Julian Assange

[F250 28,691]

3 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

That is a pretty big distinction.  One owned up to what she did.  The other slinked off and found comfort in the arms of Dotards friends.  

Well, yeah she did confess to it.

Prosecutors said when confronted with the allegations, Winner admitted to leaking the classified document intentionally.

"She was afraid she was going to disappear, that they were going to make her disappear. And she felt like she needed to give them what they were asking for at the time," Winner-Davis said.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/reality-winner-parents-interview/index.html

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Well, considering what she leaked, she couldn’t exactly flee to Russia.

[F250 28,691]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well, considering what she leaked, she couldn’t exactly flee to Russia.

She shouldn't have to worry about being Guantanamo'd for blowing the whistle but that's the kinda government you cheer on.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

12 minutes ago, F250 said:

She shouldn't have to worry about being Guantanamo'd for blowing the whistle but that's the kinda government you cheer on.

 

Yeah, rule of law with justice. She’s getting a trial in October.

Her being denied bail was uncalled for but I think I understand why. 

She wasn’t exactly blowing a whistle either, there was and still is an ongoing investigation into what she leaked. 

She broke the law for her own perceived right reasons, she will face the consequences and get on with her life, probably as a hero of sorts.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 28,691]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, rule of law with justice. She’s getting a trial in October.

Her being denied bail was uncalled for but I think I understand why. 

She wasn’t exactly blowing a whistle either, there was and still is an ongoing investigation into what she leaked. 

She broke the law for her own perceived right reasons, she will face the consequences and get on with her life, probably as a hero of sorts.

Rule of law and justice?

You mean the whistle blowers are punished but the government actors being exposed remain untouched.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Do I really need to explain why leaks are bad? 

 

Given Russia’s goals, what she leaked could have actually helped Russia.   Their goal is to undermine the public’s faith in our democratic institutions.  By leaking cherry picked documents showing how the Russians were trying to penetrate state voting systems, she not only risked creating a perception that our votes don’t matter but she told the Russians exactly what we know they are doing.  This is bad because now they are more likely to adapt and attempt more creative ways to undermine our systems that we’re not prepared to deal with.  

 

[Caracara 41]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do I really need to explain why leaks are bad? 

 

 

Your stance is that "leaks are bad. "

lol. Save those kind of uncategorical statements for your own little children if you have any.  Others will look at things in context. thanks

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

So you feel entitled to know everything all the time and see no value in state secrets?

Because if that’s the case, we wouldn’t be able to do things like hunt down Osama bin Laden, break up huge international crime syndicates, or combat international cyber threats.

[Caracara 41]

Your take from my post could have been, leaks may not always be bad.   But you're not here to be reasonable.

 

[Anastasis 23,394]

33 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So you feel entitled to know everything all the time and see no value in state secrets?

Because if that’s the case, we wouldn’t be able to do things like hunt down Osama bin Laden, break up huge international crime syndicates, or combat international cyber threats.

[Sawbonz 27,436]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So you feel entitled to know everything all the time and see no value in state secrets?

Because if that’s the case, we wouldn’t be able to do things like hunt down Osama bin Laden, break up huge international crime syndicates, or combat international cyber threats.

And if it weren’t for that traitor Ellsberg we would have won that Vietnam war

[softlynow 1,783]

Leaking is like any kind of civil disobedience. Be prepared to do the time.

2 hours ago, F250 said:

Rule of law and justice?

You mean the whistle blowers are punished but the government actors being exposed remain untouched.

They go unpunished because our politics is fucked. Tell me how the law that protects RW would operate. What would the objective elements of a defense to 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) be that might be applicable here? Or, what's your argument that 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) should be repealed?

Edited April 23, 2018 by softlynow

[softlynow 1,783]

26 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

And if it weren’t for that traitor Ellsberg we would have won that Vietnam war

Ellsberg expected life in prison. He didn't go because Nixon's boys fucked up the case by breaking into his shrink's office, illegally wiretapped his phone, and arguably tried to bribe the judge with the directorship of the FBI.

[Sawbonz 27,436]

And he has not once criticized Snowden for fleeing rather than face the same fate (or execution, if trump had his way)

Edited April 23, 2018 by Sawbonz

[F250 28,691]

23 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Leaking is like any kind of civil disobedience. Be prepared to do the time.

They go unpunished because our politics is fucked. Tell me how the law that protects RW would operate. What would the objective elements of a defense to 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) be that might be applicable here? Or, what's your argument that 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e) should be repealed?

My biggest gripe is whistle blowers are charged under the Espionage Act which does not take into account the public service that is being done by the leak. However, political operatives leak information all of the time for purely political purposes but go unpunished.

If leaking is done on behalf of the ruling polity it's kosher but if it's a grunt leaking information that shines light on illegal activities it's suddenly a high crime. Different rules for different classes. Grunts should know their place in the world I guess.

 

 

 

[maninblack 7,974]

Hugo would have been a good little nazi.

[softlynow 1,783]

22 minutes ago, F250 said:

My biggest gripe is whistle blowers are charged under the Espionage Act which does not take into account the public service that is being done by the leak. However, political operatives leak information all of the time for purely political purposes but go unpunished.

If leaking is done on behalf of the ruling polity it's kosher but if it's a grunt leaking information that shines light on illegal activities it's suddenly a high crime. Different rules for different classes. Grunts should know their place in the world I guess.

 

 

 

Whether something is a "public service" is subjective, so it would be extremely difficult to have a government that has any secret information at all, and allow for the kind of thing you're advocating.

Your point about different rules is correct, but it misses where the real problem lies. There's an entire branch of government that should be quite a bit more suspicious of our national security apparatus. Sadly, they've completely abrogated their role.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

My biggest gripe is whistle blowers are charged under the Espionage Act which does not take into account the public service that is being done by the leak. However, political operatives leak information all of the time for purely political purposes but go unpunished.

If leaking is done on behalf of the ruling polity it's kosher but if it's a grunt leaking information that shines light on illegal activities it's suddenly a high crime. Different rules for different classes. Grunts should know their place in the world I guess.

 

 

 

This is a legitimate complaint and problem.  It’s a generally lack of mutual accountability from our elected officials.  Again, this problem is on us for electing these POS politicians that treat the IC as their own personal bloodhounds. 

Look I get it, many people are anti-state/IC because of mistakes in the past but what is the alternative? No IC? Just let the local police handle violence from extremist groups and international bad actors? 

Most people in these fields are not partisan hacks, they do thankless jobs in the shadows preventing violence and protecting the weak and vulnerable. For every mass shooter or bombing in the news, there’s a dozen you don’t hear about because of the IC and they will never get any credit from the media because they don’t want or need it.

[Anastasis 23,394]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is a legitimate complaint and problem.  It’s a generally lack of mutual accountability from our elected officials.  Again, this problem is on us for electing these POS politicians that treat the IC as their own personal bloodhounds. 

Look I get it, many people are anti-state/IC because of mistakes in the past but what is the alternative? No IC? Just let the local police handle violence from extremist groups and international bad actors? 

Most people in these fields are not partisan hacks, they do thankless jobs in the shadows preventing violence and protecting the weak and vulnerable. For every mass shooter or bombing in the news, there’s a dozen you don’t hear about because of the IC and they will never get any credit from the media because they don’t want or need it.

CIA implements American foreign policy, ends up arming and training terrorists who want to kill us. We need the CIA to protect us from the terrorists!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

CIA implements American foreign policy, ends up arming and training terrorists who want to kill us. We need the CIA to protect us from the terrorists!

People elect right wing extremists, we need the FBI to protect us from right wing extremists!

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

The problem isn't the CIA, it's the foreign policy.   I mean, no doubt there are some bad actors, but there are also a lot of honorable people in the intelligence services who are serving their country. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The most disgusting hypocrisy is the people that chant up and down the street that they “support our troops” and in the same breath shit all over the FBI/CIA. 

[F250 28,691]

45 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The most disgusting hypocrisy is the people that chant up and down the street that they “support our troops” and in the same breath shit all over the FBI/CIA. 

Or those that marched against the Iraq war, Patriot Act and CIA's torture program flipped stances because of an election.

[F250 28,691]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is a legitimate complaint and problem.  It’s a generally lack of mutual accountability from our elected officials.  Again, this problem is on us for electing these POS politicians that treat the IC as their own personal bloodhounds. 

Look I get it, many people are anti-state/IC because of mistakes in the past but what is the alternative? No IC? Just let the local police handle violence from extremist groups and international bad actors?

I don't lump the FBI in with the CIA/NSA. I've always supported the idea that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem and that the FBI should be leading the fight and not the military and Intelligence agencies.

 

[Anastasis 23,394]

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

The problem isn't the CIA, it's the foreign policy.   I mean, no doubt there are some bad actors, but there are also a lot of honorable people in the intelligence services who are serving their country. 

We will find common ground criticizing US foreign policy. And I agree that there are many many honorable people in the intelligence services. I also recognize that the history of these organizations, both in the recent and distant past, demonstrates that they are happy to work to undermine American principles and the US Constitution when  "service to their country" requires.

12 hours ago, softlynow said:

There's an entire branch of government that should be quite a bit more suspicious of our national security apparatus. Sadly, they've completely abrogated their role.

And if this was addressed, I would change my tone. And while Congress (and the courts to an extent imo) have failed to reel it in, it sure doesn't help things when the DNI dissembles in congressional testimony. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Anastasis

[Sawbonz 27,436]

13 hours ago, softlynow said:

Whether something is a "public service" is subjective, so it would be extremely difficult to have a government that has any secret information at all, and allow for the kind of thing you're advocating.

Your point about different rules is correct, but it misses where the real problem lies. There's an entire branch of government that should be quite a bit more suspicious of our national security apparatus. Sadly, they've completely abrogated their role.

From the Gladwell article I linked up thread 

Quote

Before he approached the Times, [Ellsberg] went to the Senate, where he tried to get someone to release the documents formally and hold public hearings. He walked the halls and dropped in on people he knew. “I had Senator Mathias in mind, and Senator Mike Gravel...”

Doesn’t give one much hope for that

[Caracara 41]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The most disgusting hypocrisy is the people that chant up and down the street that they “support our troops” and in the same breath shit all over the FBI/CIA. 

There is plenty of competition, partisanship, dissent, rogue action, patriotism and lack thereof,  among the many different agencies both civilian and military.

And so, somebody supporting the troops may not be a Comey fan.   Your simplistic takes never get old.

[softlynow 1,783]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

From the Gladwell article I linked up thread 

Doesn’t give one much hope for that

 

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

We will find common ground criticizing US foreign policy. And I agree that there are many many honorable people in the intelligence services. I also recognize that the history of these organizations, both in the recent and distant past, demonstrates that they are happy to work to undermine American principles and the US Constitution when  "service to their country" requires.

And if this was addressed, I would change my tone. And while Congress (and the courts to an extent imo) have failed to reel it in, it sure doesn't help things when the DNI dissembles in congressional testimony. 

Rule of Law, Transparency, National Security, pick any two.

[WhatTheBuck 28,712]

On April 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM, F250 said:

I don't lump the FBI in with the CIA/NSA. I've always supported the idea that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem and that the FBI should be leading the fight and not the military and Intelligence agencies.

 

How would the FBI have gone about invading Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden & Al Qaeda after 9/11? I'm all for treating terrorists as criminals but if you can't bring them to trial in a U.S. court then you've got to kill them in the field and that's outside the FBI's jurisdiction. 

[F250 28,691]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How would the FBI have gone about invading Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden & Al Qaeda after 9/11? I'm all for treating terrorists as criminals but if you can't bring them to trial in a U.S. court then you've got to kill them in the field and that's outside the FBI's jurisdiction. 

I didn't have an issue with the initial response in Afghanistan but it's been over 16 years and we still have over 14,000 troops there fighting the war on terror. I've never bought into the fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here narrative. The initial response made sense but we've gone way beyond the original goal.

 

 

 

 

[JBJ 3,649]

 

On 4/22/2018 at 7:13 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, rule of law with justice. She’s getting a trial in October.

Her being denied bail was uncalled for but I think I understand why. 

She wasn’t exactly blowing a whistle either, there was and still is an ongoing investigation into what she leaked. 

She broke the law for her own perceived right reasons, she will face the consequences and get on with her life, probably as a hero of sorts.

This.  She wasn't blowing a whistle at all.  She leaked because it was interesting news - she wasn't calling out government abuses.

[WhatTheBuck 28,712]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I didn't have an issue with the initial response in Afghanistan but it's been over 16 years and we still have over 14,000 troops there fighting the war on terror. I've never bought into the fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here narrative. The initial response made sense but we've gone way beyond the original goal.

 

 

 

 

We''ve definitely been in Afghanistsn too long. But it was a foregone conclusion when we went in that, whether we stay for five years or fifty years, the Taliban are taking over again as soon as we leave. We botched the mission at Tora Bora and everything since has been a waste of time. The problem is that whichever president takes the troops out will be blamed for handing Afghanistan back to the terrorists. 

But my point stands that the CIA and military have to also play a role in the fight against our enemies just as the FBI does. Unfortunately, other than the invasion of Afghanistan until Tora Bora, the Bush/Cheney  administration bungled our response to 9/11 about as badly as possible. Bring in more troops at Tora Bora and achieve a decisive and complete victory, and stay the fuck out of Iraq, and we could've actually declared "Mission Accomplished." If you attack us you will die. And soon. That would've been a strong deterrent. Maybe the Taliban wouldn't be so quick to let terrorists train there again. 

[F250 28,691]

20 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We''ve definitely been in Afghanistsn too long. But it was a foregone conclusion when we went in that, whether we stay for five years or fifty years, the Taliban are taking over again as soon as we leave. We botched the mission at Tora Bora and everything since has been a waste of time. The problem is that whichever president takes the troops out will be blamed for handing Afghanistan back to the terrorists. 

But my point stands that the CIA and military have to also play a role in the fight against our enemies just as the FBI does. Unfortunately, other than the invasion of Afghanistan until Tora Bora, the Bush/Cheney  administration bungled our response to 9/11 about as badly as possible. Bring in more troops at Tora Bora and achieve a decisive and complete victory, and stay the fuck out of Iraq, and we could've actually declared "Mission Accomplished." If you attack us you will die. And soon. That would've been a strong deterrent. Maybe the Taliban wouldn't be so quick to let terrorists train there again. 

I agree. It's not that I think they shouldn't have a role, it's just the way they have been used as a blunt instrument that I am criticizing.

[WhatTheBuck 28,712]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I agree. It's not that I think they shouldn't have a role, it's just the way they have been used as a blunt instrument that I am criticizing.

Right on. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

This article was a good window into Assange’s ideology and mission.  

Last February, leaked messages from a private WikiLeaks chat group offered an unfiltered glimpse of Julian Assange, complete with misogyny, anti-Semitism, and a clear, early preference for a GOP election victory. Now the U.K. man who leaked those messages is stepping forward to explain why he turned on the secret-spilling group, which he argues has abandoned its truth-telling mission altogether.

Iain (The Daily Beast has agreed not to use his last name) is a 41-year-old writer, artist, and musician based in Edinburgh who joined a small circle of key WikiLeaks supporters after meeting with Assange in 2013, and remained connected to the group until October 2016.

“I never understood at the time that these people are really quite fanatical, and not in a good way,” said Iain. “They will lie to your face, they will lie on Twitter… The pressure is being piled on, the lies are being piled on.”

Iain knows he faces risks by publicly criticizing WikiLeaks now. Previously unpublished portions of the message logs show that Assange harbors lasting animus for those he views as opponents and traitors. While strategizing a response to a critique by former WikiLeaks volunteer James Ball, Assange lays out the need “to create doubt that he’s an accurate narrator.” Of Birgitta Jónsdóttir, an Icelandic politician who worked with Assange on the first big WikiLeaks release, he writes, “There’s no trust, one cannot trust a back-stabber, but there is an alignment of interests.”

In February 2016 Assange offered this this ominous observation: “WL enemies end badly… Sometimes it is because we cause it to happen, other times it seems like fate.”

 

Iain entered WikiLeaks’ orbit in 2012. He was a longtime liberal anti-war activist, but until then most of his political engagement had been through his art. He felt the need to become more directly involved in a worthy cause. WikiLeaks faced global pressure during the Chelsea Manning leaks, and Iain was outraged that so many mainstream news outlets that had benefited from those leaks had later turned on Assange.  

He got Assange’s attention through supportive posts on Twitter and his now-dormant website, titled Martha Mitchell Effect and later Hazelpress. In 2013, his writing style and staunch support of WikiLeaks led Ball, by then a journalist at The Guardian newspaper, to accuse him publicly of being Assange writing under a pseudonym. The real Assange was amused by the mixup and invited Iain to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for a visit, according to Iain, who told his story to The Daily Beast in a telephone interview and over email.

He made the visit that spring, settling into an embassy office that served as Assange’s living space for a chat that stretched to three or four hours. “It was very relaxed,” said Iain. “He’s very charismatic, nattering away about all kinds of stuff, and he’s very well informed.” 

Assange began granting Iain insider access for some of his articles and promoting them reliably over the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, while Iain occasionally filed Freedom of Information requests on Assange’s behalf. In May 2015, at WikiLeaks’ request, Iain set up a private Twitter direct messaging group called “WikiLeaks Plus 10” for Assange, himself, and other key online supporters. The group was described as a “low-security channel for some very long term and reliable supporters who are on Twitter.”

It’s the logs from that group—containing more than 11,000 messages, over 1,200 of them from the WikiLeaks Twitter account—that Iain leakedto The Intercept late last year. It led to a 3,000-word exposé accompanied by redacted excerpts from the log. Assange responded to the story in a series of tweets accusing one of the reporters of harboring an anti-WikiLeaks bias. He dismissed the leaked messages as “freewheeling banter and quips” and not “editorial policy.”

Iain said he felt compelled to leak the messages after the revelation that Assange held friendly, supportive online conversations with Donald Trump Jr. during the election. Before then, Iain had struggled to understand WikiLeaks’ sudden embrace of the alt-right. After the Trump Jr. chats emerged, Iain went back over the logs of the WikiLeaks Plus 10 group chats and also dug into Assange’s pre-WikiLeaks history. “What happened in 2016 was just so shocking to me. I was just trying to figure out, What was that? Where did it come from? And so I started looking back.”

He finally found what he sees as a kind of Rosetta Stone into Assange’s thinking in a leaked email Assange wrote way back in 2007 while soliciting support for the nascent WikiLeaks concept. One of the goals for WikiLeaks, Assange wrote, “is total annihilation of the current U.S. regime and any other regime that holds its authority through mendacity alone.”

The “total annihilation of the current U.S. regime” line, which got some attention during the Chelsea Manning leaks, explains everything, said Iain, including Assange’s curious embrace of alt-right conspiracy theories and memes during the 2016 election season and beyond. 

WikiLeaks baffled some supporters when it started seeding or promoting fake news about Hillary Clinton’s health, Pizzagate, and even Democrats engaging in satanic rituals at the same time it was releasing genuine material stolen from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

This was not, as it might appear, a cynical bid to garner Donald Trump’s favor; nor was it simple pandering to a new funding base, argues Iain. It was part and parcel of Assange’s alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin against their common adversary, the United States.

In retrospect, the shift was apparent way back in 2013, during Assange’s failed bid to win a Senate seat in Australia, Iain said. To that end Assange established the country’s WikiLeaks Party, with a platform built on government transparency and libertarianism. But just weeks before the election the party was roiled by a controversy over its ranking of other political parties in Australia’s ranked-choice voting, preferencing, in two races, the white-nationalist Australia First Party and the right-wing Shooters and Fishers Party above the liberal favorite, the Australian Greens.

The WikiLeaks Party blamed the choices on an “administrative error,” and Assange took to Australian TV to deny any role in the scandal, saying he was too preoccupied helping Edward Snowden to pay attention to what was happening in the party he led.

But as soon as the election was over, the WikiLeaks Party transformed. Its website was suddenly overrun with posts that would have been at home on Kremlin outlets like RT and Sputnik. “The puppet politicians who Washington intended to put in charge of Ukraine have lost control,” read a post on the Ukraine conflict. “The government of Crimea, a Russian province… has disavowed the illegitimate government that illegally seized power in Kiev and requested Russian protection.” Posts on Syria described the 2013 Ghouta chemical-weapons attack by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad as “unsubstantiated” and “staged.”

“The party’s website content now operated solely to legitimize Russian propaganda by placing it under the umbrella of WikiLeaks’ valuable brand of truth and transparency,” said Iain.

Four months after the election, in December 2013, Assange’s father, John Shipton, led a WikiLeaks Party delegation to Damascus and had tea with Assad. Shipton, the party chair, told a local TV station that the WikiLeaks Party wanted to open an office in Damascus, and after the trip the party tweeted that its members had seen firsthand “how Syrians defeated the conspiracy of more than 86 countries.”

Iain was appalled by all of this and wrote articles lambasting the WikiLeaks Party’s new direction. Despite Assange’s smiling photo on the front page of the party website, Iain accepted Assange’s assurances that he had nothing to do with the party’s overnight embrace of Putinism, until WikiLeaks followed precisely the same path to influence America’s 2016 election. In October 2016, Iain withdrew from the WikiLeaks Plus 10 conversation and ended his public support for WikiLeaks.  

More than a year later, when the Trump Jr. chats surfaced, he returned to the chat group one last time to archive the contents for a wikileak of his own.

“Information and false information have always been weapons, used at all levels of society, from the family structure to the state, and WikiLeaks... uses both, and not just to inform or mislead society, but to literally reshape it according to a singular viewpoint,” said Iain. “It is a viewpoint that speaks of ‘annihilation’ and then acts in the taking of political ‘scalps.’”

“It has succeeded in empowering harmful fascistic structures against those who believe in and uphold progressive values,” he continued. “As a result, it is and will remain dangerous to all of us, whether we know it or not.”

[Pods 7,530]

He finally found what he sees as a kind of Rosetta Stone into Assange’s thinking in a leaked email Assange wrote way back in 2007 while soliciting support for the nascent WikiLeaks concept. One of the goals for WikiLeaks, Assange wrote, “is total annihilation of the current U.S. regime and any other regime that holds its authority through mendacity alone.”

How has that not been publicized more?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, Pods said:

 

 

How has that not been publicized more?

It’s also exactly how I see Glenn Greenwald’s worldview.

The old American Evil Empire narrative that conveniently aligns with Putin.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Assange has been dead since Oct. 2016.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

On 4/23/2018 at 8:10 AM, Anastasis said:

CIA implements American foreign policy, ends up arming and training terrorists who want to kill us. We need the CIA to protect us from the terrorists!

Classic warmongering neo con/lib move. 

Lie to the people, waste their money killing people on the other side of the world over a lie. 

[Viper 12,030]

So what is in the Twitter dm leaks? All the negative stuff in that article is just their public actions. 

[Pods 7,530]

 

[Brian Fantana 6,668]

Wow.

[maninblack 7,974]

Cool

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,606]

Anyone who supports the shitbag that is Julian Assange, his operation, and any who disclose any information to them are detrimental to our national security and you need to kindly sit down and shut the fuck up. You have no idea what, how or why the Intelligence Community works the way it does. It's not some Goddamn hidden government entity trying to control you or prevent you from enjoying your rights and freedoms; it's the exact opposite. The IC exists to ensure some external entity can't infiltrate our country and try to manipulate our government. I can't and won't go into any detail about a goddamn thing with anyone because I am sworn to secrecy for the remainder of my life. With that said, suffice it to say, anyone else who has worked in the IC in any capacity understands that disclosing the nature of what we do, how we do it, who our sources are, or how they are cultivated puts a great deal at risk. What I can say is that things are compartmentalized for a reason and those without a specific need to know are not granted access to anything. So disclosing something, even the smallest most seemingly insignificant tidbit of information to a foreign adversary enables them to build a better picture so they can counter our own operations to protect ourselves and our allies. Our IC is a non-partisan collection of entities that do not bow down or get on bended knee to the whim of any political figure or party. I did not read this thread before posting this, but naturally there are those among this board as there are in the country who support and approve of Assange and what he is doing.

 

To all you here who support him and what he is doing, I pity you as you are going to be your own undoing and you don't even realize it.

Edited May 25, 2018 by HOOK'EMHOOAH

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Ecuador’s president seeks Assange’s exit from London embassy

LONDON – Ecuadorean and British officials are discussing how to get Julian Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy here, where he has been holed up for six years, the president of the South American nation confirmed Friday.

It comes after British media reported earlier this month that authorities were "locked in discussions over the fate of Assange."

Ecuador's President Lenín Moreno said the life of the WikiLeaks founder would have to be guaranteed if he is to be released.

Speaking in the Spanish capital of Madrid, Moreno said nobody should remain under asylum “for too long." He said that any change in Assange’s status should be the result of negotiations with all sides.

“What we want is for his life not to be in danger,” Moreno said.

More: Ecuador may be close to ejecting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from its London embassy

More: Julian Assange's Internet cut off over controversial social media activity

Assange sought refuge in the embassy in central London in June 2012, after fleeing there to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where he was wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault and rape.

Sweden dropped its criminal investigation in 2017, but a warrant issued for Assange's arrest by police in London for breaching the conditions of his bail remains in effect. Assange is concerned that if he leaves the embassy, the U.S. would seek his arrest and extradition over the leaking of classified documents to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks is also the focus of the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections by distributing hacked materials.

Ecuador has toughened its stance following the election in May of Moreno, who has described Assange as a “hacker,” an “inherited problem” and a “stone in the shoe.” The embassy cut off Assange's Internet access in March, following a Twitter spat with a British minister over the poisoning of a Russian ex-spy with a Soviet-developed nerve agent in an English city. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/848600002

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Julian Assange looks for deal to end 'diplomatic isolation'

London (CNN)Julian Assange walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on June 19, 2012 to claim political asylum. He has been there ever since -- a total of 2,230 days -- rarely seeing daylight. But multiple sources say his situation is now untenable and he may soon leave, whether he wants to or not.

The question is: what will happen to Assange as and when he does walk out of his bolt-hole around the corner from Harrods?

The recent indictments issued by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller imply that Assange and WikiLeaks were a conduit for Russian intelligence in distributing hacked Democratic Party emails in 2016.

According to the indictment document, "The conspirators (...) discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organisation 1 to heighten their impact."

CNN has established that Organization 1 is WikiLeaks, which published the emails in July 2016.

Assange has always maintained that he did not receive them from the Russian government. He told Fox News in January 2017: "Our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a state party." 

A member of Assange's legal team, Jennifer Robinson, told CNN this week: "WikiLeaks has made very clear they were not engaged in any way with the Russian state with respect to that publication. There is no connection between WikiLeaks and any of those who have been indicted."

His lawyers argue that all Assange did was publish the hacked emails, as did other media, after being in contact with a hacker called Guccifer 2.0. The Special Counsel alleges that Guccifer 2.0 was a cover for Russian intelligence, saying in the indictment that on July 14th [2016], Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an encrypted attachment that contained "instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents."

Whether a sealed indictment awaits Assange in relation to the Russian hacking investigation is unknown. But according to US officials, charges have been drawn up relating to previous WikiLeaks disclosures of classified US documents. 

Assange would face arrest if/when he leaves the embassy because he skipped bail in 2012 -- when Swedish authorities were seeking his extradition to face accusations of rape. Last year Sweden suspended the investigation, but Assange's lawyers fear his arrest would be swiftly followed by a US extradition request. Assange maintains his innocence.

"For us protecting him from US extradition is absolutely paramount, and the most important and fundamental principle that must be respected," Robinson told CNN this week.

"There should never be a situation where a publisher is sent to the US to face prosecution for that activity, so we will, if forced, fight his extradition in the British Courts."

The Ecuadorean government wants the case resolved. Ecuador's recently elected president, Lenín Moreno said in Madrid Friday that his government was in dialogue with the UK and wanted a solution that guaranteed Assange's life would not be in danger. He described Assange's long confinement as "against human rights."

Downing Street confirmed discussions were "ongoing."

Moreno has previously described Assange as an "inherited problem" (his predecessor Rafael Correa granted Assange asylum.) But in a statement last week, the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry said it saw no immediate or long-term solution to the situation.

Complicating the situation is the fact that Assange was granted Ecuadorean citizenship last December.

 

Assange's situation is also a dilemma for the British government, aware that he inspires both passionate support and visceral animosity.

Foreign Office Minister Alan Duncan told the House of Commons last month: "We would like the assurance that if he were to step out of the embassy he will be treated humanely and properly. The first priority would be to look after his health, which we think is deteriorating."

On that issue, Assange's lawyers and Ecuadorean officials agree. Robinson says "the situation is untenable. His health is being irreparably damaged...This case cannot go on much longer."

Assange's isolation deepened in March. His access to the internet and phone was cut off -- in part because Ecuadorean officials said he had violated an agreement not to comment about the internal affairs of other countries. Assange has been, for example, a vocal supporter of the Catalan independence campaign in Spain.

The former consul at the embassy, Fidel Narvaez, says he saw Assange two weeks ago. "He is a very strong man but remember he lives in a small flat, without natural light, just with artificial light," Narvaez told CNN.

Narvaez doesn't believe Assange is about to give up. "He is made for a big fight and I think he faces difficult and adverse situations with strength."

He also maintains that Assange has the right to live in Ecuador, if the British government allows him to leave the country.

On their own admission, Assange's legal team are in the dark about any negotiations that might be going on about Assange's future.

The irony is that Assange fears extradition to a country whose President proclaimed himself a big fan of WikiLeaks when running for office. Donald Trump mentioned WikiLeak's hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails more than 100 times in the last month of the 2016 election campaign. At one point he said: "I'll tell you this Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it."

He even went so far as to say: "I love WikiLeaks."

Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and the US Justice Department appear to think very differently. They believe Julian Assange should be brought in front of a US court. When he was Director of the CIA, Pompeo said: "We can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us." 

Pompeo said that WikiLeaks "walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service."

Whether Robert Mueller's team agrees -- that's the tantalizing question.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/28/europe/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-intl/index.html

[maninblack 7,974]

 
To all you here who support him and what he is doing, I pity you as you are going to be your own undoing and you don't even realize it.

Sounds like a threat

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,606]

2 hours ago, maninblack said:

Sounds like a threat

There is one; but its not from me.

[maninblack 7,974]

Yeah which is why wikileaks is awesome. Hope they and others keep dropping governments secrets from across the world. Wikileaks is not the threat to mankind.