Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

Aw, I missed everything.... who's next? Batter up!

Edit: Maybe we should get the rape out of the way too... unless someone wants to talk about incitements to kill?

Originally posted by Kayzar

The Palin thing, sure it was in bad taste but if i shot my neighbor hood kid on the basis of he terrorizes my cat and the president said we had a war on terror. Would people blame bush?

......I would! Of course Bush was behind it!!! I mean, that kid WAS terrorizing your cat, right? Bush didn't just incite you to do it...he practically shot the kid himself!!! No..I take that back. He DID shoot the kid!!! I think he was behind terrorizing your cat too....I mean his crowd of cronies and associates sort of have a history of supporting Violent Individuals one minute as Freedom Fighters, and then labeling them Terrorists and our enemies the next, just like they did with Al Queda...The way I see it, Bush was behind an operation that funded the kid for years with money made from a secret CIA drug smuggling organization off the coast of Texas.They were training him for years to be a better cat terrorizer as part of a small piece in their overall plan.....then when the War on Terror started, Bush continued to fund him, but now he was a bogey man set up to scare the populace, and make them more likely to accept such invasions of personal liberty as government regulations regarding pet nuetering...and the secret CIA program of getting people's pets chipped, in case they run away, which in actuality puts a mini-super computer in your pet capeable of seeing through your pets eyes, and hearing through its ears...sort of the perfect spy. Of course I think that in your particular case, you have been an asset to the CIA without realizing it.....let me explain the scenerio. The kid was obviously becoming a rebel in the program, and they decided to take him out. Unbeknown to you, you were part of a secret MK-Ultra mind control program, and they set you up to be a 'Lee Harvey Oswald' style patsy...You were given a fake gun and programmed to kill the kid because he was a 'Cat Terrorizer'....Of course, even you believe that you pulled the trigger, but in reality it was good ol' G.W. himself hiding behind a grassy knoll....just like his daddy did with JFK.
Hope that helps!

Murder incitement domain names becoming a fad

Setting up death threats against Julian Assange as domain names is a new fad. Just don't try setting up "killobama.org" or "murderthepresident.com". The site vivantleakers.org... is devoted to tracking these explicit threat domain names. At the moment it lists 6 domains of the "kill Assange" variety.

wlcentral.org...

Go Daddy, the site which registered both killjulianassange.com and julianassangemustdie.com said there is nothing that can be done about either site while they are contentless. Go Daddy registers a domain name every .8 seconds -- any domain name can be registered and there is no human intervention. More... "Unless and until there is content associated with killjulianassange.com there is no way for us to know what that means," said Christine Jones, Go Daddy's General Counsel. "There's no way to judge whether there's going to be something done with that domain name or if it is going to be violating any rule."

reply to post by aptness


Assange and his lawyer are the ones who are invoking the past in an effort to affect the present, namely his extradition to Sweden to face the accusations made against him.

Again I find it funny that Assange makes no issues accusing others of illegal activity, yet objects when its leveled against him. If he is going to use the argument that the Swedish charges are a direct result of US interference, then the exact same arrgument can be made against Assange when it comes to wikileaks, since there is no way to confirm if the leaks are real, valid, or that Assange didnt just make them up.

Assange has said if he was arrested he would release the "insurance file" - not released
Assange said he has information regarding a major US bank and would release it in January - Nothing
Assange said he has information on Rupert Murdoch - Nothing
Assange promised 50k for mannings defense fun, but to date only provided 15k

What he is doing is the old stick and carrot routine. Hype for media, get donations, and then promise something else a few months later. Wash rinse repeat.

Assange lies once again, and puts himself first

WikiLeaks highlighted Manning’s plight after his arrest, writing on Twitter, “We do not know if Mr. Manning is our source, but the U.S. military is claiming he is so we will defend [him].” In a fundraising e-mail last June, the organization said it needed more donations in part because it was “flying a legal team to Kuwait,” where Manning was being held. “Any financial contributions will be of IMMEDIATE assistance.” The group subsequently promised to send $50,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network.

What actually happened?

But while salaries were paid out to founder Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks members, the promised support to Manning failed to materialize. Assange recently received about $88,000 in retroactive salary for his work with WikiLeaks in 2010. He also recently signed a $1.5 million book deal to publish his memoir.

Again, they beg for donations using Pvt. Mannings plight as the reason to donate. When donations come in, the money never makes it to Mannings defense fund, but instead is used to pay salaries. Again he perpetrated a fraud and used his followers by lying to and misleading them, insted placing himself first.

Lets clarify so there is no confusion:

Assange publicly announces they are going to help manning, and request donations for his defense. Those donations come in, and instead of using them for mannings defense, assange uses the funds to pay himself and other wikileak employees.

In different articles Assange has claimed wikileaks is loosing anywhere from 400k to 700k a week because of the leaks.

Last month, PayPal and Bank of America cut off the mechanism to provide donations to WikiLeaks through their services, amid mounting U.S. pressure against the organization for releasing diplomatic cables. Assange claimed in a recent interview that his group has been losing about $620,000 a week since it began publishing the cables. He did not, however, provide any information to substantiate the claim.

The problem is the long promised release of financial information from wikileaks is still missing. The document is supposedly going to detail where the money goes, and jsut like the "insurance" files above, its never followed through with. This does not stop him thought from requesting more donations to help offset the costs.

Assange threatens Lawsuit against the Guardian Newspaper

Assange, suddenly faced with having lost control of documents that WikiLeaks itself had received from a source, asserted that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released, the magazine reports

Intrestingly enough Scientology as well as legal services for an African country threatened Assange with legal action for publishing private information. Assanges response to them was "go to hell". So again, he comes across as above the law, ignoring action directed at him while threatening the exact same action against those who cross him, like the Guardian. When information regarding Assanges charges in Sweden were released, Assange again was pissed and threatened legal action and demanded an investigation into how the info was leaked.. Once again, a double standard.

Financial motivation - Kind of contradicts, again, his stated goals. For those not making the connnection, Assange is exploiting this information, not in an effort to expose wrong doing, but to make money off of it. His supporters are falling for it hook line and sinker.

Lets look back at his stated goals:
January 2010 - Assange states goal is open transparency
In the article, Assange rents a house and explains to the owner they are media and are there to report on the Volcano erupting. The moment the land lord left, they ignroed the volcano and went to work on the helicopter video. So lets see, Assange claims to be media, and lies about his purpose. A disturbing trend that he accuses governmetns of doing.

Assange has made statements that theyhave never illegally obtained any information, classifed or top secret, and that all of that info comes to them from sources. The problem is, he lied when he said that:

Assange hacked into Pentagon Computers in the 90's

It’s a compelling documentary, even if it provides little new information. In one segment (above, at 3:53), Assange reflects on his work as a black hat hacker in the early 1990s, recalling wistfully how he and others hacked into the Pentagon’s Security Coordination Center. The SCC was a Chantilly, Virginia, office that handled computer security issues for MilNet — later NIPRNet — the U.S. military’s portion of the public internet.

“We had a backdoor in the U.S. military Security Coordination Center –- this is the peak security for controlling the security of MilNet … U.S. military internet. We had total control over this for two years,” he tells the interviewer.

A backdoor refers to a malicious tool that hackers place on a network, once they’ve gained entry, to provide them with easy and continued surreptitious access to the network, allowing them to come and go at will.

Chat logs between Pvt. Manning and Lamo
To those who are taking exception to Mannings incarceration and his mental state:

(1:43:59 PM) Manning: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)

Self medicating is the key term there

Assange has consitently stated he did not know who the source of the information was, and has been consistent in stating that. The problem with that is Pvt. Manning says otherwise:

(1:51:02 PM) Manning: thats just one cable…
(1:51:14 PM) Lamo: Anything unreleased?
i[]u[](1:51:25 PM) Manning: i’d have to ask assange
(1:51:53 PM) Manning: i zerofilled the original
(1:51:54 PM) Lamo: why do you answer to him?
(1:52:29 PM) Manning: i dont… i just want the material out there… i dont want to be a part of it

If they didnt know each other, why is he addressed by name, where manning says he needs to ask Assange if anything was unreleased?

Maybe Manning misspoke:

This is the continuation of the May 22 2010 chat logs.

In this chat, Manning discussed his role as a source for Wikileaks and his interactions with its enigmatic founder, Julian Assange. He also talked about two videos he claimed he provided Wikileaks — one of an airstrike in Iraq in 2007, which he said he gave Wikileaks in February and which Wikileaks said it spent three months decrypting before publishing it this last April; and another video taken during an air strike in Afghanistan in 2009, which Wikileaks has acknowledged it possesses but has not yet published.

(2:04:29 PM) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer
(2:05:38 PM) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source… and i’ve developed a relationship with assange… but i dont know much more than what he tells me, which is very little
(2:05:58 PM) Manning: it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange

Hmmm.. nope. He didnt mispeak, and knew he was speaking with Assange himself, and Assange knew who he was talking to Manning. Which completely contradicts Assanges claims he never met Manning, and never knew who the source was.

Chat log transcript from May 23, 2010

(8:01:30 AM) Lamo: Does Assange use AIM or other messaging services? I’d like to chat with him one of these days about opsec. My only credentials beyond intrusion are that the FBI never got my data or found me, before my negotiated surrender, but that’s something.
(8:01:53 AM) Lamo: And my data was never recovered.
(8:02:07 AM) Manning: no he does not use AIM
(8:02:37 AM) Lamo: How would I get ahold of him?
(8:02:59 AM) Manning: he would come to you
(8:03:26 AM) Lamo: I’ve never failed to get ahold of someone.
(8:03:29 AM) Manning: he does use OTR though… but discusses nothing OPSEC
(8:03:42 AM) Lamo: I cornered Ashcroft IRL, in the end.
(8:04:19 AM) Manning: he *might* use the ccc.de jabber server… but you didn’t hear that from me

for a person Assange says he does not know, Manning sure does know quite a bit about how to get ahold of him, means of communications Assange uses, and how Assange operates.

I am curious who is lying, Manning or Assange?

In December of 2010 Kaite Couric interviewed Julian Assange, and asked him some questions about the info they received and about Pvt. Manning. Julian Assange says he never met, knew, or had any contact with Pvt. Manning, which runs contrary to what Pvt. Manning is saying (makes one wonder if wikileak supporters will turn theuir anger towards manning now for disparaging the god they worship).

CDB Interview - Dec 2010 with J. Assange

Julian Assange: Our technology means we don't know who is submitting us materials. But the name Bradley Manning was first heard by us when we read an article about his arrest in Wired magazine.

Katie Couric: So neither you nor WikiLeaks provided any technical assistance to Private Manning before he exfiltrated this information?

Assange: Well, I assume that is correct. Now, remember, we've never heard the name of Bradley Manning before. But it's interesting you're raising that particular question, because it's something that appears to be coming out of attempts to conflate media activities with espionage. That's a serious business.

No doubt, some prosecutors, seeking to gain their bit of fame and reputation by taking us on, but they're going to lose.

Again Assange moves the focus back to himself and wikileaks, and how they can't be taken on by anyone because wikileaks will always win - This goes back to the Narcissitic and Melogmaina argument I have been making about Assange. He also uses an intresting term in the conversation - "Well, I assume thats correct". This is purposely used so if this was ever brought back up in court, the term assumed, will be his term to back out of any knowledge question about manning. If he flat out denied it was manning, the question is, how do you know that for a fact, which means Assanges claim that their software does not allow people to be identified was a lie, or because Manning personally checked into the source, which again they say they dont do.

So Katie Couric then asks Assange about their purpose.

Couric: Can you explain, Mr. Assange, to people who may not understand your motives or agree with you why you've done this? What you hope to accomplish?

Assange: Katie, we have a four-year publishing history. We have published materials provided to us by whistleblowers from 110 countries across the world.

And we simply have a very easily understood promise. Unlike most media organizations, we don't arbitrarily choose what to publish or not to publish based upon the political or personal whims. We have a publicly stated policy, that, like lawyers, we are journalists that will assist sources getting out certain information to the public.

It is information that is of diplomatic, political, ethical, or historical significance. And this material is clearly of great human rights and political significance. Clearly of ethical and historical significance.

Hang on a sec, they dont arbitraily decide what to print? So the Insurance files they have on the chance he goes to jail, the Bank information they have as an insurance file, the Rupert Murdoch info they have as an insurance file.

Yup, not being arbitrary there. So the question is was Assange lying in Dec of 2010, or was he lying at his latest press converence when he asked for donations?

When kate asked about placing other people in danger, which we have argued in these forums left and right, we get another answer from Assange that allows wiggle room.

Couric: Are there certain secrets, classified government information that you believe should in fact remain secret? Because you do redact some material from what you publish.

Assange: We are an organization that attempts to promote human rights by revealing abuses that are concealed. So, of course, we never want to be in a position where through our releases we actually are causing harm to individuals.

So we move from no harm at all, to clarification of:

Or at least not more harm than the good we are causing.

Through our four-year publishing history, there has never been-- an example of any individual-- coming to any sort of physical harm of all that has been alleged. The U.S. government has made it clear, when it has been asked, that it is not aware of any single incident.

We can argue this all day and night, and will never change each others minds, and thats fine because that is what freedom is. Which is more than I can say for Assange who uses those types of terms when its convenient, and ignored them when its convienent. He has contradicted himself many times in terms of the goal of wikileaks, the result of the release of information, going from promoting transparency to withholding information and then asking for more donations.

He is stringing people along, using his supporters for hiw own agenda and financial gains, and the info above is proof of this.

All I ask is those people who are foolowers of Assange to take a step back from the info, and look at the larger picture, from what he says to his actions. Look at the words he uses when talking about Sweden -

Rendition, Death Sentence, Gitmo, Treason

All used to illicit an emotional response from those invovled in his legal fight against Sweden.

He is manipulating the system, as well as his followers.

And before people rush to his defense with the thought of "Wee, the US Government did the same thing" I remind you that statement is the SOLE reason Assange origionally stated as the goals of wikileaks. Fair, transparency and to expose criminal and UNETHICAL behavior of governments. The Unethical part is in caps to drive home that what Assange is now doing, is the exact same thing he accuses other Government, and people of doing.

But hey, after all this info if you still want to worship and support him, both by marching the MLK day "Free Manning Rally" to sending Assange more money to go to himself instead of what he says its actually for, that is your choice to do so.

The term you will need to get used to down the road when all of this blows up in Assanges face is you were warned, shown evidence of his actions and contradicitions, and as such the only person to blame is going to be yourself for being duped.

So to tie all of this together with the current topic. Assange is going to put his 2 cents out there about Palin, Huckabee and will link it to himself while invoking Arizona. This is going to do nothing but bring more high profile people out of the wood work who will speak out against Assange and his actions, up to and including using the Arizona incident for his own agenda.

This will piss of the Assange supporters, as well as the anti Republican, anti gun, anti government groups, who will support Assange simply because he has made an enemy out of the groups these other groups rail against on a daily basis.

It brings more press into the topic, generates more news cycles with Assange and wikileaks in the headlines, and most importantly, and as we already saw, waits till the cmaeras are back after making those claims in an effort to solicit donations.

Why, after all of this time and effort, would Assange go down this road? Because he wants revenge:

Source

The intrusion was previously mentioned in an early version of Assange’s bio published by WikiLeaks when the site launched in 2006, which reads in part: “As a teenager he became Australia’s most famous ethical computer hacker. After referrals from the United States government his phone was tapped in 1991, and he spent six years in court. He hacked thousand of systems, including the Pentagon and the U.S. military Security Coordination Center.”

Assange, who used the handles “Proff” and “Mendax” during his black hat years, teamed up with two other hackers who called themselves the International Subversives. The group broke into networks in Europe and the U.S., including networks belonging to NASA, the Defense Department and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Assange continued the activity until he was 21, when he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and other related activities and ultimately pleaded guilty to 25 charges.

The above was the aftermath of his participation in hacking into US Government, Pentagon etc computers during the 90's.

Gee, I wonder how we will ever find a motive for his bizzare actions? The invocation of other countries that he has released info on is nothing more than a smoke screen done in an effort to appear and equal hater of Governments, and nothing more.

reply to post by purplemer


Uhm yeah.. The reason you dont setup a domain name with killobama.com would be ebcause its a violation of Federal Law.

18 USC Part I Chapter 84 section § 1751.

Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties.


Yes we have freedom of Speech in this country, but you still cannot walk into a theatre and yell fire.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Assange and his lawyer are the ones who are invoking the past in an effort to affect the present

He whom controls the present, controls the past....

Assange said he has information regarding a major US bank and would release it in January - Nothing

the info by all acounts will be released soon. A website was set up recently and a couple of days ago, the forum was opened on the site...
bankofamericasuck.com...

happy days

kx

Originally posted by purplemer
He whom controls the present, controls the past....

And those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Assange and the past - 90's - Hacked into Pentagon / Government computers, charged with 31 counts, convicted of 25

Originally posted by purplemer
the info by all acounts will be released soon. A website was set up recently and a couple of days ago, the forum was opened on the site...
bankofamericasuck.com...

happy days

I will point out that setting up a site, but not posting anything to it, does not mean he fullfilled the promise he made. There will be a delay in the release of that info, and it will revolve around lack of funds on their part, or how the US Government is involved in blocking the content.

People will bitch about it, and he will once again announce that he has even more damning information and will release it when the Government announces we have a base on Mars and that the moon is indeed hollow and make out of linbergher cheese.

I wont hold my breath, since he has established the track record of announce and dodge.

kx

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by purplemer
He whom controls the present, controls the past....

And those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Assange and the past - 90's - Hacked into Pentagon / Government computers, charged with 31 counts, convicted of 25

Did he do any jail time or what?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I will point out that setting up a site, but not posting anything to it, does not mean he fullfilled the promise he made. There will be a delay in the release of that info, and it will revolve around lack of funds on their part, or how the US Government is involved in blocking the content.

People will bitch about it, and he will once again announce that he has even more damning information and will release it when the Government announces we have a base on Mars and that the moon is indeed hollow and make out of linbergher cheese.

I wont hold my breath, since he has established the track record of announce and dodge.

kx

People used to say the same things about steven grier and richard hoageland...that they are only in it for the money. Sure you can make a case about that but I suspect either the nwo is forcefully discrediting them or they were always part of the nwo to begin with.

The best way to control the outcome is to control the opposition....hence its hard for the opposition to win if they keep arguing pre-planned platforms. Its always a OR b...never c or d! Either you ban guns OR everyone has one(including the crazies). Either your a democrat OR your a republican. Either its black OR its white....yada-yada

What happened to the billion other choices? If george soros(his handler?) does not agree then tough luck??

I am not criticising you XCathdra because you put lots of effort in your posts and I can respect that however you have NOT made your position clear. One day you critise him for stealing classified data then the next day you make him look like a snake charmer for not releasing enough information. You are confusing us, more than assange, with your bait and switch tactics.

Personally speaking I think Assange should be arrested and charged under the espionage act as well as conspiracy, and the bulk of the people think he is a hero.

My position has been pretty clear, and most of the comments directed at me can bare that out. My argument about his release of information is to highlight the fact Assange has stated he has info, and he is going to release it, yet never does. Assange has gone on record saying they dont arbitrarily pick and choose what will be released, when in fact they do. Assange has stated his efforts are geared towards transparency, honesty, and accountibility, then turns around and threatens to sue the Guardian newspaper, who received wikileaks files from Assange with conditions, and then another source with no conditions.

Assange was pissed and said the information was "his" and that he had financial intrests that were in jeopardy because of the Guardians actions.

He purposely teases the information (insurance file, Bank of America, Rupert Murdoch), making claims of how damaging the info is, yet never releases it. If you go back and look at his interviews, its usually coupled with some type of financial followup. I view it as a subtle way to solicit donations by people who hope the info will eventually come out.

In the meantime, he keeps his followers foaming at the mouth with promises of new releases while soliciting donations.

My argument has always been that Assange is using his followers for financial gain to push his personal agenda. He has consitently given confilcting answers to his goals..

His supporters continually ignore the obvious.

If they did charge Palin, wouldn't that mean that Julian would have to appear in an American court to give evidence?
I'm sure Palin and the American government would absolutely love that!!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Charged on 31 counts, found guilty / pleaded guilty on 25 counts, only given a fine.

Source

Programming quickly became hacking once Assange got an Internet connection, and soon he was accessing government networks and bank mainframes. He was arrested in 1991 and charged with more than 30 criminal counts related to his hacking. Facing as many as 10 years in prison, Assange struck a plea deal.

During sentencing, the judge ruled that Assange only had to pay a fine. Assange's hacks were not malicious; they were the harmless result of “inquisitive intelligence,” said the judge.

Originally posted by Flighty
If they did charge Palin, wouldn't that mean that Julian would have to appear in an American court to give evidence?
I'm sure Palin and the American government would absolutely love that!!

There would be no case against Palin or Huckabee, so it would be irrelevant if Assange wanted to press charges in the first place.

If Assange is going to make the argument that their words caused potential backlash, then the exact same legal argument can be used against Assange for releasing classified information.

As I said before, the only reason Assange has made that claim, while invoking the Arizona shooting, was to put himself back in the spotlight with the media.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah, I realise all that.
I was saying IF he did hypothetically , it would put him exactly where the American government would love to have him, on American soil.
I should've been more clear.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Xcathdra’s long post offers no convincing argument about why Assange should be prosecuted for his current actions (publishing classified information), and most of Xcathdra’s post focuses instead on why he despises Assange so much — from accusing him of hypocrisy, to getting a potential book deal — but these things, even if he’s guilty of them, are not crimes.

He then quotes extracts of chat logs between Adrian Lamo — a hacker who was prosecuted for numerous offenses and has since been working with US agencies — and Bradley Manning, where Manning supposedly admits to knowing or being working with Assange. But there are numerous problems with the logs.

First, Wired magazine, the entity that published the chat logs that Xcathdra quoted, by their own admission, say they published only “about 25 percent of the logs,” which they handpicked, and altered to some effect. (“As received by Wired, the logs contained timestamps but not dates, so the dates below are approximate. We have substituted the instant messenger screen names with real names.”) Were those the only alterations made to the logs? What information exactly is in the complete logs? And does that information help or hurt Lamo, Manning or Assange? We don’t know because we don’t have the original logs.

Note that Xcathdra had no problem relying on handpicked extracts of chat logs — incomplete and filtered information — published by Wired and makes no mention of this fact, while simultaneously demanding Wikileaks and Assange to immediately release all the information they have.

Second, Wired’s Senior Editor, Kevin Poulsen, also a hacker, and the owner of the chat logs is a personal friend of Adrian Lamo. Is he, like Lamo, also working with US agencies? Is he protecting Lamo by not publishing certain portions of the logs? Maybe even helping Lamo’s narrative of what happened and what Manning conveyed to him? We don’t know because we don’t have the original logs.

And lastly, Wired magazine has had the logs for over 6 months, has written about this whole affair and capitalized on it, and has stated that, to date, has no intention of publishing the complete logs. I wonder if Xcathdra will denounce Wired’s practices and demand the release of the complete unfiltered original logs, as he does in relation to Wikileaks and Assange.


Still related to the logs, it should be known that Adrian Lamo, by his own admission, when communicating with Manning, said he was a journalist, and even an ordained minister(?), and as such, could protect Manning from anything he told him, and by law he was under the obligation not to reveal it to anyone.

[Lamo] holds himself out as an "award-winning journalist" and told Manning he was one ("I did tell him that I worked as a journalist," Lamo said). Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn't appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California's shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning's talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (...) In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential -- perhaps legally required to be kept confidential -- only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.

Even if the things Xcathdra accuses Assange, and are briefly and vaguely alluded to in the published portions of the logs — that Assange knew Manning — are indeed in the logs and were indeed written by Manning, does it prove Manning knew or spoke with Assange? No. Couldn’t it be a case of Manning bragging to a fellow hacker that he knows Assange and/or works for Wikileaks, just like he was bragging about the information he stole from US military systems?

And, even if Manning and Assange communicated, through IM as alluded in the published portions of the log, does it prove Assange knew it was Manning he was talking to? Does it prove Manning identified himself, his work and rank, when and if he in fact communicated with Assange?

We only have three passages, from 25% of the chat logs, that might have been altered, that show that Manning claimed to have been in contact with Assange. But even so, never once in the extracts of the logs, was it shown that Assange ordered or requested anything from Manning.

So the most important revelation here, is actually, a non-revelation: that nothing in these extracts of the logs published so far prove Assange ordered or requested Manning to steal any information.


More recent posts by Xcathdra focus on the fact that Assange is/was a hacker, and that at some point in his live he was convicted for breaches of computer systems. I’m unsure why this is relevant to the question of whether Assange, by publishing classified information, has committed a crime or not.

In fact, and since Xcathdra relies so much on Wired, and the portions of the logs they have published to help his theory, I will respond to these most recent posts by Xcathdra using Wired’s own words—

Tellingly, Greenwald never misses a chance to mention Poulsen’s history as a hacker, events that transpired nearly two decades ago and have absolutely no bearing on the current case. This is nothing more than a despicable smear campaign based on the oldest misdirection in the book: Shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
He purposely teases the information (insurance file, Bank of America, Rupert Murdoch), making claims of how damaging the info is, yet never releases it. If you go back and look at his interviews, its usually coupled with some type of financial followup. I view it as a subtle way to solicit donations by people who hope the info will eventually come out.

In the meantime, he keeps his followers foaming at the mouth with promises of new releases while soliciting donations.

Can you please cite where Assange or any other spokesperson for Wikileaks has committed to releasing information by a specific date and failed to do so.

So far in this thread, only the schedule of the Bank information in January has been mentioned and it is still January in my timezone, so no failure to deliver as yet. I've read your assertions that this 'will' not happen, but that is simply an assertion of opinion (or prediction), not factual information as you claim to post.

Using media opportunities to ask for donations is not IMO in any way malevolent, hypocritical, devious or any other form of negative, it's simply expedient. Personally, I would rather wikileaks found a handful of super wealthy individuals to bank roll them, but if that's not the case, then what the hell is wrong with asking for donations? In one way, it's more honest - if there isn't a mass appeal and demand for what they are doing, then they will not have the financial means to continue - so people vote with their wallet.

Promises made and broken, without apology and/or explanation are indeed a worry (money for Manning's defense fund), but again, was money promised by a specific date? If not, then no promise has been broken if the intention is still present and not retracted.

Whilst I can see a justification in some limited cases of governments keeping information secret from public for short periods of time, on the whole I find the classification protocols repugnant and little more than an enabler of despicable practice by those who feel themselves untouchable. Without the ability to hide their acts and scheming, those who find themselves in positions of privilege would be far less likely to do what they do for selfish reasons. Transparency forces one to have conviction in one's course of action.

Whilst I can see the argument for hypocrisy by a whistleblowing organization attempting to keep secrets, I do have compassion for the need to 'play the game' intelligently. Without secretive manipulations by those in power, there would be no need or use for an organization like wikileaks, so this is a stimulus response situation, not 2 comparable entities.

Originally posted by MisterCrowley
Well, I call on the wiki-leaks founder to be hung on treason charges.

No, you can't, he's not an American citizen and has therefore not acted in treason against your nation.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Well looks like i had the bead dead on with this guy from the beginning then......

Charging them with incitement to kill.......hmm better charge Obama then too eh?

This statement from him reaffirms my belief that hes only out for himself.......

Obama should be charged under international law for sanctioning the murder of innocent people.

The drone attacks in Pakistan are illegal under international law. International law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, yet these people are not only being found guilty in their absence, they are being executed without charges filed, without a legal case, without representation, without public knowledge, without any individuals being held readily accountable...

reply to post by RogerT


It should also be stated that a donation is just that, a donation. You are not paying for a service.

Money donated does not come with services supplied unless stated, in which case the definition changes to a payment.

If the site states that payment is for access to information, there would be a case, but that is not what is stated. Payments are made to support the organization not for a service being provided.

Therefore the argument posed is null and void.

please,

jullian is clutching at straws.

he is complicit in espionage as the ny times etc.

f him and hope he gets life for rape.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange has said if he was arrested he would release the "insurance file" - not released

Insurance is just that.
He is released on bail in the UK, he is not being held.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange said he has information regarding a major US bank and would release it in January - Nothing

It is still January isn't it? Last time I checked it was. I didn't sleep in again did I?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange said he has information on Rupert Murdoch - Nothing

But did he say when he would release that information to you? No.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange promised 50k for mannings defense fun, but to date only provided 15k

And you've provided what exactly?
What have American citizens provided to support a young man who actually has a conscience and a moral opinion?
Are you pro or anti WL? Because you seem to just be selecting any ammunition you can muster in your battle to discredit. If you're against what Manning did, then why do you care if Assange has "only" provided 15k?

Your attack is both weak and childish, claiming that you somehow have a right to the information. If you're just impatient, I would suggest you move on and forget about the whole thing. If you're just using whatever you can find to attack WL and Assange, you're doing a bad job of it and presenting yourself as an obvious antagonist who doesn't care about any of the real issues, you're just flailing about and attacking in any way you can, even if it contradicts your own opinions.