Julian Assange Discussion

[luke wilson]

What can the government of america do, on account of Julian Assange that would be detrimental to the citizens of this world? As far as I am aware, he has brought to light and to mainstream attention things that werent previously known to the common man. Maybe suspected. This things, might be true, might be propaganda, they might have been planted, I dont really know!! However, more importantly I find he has brought forth a new idea or has ignited an old idea. The idea that people shouldnt just trust there governments or coorparations. The idea that these entities might be malevolent. I remember the Cs in there latest edition saying this is a bad time for psychopaths. Assange surely has played some role in this. Look conspiracy theories exist and have always existed and the mere fact they are called conspiracy tanishes there credibility, but through wikileaks, some of these things are coming out and being accepted as not conspiracies anymore but fact. The only reason he might be denying the whole 9-11 thing, is as a whole strategic enclosure thing, whether he knows about it or not. If he came out and started saying 9-11 was an inside job, well I dare say his life would come to a rather abrupt end! Especially given the kind of credibilty he has now. I am sure he is not so dumb as to think some fictional guys from some cave somewhere nearly brought the most mighty nation to ever exist to its knees....

Interms of his things with those girls. Well, he is just a man! He has weaknesses! What other man put in his position, with women throwing themselves all over him wont atleast be tempted. He is paranoid aswell, who wouldnt when you know the might of the american government is busy accusing you of jeopardizing there national security given the stories you hear about what they can do. This is not to say I am excusing his behaviour. I just think it is indeed part of a smear compaign. Who is to say, those girls werent paid or somehow brainwashed or manipulated to do what they did and sucker him into that trap??

All in all, Assange has done atleast something positive and brought certain hidden facts to the light of day!! And for that in this STS world we live in, he might end up paying a price especially after being so open about it. Other hackers and whatnot can hide behind aliases or firewalls or whatnot.... It takes a brave hacker to step out from behind the shadows into the light of day and not have to sell his soul to the entity he was fighting in the first place which in his case is whistle-blowing.. I see him more as a modern day robin hood!

In all honesty, I have actually never been to wikileaks. I dont really know much about this guy except the little I hear on news and what people talk about but from what little I can gather, this is what comes to mind. The world would still be a darker place without wikileaks!

Finally, all I can say, is if this whole wikileaks fiasco is somehow being orchestrated by the pyschopaths for there own STS purposes, then they have shot themselves on the foot.

 

[Gonzo]

Just came across this on BBC news website
Gonzo

From _http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11151277

HEADLINE: Sweden reopens Wikileaks founder rape investigation

SUBHEAD 1: A senior Swedish prosecutor has ordered the reopening of a rape investigation into Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Public Prosecutions Director Marianne Ny said there was "reason to believe a crime has been committed" and that the crime was classified as rape.

Last week prosecutors cancelled an arrest warrant for Mr Assange on accusations of rape and molestation, saying he was no longer suspected.

Mr Assange denies any wrongdoing saying the accusations are "without basis".

The decision to re-open the case follows an appeal by a Swedish woman who has accused Mr Assange of raping her.

In a statement about her decision to review the case, Ms Ny said of the rape allegation that "more investigations are necessary before a final decision can be made".

She also said that an accusation of molestation - which is not a sex offence under Swedish law - against Mr Assange should be reclassified and investigated as a case of sexual coercion and sexual molestation.

The statement said Ms Ny would lead the new inquiries.

SUBHEAD 2: Sensitive timing

It is the second time a Swedish prosecutor has been overruled by a prosecutor of higher rank in relation to the claims against Mr Assange.

Last week the chief prosecutor for Stockholm quashed an arrest warrant which another prosecutor had pursued against Mr Assange, saying that there was no reason to suspect he had carried out the assault.

Mr Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, has suggested that the allegations are part of a smear campaign by opponents of his whistle-blowing website.

When the rape allegations first emerged, he said their appearance at a time when Wikileaks had been criticised for leaking Afghan war documents was "deeply disturbing".

In July, Wikileaks published more than 75,000 secret US military documents on the war in Afghanistan.

US authorities attacked the leak, saying it could put the lives of coalition soldiers and Afghans, especially informers, at risk.


NOTE: Edited for clarity

 

[daveOS]

All in all, Assange has done atleast something positive and brought certain hidden facts to the light of day!! And for that in this STS world we live in, he might end up paying a price especially after being so open about it. Other hackers and whatnot can hide behind aliases or firewalls or whatnot.... It takes a brave hacker to step out from behind the shadows into the light of day and not have to sell his soul to the entity he was fighting in the first place which in his case is whistle-blowing.. I see him more as a modern day robin hood!

I think the ad hominem "It takes a brave hacker to step out from behind the shadows into the light of day and not have to sell his soul to the entity he was fighting in the first place..." stands in complete denial of the vectoring Laura pointed out earlier...

Bottom line is: Julian looks like a well-meaning, nice, idealistic guy who has been twisted by his experiences in life. He also sounds a bit schizoidal. That's the kind that can so easily be vectored by masterful "handlers."

Perceval established Assange very likely figureheads a very damaging 'reverse psychological' psy-op meant to confound truth seeking perceptions and confuse the masses.

Today, for a while, Assange was accused of 'rape and molestation' by the Swedish public prosecutor. Assange was in Sweden last week. Within a few hours however, the charges were dropped. Interestingly, Wikileaks is in the process of moving its operations to Sweden. Would you believe me if I suggested that the rape allegation was possibly a case of 'reverse psychology'? That someone, somewhere, with considerable influence, flirted with the idea of accusing Assange in order to lend credence to the idea that 'they' are out to get him and thereby set in stone his and Wikileaks' image as true champions of the people? Or do you demand that our world be more prosaic, and that the wayward son a Saudi royal really was the mastermind behind the incredibly complex 9/11 attacks?

What gives Assange such confidence to confront the PTB in light of his experiences taking protective action against cults and volatile ex-partners threatening the welfare of his immediate family and son?

[quote author=Raffi Khatchadourian]
"No Secrets" - The New Yorker

As the criminal case was unfolding, Assange and his mother were also waging a campaign to gain full custody of Assange’s son—a legal fight that was, in many ways, far more wrenching than his criminal defense. They were convinced that the boy’s mother and her new boyfriend posed a danger to the child, and they sought to restrict her rights. The state’s child-protection agency, Health and Community Services, disagreed. The specifics of the allegations are unclear; family-court records in Australia are kept anonymous. But in 1995 a parliamentary committee found that the agency maintained an “underlying philosophy of deflecting as many cases away from itself as possible.” When the agency decided that a child was living in a safe household, there was no way to immediately appeal its decision.

The custody battle evolved into a bitter fight with the state. “What we saw was a great bureaucracy that was squashing people,” Claire [Assange's mom] told me. She and Assange, along with another activist, formed an organization called Parent Inquiry Into Child Protection. “We used full-on activist methods,” Claire recalled. [...]

In 1999, after nearly three dozen legal hearings and appeals, Assange worked out a custody agreement with his wife. Claire told me, “We had experienced very high levels of adrenaline, and I think that after it all finished I ended up with P.T.S.D. It was like coming back from a war. You just can’t interact with normal people to the same degree, and I am sure that Jules has some P.T.S.D. that is untreated.”Not long after the court cases, she said, Assange’s hair, which had been dark brown, became drained of all color.

_http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=7
[/quote]

If the trauma of such a situation was enough to drain Assange's hair color - and given his good causes for healthy suspicion and how it's guided him to the welfare of those most close to him - I find it surprising he's now supposedly boldly threatening the most powerful governments in the world with seemingly not a worry in the world about the security of his family. Seems to me it takes money to buy that kind of confidence in light of what he's been through.

Ultimately as Perceval points out, there's an impotence to the WeakeeLeaks disclosures and now it seems to be spinning off into some kind of American idolized freak-show tragedy with the latest resurrection of Swedish rape charges (Gonzo's pointed out) demonstrating how useful a tool Assange proves for the MSM in all his reverse psychological distraction. Now we even get Assange's "new Fall look" with the Wall Street Journal yammering ...
Assange Calls Rape Probe 'Legal Circus'
_http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467540444512012.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
... (originally titled "Assange 'Calls The Kettle Black'" but WSJ had to flex their creativity) to let us all know they'll be dragging out the 'did he? didn't he?' for as long as they can milk it for.

If I were directing a PTB 'prime for MSM production' needed as a decoy to cover for perpetrating crimes while directing blame to my stooge, I think the Assange show succeeds on many reverse psychological levels:

1) Posit hopeful social consciousness
2) Represent justice keeping ("4th Estate") check and balance of power
3) Spellbind truth-seeking collective consciousness
4) Flood information space with tailored war-crime disclosures
5) Assert storylines of invented enemies
6) Blame and shame the USA for Zionist instigation of crimes

There are probably more features and benefits than I can think of given suppression of the rules of the paradigm the PTB play by I'm not privy to. But based on the chessboard the stewards of Cassiopaean truth make us aware of, at the moment I think Assange looks like a Queen being played by the Zionistas.

 

[Gonzo]

It occurs to me that the newspapers who have been selected by Assange to cover Wikileak's release of such oh-so-secret info (sarcasm), results in extending Assange's credibility as a facilitator of whistleblowing and champion of government transparency, to both those newspapers as well as an extension to MSM in general vicariously. MSM has suffered tremendous credibility damage since 911, so this is quite important for their owners and executive to overcome.

These newspapers further their credibility by challenging some of Assange's statements so they continue with the appearances of objectivity.

Gonzo

 

[Laura]

WikiLeaks Spokesman Quits- 'The Only Option Left for Me Is an Orderly Departure'
Der Spiegel
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:14 CDT

Daniel Schmitt, who has revealed that his true name is Daniel Domscheit-Berg, says WikiLeaks has a structural problem. "I no longer want to take responsibility for it," he says.

In an interview with Spiegel, Daniel Schmitt -- the 32-year-old German spokesman for WikiLeaks who is also the organization's best-known personality after Julian Assange -- discusses his falling out with the website's founder, his subsequent departure and the considerable growing pains plaguing the whistleblower organization.

Spiegel: Mr. Schmitt, you and WikiLeaks have been unreachable by e-mail for several weeks. What's wrong?

Schmitt: There are technical problems and no one to take care of them. WikiLeaks is stuck in a phase in which the project has to change itself. We grew insanely fast in recent months and we urgently need to become more professional and transparent in all areas. This development is being blocked internally. It is no longer clear even to me who is actually making decisions and who is answerable to them. Because of the high pressure we have all been under following the publication of the American military documents, we have not been able to restructure our organization accordingly. This has created a situation in which not all of the work is being done correctly, and that is overwhelming the project.

Spiegel: Is that your opinion or do all the people involved share it?

Schmitt: That is one of the points of dispute internally, but there are others. WikiLeaks, for example, was always free of discrimination. In the past we processed and published smaller submissions that were only of local importance the same way that we did more comprehensive documents that are of national or even international importance.

Spiegel: Why don't you do both?

Schmitt: We would like to, but unfortunately we've reached a dead-end. I have tried again and again to push for that, but Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project. Four weeks ago, he suspended me-- acting as the prosecutor, judge and hangman in one person. Since then, for example, I have had no access to my WikiLeaks mail. So a lot of work is just sitting and other helpers are being blocked. I know that no one in our core team agreed with the move. But that doesn't seem to matter. WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project.

Spiegel: Why has your fight with Assange escalated to this degree?

Schmitt: We have all experienced intense stress in recent months. Mistakes happened, which is okay, as long as people learn from them. For that to happen, though, one has to admit them. Above all, though, we seem to have lost the faith that we are all pulling together.

Spiegel: Assange himself says that you questioned his power and wanted to take over leadership of WikiLeaks.

Schmitt: From my perspective there was no power struggle. It wasn't about personal interests, it was about our organization and its development. Only he can say why he sees things differently.

Spiegel: Nevertheless, you did advise him to temporarily retreat from the public eye as a result of the rape allegations lodged against him in Sweden.

Schmitt: The investigation into Julian in Sweden is, in my opinion, a personal attack against him, but they do not have anything to with WikiLeaks directly. Still, it does cost time and energy and it weighs on him. In my opinion it would have been best if he had pulled back a bit so that he could quietly deal with these problems. It would have been fine if he had continued his normal work out of the spotlight. But he clearly saw my internal proposal as an attack on his role.

Spiegel: What will happen now?

Schmitt: I worked on WikiLeaks because I considered the idea to be right and important. We tried numerous times to discuss all of the issues mentioned with Julian, without success. I have given more than 100 interviews to media all around the world, coordinated finances in Germany and also worked on the publication (of documents). Now I am pulling out of the project and will turn my tasks over to -- who knows?

Spiegel: Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

Schmitt: A handful of people in the core team, who have views about these things that are similar to mine but do not want to go public. A large amount of the work is done by people who want to remain unnamed. There is a lot of resentment there and others, like me, will leave.

Spiegel: You are leaving the project at a critical juncture. Do you not worry that a number of Internet activists may accuse you of betraying the cause?

Schmitt: I am aware of that, but you should assume that I have thought long and hard about the step. Nevertheless, in recent years, I have invested a considerable amount of time, money and energy into WikiLeaks. But I also have to be able to support the things for which I am publicly responsible. That is why the only option left for me at the moment is an orderly departure.

Spiegel: What is it that you no longer stand behind?

Schmitt: That we promise all of our sources that we will publish their material, for example. Recently, however, we have only focused on the major topics and applied practically all of our resources to them. Take the US Army Afghanistan documents at the end of July, for example. The video of the air strike in Baghdad in 2007, "Collateral Damage," was an extreme feat of strength for us. During the same period of time we also could have published dozens of other documents. And through our rising recognition in the last six months, we have again received a lot of material that urgently needs to be processed and published.

Spiegel: With the publication of classified Afghanistan reports, also through Spiegel, you have taken on the United States, a superpower. Washington is threatening to prosecute you for espionage and WikiLeaks supporters have been interrogated by the FBI. Bradley Manning, who is believed to be one of your informants, is sitting in jail. Are you afraid of the massive public pressure?

Schmitt: No, pressure from the outside is part of this. But this one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do. For us it is always about uncovering corruption and abuse of power, wherever it happens -- on the smaller and larger scale -- around the world.

Spiegel: What does it mean for the organization now that its second most recognizable face after that of Julian Assange is leaving? Is WikiLeaks' future in jeopardy?

Schmitt: I hope not. The idea behind WikiLeaks is too important for that. There are a number of new people in Sweden and Great Britain and I hope that they will all work on something sensible. I believe in this concept that we set out to do, and I am confident that it will survive.

Spiegel: With a part of the WikiLeaks team now leaving, do your informants need to be concerned about what will happen with the material they submitted?

Schmitt: It is my view that material and money from donors should remain at WikiLeaks, because both were intended explicitly for this project. There are other opinions internally -- with our technical people, for example. No matter what, though, we will ensure that a clean transition happens.

Spiegel: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

Spiegel: In your role as WikiLeaks spokesman, you have always gone by the name "Daniel Schmitt." What's your real name?

Schmmitt: It is high time that I also stop doing that and to go public with my name and my opinions. My name is Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

 

[Laura]

Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt

Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
Wired
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:44 CDT

A domino chain of resignations at the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks followed a unilateral decision by autocratic founder Julian Assange to schedule an October release of 392,000 classified U.S. documents from the war in Iraq, according to former WikiLeaks staffers.

Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers - far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of U.S. collaborators and informants in Iraq.

“The release date which was established was completely unrealistic,” says 25-year-old Herbert Snorrason, an Icelandic university student who until recently helped manage WikiLeaks’ secure chat room. “We found out that the level of redactions performed on the Afghanistan documents was not sufficient. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate.”

Assange did not respond to e-mail queries from Wired.com.

At least half a dozen WikiLeaks staffers have tendered their resignations in recent weeks, the most prominent of them being Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who, under the name Daniel Schmitt, served as WikiLeaks’ German spokesman.

Domscheit-Berg learned about Assange’s agreements with a number of media outlets last month, but did not know the details or when the documents were scheduled to be released. When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek.

A purported transcript of the chat provided to Wired.com by a WikiLeaks insider shows the conversation grew heated.

“You are not anyone’s king or god,” wrote Domscheit-Berg in the chat. “And you’re not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader.”

“You are suspended for one month, effective immediately,” Assange shot back. “If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.”

Domscheit-Berg did not provide the transcript to Wired.com, but confirmed the substance of the chat in an interview with Wired.com. The promised “appeal” was never heard, and Domscheit-Berg’s suspension was followed by his resignation last Saturday.

“Julian is a really brilliant person and he has a lot of very, very special talents,” Domscheit-Berg says. “We’ve always [thrived by] a diversity of qualities that different people bring in…. That works as long as you’re working in a team. But whenever you lose that spirit, then one of the qualities just becomes too dominant in some ways — such as taking solitary decisions and thinking that you’re in a position to do that.”

Domscheit-Berg announced his resignation in an interview with Der Spiegel. By then, a key WikiLeaks programmer had resigned as well, sources say. The coder was responsible for building the software tool WikiLeaks’ volunteers were using to perform a painstaking, line-by-line harm-minimization review of the Iraq logs.

Then Snorrason, the Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.

“I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest,” Assange wrote Snorrason. “If you have a problem with me, piss off.”

“I believe that Julian has in fact pushed the capable people away,” Snorrason said in an interview with Wired.com. “His behavior is not of the sort that will keep independent-minded people interested.”

Snorrason says he does not know the source of the Iraq documents, and made clear he wouldn’t identify that source if he did. But he expressed some concern that Assange’s decision to release the massive database would impact the legal case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has been charged with improperly downloading and leaking classified information to WikiLeaks. Manning disclosed to a former hacker in May that he had given WikiLeaks a database covering 500,000 events in the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009. Manning said the database included reports, dates, and latitude and longitude of events, as well as casualty figures.

Tension has been mounting within WikiLeaks since July, when the organization went public with a U.S. Army database of 92,000 documents from the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks released 77,000 of the documents, temporarily holding back 15,000 records to redact the names of Afghan informants who might be at risk of Taliban reprisal. Despite the precaution, the names of some Afghan collaborators slipped out in the 77,000 records, earning WikiLeaks criticism from human rights organizations and the international free press group Reporters Without Borders, as well as the Pentagon. There has been no evidence to date, however, that anyone has suffered actual harm due to the documents.

The redaction of the final 15,000 documents was completed weeks ago, according to some former WikiLeaks staffers, but Assange has held off on publishing those reports for reasons he has not shared within the group.

A sex-crime investigation against Assange in Sweden has further increased pressure on WikiLeaks. Assange’s reaction to the probe — he’s implied that his accusers are part of an organized plot against him — triggered some grumbling among staffers who felt that Assange should refrain from making such allegations, and temporarily take a less public role in WikiLeaks. Someone close to WikiLeaks leaked this concern to Newsweek blogger Mark Hosenball in August.

Assange suspected Domscheit-Berg was the source of that leak. The text of the chat that ended Domscheit-Berg’s tenure at WikiLeaks follows.

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are

Assange: “A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him.”

Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

Assange: No, three people have “relayed” your messages already.

Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

Domscheit-Berg: it’d actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

Assange: who, exactly?

Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

Assange: those are the only persons?

Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

Assange: how many people at the club?

Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

Assange: How many people at the club?

Assange: In what venue?

Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

Domscheit-Berg: go figure

Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

Domscheit-Berg: so i dont care anymore either

Domscheit-Berg: other than that, i had questions first, and i need answers

Domscheit-Berg: like what agreements we have made

Domscheit-Berg: i need to understand this so we can continue working

Domscheit-Berg: you keep stalling other peoples work

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: start answering my questions j

Assange: This is not a quid-pro-quo.

Assange: Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i have already told you again that i dont see why i should answer to you anymore just because you want answers, but on the same hand refuse to answer anything i am asking

Domscheit-Berg: i am not a dog you can contain the way you want to j

Assange: I am investigation a serious security breach. Are you refusing to answer?

Domscheit-Berg: i am investigating a serious breach in trust. are you refusing to answer?

Assange: No you are not. I initiated this conversation. Answer the question please.

Domscheit-Berg: i initiated it

Domscheit-Berg: if you look above

Domscheit-Berg: twice already

Domscheit-Berg: i want to know what the agreements are in respect to iraq

Assange: That is a procedural issue. Don’t play games with me.

Domscheit-Berg: stop shooting at messengers

Assange: I’ve had it.

Domscheit-Berg: likewise, and that doesnt go just for me

Assange: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed.

Domscheit-Berg: you are not anyones king or god

Domscheit-Berg: and you’re not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now

Domscheit-Berg: a leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself

Domscheit-Berg: you are doing the exact opposite

Domscheit-Berg: you behave like some kind of emporer or slave trader

Assange: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately.

Domscheit-Berg: haha

Domscheit-Berg: right

Domscheit-Berg: because of what?

Domscheit-Berg: and who even says that?

Domscheit-Berg: you? another adhoc decision?

Assange: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.

 

[Buddy]

All I can say at this point is that appearances suggest that Assange somehow went loco or he's been 'gotten to' in a way that will practically destroy WikiLeaks from the inside out, or both.

 

[anart]

All I can say at this point is that appearances suggest that Assange somehow went loco or he's been 'gotten to' in a way that will practically destroy WikiLeaks from the inside out, or both.

I think, perhaps, that 'went loco' or 'has been gotten to' might be giving him a bit too much credit...

 

[Buddy]

All I can say at this point is that appearances suggest that Assange somehow went loco or he's been 'gotten to' in a way that will practically destroy WikiLeaks from the inside out, or both.

I think, perhaps, that 'went loco' or 'has been gotten to' might be giving him a bit too much credit...

Probably so. I seem to have a tendency to do that (give too much credit).

 

[Gonzo]

I'd. be interested in knowing if those who recently resigned saw some of his characteristics earlier or if they felt he changed.

It's hard to tell from the drips and drabs of info that are making their way out, but he sure seems to be acting in a rather arrogant, egotistical, dictatorial meesiah kind of way lately but I have no idea if he was always like that or if he hid it well until recently or if someone flipped a switch.

Perhaps time will tell as more is exposed.

Gonzo

 

[Laura]

On and on the drama goes. A veritable sideshow of much ado about nothing:

WikiLeaks chief hits out at media


WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange hit out at the mainstream media last night, attempting to discredit reports about negligence, infighting and funding irregularities at the whistleblower.

Assange dismissed recent reports of resignations and disquiet within the organisation, following the publication in July of a huge archive of secret US military files relating to the war in Afghanistan, as "another absolute lie".

He acknowledged that 32-year-old WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg had been suspended but disputed that he had resigned, despite Domscheit-Berg telling German newspaper Der Spiegel that he was leaving the organisation and accusing Assange of "acting as the prosecutor, judge and hangman in one person". In the Spiegel piece, the former WikiLeaks spokesman says Assange had "reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project".

Speaking in a debate at London's City University alongside broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby and Times columnist David Aaronovitch, Assange refused to be drawn on the matter, saying simply that Domscheit-Berg's suspension was "about a different issue".

The WikiLeaks founder hit out at Wired magazine, which alleged in an article earlier this week that at least "half a dozen WikiLeaks staffers have tendered their resignations in recent weeks".

Wired also published an instant messenger exchange reportedly between Assange and Domscheit-Berg, in which the spokesman was suspended, and criticism of Assange's management from another WikiLeaks team member.

Assange responded last night, saying that "particular people at Wired magazine are involved a long-standing fight with us, where they were involved with the FBI and US Army CID (Criminal Investigation Command) in bringing one of our alleged sources, Manning, who is now in prison in Quantico, into prison. It is not just the public's right to knowledge that is important; it is the public's right to understand what is false".

Assange accused the Times of inaccuracy over a story from a July edition of the newspaper, which he produced in the debate, which claimed that an Afghan informant had died as a result of the publication of the Afghan war logs. He also countered reports that WikiLeaks had been condemned by Amnesty International over the Afghan war logs, saying that these reports were the result of a scam involving the Wall Street Journal and were based on "an absolute lie".

Assange similarly criticised the Huffington Post for alleging that WikiLeaks had received $20 million in funding from the Chinese government. He hit back at Guardian reporter Nick Davies who last week, speaking at a Frontline Club event, said that WikiLeaks' process of redaction involved "a kind of word search through these 92,000 documents looking for words like source or human intelligence (...) it's a very inefficient way of making those documents safe and I'm worried about what's been put up on there".

It was Davies who first persuaded Assange to work with mainstream media organisations on the Afghanistan documents and worked closely with him on the Guardian's publication of extracts. "Nick Davies is wrong," responded Assange. "Nick Davies doesn't know. I'm not going to criticise Nick anymore, because we have an ongoing working relationship, but he should talk to me (...) before making such comments."

Speaking after the event, Assange refused to say whether he was working with anyone from the Guardian on the upcoming release of almost 400,000 documents relating to the war in Iraq. He did confirm that WikiLeaks was working with media organisations internationally to prepare the documents.

"We are involved with a number of press organisations and none of those relationships have been adversely affected by recent controversy," he said.

The New York Times, which also partnered WikiLeaks for its Afghan release, has also voiced criticism about the organisation's handling of the information. In an email to the Daily Beast in July, New York Times editor Bill Keller said of Assange: "His decision to release the data to everyone, however, had potential consequences that I think anyone, regardless of how he views the war, would find regrettable."

Questioned last night by Aaronovitch on WikiLeaks' accountability and the security precautions they take before publishing leaked documents, Assange defended WikiLeaks' approach: "[O]f course we considered that [security]. We put in a process of dealing with that. We took away one in five documents prior to the release (...) That doesn't mean the process is infallible.

"We are an organisation with limited resources and the Pentagon wasn't going to help us. The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times with vastly great resources made no assistance, so we've taken a harm minimisation approach, that is, to do the best effort we can."

"In trying to achieve justice, we are not scared to be criticised," he added. "We are not scared to make mistakes."

 

[anart]

Looks like Julian's 'created reality' is crumbling around his ears - or he was assigned to control it, and make sure it crumbled at some point anyway.

 

[Laura]

Looks like Julian's 'created reality' is crumbling around his ears - or he was assigned to control it, and make sure it crumbled at some point anyway.

I don't think any of it is deliberate on his part. I think he's just a naive, ignorant guy who is pretty narcissistic and therefore easily manipulated.

 

[Joe]

If he ever thought that the contents of those "war logs" were anything special, he is certainly naive, and totally unaware, apparently, of the already freely available data about about Iraq and Afghanistan that makes his "war logs" look like a report on a paintball outing. If I had received those documents, I honestly would have found nothing worthy of publicizing in them.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

If he ever thought that the contents of those "war logs" were anything special, he is certainly naive, and totally unaware, apparently, of the already freely available data about about Iraq and Afghanistan that makes his "war logs" look like a report on a paintball outing. If I had received those documents, I honestly would have found nothing worthy of publicizing in them.

Kinda like the disclosure thing Dolan keeps going on and on about, huh? Considering what we know about what's going on in the world, the idea that the US government is involved in an alien cover up is totally not some deep dark planet-shocking secret. I think even the average joe (no offense, Joe!) probably suspects this at this point. It's a walk in the park compared to the fact that our entire history and present world is a total pathological lie and that we're controlled by brutal psychopaths, who in turn are controlled by their hyperdimensional masters who eat our suffering for dinner, and have done so for thousands of years. Now there's something worthy of being called a "shocker". As it stands, most people already suspect that US government was involved in 911 coverup, and I suspect a great chunk of the population suspects an alien coverup as well, they just don't realize just how deep and sinister the rabbit hole is - the real devil is in the details.

But Assange's group and Dolan's new direction are the equivalent of the US government admitting that they didn't do enough to prevent 911. Neither is really "wrong" per se, but it's harmless and truly meaningless and bypasses the root and meat and potatoes of what's going on by a mile. Admitting to a small relatively harmless not-so-shocking fault which totally distracts from something so much more sinister and significant. As Laura already pointed out, they're in the same camp as David Icke and all those others who were vectored. A shame too, I don't know about Assange, but I really regret realizing that Dolan isn't "on the ball". Just as you think a high profile person is waking up, it always turns out too good to be true. And even if he's not waking up, at least his research was a solid contribution to help others awaken - but now even that has been taken away.