Slashdot Mirror

What I find amazing is how the Climate Change 'truthers' still attempt to smear the reputation climate science with accusations of hoax/fraud. The fact that they still make these baseless accusations even after 3 independent investigations have failed to turn up any evidence of scientific malpractice is pretty damning I'd say.

He probably means all the people swayed by formula science news crap

..which is pretty much everyone you will ever encounter who would like to discuss this subject with you, be they for or against.

Less chance of citizen journalists been able to turn up at events or for protest groups to build nation wide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-files is a fun read at first.

7) A year later, everyone is all like "Oh shit!". The intelligent women who voted for her are embarrassed by her; the disabled who voted for her are treated with zero respect and told to all get a job; the libertarians realise that having a President with insane beliefs implicitly forces the policy consequences of those insane beliefs on everybody.

8) The War on Dissent continues with renewed vigour, and an actual shooting war begins against either Iran, Ireland or a randomly-selected Korea.

I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

And I encourage a everybody else to boycott Chick-fil-a. As someone who is not a xistian, I find the corporations stated purpose of "Glorifying God" and imposing their religious doctrine on employees incompatible with my own beliefs.

Russia and Nigeria have oil.

But Nigeria's oil industry is already owned by Shell. And they're working with US government to plant agents inside the Nigerian government so that the cheap oil keeps flowing.

The linked leaked cable doesn't say that. What it does say is that Shell are/were concerned about Russia giving missiles and/or other weaponary to rebels intending to attack Shell helicopters and other installations etc, with a view to Gazprom taking over Shell's oil wells in Nigeria. Shell asked the US Gov. if it knew anything.

I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

Russia and Nigeria have oil.

But Nigeria's oil industry is already owned by Shell. And they're working with US government to plant agents inside the Nigerian government so that the cheap oil keeps flowing.

Yea, without Wikileaks Mugabe would never have moved against the opposition ..

"On 11 March 2007 a day after his 55th birthday, Tsvangirai was arrested .. His wife .. reported that he had been heavily tortured by police, resulting in deep gashes on his head and a badly swollen eye" link

"ZANU-PF has implemented a strategy of reciprocity in the negotiations, using Western sanctions as a cudgel against MDC. He would like to see some quiet moves, provided there are acceptable benchmarks, to 'give' some modest reward for modest progress .. He also acknowledged that his public statements calling for easing of sanctions versus his private conversations saying they must be kept in place have caused problems" link

"He [Tsvangirai] is the indispensable element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around their necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive abilities to lead the country's recovery" link

"Grace Mugabe sues Zimbabwe newspaper over Wikileaks diamond story" link

Yea, without Wikileaks Mugabe would never have moved against the opposition ..

"On 11 March 2007 a day after his 55th birthday, Tsvangirai was arrested .. His wife .. reported that he had been heavily tortured by police, resulting in deep gashes on his head and a badly swollen eye" link

"ZANU-PF has implemented a strategy of reciprocity in the negotiations, using Western sanctions as a cudgel against MDC. He would like to see some quiet moves, provided there are acceptable benchmarks, to 'give' some modest reward for modest progress .. He also acknowledged that his public statements calling for easing of sanctions versus his private conversations saying they must be kept in place have caused problems" link

"He [Tsvangirai] is the indispensable element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around their necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive abilities to lead the country's recovery" link

"Grace Mugabe sues Zimbabwe newspaper over Wikileaks diamond story" link

These charges are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds, but it's not obviously working.

We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors.

Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.

These charges are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds, but it's not obviously working.

We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors.

Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.

So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/23/bangladesh-death-squad-legal-challenge
To you this might be "nothing" but to have governments say one thing and secretly (from their own constituents) do the opposite need exposing.
I suspect you are from the U.S. and might want to argue this has nothing to do with the U.S., they quite obviously knew this was happening, liked it, and kept quiet about it - and keep arguing they do not condone torture or human rights abuses (please do not argue but-so-and-so-is-worse).
Note: there are plenty of other items like this, please feel free to look through what has been published to date.

Problem is, they are *rape* *allegations,* as the Swedish legal system defines "rape allegations." He is being investigated, and one of the charges they are investigating falls under the category of "rape" in Swedish law.

That a bunch of Slashdotters can't distinguish between "ZOMG RAPE!!!1111!!!!!!ONE!!!!111!" (the loosely defined colloquial term, with all it's nasty negative emotional implications & baggage) and "rape" (as a legal term & definition) isn't surprising, but it does muddy the issue. Legally speaking, "rape" is not necessarily the violent experience that everybody has decided is the only thing that rape can be. Legally speaking, rape is about consent - which is why statutory rape is still rape; if one partner is legally incapable of 'consenting,' then it does not matter even if they're young lovers who absolutely think the world of each other, in the eyes of the law, that is still rape.

One of the allegations is that he had sex with one of the women while she was asleep, and that he did so without a condom. That incident, if charges are brought as a result of it, would fall under the Swedish 'rape' law, and would probably fall into the lowest category of "minor rape" under Swedish law, which doesn't even carry a minimum sentence. But make no mistake: your disagreement with the legal definition of "rape" doesn't mean that this allegation "isn't really" rape. It may not be the violent brutal assault YOU imagine when you hear the word "rape," but it most certainly is a rape allegation, and a rape conviction if he's found guilty.

"So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity."

You only think that because apparently you are relying on most of the mainstream media reporting of the diplomatic cables, who have downplayed the significance of the leaks. Consider the following:

Diplomat covering up the pimping of Afghan boys (aged 13ish) for anal sex by a US taxpayer funded company DynCorp.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00221812176/so-wikileaks-is-evil-releasing-documents-dyncorp-gets-pass-pimping-young-boys-to-afghan-cops.shtml
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

As if I need to go on after that. Clinton ordered spying on other UN officials, including obtaining frequent flier number and biometric data. (And Wikileaks is responsible for spying?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

And then there is the very fact that much of the 'secrets' that were classified were done so illegally.

If you don't realize it by now, then you have made up your mind regardless of evidence. Do your own research if you are interested, but I doubt you are.

For the others who wonder how there are people like parent who apparently blindly defend wrongdoing (such as government abuses, racism etc), there is actually a growing body of research into this phenomenon. It's called system justification theory, and essentially it describes the conscious and unconscious tendencies to protect and bolster the status quo, even to one's own disadvantage (i.e. the black and/or gay Republican who can't see that his comrades implicitly or explicitly hate him). Basically, people like parent feel so comforted by the status quo, and they implicitly fear change even for the better, that they defend the status quo when it otherwise appears to make no sense.

Read for yourselves: [pdf]
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost,%20Banaji,%20&%20Nosek%20(2004)%20A%20Decade%20of%20System%20Justificati.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups

The Taliban threatened to hunt down and kill all the civilians helping with NATO efforts that Assange named publicly.

Assange's response was to suggest it would cost $700,000 to redact those names and that Amnesty International should foot the bill if they were so concerned.

They sometimes redact names, but they are irresponsible to say the least.

Wikileaks has no concept of responsible disclosure or anything similar.

Who are you people who keep repeating this crap? If you spent less time commenting and more time actually reading you might actually have something to say.

Here. I'll do the work for you.

The press keeps throwing around the word "rape", but that isn't what is being accused. Again, he appears to be a bit of a douchebag, but what happens appears to have happened during consensual sex and he continued to say in the apartment for a week after, and she held a party for him. This is NOT the same as what we would normally call "rape", hence why it has a $700 maximum fine. The story is a lot more complicated than that.

Here is a decent write up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Not all spies are James Bond 007 spies. Spying can be as simple as observing and reporting.

As I said: this was about orders to gather DNA, fingerprints, passwords, personal encryption keys and iris scans of UN diplomats. That is unrelated to diplomacy and straight spy business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/anonymous-wikileaks-protest-amazon-mastercard

I guess that explains why it seems like everyone makes dumb points - because they can't be bothered to read the material they're arguing about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

You will not find a credible mental health professional who agrees with his assessment. That's a really fucking scary view into his psyche. His own admission is that video games are fun. He likes video games. Killing people is like playing a video game. Therefore, "Killing people is fun." At best, he's a sociopath.

Soldiers would never enjoy killing? : US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' "Other soldiers told the army's criminal investigation command that Gibbs boasted of the things he got away with while serving in Iraq and said how easy it would be to "toss a grenade at someone and kill them".

If you were the pilot of an Apache, cruising through the skies, taking out enemy tanks with Hellfire missiles, why would you not enjoy the experience? If you believe that you are doing good deeds, killing bad guys, and protecting your country, and getting a massive adrenalin rush, all at the same time, would you honestly feel upset that you are killing bad guys and "terrorists"? Do you think that the average soldier cries when they kill a bad guy "terrorist"? Of course not. These people are professionals, they are trained to be desensitised towards killing. The men like Peter Mercer (who killed himself after asking his father "How can you love someone who has killed so many people?") are in the minority - most soldiers do not feel a lifetime of suicidal regret for their killing.

They cite a report the UN accepted as fact as their factual basis. Or they're flat out lying. I trust PETA to be completely insane and retarded; that said, I also trust them to be selective with evidence, which means their evidence chain might blatantly ignore facts that are inconvenient but will at least point at something wholly true.

Partial truths, not partial perspective (i.e. an "interpretation" of a "fact"). Somebody out there, for some period of time, convinced the UN that goat farts are the leading cause of global warming.

The point is that some ridiculous ideas have been thrown around and landed in some high places. That you want to associate something like this to crazies just goes to show that crazies do indeed get ridiculous shit into politics.

By the way, since PETA didn't cite, I will. That this landed on the UN discussion table and was taken seriously doesn't mean it's not wholly insane.

INSURANCE.AES. Checkmate

Ah, so he is not merely an alleged rapist, but an extortionist as well. Oh, and if the INSURANCE.AES file contains the unredacted names of informants against the Taliban, or various human rights workers, and its contents are used to find and kill them as a result of their names being released, Assange is an accessory to murder as well? Charming.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Well, we can be reasonably certain if there is a bad outcome, it won't bother Assange: "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

If your wanted for rape and they know your location the same thing would happen to you or me. Here is the trick they Knew his location. he can't stop talking to the media so it was simple to actually find him. If they know of your location it is easier to find you.

And he isn't being railroaded by the USA yet. If the USA tries to charge him with espionage then he will be railroaded.

My personal favorite part was when the guardian published (leaked) the police reports from the ladies on Julian, and Julian and his lawyers cried foul as leaking private information about a private case like that is wrong. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Also note that Julain slept with both of these women before the USA diplomatic cable release. If it was a USA setup they set it up before he released the information. Are you now saying it was a premeditated railroading?

That's a good article. Though she has 2 conflicting statements.

She recognizes that this is far beyond the usual treatment and that it is definitely politically motivated. She also recognizes how much the media has tainted peoples views against the girls. However she then goes on to say that a fair trial should be pursued. Do you believe that a fair trial could ever be held now?

Additionally, given the time has lapsed, and that relative to more obvious cases of rape, this one seems particularly less like rape, such that there is no evidence (from what I've been reading, including her articles), that any such force took place, how are we supposed to prosecute when it's merely he said, she said? Essentially, we wouldn't be having a trial on what happened, but a trial on how the jurors perceive the character of the people in question. Something that is already tipped against men.

I just read the comments by people on her post, and they fall to the same problems as the people on the opposite side, they put words in their mouths, and infer that something (which has not been stated) happened, which would define this as clearly rape.

Lastly, from the Guardian...

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Now, neither Miss A nor Miss W say that they said no. While Miss A's statement suggests that she did something which should have been inferred as a no, Miss W outright says that she consented. Regardless of any half asleep state, however given she says she was "half asleep", the "surprise sex" part comes in with Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Swedish laws in question, as she is likely saying she was improperly exploited due to this state. Where as the first one is relying on these other actions, and the condom breaking, to say that while she may have implicitly consented to sex, she didn't consent to unprotected sex, though he contests that he knew it was broken.

I just re-read the charges, and they are so light, that I could not be certain that in the usual course of events that I would not also violate the letter of these laws. It would reduce having sex to filming it, and ensuring that a contract is drawn up beforehand which outlined what can and can't be done.

All of this personally comes off as the least sympathe

Given. I stand corrected. I'm happy to read that you aren't paying for a subscription.

  Paywalls filter a readership so narrowly they usually fail to pay the bills. So advertising becomes the method anyway, even with a paywall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/03/memories-paywall-pioneer

The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.

Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.

Not quite.

18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;....

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

This also looks interesting: 18 U.S.C. 798 (disclosing classified information)

As does this: 18 U.S.C. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

The Pentagon Papers case does not have the expansive application that many assume.

II. There is no Clarity in Current Constitutional Doctrine Over Whether The First Amendment Permits the Criminal Prosecution of Reporters for the Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material. There is, however, Substantial Reason to Doubt that Current First Amendment Doctrine Does Bar the Making of Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material Criminal. Testimony of Dean Rodney A. Smolla, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

There is plenty of reason to believe that the investigation against Assange is motivated by his behavior, not by some government conspiracy.
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Contrary to some people's ideas, Interpol does get involved in rape cases.

Since when does the CIA investigate crime?

The CIA has its own Inspector General, and no doubt other investigators. There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.

I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime.

Assange was/is allegedly?/apparently? involved in a conspiracy to procure and publish hundreds of thousands of stolen classified US Government documents on the web so that any enemy of the United States can access them and hunt down named info

So, this is what wall street, the mouthpiece of private interests, the lapdog of corporations, is doing.

it passed the stage of whether it being something good or bad, as you see, now they are posing it as questions like 'is it REALLY needed'.

all it is aimed at is, rekindling the fire in the minds of the fools that believe that there can be 'competition' in a conglomerate world in which more than 50% of the top economic entities of the world, are corporations even before countries. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html

these corporations are basically GOVERNMENTS. they are bigger than governments. their reach, their effect is much bigger than governments. you can go around and buy innumerable goods and services in a state, and yet still not leave the domain of a holding that maintains a few megacorporations that dominate those sectors. and you wouldnt even know, because of proxy shareholderships, stakeholderships, co-branding, branding and so on.

and there are idiots who believe that 'free market' will handle that. yeah, it handles that. every 15-20 years, when some new technology comes, free market gives a chance for nobodies or small time companies to go big. like in the case of internet. with that, maybe it can be possible for a corporation that is not already owned by an established conglomerate may come up and get some market share, and you, as the consumer, may have 'choice'. but when dust settles, the big established conglomerates will move in with their MEGA capital, and consolidate the sector again. just like how it happened with isps. end of line sharing regulation ended in 2006, mega corps like at&t, comcast started to consolidate the internet, and, ironically, immediately at the same time they started attacking net neutrality. see how that works ?

no, free market wont avail you until a new technology is found. the established powers in a capitalist economy is always bigger than any upcoming competitor can handle. competitors are either destroyed, or bought, or subdued and integrated into the existing hierarchy. it is the way of things in situations where the society allows a dog eat dog situation. the strong subdues the weak.

see, there is THAT much lobbying, even though it is fairly well understood by now that no net regulation will mean walled gardens. there are still shitty pieces like this coming up in mouthpiece conglomerate media like wall street. you think they are doing all that effort for nothing ? you think they will not wall you off ?

you think 'competition' will happen ? lets see how will it happen in this situation http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/18/1318210

but actually, yeah, competition might happen. it may take 5 to 10 years for an acceptable competitor to come up and allow you a non walled garden choice. but in the meantime, your kids will grow up, you will have aged a decade, in a world in which you are not able to decide what you can do on the internet, but some corporate appointed administration.

its private censorship, for profit. its worse than any other kind of censorship. even the censorship in repressive countries, have some ideology behind them, right or wrong, an idea. but, in the case of this kind of private censorship, your life gets restricted for the mere sake of private profits of a small group of individuals.

yeah. net neutrality is needed. it is what made internet what it is in the first place. what is not needed is, lapdog publications like wall street trying to do shitty propaganda, and fools believing some school of economics which even the most prominent figure of that school have given up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan

According to Guardian's WikiLeaks and the first amendment, it doesn't matter what was the newspaper's (WikiLeaks') stake in the matter:

...how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn't the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?

What matters is whether publishing leaked documents poses such a grave danger to national security that it warrants prosecution. The supreme court, in the 1931 case of Near v Minnesota, ruled that the standard for stopping publication – that is, for censorship – is whether the information is so sensitive that it would be akin to revealing the movement of troops during wartime. That standard was affirmed in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case...

To the question "were any troops endangered" U.S. already has posted an answer: Pentagon review: No troops endangered by Wikileaks documents. If Slashdot was a TV show you'd be hearing "I rest my case".

One possibility is that Wikileaks and Assange are losing public support.

They are.

WikiLeaks: A Document Dump Too Far

WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups

Reports that Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants hasn't helped

Sad, but true. Hopefully none are killed. We need as many informants against the Taliban as we can, both to protect the Afghans, and to protect the US from more terrorist attacks.

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

profiles of Assange (such as the one in the New York Times) don't paint him in a very flattering light.

They aren't the only ones.

10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange

The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

No one gains from this 'rape-rape' defence of Julian Assange

My understanding from the Times article is that even within Wikileaks, there is a lot of controversy about how Assange has acted.

Is WikiLeaks Reneging on its Financial Promise to Bradley Manning?

Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site

‘Chaos’ at WikiLeaks Follows Assange Arrest

Although not internal to Wikileaks, thought provoking.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

One possibility is that Wikileaks and Assange are losing public support.

They are.

WikiLeaks: A Document Dump Too Far

WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups

Reports that Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants hasn't helped

Sad, but true. Hopefully none are killed. We need as many informants against the Taliban as we can, both to protect the Afghans, and to protect the US from more terrorist attacks.

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

profiles of Assange (such as the one in the New York Times) don't paint him in a very flattering light.

They aren't the only ones.

10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange

The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

No one gains from this 'rape-rape' defence of Julian Assange

My understanding from the Times article is that even within Wikileaks, there is a lot of controversy about how Assange has acted.

Is WikiLeaks Reneging on its Financial Promise to Bradley Manning?

Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site

‘Chaos’ at WikiLeaks Follows Assange Arrest

Although not internal to Wikileaks, thought provoking.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

Not read TFA but wonder whether these are there:
Aleks Krotoski
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/21/austin-heap-haystack-iran Gregg Kiezer
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Critic-Outed-As-Fraud

Not read TFA but wonder whether these are there:
Aleks Krotoski
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/21/austin-heap-haystack-iran Gregg Kiezer
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Critic-Outed-As-Fraud

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

There are no charges against him, yet.

I would imagine that the Swedish authorities intend to charge him as soon as he is in within their jurisdiction. I agree with Sarah Ludford, it would be an abuse of the European arrest warrant system to drag him back to Sweden just to answer a few more questions

There is a Guardian article which seems to talk about it very in-depth but doesn't present the raw document. They've apparently seen it though so either whoever leaked it is letting people look but not touch or there's some reason for it being kept sort-of under wraps.

None of those mentions rape, so why is Assange being described as an alleged rapist?

The accusation in the fourth point, involving Miss W, falls into the category of rape under Swedish law.

An arrest warrant, issued on 20 August, was withdrawn the following day, when one of Sweden's chief prosecutors, Eva Finné, said she did not think there was "reason to suspect that he has committed rape". On 1 September, Marianne Ny, the Swedish director of prosecutions, overturned Finné's judgment. "Considering information available at present, my judgment is that the classification of the crime is rape," said Ny. link

This happened several days ago. The Guardian has the story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden I think The Times also had a story. No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

One witness is said to have stated: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

It's clear to me that this statement and others like it made by the alleged victim are an insult to actual rape victims everywhere. It gets worse:

According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

Too late to stop because she had gone along with it so far? And later she goes to lunch with him, and afterwards complains only that he was "the world's worst screw". Unbelievable.

Without exaggeration: this statement reads like a stereotypical straw man argument trotted out by misogynists who deride and demean rape allegations. This woman did not even have the decency to simply add a line stating at the very least "I told him to stop and he didn't". Today alone, there are women who have arrived bruised and bloody into rape crisis centres, who have had their integrity questioned in court, who have to live with their attackers not only going free, but re-offending; I can't imagine how those women must feel about these patently ridiculous allegations being taken seriously.

The impact of these farcical complaints in such a high profile sex-offence case is going to set back rape victims' rights by a decade or more. Expect to see the Sweedish Assange case trotted out in every sexual assault legislation debate for twenty years, as the foremost example of how rape allegations can be trivial and how rape victims' testimony is unreliable. I suspect quite a few "mens' rights" groups have made a song and dance over this already.

Unfortunately, the biggest fallout from the entire Cablegate scandal is going to be in justice for rape victims the world over. So congratulations Miss A.; your actions have changed the world. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Nearly 90% of violent criminals are known to carry the 'SRY' gene. Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden and all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists are believed to have been SRY carriers. Even worse, the majority of the population in countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan (but not the UK, France or Canada) have a copy of this dangerous gene! While the full results have not been released, it is thought that the genome sequence of Ozzy Osborne, which also revealed evidence of Neanderthal ancestry, contains SRY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/05/ozzy-osbourne-genes-sequenced-genome

The North's missiles are more than capable of hitting Japan (which they fired over them in 1998 and again in 2009 ), and it could devastate Seoul with artillery, never mind missiles. Oh and it has demonstrated conclusively that it has nuclear bombs and is almost certainly constructing more. So NK's inability "to hit anywhere of interest" is quite wrong, unless you are only interested in mainland America.

Also "you" have about 35,000 troops there, not 60,000.

In summary, please stop yammering about things you don't know about.

Assange also claimed he had a "poison pill" file he'd release if he were arrested.

No he didn't. I challenge you to find a single quote from him saying anything even remotely like that. All the "poison pill" stuff has been speculation by commentators and pundits regarding the insurance.aes256 file - but Assange hasn't said one word about what that file is or what anyone might do with it.

Direct quote from Assange himself:

The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks (last answer)

Granted, he didn't mention insurance.aes256 directly, but I'm not aware of any other encrypted archives being distributed on such a large scale, so I can't imagine what else he could be referring to. Also note that he said "if something happens to us," not "if something happens to me."

They are known as MBNA in Europe (Bank of America took over MBNA, but kept the MBNA name in Europe because it is much better known than BoA), and they are in trouble with the Office of Fair Trading for their debt collection practices http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/14/mbna-credit-card-debt-procedures

US foreign policy? Lucky the European parliament's representative for foreign policy, Catherine Ashton, is pushing very hard to try and get all of Europe to adopt much more US foreign policy then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/us-ally-eu-foreign-policy

obviously the complete opposite of the wish of the European people (Except possibly the ones in power). Why of why is someone with those views in that job?

Some cables were leaked a few weeks back where China clearly does not support and will not support N. Korea in a war against the South and the US.

Example, fairly well renown institution in Norway.

Insane amounts of money? Hardly. Visa / Amazon will be supply logs of IP addresses and then someone will sort them by location, ISP, recurrence etc. Then the worst on the list will become priority for investigation. Yes I expect it will involve international cooperation mostly through conference calls and email. And I can't think of a more effective way to attract that cooperation than by attacking major international businesses. Most likely the UK & US will take a lead and then coordinate with other countries as appropriate.

As for "fleeting moments", are you really that naive? If the internet were that anonymous then paedophiles (and paedo networks) wouldn't be routinely caught, p2p users wouldn't be constantly hit by lawsuits, or botnets being infiltrated & shutdown, or individual hackers being caught & convicted. The reality is that even smart people aren't half as smart as they think they are and given a determined investigation (as is likely), some of them will be caught. Look at Bradley Manning who is smart enough to use Tor and SSL to upload diplomatic documents and then stupid enough to give a life confession to some other hacker, all dutifully logged to disk for a grateful FBI.

Do you have any proof/experience/evidence/etc, which suggests that "Anonymous" has an "inner circle.

If you need confirmation of it, then here is a piece from today's Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-anonymous-hierarchy-emerges. It confirms virtually exactly what I said and what common sense should tell you. There is always a handful of people in the middle of attacks like this. The group might not be fixed in size and people come and go, but there are always ringleaders. It happens in the real world for things like G7 protests and it happens in the virtual world too.

DES on gawker, here is a link showing you that it wasn't rainbow tables at all. Once again, I'll just say the article above makes no sense. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/dec/13/gawker-hacked-password-change

Scotland Yard has been chasing a bunch of tomfooling teenagers for months, but hasn't even bothered to investigate substantiated investigations of wire fraud by the editor of a national newspaper. It's pretty clear who plays the tunes Scotland Yard dance to.