Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

BBC News - Wikileaks: Swiss bank shuts Julian Assange's account

BBC News - Wikileaks: Swiss bank shuts Julian Assange's account

Yes, that’s right, Assange’s SWISS bank account has been closed—there’s buckets of irony there. How many international criminals have used Swiss bank accounts for hiding their money??  And here comes Assange who, apparently, lied on his application regarding a Geneva residence. I’m sure this lie coming to light now has nothing to do with international pressure.


Assange should go to the bank that all the baddies on TV go to.


Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s ATM card is still working fine, I bet—and he admitted to ordering torture!


>_<


Found via thedaytheytriedtokillme.com.

From last Friday: WikiLeaks Fronter and Devil of the Day, Julian Assange, answers reader questions at Guardian.co.uk--a great read for both defenders of and those offended by WikiLeaks

From last Friday: WikiLeaks Fronter and Devil of the Day, Julian Assange, answers reader questions at Guardian.co.uk--a great read for both defenders of and those offended by WikiLeaks

My favorite is how he admits that a goodly chunk of the remaining docs to be published refer to UFOs. :)  And no, it doesn’t sound like there’s anything really “good” in there like admissions of cover-ups or the like.  :(

Friday, December 3, 2010

More Reasons Why Free Speech Trumps Government Secrecy (more on why WikiLeaks should be left alone) UPDATED

If this week’s post on EFFYOU.org didn’t give you enough reasons to support WikiLeaks (or at least understand why they are important) here are a few more reasons I’ve snipped from another great post from underpaidgenius:



Jeremy Geelan contacted me about the Wikileaks mess, and wanted my two cents. His piece is an interesting juxtapositioning of cloud computing and political intrigue.


A few snippets:



WikiLeaks & Web 3.0 - A Commentary | Cloud Computing Journal


[…]

“The Internet is open, we have to embrace that. I for one, am proud there are secure silos around the world that can host material and get it out to the people. Yes we have to take the rough with the smooth, and while we do not agree with what they publish, if we live in a free society then this is what we have to swallow if I am to be able to stand up to be heard without fear.

The Internet can keep governments honest…or at least more honest than historically allowed. We have to keep things open.”



[- Alan Williamson]


STOWE BOYD, self-declared social philosopher and “webthropologist,” takes Williamson’s “We have to keep things open” stance to another level.


“What WikiLeaks represents is civil disobedience channeled through an agenda of radical openness,” declares Boyd. “The individuals involved on a personal level are deciding that laws that may or may not designate their activities as illegal are illegitimate, that our obedience to the state is coerced, and therefore can be morally opposed and countered.”


Boyd goes on to explain this in more detail as follows: “Wikileaks is an example of direct action, like Greenpeace activists attempting to shut down the Knightsnorth power station, claiming that the laws against trespass and destruction of private property were outweighed by the need to counter global warming to prevent far greater property damage around the world. They were acquitted, the first time such a claim was used as a ‘lawful excuse’ for committing a crime (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace). One form of “direct action,” Boyd continues, is to expose secrets, especially when governments or large corporations are saying one thing publicly and doing another clandestinely.


“In some cases these exposés might involve criminal wrong-doing, or simply duplicitous behavior,” says Boyd.


“Amazon or other hosting providers that opt to decline support for WikiLeaks or other activists may be acting because of alternate moral viewpoints, or through coercion, or fears of future repercussions when governments may decide that the hosts are culpable in some way,” he adds.




Incidentally, according to the WSJ, Amazon has said that they weren’t coerced by the USG to drop WikiLeaks, but that they were in violation of their TOS. More miraculous timing!  Like that rape charge this isn’t really a rape charge, according to a Gizmodo post (turns out he didn’t use a condom—seriously! You can clearly see why Interpol was required to catch this man! >_<).


UPDATE 20101205: Turns out it *was* a rape charge after all.  Isn’t this supposed to be the communication age?  >_<


Incidentally, I head Assange’s lawyer say on Democracy Now last week that when this story first broke he offered himself up to authorities to work out what was going on.  Turns out they didn’t take him up on it and now want to arrest him. Go fig!

Thursday, December 2, 2010



Fareed Zakaria thinks WikiLeaks isn’t hurting America? THAT COMMIE!


Found via coalspeaker who commented:



I think Julian Assange is going to be the TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR.



I think he should be chosen.  Everyone is certainly acting like he’s the most powerful/influential person on the planet (even though he isn’t).


For more on my opinion on WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange, check out Episode 35a of the 666cast or this week’s EFFYOU recipients at http://EFFYOU.org.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Guy who pissed off the USG wanted for rape for all of 30 seconds, but we'll never hear the end of it

coalspeaker:



“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange “no longer wanted” and not a rape suspect, Swedish prosecutor says on website”

— Huh?? .. CNN headline .. Confusing day..



Confusing day? Confusing MORNING. That’s how fast this story broke and unbroke—for me, anyway.


I woke up to this story this morning and since I woke up early, I took a nap and when I woke up, the arrest warrant had been dropped.


This is one of those ridiculous stories that pops up, distracts the crap out of us for days or weeks and then goes away forever. Sure, it’s already obvious the charges had no connection to reality, but will that stop TV’s idiot-pundits and repulsive Republicans from casting aspersions on Assange for the next week or two just to give their True Believers something to be hateful of?


I always wonder about these sorts of “Flash in the Pan” “news” stories.  They always seem so incredibly concocted and contrived that I imagine they were completely planned in order to distract from some other story that someone doesn’t want getting out.  Sure, it’s just my imagination, but these stupid stories come up and even though they’re obviously useless, the Mainstream Media makes sure that they’ll distract us for several days.  What are we missing in the meantime?  Even if this Assange/rape story wasn’t cointelpro by the USG, the time lost to this story will cost other stories face time.  What if one of those other stories was really important?


Thanks to our wonderful newsmedia of shitheads, we may never know.


It’s not like this is the first time a story like this has come along, either.  Remember that time that creepy dude claimed to be the murderer of JonBennet Ramsey?  It was fodder for all the headlines for about a week.  If you believe the MSM, everyone wanted to hear about this transgendered guy in Asia who had suddenly decided to admit his guilt. Then, as quickly as he had appeared on the national scene, he was gone.


While I don’t imagine Assange will disappear as that creepy dude has, I believe these accusations will hang around for a week or two and then disappear—just long enough to serve as another useless distraction.


it’s like a pop-up on my computer asking me some irrelevant question I don’t really care about.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Wikileaks Adventures Comics: US Admiral Accuses Internet Superheroes of Bloody Hands; Mrs. Irony

Today on Democracy Now, they played the following quote from Admiral Mike Mullen who spoke out against Wikileaks and their huge document-release:


ADM. MIKE MULLEN: Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we’ve been given, but don’t put those who willingly go into harm’s way even further in harm’s way just to satisfy your need to make a point.

via democracynow.org


The huge irony here is the part I italicized. I’m sure, if there’s one thing Admiral Mike Mullen (or any other military mucky-muck) knows about, it’s what it’s like to have blood on your hands. What a child to think that sort of argument would work against someone like Assange.


And check it out—if Assange ends up being to blame for the deaths of anyone, doesn’t it follow that it’s really the military that should be blamed since they put those soldiers and those Afghan families in harm’s way in the first place? Let’s take that one better—let’s blame the guy who put the military in a place where it could then put those soldiers and Afghan families in harm’s way. It’s the Commander-in-Chief. So really, it’s George W. Bush who may have the blood of “some young soldier or that of an Afghan family” not Jim Henson’s Wikileaks Babies.


Give me a break, Mullen.


Everyone knows people die in war!! The news media and the military has done a great job of cynically reminding us of how there’s nothing new in the docs that were Wikileaked. So, why the hell would Assange and his supporters hesitate to release docs that could result in deaths when so many on both sides have died already?


Oh really? “Some young soldier” might die? Well, maybe if he hadn’t been ordered to invade a country, he wouldn’t have died.


Stupid, useless argument.


And how can the military and it’s propaganda wing have the gall to ignore the rich, choco-flavored irony of accusing Assange and Pals of having blood on their hands???


Seriously—is there not a sane brain in the American government today?


This war is unjust, it’s costing too much, people continue to die for nothing and we all know it—WHAT IS THE DEBATE HERE?


US Military: you’re following orders, we get that, but this war (and the one in Iraq) is a dead dead dead end. We can’t fix it and are only responsible for the latest round of messed-up-edness there. That “country” has been messed-up for thousands of years. Let it go.


And let our soldiers come home.


Yes people will die because we left, but they’ll die if we stay. And we shouldn’t have gone in the first place. If we had sent in an elite, light-weight task force to track down ObL, I think we’d have gotten a lot closer to our goal there. But that’s an alternate reality now… or is *this* the alternate reality? >_<