10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:06 am

JackRiddler wrote:.

Assange would be smarter to leave some things unsaid.


I don't know about that. I mean, to coin a phrase, compared to what? He's an individual-autonomy-and-free-speech advocate who appears to have made a considered, eyes-open commitment to living free or dying, if those turn out to be what the only options really are. I'm certainly not saying that his goal is death, or that he appears to regard death as an acceptable outcome, or anything that's even remotely along those lines. I'm just saying that it would be kind of hard to come up with an ideological value-system under which leaking state secrets was justified by the paramount right of the individual to speak his informed mind freely and without fear of reprisal but bluntly stating a negative opinion of Swedish feminism wasn't.

And it's not like it's an inherently stupid thing to say. Being me, I naturally hunted down and read all the Swedish sex crime laws that I could find, back when he got busted. Plus a few random scholarly articles on the history and evolution of sex-crime legislation in Sweden just for good measure. Most of the details of which I'd forgotten within a week and have never missed since, to be quite candid about it. Because, as I'm sure it will astonish you to learn, I habitually waste enormous amounts of time on stuff like that, all the while knowing full well that it is a waste and not giving a fuck. It's kind of a lifestyle thing.

I do remember this much, though: WRT the law as it's written, Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. That wasn't what the people who got the ball rolling initially had in mind, IIRC. But that's where it ended up.

Of course, the law as it's practiced may well be a whole other story. But whether it is or isn't, it's not one that I have the first clue about. So I have no views at all on that point. But as far as what's on the page goes, I can't really say that I disagree with him. Or that I'd ever have hesitated to say as much, with appropriate qualifications, to pretty much anyone anywhere who asked my opinion on the subject.

I mean, assuming that you're not trying to win hearts and minds for the purposes of dishonestly furthering your political, personal or economic interests, why bother speaking to such issues at all if you don't say what you think?

Nome sane?

Because, incidentally, I actually do know what you're saying and don't disagree with it at all on its own implicit terms. I should hasten to add. So I'm not dissenting, really. I'm just approaching from another angle.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:33 pm

OK, I'm feeling a little lost here.

In which country is Wikileaks illegal and in which country are Dickileaks illegal?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6622
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby Plutonia » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:10 am

.
Here's a long and exhaustive examination for obsessive types:

tl;dr: Smeared to shit

Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?
Analysis

By Professor Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Ph.D. in Psychiatry (Karolinska Institutet) and Professor Emeritus in Public Health Sciences. Formerly Research Fellow in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. At present, Senior Advisor at the Department of Immunology, Stockholm University. Also currently, alternate member of the Swedish Ethical Review Board, Uppsala Region.

Contents: i) Introduction. Aims ii) Background A: The “duck pond”, iii) Background B: Sweden is not neutral, iv) The trial by media against Assange: a) Erroneous and information and deployment of disinformation, b) systematic omission of relevant information, c) character assassination, v) The “Let’s talk about” campaign and the coordinated deployment of disinformation, vi) Censure, vii) Conclusion

cont...

VII
Conclusion
The statements by Julian Assange’s lawyers in London on a Trial by the Media implemented in Sweden against their client are in this investigation sustained with facts.
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Bergamo, Italy, 20 February 2011

It's worth reading just for his analysis of how Naomi Wolf's essay has been treated in Sweden's MSM.
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby Stephen Morgan » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:05 pm

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/1 ... lashdot%29

"You can now buy officially branded Julian Assange T-Shirts, cups, netbook sleeves or bags and contribute financially to the Wikileaks fight. From the article: 'Wikileaks is looking to generate more revenue by launching an online shop that is run by Spreadshirt AG. Supporters of Julian Assange and the Wikileaks cause will be able to buy a variety of products like shirts, messenger bags, hats, buttons, scarves etc.'"
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby Ben D » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:46 pm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/01/assange_jewish_conspiracy_guardian_wikileaks/index.html
Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 18:01 ET

Julian Assange says "Jewish" conspiracy behind WikiLeaks smear campaign

The WikiLeaks founder claims a "Jewish" conspiracy is attempting to smear his organization
By Adam Clark Estes

According to a column in a British magazine, Julian Assange complained that he believes a "Jewish" conspiracy is bent on smearing WikiLeaks. Private Eye, a print magazine know both for satire and original reporting, printed a column penned by editor Ian Hislop today that details a Feb. 16 phone conversation between Hislop and Assange.

While discussing a WikiLeaks associate in Russia recently accused of denying the Holocaust, Assange told Hislop that the story represented a larger conspiracy organized by the Guardian newspaper in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support. In a reproduction of the Private Eye column -- which is currently only available in print -- Hislip attempted to reason with Assange:

[Assange] went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship -- all of whom "are Jewish".

I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was "sort of Jewish" because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law). When I doubted whether his Jewish conspiracty would stand up against the facts, Assange suddently conceded the point. "Forget the Jewish thing."

The WikiLeaks founder went on to complain about the Guardian editors, saying they "failed [his] masculinity test" and "behaved like gossiping schoolgirls."
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:05 pm

Anti-Semitic - an all purpose label that shuts it down
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby Plutonia » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:23 pm

Slimed courtesy of the 1995 playbook. Hey! It's always worked before!

Glenn Greenwald had this response today (many links at original):

Shifting editorial standards

Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 17:02 ET

By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

After the Bush administration implemented a worldwide torture regime, The New York Times (and many other American media outlets) infamously -- and so very courageously -- refused to use the word "torture" to describe what was done. Their excuse was that there was a "debate" over whether the authorized tactics were in fact torture, and media outlets should not take sides in that debate.

Earlier today, Ian Hislop, editor of a magazine called Private Eye, published a lengthy article recounting what he claims are anti-Jewish remarks made to him by Julian Assange in a private telephone call (meaning a call in which only Hislop and Assange participated). Hislop claims that Assange complained that an earlier Private Eye story about a Holocaust-denying, Russian WikiLeaks volunteer was part of an anti-Wikileaks conspiracy orchestrated by several Jewish editors and reporters at The Guardian, with whom Assange has been feuding.

Assange vehemently denies the story as asserted by Hislop -- both its particulars and its general claims. WikiLeaks, on its Twitter feed, quoted Assange as stating that "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase"; that the "'Jewish conspiracy' [claim] is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting"; and that "we treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

So let's survey what we have: Ian Hislop is making uncorroborated assertions about his conversation with Assange, while Assange is vehemently denying his claims. Despite this he-said/he-said conflict -- which no known evidence can remotely resolve -- this is how The New York Times presented the story to its readers in its headline today:

Image

I have no idea whether Assange said some, all or none of what's attributed to him by Hislop. In my multiple interactions with him, I've never detected even a smidgen of such sentiments; that doesn't mean he didn't say these things: it merely means what it means. But The New York Times also has no idea whether Assange said any of this, yet they categorically announce in their headline -- as though it's a proven fact -- that Assange "Complain[ed] of a Jewish Smear Campaign." Whether that actually happened is very much in dispute, and -- unlike the "torture" controversy, where it was established by decades of case law and the U.S.'s own pronouncements that Bush officials authorized torture -- the NYT has no basis whatsoever for resolving this dispute in favor of the accuser. While the body of the article does note Assange's denial, the whole story is told from the perspective of Hislop, and the headline constitutes a baseless NYT endorsement of his version.

All of this relates directly to the journalistic biases discussed here yesterday. Journalists and editors love to endlessly tout their own objectivity, yet their editorial conduct is so often driven by their sentiments and allegiances toward the parties involved in the story (just yesterday, the NYT used the word "torture" to describe Zimbabwe's actions because, it is claimed, "a dozen [] activists had been beaten with broomsticks, metal rods and blunt objects on their bodies and the soles of their feet" -- just as they freely apply the word to anyone that's not the U.S.). Nobody -- not even the Guardians of the National Security State -- loathes Assange the way that journalists do; recall that they led the way in condemning him and calling for his prosecution for doing what they're supposed to do. These Beacons of Objectivity thus use entirely different editorial standards -- far more unfavorable ones -- when reporting on him.

* * * * *

In his statement today, Assange suggested the various campaigns to discredit him (including the new one today) are similar in kind to the recently revealed HB Gary schemes to destroy the reputations of his group and its supporters. About that story, there are several recent developments: (1) Aaron Barr, the CEO of HB Gary Federal resigned yesterday as a result of his involvement in this scandal; (2) The Washington Post reports today that numerous House Democrats have called for a Congressional investigation into the role played in these schemes by D.C. powerhouse lobbying and law firm Hunton & Williams; and (3) several ethical grievances have now been filed against Hunton & Williams partners involved in these schemes, which -- now that they are forced to respond -- should result in the disclosure of far more detailed information about what that firm did and what happened with these proposals.


UPDATE: For those in New Mexico and Texas: I'll be speaking at several events during the week of March 7 which are open to the public; details are here.

UPDATE II: A commenter points out that Salon's article on this story does much the same thing in its headline as the NYT does, and indeed that's true (Salon: "Julian Assange says 'Jewish' conspiracy behind WikiLeaks smear campaign: The WikiLeaks founder claims a 'Jewish' conspiracy is attempting to smear his organization"). Obviously, my critique applies equally to that headline.

UPDATE III: Salon, to its credit, has now changed its headline as follows:

Image
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:32 pm

^^^

Thanks

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Assange

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:05 am

Julian Assange: At the Forefront of 21st Century Journalism
How WikiLeaks is Democratizing Journalism, Redistributing Power and Increasing Transparency
by Kevin Zeese / March 1st, 2011

If there were ever a doubt about whether the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is a journalist, recent events erase all those doubts and put him at the forefront of a movement to democratize journalism and empower people.

The U.S. Department of Justice is still trying to find a way to prosecute Assange and others associated with WikiLeaks. A key to their prosecution is claiming he is not a journalist, but that weak premise has been made laughable by recent events.

The list of WikiLeaks revelations has become astounding. During the North African and Middle East revolts WikiLeaks published documents that provided people with critical information. The traditional media has relied on WikiLeaks publications and is now also emulating WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has been credited by many with helping to spark the Tunisian Revolution because they provided information about the widespread corruption of the 23 year rule of the Ben Ali regime. PBS pointed to ten cables dating from 2006 to 2009 published by WikiLeaks in November that were translated and shared widely in Tunisia detailing the corruption and authoritarian rule of Ben Ali who lived in opulent luxury while Tunisians struggled. Foreign Policy reported that “the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.”

In Egypt, WikiLeaks publications provided democracy activists with the information needed to spark protests, provided background that explained the Egyptian uprising, described the suppression of opinions critical of the regime by arrest and harassment of journalists, bloggers and a poet; showed the common use of police brutality and torture; the abuse of the 1967 emergency law to arrest and indefinitely detain journalists, activists, labor leaders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood; as well as how rivals were removed to ensure Gamal Mubarak succeeded his father. Traditional media publications like the New York Times relied on WikiLeaks to analyze the causes of the uprising.

Another set of documents described how Israel and the U.S. wanted Omar Suleiman to replace Mubarak. Suleiman, a military intelligence officer for three decades, was described by Secretary of State Clinton, as the preferred successor. WikiLeaks wrote an article describing Suleiman’s close relationship with the United States. Suleimen described Egypt as “a partner” with the U.S. and the U.S. described him as “the most successful element of the relationship” with Egypt. The long history of Suleiman working with Israel to suppress democracy in Gaza, keeping the people of Gaza hungry, and being in constant contact with Israel through a hotline was revealed. WikiLeaks also showed that Suleiman shared U.S. and Israeli concern over Iran, and was disdainful of Muslims in politics as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. All of this made Suleiman very popular with Israel and the U.S., but unacceptable to democracy advocates.

The United States used some WikiLeaks publications to show that it had been critical of Egypt and exerted private pressure, as well as support for democracy activists like Mohammad ElBaradei. Despite what has been portrayed in the traditional media, WikiLeaks published materials with an agenda for transparency and an informed public, not an intent to harm the U.S.

WikiLeaks informed the Bahrain public about their government’s cozy relationship with the U.S. It described a $5 billion joint-venture with Occidental Petroleum, and $300 million in U.S. military sales. ABC reported on WikiLeaks documents that described the close relationship between U.S. and Bahrain intelligence agencies and how the U.S. Navy is the foundation of Bahrain’s national security. This was emphasized to General Patraeus along with their common opposition to Iran, Al Qaeda in Iraq and their desire for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq.

WikiLeaks has been criticized by U.S. enemies. Iranian President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, described WikiLeaks as U.S. “intelligence warfare” saying: “These documents are prepared and released by the U.S. government in a planned manner and in pursuance of a goal.” WikiLeaks was criticized by Libya’s Ghaddafi who shut down Facebook in Tripoli and sporadically shut off the Internet to prevent Libyan’s from knowing the truth. No doubt WikiLeaks publications embarrassed Ghaddafi, adding fuel to internal opposition to his regime.

WikiLeaks is filling a void with traditional media as the level of distrust of the mass media is now at record highs. A recent Gallup Poll found 57% of Americans do not trust the media and a Pew Poll found a record low 29% trust the media. There is good reason for distrust. The New York Times helped start the Iraq War by publishing the false weapons of mass destruction story. It recently misled the public about a Blackwater employee arrested in Pakistan by hiding the fact that he worked for the CIA, while reporting that Obama said he was a diplomat. Even the way the Times and Washington Post reported on WikiLeaks documents showed reason for distrust. WikiLeaks described Iranian long-range missiles that could hit European cities but also reported that Russian intelligence refuted the claim. The Times and Post evidently made a decision to exaggerate Iranian capability and mislead readers by excluding the Russian intelligence report. The Times admits it provides WikiLeaks documents to the government in advance and excludes material at the request of the government.

There has been a steady decline in readers and viewers of newspapers and television news since 1980. The decline began before the existence of the Internet. The decline in younger readers has been particularly noticeable – 30 years ago 60% of people under 36 read a newspaper daily, now it is 30%. The Internet has seen a steady rise in viewers and news outlets.

Even though some in the traditional media are threatened by WikiLeaks, more and more outlets are acknowledging their journalism. Reporters Without Borders hosts a mirror site of WikiLeaks as “a gesture of support for WikiLeaks’ right to publish information without being obstructed.” Similarly, a mainstream French newspaper Liberation announced a “mirror-WikiLeaks” site on its website

Jeff Jarviz of the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism writes:

We in journalism must recognize that WikiLeaks is an element of a new ecosystem of news. It is a new form of the press. So we must defend its rights as media. If we do not, we could find our own rights curtailed. Asking whether WikiLeaks should be stopped is exactly like asking whether this newspaper should be stopped when it reveals what government does not want the public to know. We have been there before; let us never return.

The Guardian, a WikiLeaks partner, wrote in an editorial:

There is a need as never before for an internet that remains a free and universal form of communication. WikiLeaks’ chief crime has been to speak truth to power. What is at stake is nothing less than the freedom of the internet.

Jay Rosen of the New York University journalism school describes WikiLeaks as the first “stateless news agency.” The actions of WikiLeaks, he noted, show our news organizations how “statist they really are” and leakers going to WikiLeaks rather than the traditional media, shows how distrustful people are of the corporate media. This all shows that the “watchdog press has died” and WikiLeaks is filling the void.

The void will exist – and be filled – whether or not the Department of Justice prosecutes Julian Assange. The Economist writes:

With or without WikiLeaks, the technology exists to allow whistleblowers to leak data and documents while maintaining anonymity. With or without WikiLeaks, the personnel, technical know-how, and ideological will exists to enable anonymous leaking and to make this information available to the public. Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.

The traditional media is emulating WikiLeaks. Al Jazeera has created a “transparency unit” that launched in January 2011 and has published the Palestine Papers, which describe the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, based on leaked documents. The New York Times is now talking about creating its own version of WikiLeaks. Students at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism designed LocaLeaks, allowing anonymous encrypted leaks to over 1,400 U.S. newspapers. Government employees and business insiders can now report illegal or unethical practices without being identified.

The journalism democracy door has been opened, power to report is being redistributed, government employees and corporate whistleblowers are being empowered and greater transparency is becoming a reality. The United States would be better off accepting these realities than prosecuting the news organization that showed the way. Prosecution will highlight the utter hypocrisy of the U.S. government, showing the world it does not mean what it says when it claims that freedom of speech and press are cornerstones of democratic government.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests