/01/bradley-manning-and-the-collateral-murder-video/

In this specific case, Manning made a particular choice to expose, but the exposure has raised the question as to whether or not the US Military had the right to refuse its release by using the 'classified information' defence because an Executive Order explicitly rules out using illegality or embarrassment as reasons to classify information, thus:

“In no case shall information be classified… in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency… or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

—Executive Order 13526, Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/21/what-bradley-manning-revealed/

As far as I know, none of the men involved in the incident have ever been charged.

Whether or not this justified the leaking of classified information to Wikileaks is a complex matter, as the criterion that must surely be used is that leaked classified documents/information must be useful to an enemy of and be used against the USA. This might be true in some cases, and does appear to be so in the documentation leaked by Snowden, but in this specific case, an embarrassing video was classified to spare the Military a degree of embarrassment, and potentially, legal action by the families of the victims. But note that when the British government put the killers of Baha Mousa on trial for his murder, none of the men involved could remember what happened, and the only person who spent a year in prison was convicted of 'inhuman treatment' rather than murder. The family of Baha Musa is believed to have been awarded £2.8 million in compensation. Note too, that at the time
The settlement follows a statement by Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence in March when he admitted the Army had breached Article 2, the right to life, and Aritcle 3, the prohibition of torture, in the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/2281567/MOD-in-3m-abuse-pay-out-to-Baha-Mousa-and-nine-other-Iraqi-torture-victims.html

The issue of torture may become an important consequence for the Labour Government and the military in power at the time when the Chilcot Report is eventually published...

Stavros

05-15-2018, 06:54 PM

In case you had forgotten, Julian Assange the 'one-man state' who considers himself above the law and not answerable to any higher authority than himself, is still holed up in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. The Guardian now publishes astonishing allegations of the extent to which the Govt of Ecuador once went to protect him:
Over more than five years, Ecuador put at least $5m (£3.7m) into a secret intelligence budget that protected the WikiLeaks (https://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileaks) founder while he had visits from Nigel Farage, members of European nationalist groups and individuals linked to the Kremlin.

Other guests included hackers, activists, lawyers and journalists.

In the lead-up to the US presidential election (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump) in 2016, his whistleblowing website WikiLeaks released several batches of emails (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange) connected to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Last month, the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/20/trump-russia-wikileaks-sued-democrats-lawsuit) against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s campaign and WikiLeaks, alleging a conspiracy to help swing the election for Trump.

Documents show the intelligence programme, called “Operation Guest”, which later became known as “Operation Hotel” – coupled with parallel covert actions – ran up an average cost of at least $66,000 a month for security, intelligence gathering and counter-intelligence to “protect” one of the world’s most high-profile fugitives.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/revealed-ecuador-spent-millions-julian-assange-spy-operation-embassy-london

I have been puzzled at the attitude of the British govt, because Assage is or was a regular on Russian TV but I would have thought broadcasting from inside the Embassy was a breach of protocol. Whatever, one hopes this odious creep will shortly be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure for breaking the law of England.

filghy2

05-16-2018, 07:58 AM

I have been puzzled at the attitude of the British govt, because Assage is or was a regular on Russian TV but I would have thought broadcasting from inside the Embassy was a breach of protocol.

Not any more, I think. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/28/julian-assange-internet-connection-ecuador-embassy-cut-off-wikileaks There was a change of leadership in Ecuador last year and it looks like the new regime is getting tired of Assange's antics.

Stavros

07-27-2018, 03:01 PM

As posted above and in today's Guardian, Assange's days in the London Embassy may be coming to and, but I wonder, does the USA now want him in view of what he might know about Russia's interference in the 2016 elections?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/27/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-future-london-wikileaks

Stavros

09-23-2018, 09:13 AM

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! The Russians are...not coming...

Russian diplomats held secret talks in London last year with people close to Julian Assange (https://www.theguardian.com/media/julian-assange) to assess whether they could help him flee the UK, the Guardian has learned.

A tentative plan was devised that would have seen the WikiLeaks (https://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileaks) founder smuggled out of Ecuador’s London embassy in a diplomatic vehicle and transported to another country.

One ultimate destination, multiple sources have said, was Russia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia), where Assange would not be at risk of extradition to the US. The plan was abandoned after it was deemed too risky.

continues here-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/julian-assange-russia-ecuador-embassy-london-secret-escape-plan

Stavros

11-27-2018, 07:13 PM

"Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/paul-manafort) held secret talks with Julian Assange (https://www.theguardian.com/media/julian-assange) inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told."

"
The previously unreported Manafort-Assange connection is likely to be of interest to Mueller (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/robert-mueller), who has been investigating possible contacts between WikiLeaks and associates of Trump including the political lobbyist Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr.
One key question is when the Trump campaign was aware of the Kremlin’s hacking operation – and what, if anything, it did to encourage it. Trump has repeatedly denied collusion.
Earlier this year Mueller indicted 12 GRU intelligence officers (https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text) for carrying out the hack, which began in March 2016.

In June of that year WikiLeaks emailed the GRU via an intermediary seeking the DNC material. After failed attempts, Vladimir Putin’s spies sent the documents in mid-July to WikiLeaks as an encrypted attachment (https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text).

According to sources, Manafort’s acquaintance with Assange goes back at least five years, to late 2012 or 2013, when the American was working in Ukraine and advising its Moscow-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych. "

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

buttslinger

11-29-2018, 02:43 AM

There seems to be some doubts about this story, but from the way he walks, it's possible Manafort has all the emails up his ass. Probably a prison shiv and a cell phone too. There is news Manafort has been lying AGAIN, and is about to loose his plea deal, which would only leave a Presidential Pardon between Manafort and a very long prison sentence. Is it me or does this whole thing seem like a crap shoot? Method in Madness, or just plain madness??

PS, it seems to be getting cold down here. Trump has sucked the soul out of everything.

Stavros

04-12-2019, 09:50 AM

The re-arrest of Julian Assange in London raises intriguing dilemmas for the British, the Swedes and the USA. Assange was originally arrested in the UK at Sweden's request because he failed to present himself to the Swedish police to answer allegations of rape and sexual assault. He then violated the terms of his bail in the UK by walking into the Ecuadorian Embassy to claim political asylum, but as in reality he was escaping a criminal investigation into rape and sexual assault rather than fleeing political persecution, Ecuador ought to have told him to get lost, but seem to have thought it would benefit theim politicallly to support Assange. With a change of government in Ecuador and increasing frustration with the manner in which Assange has conducted himself, they decided to rescind the citizenship they gave him, something they can do legally because Assange was issued with a new Australian passport in September 2018 so has not been made a stateless citizen.

The dilemma is threefold:

1) can Sweden re-open the investigations into the allegations of rape and sexual assault? If this is the case, Assange could be returned to Sweden thus for the UK returning this case its status quo ante, and handing the problem back to Sweden.

Sweden has laws that protect human rights, this means that if the US applied to extradite Assange for trial in the US on computer hacking, Sweden could refuse because the USA -in this specific case, Virginia- retains the death penalty, while the US condones the use of torture on prisoners in custody even if they have not been charged with a crime -and Assange has been indicted on a Federal crime. Moreover, as the President has violated the Constitution of the USA by repudiating the right of Congress to determine what proportion of money allocated in the budget he can spend, and how and where, and in the view of some that none of the tribunals held in Guantanamo Bay meet basic standards of legal representation, there is no guarantee Assange will be subject to the rule of law.

2), As with Sweden, so for the British, and based on the agument above, one would hope that after serving an appropriate sentence for his crime if Sweden does not seek his extradition, Assange could be deported to Australia. The UK has twice refused to extradite people charged with computer hacking in the USA, though both were British citizens.

3) For the US, the dilemma exists for the President, because the Republican candidate praised Wikileaks 100 times during the campaign, and benefited from the hacked emails which it is alleged the Russians passed to Wikileaks that attacked the American candidate in the Presidential election, Hillary Clinton. That the man who benefited now says he knows nothing about Wikileaks is standard 'ridiculous bullshit' -to use his own language-. Did Aaron Banks, the British insurance millionaire who joined up with Nigel Farage to support their Leave campaign in the UK's EU Referendum in 2016, in one of his five meetings with the Russian ambassador in London, receive a USB stick with the hacked email data that he gave to Nigel Farage, and did Farage give this to Assange when he went to see him in the dead of night in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Farage as far as I know has not yet commented on Assange's arrest.

Thus the dilemma is that while Assange has been indicted on a charge of illegal computer hacking, passing a crucial password to 'Bradley' Manning (as she then was, now Chelsea) that resulted in the publication of a vast tranche of classified material mostly relating to the war in Iraq, Assange could be of interest to those in Congress who wish to pursue the allegation that the links between the Russian government and the Republican campaign were closer than those which may or may not be described in the Mueller Report. So a lot may depend on what is in the full report, and whether or not a man extradited to the US on one charge, can be investigated or questioned on another.

It may be that in spite of the indictment in Virginia, the US will not seek Assange's extradition, but that may depend on whether or not Virginia now has the new generation of tame Republican judges who use the law to protect the President rather than the Constitution and the rule of law which is why they have been appointed.

Or maybe Assange, whose physical and mental health cannot be as good as it was when he chose to dodge the law, will not survive another prison sentence, which is what his self-imposed isolation in the Ecuadorian Embassy amounted to. Either way, the man is finished as an activist, just as the staggering amount of government data Wikileaks has released has for the most part lain dormant and unread -did anyone actually read all 30,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails? And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, Wikileaks relased data from Belarus that threatened the lives of anti-government activists there, so when Assange is elevated to the status of 'hero' in regard to 'free speech' it might be worth pausing to consider what his politics actually are -is he an anarchist, a libertarian?