Unauthorised Julian Assange autobiography due out

Unauthorised Julian Assange autobiography due out

www.bbc.co.uk

An autobiography of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being released... despite the fact Mr Assange broke off his involvement and tried to cancel the project.

After... more than 50 hours of taped interviews, he decided he wanted to cancel the contract.

"All memoir is prostitution," the publishers say he declared after reading the first draft.

...the [six-figure advance has] already been used to settle outstanding legal bills...

...They then decided to publish without Mr Assange's consent...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WikiLeaks Founder, Julian Assange: International Man of Mystery
Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Arrested in London

A conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy...

Is there anything normal about this man's life? (Perhaps we're about to find out.)

Who will benefit? Who will profit? Will it be true?

Assuming the sordid accusations made against Julian Assange are basically trumped-up charges, I'd suggest it will be well worth hearing what this guy has to say about his formative years, the start of the whole saga, and his ongoing trials and tribulations.

Except with this being an 'unauthorised autobiography' - the result of a bitter dispute - who knows whether it might be purposely slanted against the autobiographer!



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by pause4thought


Sounds to me like Assange needed cash, the wikileaks scam he has been using is failing, and so he decided to find it another way. To cancel after 50 hours and an advance on the cash, only to pay off legal bills with the money, and then to just walk away from it....

How people cant see that he uses everything and everyone around him for his own personal needs is astounding to be honest.

An unauthorised autobiography? Impossible!

An unauthorised biography, perhaps, but an autobiography is actually written by the person it is about. This sounds like it was never one and is just a biography..

Splitting hairs, maybe, but a distinction that needs to be made..

That aside, if he signed a contract and then gace 50 hours of interviews, he kind of stiched himself up there. Unless there was an exit clause, he has to honour the contract, especially if he has taken an advance.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Some rather bold statements there.

the wikileaks scam he has been using is failing

You wouldn't happen to have an agenda would you?..



reply to post by stumason

An unauthorised autobiography? Impossible!

An unauthorised biography, perhaps, but an autobiography is actually written by the person it is about. This sounds like it was never one and is just a biography..

It is odd. But supposedly the book summarises the 50 hours of personal testimony Mr Assange recorded. So you can see why they are spinning it as an autobiography.

reply to post by pause4thought


Agenda? Nope

However its not a secret that I don't much care for Mr. Assange or his actions.

Everything he has done has been for his own benefiet and no one else. What do I base that on?

* - Stated he does what he does to stop the war in Iraq / Afghanistan. Yet he has failed to provide any documents that would do that.

* - Stated he would release files that show government corruption and wrong doing that would lead to charges / people rsigning because of the info. Yet instead of releasing the specific documents, he does a mass release and buries the sharp needle in a mountain of dull needles.

* - Demands transparency from governments and group, yet refuses to to hold himself ot the same standard, including where his sources of funding come from.

* - Says he does this for common good, and then threatens to sue a British newspaper, who had all files leaked to them from a source inside wikileaks, because he "owns" the information and would suffer financial hardship if they releaased it.

* - Has manipulated the relase of ducements to coincide with his dimming star, which is to say when wiki falls out of the news and he runs out of money, he comes back with a new baseless claim to get donations, and he then goes silent again.

* - Made grand claims and has not followed through with them.

* - Has lied to the media in an effort to sway public opinion that his troubles in sweden are linked to the US. Again for a person who demands people answer acusations, he certainly does not practice what he preaches. He and his lawyer also blatantly lied when they stated he could be charged with treason in the US, face execution and be placed in Gitmo, knowing full well that can NEVER happen.

* - He not a Us citizen, and cant be charged with treason.
* - Its federal jurisdiction, not military, so he wont see gitmo except from the files he dumps.
* - The charges (you can pick any number that would qualify) dont allow for the death penalty.

You get the idea.....

So yeah - No agenda.. I just dont care for him or his practices. I think he has placed people in danger, even mroe so now by releasing the entire cache wihtout names redacted.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pause4thought

 

Agenda? Nope

* - Stated he does what he does to stop the war in Iraq / Afghanistan. Yet he has failed to provide any documents that would do that.

He has done the best he can with what WL has. What you expect him to do? Pick up M60 and wipe out us military? WL has released everything that one would think would be enough to stop the wars but people are sheeple.

* - Stated he would release files that show government corruption and wrong doing that would lead to charges / people rsigning because of the info. Yet instead of releasing the specific documents, he does a mass release and buries the sharp needle in a mountain of dull needles.

So it's his fault that noone does anything with the information WL has provided? It's his fault cause WL doesn't release everything it has. It's his fault cause everything WL has is released at once... gimme a brake.

* - Demands transparency from governments and group, yet refuses to to hold himself ot the same standard, including where his sources of funding come from.

All donations remain anonymous for a reason. WL is all about anonymity for leakers and donators alike. Why would it matter anyway who donates?

* - Says he does this for common good, and then threatens to sue a British newspaper, who had all files leaked to them from a source inside wikileaks, because he "owns" the information and would suffer financial hardship if they releaased it.

The information was his. They had no right go behind his back and brake their agreements.

* - Has manipulated the relase of ducements to coincide with his dimming star, which is to say when wiki falls out of the news and he runs out of money, he comes back with a new baseless claim to get donations, and he then goes silent again.

Apparently you haven't followed WL at all. The leaks have been continously ongoing process for ages. So by your logic he should've been in every media 24/7 since the leaks started?

* - Made grand claims and has not followed through with them.

Like what? Sources.

* - Has lied to the media in an effort to sway public opinion that his troubles in sweden are linked to the US. Again for a person who demands people answer acusations, he certainly does not practice what he preaches. He and his lawyer also blatantly lied when they stated he could be charged with treason in the US, face execution and be placed in Gitmo, knowing full well that can NEVER happen.

Again sources.

* - The charges (you can pick any number that would qualify) dont allow for the death penalty.

Again the idea that he could be charged for something. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.

So yeah - No agenda.. I just dont care for him or his practices. I think he has placed people in danger, even mroe so now by releasing the entire cache wihtout names redacted.

Do you even bother to follow WL just a tiniest bit before you come up with this stuff? WL didn't release the cache without names redacted. Get your facts straight.

He could be charged with crimes in the US.
Treason no. Gitmo No, In danger of being killed yes

A vast number of computer crimes yes.
They could charge him with one count for every document taken and get him for 1 to 2 years prison time for each document.
then there is the bank internal documents while the government documents can not be copyrighted the bank and a number of other documents wikileaks has are protected under copyrights and that leaves Assange with a lot of civil problems.

Would he be safe in a US prison, No as his actions endangered US troops and there are a number of veterans doing time that would not like this.
He would be in as much or more danger and have to be lock up separately like pedophiles are

reply to post by PsykoOps


This is not a debate... Its my personal opinion. the other poster asked, and I asnwered. I dont need to defend why I dont care for Assange any more than you need to defend why you support him. It serves no purpose since its clearly based on perception and opinion in this case.

Lets not completely derail the thread with one of our point counter points. this is about his autobiography.. Im sure you and I will find another trhead to square off in, however this is not the one

reply to post by ANNED


Uhm no....

Any charge thats leveled against Assange does not carry the death penalty as a punishment. A couple decades in prison if I rmeber right, but thats not a guarantee.

If your referring to him being killed in prison, I doubt that also since if he were charged tried and convicted he would be in A federal prison and not attika. Contrary to tv and movies there are differentl levels of correctional institutions, from low risk all the way up to supermax in Colorado.

Lets at least try to keep the speculation to something realistic...

reply to post by ANNED


Eeh... how many documents WL got from hacking? I have an answer. It's zero. Also that bid about bank internal documents being copyrighted is utter and complete bs.

Assange is an interesting person to say the least. It is impossible to say he is good or bad. I think he is motivated by some weird cocktail of good intentions and malice. Many of his acts are both destructive and illuminating.

Thought for certain the headline was an oxymoron... "unauthorized autobiography"

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by ANNED

 

Eeh... how many documents WL got from hacking? I have an answer. It's zero. Also that bid about bank internal documents being copyrighted is utter and complete bs.

Copyrighted - no so I agree with you there.

However, couldnt an argument be made that the documents (hypothetical until we know what the details are in them) revolve around how the bank as a corporation operates? If so it can be considered releasing protected / trade secrets information, which US courts have upheld.

Maybe you can shed some light on this question for me -
Why does he release bulk documents? Does that not defeat the purpose of trying to apply pressure to force a change?

I would say the important points get lost in the clutter, much like some of my long winded responses.

We'll never know what is in them because that douche Daniel erased them. BoA documents, US no-fly list and some other stuff is never gonna be released. When it comes to releasing all the cables WL doesn't distinguish what is more important than other. It's impossible to know what kind of impact something that might seem insignificant to the censor can have to someone else. Also WL wasn't about to release everything at once as has happened. That was Guardians fault because they released the password to the crypted file that has the cables.