Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Robert_S]

It was consensual sex, for chrissakes. And someone remind me how distributing information released by a third party over the internet is illegal.

It's not necessarily illegal, especially considering he's not a US citizen. However, that does not make it ethical, or moral. More like reckless and naive.

Wikileaks should have left well enough (the Iraq and Afghanistan messages) alone. Ever since the State Department cables dump, Assange supporters have had to fall back on theories about why the site should exist at all. "Well, he's making a stand for transparency." Bullshit he is. Yesterday a report was leaked listing a bunch of sites around the world that the US considers vital for its security, from the Panama canal down to vaccine factories in Holland. Does making this list public do any good for the world? Any at all? This website is blowing a ton of hot air in hopes that a few whistles will sound off in the process. And they clearly don't give a damn about the damage they're doing. A tiny portion of those cables can actually be construed as whistle-blowing; the rest are just gratuitous, because Assange could do it.

But the greatest threat to Wikileaks is Assange himself. Maybe his successor will be someone who'll actually be selective about what he or she publishes, and limit it to those things which actually constitute whistle-blowing. Transparency for transparency's sake is just as dumb as secrecy for secrecy's sake. Way too much collateral damage to try and prove a point.

(As for the Swedish sex charges: I couldn't give a damn. I hope he gets acquitted. Having him busted for sex crimes in Sweden is like seeing Al Capone get tossed in jail by some local cops for drunk driving. But I don't for a minute think the charges are part of some "smear campaign", unless it's his. What do the two Swedish girls have to say about their CIA connection?! Sheesh, Assange is so full of shit.)

What gets me is that when there's stuff that should come out, people will be much less likely to pay attention to it and the authorities will have an easier time prosecuting the real whistle-blowers.

[Ian]

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/20 ... -cia-ties/

Um, sure... that's a credible source of information.

[mm_ll]

As usual, there are interesting debates and links in this forum.

I think that British and Sweden prosecutors are just "doing their jobs". Two women make a formal complaint on sexual assault, then the guy needs to be questioned. The guy is on the Interpol list and he doesn't give his address in Britain, he doesn't deserve bail. Nothing wrong with that.

I have a question: what about the major newspapers that are publishing and bringing attention to the same information that the US soldier and Julian Assange leaked? don't they deserve to be held accountable too? or are they just doing their jobs?

[JimC]

Interesting atricle in today's Age which fits well into this thread: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/tec ... 18s0w.html

Here is part of it:

A number of WikiLeaks defectors, including founder Julian Assange's former right-hand man, plan to launch a rival site on Monday after accusing Mr Assange of behaving like "some kind of emperor or slave trader".

With WikiLeaks itself vowing to press on with its leaking regardless of the fate of Mr Assange, it seems that any attempts by US politicians to stop the leaks will be futile.
The new site, Openleaks, will launch on Monday, respected Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported. Like WikiLeaks, it will allow whistleblowers to leak information to the public anonymously. However, Openleaks won't host the documents itself, instead acting as an intermediary between whistleblowers and other groups including media organisations.

Several WikiLeaks members abandoned the site following perceived autocratic behaviour by Mr Assange. They said he failed to consult them on many decisions and put himself front and centre of everything WikiLeaks did.

Some members were also concerned that the Swedish rape allegations against Mr Assange were damaging the organisation's reputation. Dagens Nyheter reported that insiders were sabotaging the site earlier this year in order to convince Mr Assange to step down.

The new site, one member said, would be "democratically governed by all its members, rather than limited to one group or individual".

"We broke from WikiLeaks because a few ex-WikiLeaks members have been very unhappy with the way Assange was conducting things," said former WikiLeaks member and key player in the new site, Herbert Snorrason.

'You're not anyone's king or god'

The most high-profile defector is Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who went by the name Daniel Schmitt at WikiLeaks and served as one of its only public faces aside from Mr Assange.

Mr Domscheit-Berg resigned from the organisation this year after WikiLeaks released almost 400,000 classified US documents relating to the Iraq war. He, and other WikiLeaks members, felt Mr Assange released the documents too early without taking the time to properly redact names of US collaborators and informants in Iraq.

"You are not anyone's king or god," Mr Domscheit-Berg told Mr Assange in an online chat, a transcript of which was obtained and published by Wired.com.

"And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader."

Mr Assange shot back, saying he was suspending Mr Domscheit-Berg for a month and that if he wanted to appeal, "you will be heard on Tuesday".

Mr Domschelt-Berg instead resigned and will now be a key player in the new site.

Got a problem? Piss off

Mr Snorrason also left after he challenged Mr Assange's decision to suspend Mr Domscheit-Berg. Mr Assange responded saying: "I am the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off."

Mr Domscheit-Berg is writing a tell-all book on his three years at WikiLeaks, titled Inside WikiLeaks: My Time at the World's Most Dangerous Website.

In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel Mr Domscheit-Berg criticised WikiLeaks for focusing too much on the US and said the new site would have a far broader focus.

Ben Laurie, a data security expert who advised WikiLeaks before it launched in 2006, said the site had opened a Pandora's box of leaking and, even if it was taken out, the idea would live on.

"The concept is not going to die. It's really hard to keep things shut down if they want to stay up," he said.

"Look at everything else people would like not to happen online - phishing, spam, porn. It's all still there."

So, it seems he is something of an autocrat, and somewhat of an arsehole in person. Still doesn't change the absurdity of how strongly he has been demonised by vested interests...

[Trolldor]

As usual, there are interesting debates and links in this forum.

I think that British and Sweden prosecutors are just "doing their jobs". Two women make a formal complaint on sexual assault, then the guy needs to be questioned. The guy is on the Interpol list and he doesn't give his address in Britain, he doesn't deserve bail. Nothing wrong with that.

I have a question: what about the major newspapers that are publishing and bringing attention to the same information that the US soldier and Julian Assange leaked? don't they deserve to be held accountable too? or are they just doing their jobs?

They're doing their jobs. The information is already publically available, they aren't releasing it to the public, and as Journalists they have the right to comment a story on any information that has been brought to their attention.

Assange is no journalist, nothing he has released has been about a story, it's simply been releasing information for the sake of releasing information.

[sandinista]

Wikileaks Cables
Shell's Grip On Nigerian State Revealed
By Dave Smith

Source: The Guardian
Friday, December 10, 2010

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.

Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China andRussia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... ria-spying

[Gawd]

sandinista, you know that exposing this will anger the Americans, who prefer to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

[mm_ll]

They're doing their jobs. The information is already publically available, they aren't releasing it to the public, and as Journalists they have the right to comment a story on any information that has been brought to their attention.

Assange is no journalist, nothing he has released has been about a story, it's simply been releasing information for the sake of releasing information.

So journalists have the right to comment on a story that has been brought by somebody else. Sandinista is no journalist (assuming), and he just exposed critical information that may cause big trouble to some people. Should they be held accountable? I think Americans said "no" when they passed the first amendment and realized they have more to gain by giving people freedom of expression.

Assange does have an agenda, he said on his interview on TED that if governments are making efforts to conceal information, then releasing it is good. The wikileaks slogan is "we open governments", that looks like a purpose to me.

Now let's look at journalist that receives brown envelopes with many sensitive stories. He looks at them, and based on his values he decides that 20% will be released, 70% would not make any 'good', and he exposes the source of the remaining 10%. This journalist has an agenda, which is to manipulate information to support who he thinks should be in power. Nothing wrong with that either, as he too have the freedom of expression!

[Coito ergo sum]

I think Assange's culpability here hinges not on disclosure but on his participation, if any, prior to the downloading of the data. If he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage, then that would be a problem for him. Right now, as far as I've seen, nobody has alleged that they have evidence that he was involved pre-data download. If all he did was release information that was left on his doorstep, a la the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers, well -- I don't think he's committed a crime. There is no general law in the US prohibiting people from releasing classified information. There are laws prohibiting some people from releasing such information - government workers, and whatnot - but, a general citizen or member of the media has no such obligation - but, they do have an obligation not to commit espionage or participate in conspiracies to commit espionage.

Jurisdictionally, a country can exert criminal jurisdiction against a person outside of its borders if a crime has effects within its borders. Like...if a person in Germany hired a hit man to kill someone in the US, then the US could extradite the person in Germany for subornation of murder. So, the fact that Assange is outside the country matters, but does not wholly prohibit indictment and extradition. There will have to be some evidence, though, IMHO, that he was involved in a conspiracy to get the classified information via unlawful means -- like, if he told the soldier that he'd pay the guy to grab secrets....I think that might be enough.

[mm_ll]

I doubt that he had any participation on getting the classified information. There are many people that do it for him. He just needs to make sure that his sources remain anonymous, and that is the only thing he brags about.

[JimC]

I doubt that he had any participation on getting the classified information...

...other than making it very clear to leakers and whistle-blowers in general that here is the place to send stuff, if you want maximum chance of world wide exposure...

And I can't see any legal issues in doing that...

[Hermit]

I think Assange's culpability here hinges not on disclosure but on his participation, if any, prior to the downloading of the data. If he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage...

...or could at least be framed for it, he would have been charged accordingly by now. Being arrested for not wearing a condom instead, and having the bail application refused, makes the whole affair pretty obvious for what it is: a dirty trick by a government that has been embarrassed by the disclosures, and will seemingly stop at nothing to exact revenge.

[JimC]

I think Assange's culpability here hinges not on disclosure but on his participation, if any, prior to the downloading of the data. If he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage...

...or could at least be framed for it, he would have been charged accordingly by now. Being arrested for not wearing a condom instead, and having the bail application refused, makes the whole affair pretty obvious for what it is: a dirty trick by a government that has been embarrassed by the disclosures, and will seemingly stop at nothing to exact revenge.

It certainly seems that way...

Mind you, it also ties in with him being a self-absorbed egotistical prick. However, that has nothing to do with the ethics of his actions in WikiLeaks, or the dirty tricks of offended governments...

[Trolldor]

What is more likely, that a noted egotists convinced of his own righteousness and superiority refused to wear a condom under a law not to dissimlar to laws that exist in, just domestically, a number of states in Australia.

OR

That Sweden drums up a rape charge, finds two women and coerces them to play along, all under pressure from the US Government in order to exact revenge on Assange in a way which will accomplish nothing, send no message to him or Wikileaks and play no role in diminishing the capacity or force the closure of wikileaks?

[Ian]

What is more likely, that a noted egotists convinced of his own righteousness and superiority refused to wear a condom under a law not to dissimlar to laws that exist in, just domestically, a number of states in Australia.

OR

That Sweden drums up a rape charge, finds two women and coerces them to play along, all under pressure from the US Government in order to exact revenge on Assange in a way which will accomplish nothing, send no message to him or Wikileaks and play no role in diminishing the capacity or force the closure of wikileaks?

I think we both know the kind of answers you're going to get around here...
:sighsm: