Home Politics & Debate

Concerted international effort to destroy Wikileaks

SystemSystem Posts: 8,629 Staff Team
It seems, as always, that transparency, democracy and freedom are all okay so long as one is never affected by them.

A concerted and rather disturbing effort is taking place to destroy Wikipedia at the moment. Without any doubt whatsoever, promoted and pushed by the US and other Western governments:

- PayPal closes account so Wikileaks cannot get donations through it

- Visa and MasterCard suspend payments to them for same reason

- A Swiss bank freezes Wikipedia's assets there

- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested on chages of "sexual assault"; various countries including US trying to get him

This is one of the most repugnant, disgraceful and shameful acts I have ever seen. It is okay to donate to the Ku Klux Klan on PayPal but not, it seems, to a whistle-blower website. The Swiss are free to hold the wealth of nazis, drug dealers and mobsters, but decides Wikileaks is a step too far.

I mean, wtf????

Fuck you. Fuck you all.

Congratulations, cunts. You just have made me mind up and I will be donating, for the first time ever, to Wikileaks. If that means a future knock on the door by the Met's finest, so be fucking it.

Cunts.

*rant over*

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    not sure I can add much to this expect I completly agree and if I had any money right now I would be donating some to wikileaks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, but are you really surprised by this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I got this a few minutes a go in my email.
    Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is leading the charge to outlaw WikiLeaks. First he successfully pressured Amazon.com to stop hosting the WikiLeaks website and now, as Julian Assange has been arrested in the UK, he's introduced a new bill changing the law to make WikiLeaks illegal. He even wants to go after The New York Times!

    We need to make it clear that we'll fight back. We can't let the government throw people in jail for publishing the news. Can you add your name to the right to sign our petition? We'll get your message to Congress and the media.

    Source: http://act.demandprogress.org/act/wikileaks/?akid=32.152756.IVQMHn&rd=1&source=e1&t=1

    I've signed, and I'll be donating however I can next week.

    All of this just adds to my belief that most of these "conspiracies" are true. It's scary how much it seems to all connect and make some sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you need to seperate the wikileaks the organisation from the founder. Personally I think that the actions of Mastercard et al are way over the top'

    However a serious allegation has been made of Julian Assange that he raped two women. Now unless you believe that women generally lie about rape it seems to me that Sweden is should be seeking his extradition and that the UK should have enough trust in the Swedish courts to make the right decision that they should extradite him
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However a serious allegation has been made of Julian Assange that he raped two women. Now unless you believe that women generally lie about rape it seems to me that Sweden is should be seeking his extradition and that the UK should have enough trust in the Swedish courts to make the right decision that they should extradite him

    This.

    Innocent until proven guilty but he should still face the courts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a lot of mystery over the rape charges, he has already denied the charges, when he tried to contact the courts and those who were going to prosecute him, they never responded. Interpol shouldn't have been issued, and the one that was, was issued wrongfully. There were many flaws and rules bypassed to get his name tainted as a rapist without the evidence being shown.

    I still see it as a only option to get their hands on him, and to get the public to think him, and the organization shouldn't be trusted. I don't think he is guilty, he was the one who actively went to see the lawyers to discuss the charges brought against him, and they kept him locked up.

    I don't trust Sweden.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The "sex crimes" against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that led to an international manhunt, and, now, his arrest, have always seemed, if not false, lame.

    Basically, it seemed as though two Swedish fans that Assange charmed into the sack were mortified to discover that he actually wasn't that into them.

    But then Interpol launched its manhunt, rendering Assange a cross-border fugitive. So it seemed the "sex crimes" might be more serious than initially thought.

    But what are they?

    They're not "rape," everyone agrees (at least as of a few days ago)--because the sex was consensual. They also aren't unspecified "molestation."

    What they appear to be is a violation of a Swedish law against "having sex without a condom."

    Interestingly, even that charge doesn't appear to precisely apply in this case.

    A condom was apparently used--initially. But it broke. So the dispute is about whether it broke "accidentally" (he said) or it broke "on purpose" (she said).

    That DEFINITELY sounds like a job for Interpol.

    Source

    I read this the other day. I'm fairly sure these sort of prosecutions aren't normally granted an arrest warrant from Interpol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However a serious allegation has been made of Julian Assange that he raped two women. Now unless you believe that women generally lie about rape it seems to me that Sweden is should be seeking his extradition and that the UK should have enough trust in the Swedish courts to make the right decision that they should extradite him

    Normally, I'd agree with you, but this is the dodgiest sounding rape allegation I've ever heard in my life. And the fact that it also happens to be against someone the authorities would love to nail but have nothing on only makes it more suspicious, as does the on/off nature of the way it has been handled.

    Having said that, if they think that taking out Assange would have any impact on the effectiveness of Wikileaks, they're badly mistaken. In fact, it would probably create even more support for them, just like the decisions of Mastercard, Visa, Amazon and Paypal have. Incidentally, Datacell are now suing Mastercard and Visa over denial of service.

    But this whole incident should tell you everything you need to know about that bastion of free speech, America. I actually can't believe it's illegal to leak information about war crimes, for example, as Bradley Manning did when he leaked the Iraqi helicopter video. He should get a fucking medal for that one, as should anyone attempting to hold criminals to account.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Detaining Assange wouldn't work out well for the US, seen as he has uploaded an encrypted file of presumably damning evidence with the intention to release the key to it if he is arrested.

    Source
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Normally, I'd agree with you, but this is the dodgiest sounding rape allegation I've ever heard in my life. And the fact that it also happens to be against someone the authorities would love to nail but have nothing on only makes it more suspicious, as does the on/off nature of the way it has been handled..

    Possibly, though it doesn't seem that dodgy to me. Man and women meet, man and women drink, man has sex with woman who hasn't consented. I'm hearing some stuff from blogs, but half of these seem to be the normal mixed up rumours as its certainly not what reputable news orgs are saying.

    That said the counter-proposal seems even dodgier in that it seeems to suggest that left leaning state of Sweden (normally presented as a close to utopia as possible to get) has got police, prosecuters and some left-leaning liberal women to conspire to help the right-leaning US out of a mess
    Having said that, if they think that taking out Assange would have any impact on the effectiveness of Wikileaks, they're badly mistaken. In fact, it would probably create even more support for them, just like the decisions of Mastercard, Visa, Amazon and Paypal have. Incidentally, Datacell are now suing Mastercard and Visa over denial of service.

    I agree, which is why I don't think its conspiracy. (I don;t think its conspiracy on behalf of Visa et al - I think they took hard headed commercial decisions not to get involved with something which may be seen as potentially illegal, same as your local drug dealer struggles to get Mastercard to accept his payments)

    But this whole incident should tell you everything you need to know about that bastion of free speech, America. I actually can't believe it's illegal to leak information about war crimes, for example, as Bradley Manning did when he leaked the Iraqi helicopter video. He should get a fucking medal for that one, as should anyone attempting to hold criminals to account

    If its the video I've seen it hard to qualify it as a war crime as on it there were men easily identifiable with weapons (including an RPG). Tough tittie on the journos, but war isn't pretty and isn't nice. We seem to be getting to the view if anyone is killed who isn't a soldier in full-uniform it's a war-crime; it isn't.

    It's also misleading to make it sound as is he is just being prosecuted for that but the leaking of hundreds of thousands of other reports and documents. I don't think its unreasonable for the US to prosecute people who are in positions of trust and betray that trust.

    Whether they should prosecute Assage is another matter. I'd say no, but I don't see him as some noble seeker after the truth, but a political partisan who's only interested in one side of it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you need to seperate the wikileaks the organisation from the founder. Personally I think that the actions of Mastercard et al are way over the top'

    However a serious allegation has been made of Julian Assange that he raped two women. Now unless you believe that women generally lie about rape it seems to me that Sweden is should be seeking his extradition and that the UK should have enough trust in the Swedish courts to make the right decision that they should extradite him
    A fair enough comment, and one I agree with. Rape charges are very serious indeed. What I had tried to say is that I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out in due time they were untrue and part of the campaign to hurt the organisation.

    In any event he must not be extradited to the US, whatever happens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A fair enough comment, and one I agree with. Rape charges are very serious indeed. What I had tried to say is that I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out in due time they were untrue and part of the campaign to hurt the organisation.

    In any event he must not be extradited to the US, whatever happens.

    He isn't accused of rape, he is accused of having sex without a condom which is a criminal offence under certain circumstances in Sweden.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He isn't accused of rape, he is accused of having sex without a condom which is a criminal offence under certain circumstances in Sweden.

    He's also accused of rape

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771
    Mr Assange has been arrested under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) because he has been accused of committing serious crimes in Sweden. These alleged crimes comprise one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape. The offences are alleged to involve two women and to have taken place in August 2010. Mr Assange denies the allegations
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree, which is why I don't think its conspiracy. (I don;t think its conspiracy on behalf of Visa et al - I think they took hard headed commercial decisions not to get involved with something which may be seen as potentially illegal, same as your local drug dealer struggles to get Mastercard to accept his payments)

    Oh come on, you really don't think that the US government is leaning on their corporations to cut off services? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? There isn't even a hint of a claim that Wikileaks has been engaged in any illegal activity, which given some of the people the likes of Mastercard undoubtedly serve, makes them hypocrites at best, and under the influence of the US administration at worst. The funniest thing about this entire situation is watching politicians wrestling with their desperation to condemn Wikileaks, while at the same time, having to recognise that they haven't actually done anything illegal. I particularly enjoyed the U-turn by the Aussie PM.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's also accused of rape

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771

    Sweden seems to have some weird rape laws though, judging by what I've read so far. None of the women have claimed that they were forced into sex by him. Actually, ignore that, because it seems to have changed since I last read it (funny that).

    But there are a couple of interesting facts surrounding one of the accusers. Firstly, she deleted Twitter comments (which are never really deleted, as anyone should know on the internet) made soon after the alleged assault, suggesting that she was enjoying herself in the company she was in, before she made her report to the police. She also wrote a blog entry entitled "7-step programme for legal revenge," which focused on (hypothetically) getting revenge on a former lover. It's not particularly out there to suggest that such a woman would accuse the man she slept with or rape when she also found out he was sleeping with another woman. None of this is conclusive evidence, of course, but the case was initially thrown out because there was not enough evidence. I'd be interested to see what's changed since then. But something tells me that Assange has good enough lawyers to not be convicted even if he did do it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh come on, you really don't think that the US government is leaning on their corporations to cut off services? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? There isn't even a hint of a claim that Wikileaks has been engaged in any illegal activity, which given some of the people the likes of Mastercard undoubtedly serve, makes them hypocrites at best, and under the influence of the US administration at worst. The funniest thing about this entire situation is watching politicians wrestling with their desperation to condemn Wikileaks, while at the same time, having to recognise that they haven't actually done anything illegal. I particularly enjoyed the U-turn by the Aussie PM.

    Possibly they are, but just as equally possibly mastercard et al are taking commercial decisions - eg bad publicity for being seen to work with a site which is seen as harming the US. There are plenty of claims that wikilieaks are acting illegally (handling stolen information for one), there's also the seperate argument about whether they are acting immorally and whether as a large corporation you want to be associated with this.

    However, my argument isn't that the US isn't leaning on them - it's possible, but seems to me unproven and there is certainly a counter-argument.

    Actually my enjoyment of this is that one of the good things about wiki leaks which hasn't been played well by the media is how its wrecked some of the long standing left wing conspiracies - ie about the US trying to garner support to invade Iran, when it turns outr the opposite is true and that instead of the 1m civilian casualties from Iraq it looks like the figure is a tenth that. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd be looking into whether Assange is a patsy and Bradley a mole and whether there's a number of US officials quitely laughing as they've put out some of the stories they'd have loved to be able to openly say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sweden seems to have some weird rape laws though, judging by what I've read so far. None of the women have claimed that they were forced into sex by him. Actually, ignore that, because it seems to have changed since I last read it (funny that).

    But there are a couple of interesting facts surrounding one of the accusers. Firstly, she deleted Twitter comments (which are never really deleted, as anyone should know on the internet) made soon after the alleged assault, suggesting that she was enjoying herself in the company she was in, before she made her report to the police. She also wrote a blog entry entitled "7-step programme for legal revenge," which focused on (hypothetically) getting revenge on a former lover. It's not particularly out there to suggest that such a woman would accuse the man she slept with or rape when she also found out he was sleeping with another woman. None of this is conclusive evidence, of course, but the case was initially thrown out because there was not enough evidence. I'd be interested to see what's changed since then. But something tells me that Assange has good enough lawyers to not be convicted even if he did do it.

    There's lots of rape cases where women act what seems to be strangely, rape does weird things to the mind.

    However, there does seem to be an awful lot of character assissination and rumour from various blogs coupled with innuendo about her character and morals, which seems an well orchestrated attempt to blame the victim

    Now he may be innocent, either because the woman has a personal grudge or because the Swedish state (or at least elements of it) are engaged in an unlawful conspiracy. He may also be guilty, either with malice forethought or whilst following drink he misread signals and acted with reckless abandon. Personally I think that it's for the Swedish courts to decide (or perhaps after further questioning and file through the Swedish equivalent of the DPP not even that).

    However, what leaves a foul taste is the assumption that the woman is lying simply because of who he is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sweden seems to have some weird rape laws though, judging by what I've read so far. None of the women have claimed that they were forced into sex by him. Actually, ignore that, because it seems to have changed since I last read it (funny that).

    But there are a couple of interesting facts surrounding one of the accusers. Firstly, she deleted Twitter comments (which are never really deleted, as anyone should know on the internet) made soon after the alleged assault, suggesting that she was enjoying herself in the company she was in, before she made her report to the police. She also wrote a blog entry entitled "7-step programme for legal revenge," which focused on (hypothetically) getting revenge on a former lover. It's not particularly out there to suggest that such a woman would accuse the man she slept with or rape when she also found out he was sleeping with another woman. None of this is conclusive evidence, of course, but the case was initially thrown out because there was not enough evidence. I'd be interested to see what's changed since then. But something tells me that Assange has good enough lawyers to not be convicted even if he did do it.
    I read on the Guardian that some people believe one of the alleged victims was a CIA-sanctioned 'honeypot'. Apperently she "worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro", as part of a group led by an alleged CIA agent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However, what leaves a foul taste is the assumption that the woman is lying simply because of who he is.

    I didn't say that. I said there's a chance she's lying because of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident and her behaviour afterwards. But since you mention it, let's not pretend it doesn't happen to rich, high-profile people. You don't even have to look further than football players to see numerous examples.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, let me help clear up a few mistakes and misunderstandings:

    1. The rape charges brought against Julian Assange have been commented on as circumspect, because initally the regional prosecutor found that there was not enough grounds/evidence to bring a prosecution against JA. The case was then taken up, by another prosecutor, outside of the region (which is very rare as I understand it), who has brought the charges and Interpol back in.

    2. I don't think anyone has touched on this, but as much as I support Wikileaks, in a twitter update they said JA was wrongfully denied bail in a 'bizaare decision'. Now, I would have to say, that given JA's past behaviour he is undoubtedly a flight risk (he describes himself as mobile and is constantly on the move) and so I understand why he was not granted bail. In any case, the next fight is the important one.

    3. As to paypal/mastercard/visa, there certainly appears to have been some mixed messages in the media regarding whether they firms acted unilaterally in withdrawing their services, or whether they were pressured in to doing so, see e.g.:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089024.htm; and
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/operation-payback-mastercard-website-wikileaks

    Incidentally, if you feel really incensed with these payment services firms refusing to link to wikileaks, you could always get yourself a LOIC cannon and join in with Anonymous. Although this is more likely to get you arrested.

    4. adogwithsunglasses notes the Wikileaks 'insurance file', just a bit more info on this, because the CNN report is pathetic and doesn't really understand how the tool works.

    Wikileaks has a a 1.4gb download on its site called insurance.aes256, which is now also available on most torrent systems (in fact, it was the number one downloaded torrent recently). The file is an ecrypted file. CNN say:

    "There's a reason Assange specifically announced -- on the Web -- that there is a 256-bit key encryption code that only a few trusted associates know that will unleash the contents of the 1.4 gigabyte-size file.

    "He's saying don't even bother trying. It will take you so long to succeed that by that time, it will be too late," Nigam said. "Most of the time, you see a 56-[bit]key encryption. That's considered secure. When you are using 256, you are sending a message: 'I'm smart enough to know that you will try to get in.'"


    The real issue is that 256 bitkey encryptions are unbreakable (i.e. no one has been able to crack one up until now) unless you know the encryption keys. Having disseminated the file across the internet, Wikileaks would only need to release the code, and anyone with the file would be able to unlock it. The contents are currently unknown, and could even be a bluff...

    5. It is thought that Bradley Manning also leaked these files to Wikileaks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't say that. I said there's a chance she's lying because of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident and her behaviour afterwards. But since you mention it, let's not pretend it doesn't happen to rich, high-profile people. You don't even have to look further than football players to see numerous examples.

    I'm not saying you did, but plenty of others are certainly hinting at it and making up reasons why she's falsely accusing him.

    If we're mentioning rich, high profile people who are falsely accused - not once, but twice I agree it does happen. But rich, high-profile people also do commit rape. I'd also point to Gerry Healey as an example of a man who was able to get away with rape, because there was an unwillingness within his left-wing sect to admit that there leader was a monster who preyed on their vulnerable members rather than a heroic leader in the fight against International Capital.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is one of those polarising cases where political opinions of the defendant affects people's perspectives. Regardless of the outcome...

    His supporters will say this is a right wing plot and he's being stitched up
    His detractors will say that he's guilty and any "not guilty" verdict is an anti-americanism on the part of those damned lefty-europeans...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd also point to Gerry Healey as an example of a man who was able to get away with rape, because there was an unwillingness within his left-wing sect to admit that there leader was a monster who preyed on their vulnerable members rather than a heroic leader in the fight against International Capital.
    Well if you want to bring politics into it, rest assured that there are myriads of rapists and murderers one could mention who also got away with it because of their right-wing supporters' unwillingness to see them for the monsters they were.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    promethean wrote: »
    Ok, let me help clear up a few mistakes and misunderstandings:


    5. It is thought that Bradley Manning also leaked these files to Wikileaks.

    I'm not entirely sure he would have been the person to leak these docs. I know security is a bit lax but I thought Manning was mainly to do with leaks from Iraq? Perhaps this is a little bit of source protection from wikileaks.

    On a moral point of view, what is happening to wikipedia is wrong, however to me all they seem to do is release anything and everything. If it was of genuine public concern then fair enough, but posting literally as I said anything and everything, is wikileaks really about freedom of information, or just trying to be a pain?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    is wikileaks really about freedom of information, or just trying to be a pain?

    Freedom of information IS a pain, that is sort of the whole point of it :)

    I think a point that has been missed is that the release of the diplomatic cables was not what started the persecution of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. It was the release of information about international banks operating in the Cayman Islands that triggered the first lawsuit against WikiLeaks URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2006.E2.80.932008"]1[/URL. Could it be that the reaction of the US government over the diplomatic cables is smokescreen try and shut down WikiLeaks before it can release more information about the banking institutions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Me thinks that dark forces seek malicious retribution for the rude exposure of 'dark' secrets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure he would have been the person to leak these docs. I know security is a bit lax but I thought Manning was mainly to do with leaks from Iraq? Perhaps this is a little bit of source protection from wikileaks.

    On a moral point of view, what is happening to wikipedia is wrong, however to me all they seem to do is release anything and everything. If it was of genuine public concern then fair enough, but posting literally as I said anything and everything, is wikileaks really about freedom of information, or just trying to be a pain?
    WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia.

    and Manning wasn't the person who leaked these logs, he was charged already.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure he would have been the person to leak these docs. I know security is a bit lax but I thought Manning was mainly to do with leaks from Iraq? Perhaps this is a little bit of source protection from wikileaks.

    On a moral point of view, what is happening to wikipedia is wrong, however to me all they seem to do is release anything and everything. If it was of genuine public concern then fair enough, but posting literally as I said anything and everything, is wikileaks really about freedom of information, or just trying to be a pain?
    It's been pointed out several times that if Wikileaks applied any kind of filter to the information they release, that could be interpreted as bias (which it would be).

    Some people have also said that Wikileaks wouldn't leak information about Russia, or China, or anyone who might apply a bit of 'extra-judicial action' against Assange and his mates. I haven't looked at Wikileaks, but I've heard that such information has been published. In any case, as long as the 'West' is taking a bigger drubbing (from a Western organisation), Wikileaks is probably free to reveal more facts about Russia et al than their citizens have ever been privvy to before.

    Finally, yes, there are times when some things have to be kept hidden from the public, the old 'national security' defence, but I believe it's indisputable that a whole lot of stuff that simply qualifies as embarrassing to our rulers has been swept under this particular carpet. If Wikileaks has pulled the rug the rug from under their feet and produced a cloud of dirt, they've no-one to blame but themselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.