Slashdot Mirror


Julian Assange To Host Talk Show

An anonymous reader writes "Julian Assange has announced he will host a talk show: 'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it,' Assange said in his announcement late Monday. 'Are we heading towards utopia or dystopia, and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'"

164 comments

  1. Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Well its either that or talking about the astrophilogical physics of quantum nutri.....zzzzzzzz....

    2. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex!
      >Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

      how much do you get paid for posting shit like this?

    3. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      1st shown on hbo and later edited for content on cable :)

    4. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      After reading the "I woke up after the night of sex with him inside me yet again", I think he knows lots about vanilla Nordic sex at best.

      Can't speak for kinky Aussie sex though. Nothing in police reports about that.

    5. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether the charges against him were true, I think they were brought with political intent to hunt him down. That said, making light of rape charges as "kinky" or the classic "surprise sex" is demeaning. If someone told you they were using protection, lied, and you had to worry about STD's, you wouldn't be laughing. The charges are serious, even if they were brought by assholes looking to stop Julian. If someone accused him of shooting someone, you wouldn't make fun of it as "kinky Nordic gunplay". (Or maybe you would, this is the slashdot).

    6. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Questions.....

      1) You state that fucking a chick, falling asleep, and fucking her again in the morning while she is still asleep is vanilla Nordic sex at best.

      What is kinky Nordic sex? Please be detailed with your answer. I saw a picture of a couple hundred Nordic blondes in hot water pool or something. My penis has a vested interest in the answer.

      2) Kinky Aussie Sex and lack of police reports.

      Does this mean that all instances of Kinky Aussie sex involve police reports?

    7. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.

      What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?

    8. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You state that fucking a chick, falling asleep, and fucking her again in the morning while she is still asleep is vanilla Nordic sex at best.

      Well my wife and I have woken up during sex, ie: we started while we were both asleep. Enjoyable but not particularly kinky.

    9. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.

      Accepted? As opposed to....?

      Sounds like you might be reaching back to the ol' Viking roots there.

      What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?

      Well I guess your description might be considered vanilla sex. Everybody's threshold is different apparently. I prefer French vanilla sex with cherries and copious amounts of chocolate sauce. Like I said, YMMV.

    10. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Can't speak for kinky Aussie sex though. Nothing in police reports about that.

      Well, I'm a kinky Aussie, and can testify that working off a nice morning glory with my gf while we're both still half asleep is pretty much all the way over at the wholesome end of the spectrum.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it easy Virgin Joe. The show is an excellent idea and no politico with nothing to hide should ever turn down an invitation to it. Isn't that after all how they keep justifying their ubiquitous surveillance to us time and again?

    12. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, there's nothing like a rape joke to lighten up a conversation!

    13. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that all instances of Kinky Aussie sex involve police reports?

      No. Only the good ones do.

    14. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      As opposed to seducing your reluctant partner for example. You should try it sometime.

    15. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by tqk · · Score: 0

      Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex!
      Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

      how much do you get paid for posting shit like this?

      Posting shit like that is the closest some idiots get to sex. Pity him.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      but not so much about boring Nordic laws

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! by tqk · · Score: 1

      Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex!
      Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

      how much do you get paid for posting shit like this?

      Posting shit like that is the closest some idiots get to sex. Pity him.

      Flamebait? You've GOT to be kidding me. :-(

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  2. Good. But... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Will he really be able to ask the REAL tough questions, and expect these to be broadcast over the mass media ?

    i really don think they would just allow that. maybe over the internet.

    1. Re:Good. But... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      or "if the scariest of all three letter organizations want my blood, is it the best idea to stick my dick in anything that moves?"

    2. Re:Good. But... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:Good. But... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People keep making those allegations about the selective releases, but the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials. They had even less resources after the bankers decided to not process the payments.

      Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.

    4. Re:Good. But... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Anybody else thinks that he kinda looks like Bill Maher? I'd love to see a Bill Maher-style discussion between Assange and Ron Paul. Plenty of good points would be made, and the brain-dead American majority public will slam it regardless or merit.

      In fact, watching most Americans talking politics is like watching a bunch of middle-school kids talk. All the pretty, cool kids will be laughing talking about dumb shit, then a smart kid will say something profound, and if he's not cut off, the cool kids will just stay silent until one of them dumb ones talks again and then they all start laughing.

      Man, this country is fucking disgraceful.

    5. Re:Good. But... by unity100 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.

    6. Re:Good. But... by migla · · Score: 1

      And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks [...]

      Just as hypocritical as it would be for a superhero protector of innocents with an agenda to end oppression and violence to punch a supervillain.

      In other words: Maybe.

      But sometimes you can't bring milk and cookies to an information-battle against global power elites, maybe.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    7. Re:Good. But... by migla · · Score: 1

      And also, it is a battle for the eyeballs. Leaks released more dramaturgically get more eyeballs. Not trying to play the media at all would be detrimental to the cause of openness.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    8. Re:Good. But... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      And you think people like Assange and his supporters have the insight and capacity to make the wisest and most responsible call on how much to redact and what to release. Or even the moral authority.

      Read some comments here on Slashdot, again. If they don't make you throw up in your mouth a little, then you can't answer that question legitimately.

    9. Re:Good. But... by Phil06 · · Score: 1

      There is nothing worse than an opportunist with an agenda

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    10. Re:Good. But... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.

      Don't worry, a fuller accounting has developed since the 1950s.

      In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Good. But... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2
      Well, that's the perennial human problem.

      Nobody's that good. We're all deeply flawed, but we're all we've got.

      So some people just go ahead and do it anyway, because any honest action is better than accepting the lies and deceit.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    12. Re:Good. But... by metacell · · Score: 2

      And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?

      If Wikileaks edits their releases, they're criticised for being hypocritical and not practicing the openness they advocate. If they don't edit their releases, they're criticised for being irresponsible and releasing information that could hurt individuals. If they add their own commentary, they're criticised for promoting their own agenda. If they don't add commentary, they're criticised for not being a real news service and shouldn't enjoy the same legal protection that journalists enjoy.

      And if they release both their own edited version with commentary, and the complete version without commentary (redacted to protect individuals), which they actually did, they're still criticised by people who haven't done their homework.

    13. Re:Good. But... by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think the military, the government, banks, and multinational corporations have the wisdom and altruism to release material that reveals their own mistakes and wrongdoings?

      If not, we need organisations like Wikileaks.

    14. Re:Good. But... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Will he really be able to ask the REAL tough questions, and expect these to be broadcast over the mass media ?

      It's Russia Today.
      They don't give a shit. They regularly have Alex Jones giving his twisted opinions.
      Like when he claimed google has enough information about us humans they can predict future trends ala a primitive version of psychohistory (Asimov novels.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:Good. But... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>"sn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?"

      Whatever.

      Just show me the stuff, so we can see American soldiers killing children and the Pentagon hiding their bodies in landfills. I don't care who or how it's released. I just want the damn secrets exposed.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    16. Re:Good. But... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 0

      Then you won't mind if we leak your personal and private information about things you thought about but decided later not to do because they were either immoral, unethical, uneconomical or just said in private and you never would have followed through on them anyway.

      Because from what I can tell,there is a lot of that in what he leaks. Information without context is just vomiting data. Maybe someday he can figure out what journalists do and strive to become one. Until then, he is just a glory hound to me.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    17. Re:Good. But... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials.

      And yet Wikileaks did in fact release materials that put the lives of informants against terrorists and human rights activists at risk, which is why Wikileaks has been criticized by both governments and human rights activists.

      Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.

      Sage advice. I hope you remember it when the subject isn't Julian Asange / Wikileaks and it isn't your favored ox being gored.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Good. But... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      There is a vast difference between an individual and a government. The framers saw that very clearly and lots of words were devoted to the subject. All lost now apparently.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    19. Re:Good. But... by EasyTarget · · Score: 2

      In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.

      Hummm.. Cursory research reveals, not a piece of scholarly research from Harvard, but a catalogue entry for a translation of a French book written to deceive.

      Basically it says that everybody who has died in a non-capitalist country for any reason other than old age was 'murdered by communism'. And then totals those deaths up; does some 'statistics' to bump that figure even higher and presents this as a 'indisputable fact' to be regurgitated by Glenn Beck and Co..

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    20. Re:Good. But... by metacell · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't complain if Wikileaks published my work e-mails. If I discussed immoral or illegal things in them, I'd have to take responsibility for that, and explain that I never went through with them. I don't write about private matters in my work e-mail.

    21. Re:Good. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One wasn't moving, she was asleep.

  3. Blah Blah Blah by humphrm · · Score: 4, Funny

    'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it. Are we heading towards utopia, or dystopia and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'

    Woah, woah, woah. Way too many words. I was like "What?" and then I was like "Huh?" and then, uh, I got a little bored.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    1. Re:Blah Blah Blah by idontgno · · Score: 2

      I was waiting for "Touch my monkey." But it never happened.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Blah Blah Blah by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it.

      He means the prosecutor, and the attorney general ;-)

    3. Re:Blah Blah Blah by sqldr · · Score: 1

      all he needs to do now is the children's books, fashion shoots and a fucking pop single, and his mission to be 100% full of himself will be complete.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    4. Re:Blah Blah Blah by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretentious already. And boring. Like a hypothetical Oprah miniseries on politics.

    5. Re:Blah Blah Blah by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he's, you know, like, talking all faggy and shit.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    6. Re:Blah Blah Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to punch your face! You're close, but far. Punches incoming!

  4. for the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's sad, but my first thought about this was whether he's doing it for the money, to pay for his legal expenses.

    Yes, I do absolutely consider a talkshow to be "selling out". I still consider his manifesto that lead to the creation of Wikileaks extremely interesting and insightful.

    1. Re:for the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it really tough to work out why so many smart people pay out for third party legal expenses. I have a LLB which I studied part-time for my interest, though I'm not a lawyer, and the skills are TBH not that hard to attain. And where I come from, at least, you learn pretty much all the core legal skills in the first year of your studies.

      What you pay for when you get routine legal advice is people who know stuff already and can answer questions quickly, but if you don't have a bottomless pit of money then legal research is not beyond the wits of any intelligent man. A group of intelligent men with moderate legal knowledge could easily outflank the average and greater-than-average lawyers. In particular, there's nothing Assange has done which is so uniquely complex that he needs to pay out hundreds of thousands. This ain't no complex fraud case. Criminal law is fairly simple in the common law jurisdictions.

    2. Re:for the money? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      A man who serves as his own attorney has a fool for a client. I think that old saying has a lot of merit to it. Just because one has a legal education does not mean that one is qualified to try a case in court and it certainly does not mean that it's a good idea to try a case in which one is otherwise involved.

      I'm quite sharp and good with logic, but there's absolutely no way in hell that I would be going to court pro se unless there were no other options.

    3. Re:for the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I researched, that saying first appeared preceded by, "A lawyer once said..." It expresses not the stupidity of representing oneself but an obvious conflict of interest in empowering laymen in the legal process.

      You're quite right that there's a leap between good understanding of the foundations of legal knowledge and knowing court procedures and that some jurisdictions are more sympathetic than others to laymen erring here. But what do you think Assange has gone through so far which requires such complex legal knowledge or procedure that it requires expensive specialist lawyers and which fails (in the UK case) the interest of justice tests granting legal aid?

    4. Re:for the money? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think it depends on the complexity of the case. I have an LLB (Hons.) too but I wouldn't be relying on myself for something serious. But if I was just going to court to challenge a parking fine or something, I reckon I'd give it a go ;)

    5. Re:for the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, I do absolutely consider a talkshow to be "selling out""

      Considering all the man has risked and been through, you need money to fund an organization/organizations like wikileaks. I could care less what he does allowing corporations free reign has been a disaster thus far. In war you often have to do whatever it takes to keep yourself going. This naive view you have of 'selling out' is nonsense. In the real world money is power, those without money are beholden to those who have it. The more money assange can get the more freedom he will have to defend his ideals.

    6. Re:for the money? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      After he makes a few millions how much are you willing to bet that he will be suing all the YouTube videos of his clips, and other internet downloads.

      Assange is one of capitalism great successes. Make your brand as being anti-western and capitalist, target your customer brand to a group of people who feel they don't have a voice, offer a service of giving them a voice and collect the cash.

      The next thing you will see him on TV selling Coca Cola. Even Liberal Rebels needs a cool refreshing Coca Cola.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:for the money? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      A good lawyer will not be your friend but your advocate. He should know enough to see the evidence and tell his client, you are not going to win this, but lets make sure you don't get life in prison for this. If you serve yourself you don't get this objectivity. Of course you think you are in the right, if you thought your actions were wrong you probably wouldn't have done what you are being sued for. A separate lawyer is working on your behalf, if what you did was right he will try to push for it... However if what you did wasn't he will try to lessen your sentence. While you would just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper, or if you have a different personality give up too quickly and take the full sentence.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:for the money? by Americano · · Score: 1

      So it's sort of like if Che Guevara started selling a line of official Che Guevara t-shirts through Urban Outfitters?

  5. dunno if I'm feeling that by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    While I think it's somewhat of a good idea, he sort of has the same energy and excitement level as if they instead just placed a marshmallow in front of the cameras. There would be very little difference actually. Aren't talk show hosts supposed to be outgoing and energetic and all that?

    1. Re:dunno if I'm feeling that by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      and no doubt he'd have a hissy fit on camera if anyone dared hold a different view to him. he'd accuse them of repression, blahblah.

      this guy honestly doesn't have the people skills to do justice to the idea.

    2. Re:dunno if I'm feeling that by hedwards · · Score: 1

      He represents the organization because he's good at keeping himself in the spotlight. Considering how many folks have been gunning for him, he's done a damn good job of largely avoiding being disappeared.

      The charges are bunk, I think most people realize that, and unlike people conducting themselves in a discrete fashion, he hasn't just disappeared to some black site.

  6. The monologue should kick ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Budweiser bikini team and lots of techie jokes. and J-walking.

    1. Re:The monologue should kick ass. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Animatronic skeleton with glowing blue eyes for a sidekick.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Color me unsurprised by NiceGeek · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.

    1. Re:Color me unsurprised by microbee · · Score: 2

      Yes, unlike everyone else. I am shocked, SHOCKED!

    2. Re:Color me unsurprised by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ever since his arrest, he's pretty much had to. Unless he manages to keep some form of media focus on him, such that a significant number of people will care about what happens to him, he'll vanish overseas.

      Publicity is life to him, at the moment. Given his life prior to the Bradley leaks, I'm pretty sure he's not a publicity hound.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Color me unsurprised by pgward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.

      You mean he leveraged a sensitive issue like honesty and transparency in order to gain a platform to talk about honesty and transparency? Scoundrel! Rapscallion!

    4. Re:Color me unsurprised by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Informative

      Almost as pathetic as the slavish devotion to assassinating his character on behalf of the US government.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Color me unsurprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easiest way to assassinate his "character" is to let him open his mouth, or unzip his fly.

    6. Re:Color me unsurprised by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we can judge him based on the benefit he's had for the world, even if it may have been done with a selfish motive.

  8. John Pilger: Julian Assange Interview by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember watching the interview with John Pilger some time ago, Assagne is certainly a compelling speaker.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:John Pilger: Julian Assange Interview by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I remember watching an interview of his with Anderson Cooper and thinking "My god, you ageless white haired vampires, you're breaking all the rules, people will start getting suspicious for sure when they see two of you at the same time!"

  9. Phenomenal by ludomancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

    For the rest of us, potential win.

    I would love for him to spread his perspective and morals to a larger audience, because, from what I know of him (and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges), he represents a truly free, government-agnostic (am I using that right?) way forward for human kind. Our governments should not do evil unto others, and that should be apparent from it's own historical evidence.

    1. Re:Phenomenal by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      his ideas are good, but can he reign in the jerk long enough to get them out?

      consent or no consent, improper bedroom antics with highly political women at a time when a big chunk of the world's governments want you to "disappear" is very poor judgement.

      i've a feeling his personality will get in the way again.

    2. Re:Phenomenal by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

      For the rest of us, potential win.

      I would love for him to spread his perspective and morals to a larger audience, because, from what I know of him (and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges), he represents a truly free, government-agnostic (am I using that right?) way forward for human kind. Our governments should not do evil unto others, and that should be apparent from it's own historical evidence.

      "In a moment, I'll have as my guest one of the network executives, whose personal records I released on my leaks website earlier so people can get a good idea where he stands on things."

      Sure to be a winner.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're not used to talking to Australians.

      We don't put up with bullshit, we don't fear calling people out on their bullshit, and we can't be browbeaten or bullied. It makes us particularly vocal and fearless when facing dickheads.

      There's also an Aussie phrase. "A root you don't have, is a root you don't get".

    4. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      phallacy of his alleged rape charges

      Fixed that for you.

    5. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Julian, is that you?

    6. Re:Phenomenal by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

      Why? I assume he'd pull viewers, right? I'm sure the person who approved of this will regret it all the way to the bank.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    7. Re:Phenomenal by sqldr · · Score: 1

      he also prints t-shirts with his face on it, gives regular (almost endless) interviews for Putin-backed RT, and talks a lot more about himself than any of the people uncovering things. It's possible to believe that gubbament should not do evil without being an irritating dick. I'm still waiting for him to start his own fashion label and market it with a pop single.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    8. Re:Phenomenal by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is interesting that everything negative I read and hear about this man (and there is A LOT of that) is all, without exception, personal attacks on him.

      I guess that means he is an asshole and does behave assholish a lot.

      But the thing is: I really don't care about the character and integrity of some guy I don't even know personally.
      Now if the there really is nothing else wrong about the things he proclaims, other than they are being brought to us by some smug asshole, count me in.

    9. Re:Phenomenal by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Man's gotta get laid. The current expectation that people in politics be severely sexually repressed means that there are a lot of creepy people in power.

    10. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we Japanese are strong when backed into a corner!

    11. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, it's like a whole continent of blowhard Texans.

    12. Re:Phenomenal by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, creepy. So, not like Assange then?

      I think I'd sooner watch a chat show hosted by a j-horror child-ghost than Julian Assange.

      That could work, couldn't it? Close-up of guest, finishing of his question, pull back the shot and there's the host crawling across the ceiling... ready with the next question. Hehe. Oh, and that would work for the ghost-host too!

    13. Re:Phenomenal by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      The "mainstream media" in question is RT, the Kremlin-funded TV. I kid you not.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    14. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed - most of the world willingly pays for and sucks up what Rupert Murdock has to say, and he's definitely an arsehole.

      Every once in a while, an intelligent, inciteful person does the odd documentary or talk show. Every once in a while, one of those people actually does something really engaging, interesting and educational (and, every once in a while, one of those people is a complete dick).

      Assange is at least educated, and has an unusual view on things. He stands a chance of actually doing this quite well. I have to say, I hope he does, but time will tell. The subjects he's usually involved in are complex, and so it's hard to get a clear view on them without doing what most media does (ie. dumbing it down). It remains to be seen how he gets on...

    15. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges

      Is this gibberish or has my coffee not kicked in yet?

    16. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. and ? .. their coverage seems slightly more interesting and equally slanted when compared to Fox news.
      I remember hearing Hillary Clinton state that they had a 500 MUSD budget for influencing media reporting.
      Does that mean that US TV should now be called "Washington funded TV" ?
      I can't really see any ethical difference between Putins russia vs the US anymore.
      The difference used to be huge but since then, the US has consistently crept towards a transformation into a totalitarian state.

    17. Re:Phenomenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "mainstream media" in question is RT, the Kremlin-funded TV. I kid you not.

      better reporting than any of the american cable 'news' channels. Go watch RT America.

      www.rt.com/usa

    18. Re:Phenomenal by tqk · · Score: 1

      And we Japanese are strong when backed into a corner!

      FYI (and no disrespect intended :-), the world outside Japan does not think "strong" when considering Okinawan civilians throwing themselves off cliffs for the honor of the Emperor. Japan should not have backed itself into that corner in the first place (which you probably already know, sorry; I'm just venting).

      I've a great deal of respect and admiration for Japan, its people, and its arts and history, but I'm really glad Japan outgrew some of it. I hope the Chinese and North Koreans will someday learn this lesson.

      Hazaa!

      ["Tell me how he died?" "I will tell you how he lived." -- Tom Cruise; "The Last Samurai"]

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:Phenomenal by tqk · · Score: 1

      In a moment, I'll have as my guest one of the network executives ...

      Rupert Murdoch? Yeah, that'd be a great show. Hope it gets uploaded to TPB.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Phenomenal by tqk · · Score: 1

      The "mainstream media" in question is RT, the Kremlin-funded TV. I kid you not.

      better reporting than any of the american cable 'news' channels. Go watch RT America.

      www.rt.com/usa

      Anonymous Threatens to Take Down Facebook in Operation Global Blackout! Woohoo! :-) Now that's entertainment!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:Phenomenal by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That's not an Aussie thing, that's an Irish thing. I'm an American and I should know because I feel my blood boil in the exact same way when someone pushes me around. These days with the government all up in my business, it's constantly on simmer.

    22. Re:Phenomenal by shiftless · · Score: 1

      There's also an Aussie phrase. "A root you don't have, is a root you don't get".

      Maybe I'm too high but the meaning of this phrase seems to have been lost in translation. Can you enlighten? Thanks

  10. Dystopia by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Dystopia, and the best thing you can do is not be a party to the whole thing.

  11. Re:topic #1 by mug+funky · · Score: 0

    this needs modpoints.

  12. What's it called? by gijoel · · Score: 2

    In Guantanamo tonight?

    1. Re:What's it called? by pgward · · Score: 2

      In Guantanamo tonight?

      Lacks credibility. No one in Guantanamo knows they are in Guantanamo, let alone whether it is night or day.

    2. Re:What's it called? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Call it "That Was The Leak That Was."

      Theme music Guantanamera.

  13. Media whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting on that Bank of America file dump

    1. Re:Media whore by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That moron DDB deleted it along with all the other leaks in waiting at the time.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. "I'd Like to Introduce Tonight's Guests..." by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "Dr. Noam Chomsky, Clay Shirky, Stephen Fry and Mr. David Bowie."

    Now, for something completely different!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  15. Waste of airtime! by arcite · · Score: 0, Troll

    What we really need is "The Assange Monologue Hour" - wherein the audience is drawn into the mind of Julian the rebel, the 'outsider', the shining knight fighting the 'black ops' and 'cigarette smoking men' of the world, who spend their every waking hour hiding the truth from us, the voting public. This is the show I want to see. The producers could just film the show with a single head shot, zoomed into Julians' perfectly symmetrical face and hypnotic greyish eyes. The face of truth!

    1. Re:Waste of airtime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think so...
      .
      If any earnings - from this job - were deemed to be related to what may be deemed "criminal" activities, those earnings will be taken away from him

      If he works - on air - but NOT talking about his "unlawful" activities, he won't lose any earnings.

    2. Re:Waste of airtime! by cavreader · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "the shining knight " I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community. Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions. He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed. The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. The produced music video edited out anything that might throw doubt on their interpretation of the situation. It edited the communications between the helicopter pilots and their head quarters when they explained the situation and asked for approval to engage. And it also left out that there were ground troops in the middle of fighting a few blocks behind them. The helicopter was there to support of the ground troops. A "true" fighter of justice would have released all of the information unedited upfront without trying to profit from limiting access or offering up any opinions they might have concerning the data released. A "true" fighter would have assumed a neutral role in the release of data so the opinions of others would not prejudiced one way or another. Real information does not need an editorial line included with the release of the data. It did not require any unique Wiki leaks services to release the information online. That information would have went viral shortly after the first uploads to any file sharing or torrent service. Plus it's obvious he could care less if some of the released data put citizens and professional agents engaged in counter terrorism efforts in danger. The release of the Afghanistan after action reports also provided information that could be used to pattern the military actions and re-actions in formulating their tactical plans. Compare it to a football team using videos of their upcoming opponent to pinpoint any weaknesses or patterns that could be exploited when they meet. Of course the major difference is that no one is using AK-47's and RPGS to kill their opponents. He is shown himself to be a very egocentric person who revels in the spotlight and attention he has received. Personally I never really gave a shit about the release of this information. I think there were certain things they should not have released but it happened so people will just have to deal with any fallout and continue on. After all the information released was not classified at the top secret levels which is where the really secret information lives.

    3. Re:Waste of airtime! by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community.

      Because he knows how to create paragraph breaks?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:Waste of airtime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, slashdot is crap for formatting text. I mean wtf it doesnt see the carriage return character in a free text box? Last time I tried it didn't take html tags either. There's probably some standard from bbs defined in the 90s, but I can't be bothered - I have a job and kids.

    5. Re:Waste of airtime! by metacell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions.

      And even that was enough for the US government to try to find ways to prosecute him and bring him under their jurisdiction, and for leading American politicians to advocate murdering him. Regardless of whether we think his work was good or bad, it obviously wasn't an easy job.

      He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed.

      Are you referring to the clause in the confidentiality agreement where the newspaper is liable for damages to Wikileaks if they reveal certain details in the documents? That was just to protect the leak.

      The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. [...]

      And yet, Wikileaks also put up the unedited version of the footage, so everyone could judge for themselves. That's more than you get from a conventional newspaper or newscast.

      Ironically, Wikileaks was criticised for putting up the unedited material too, by people who claimed a "real" news outlet provided reporting, not source material, and therefore Wikileaks should not enjoy the same legal protection as a news outlet.

      I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.

    6. Re:Waste of airtime! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.

      It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.

      They refused.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Waste of airtime! by metacell · · Score: 1

      True, they did.

    8. Re:Waste of airtime! by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA [wikipedia.org] agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.

      They refused.

      Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.

      Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers

      Taliban courts are preparing to try and punish any Afghan informers identified in thousands of sensitive documents due for imminent release by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Waste of airtime! by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries - Cryptome

      Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site. . . .

      "Assange is a narcissistic individual," claims Young. "Wikileaks is willing to sacrifice Bradley Manning and anyone else to advance their own interests." . . .

      "The free stuff is meant [to] lure volunteers and promote high-profile public service, lipsticked with risk, with the enterprise funded by selling costly material sold on the black market of worldwide spying in the tradition of public benefit ops, ID, spies and ever more spies. No better customers for illicit information that [sic] those with depthless pockets.

      "Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."

      Writing last month, Young shared his disgust at Wikileaks' similar tactics to advertising-supported or state-supported media - which Young claims cannot be trusted by definition.

      "Wikileaks lies as much as the media, indeed, exactly in the advertising format of the media. Its consumers like it for that very reason. It rides the wave of imaginary disgust with MSM and governments, but it has not modified the formula of braggardy and drama essential to capture eyeballs and through eyeballs, minds and hearts."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:Waste of airtime! by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      What was edited out is irrelevant as long as what was edited out was not the civilians on the ground directly attacking either other civilians, US/Allied ground forces or the helicopter itself the action is still a blatant war crime.
      Regardless of the circumstances military forces operating in areas heavily populated by civilians is forbidden to take preemptive action. The only permitted actions are reactive actions and those only under certain conditions such as when friendly forces is directly under fire.

      Sadly the United States refuses to acknowledge the International War Crimes Tribunal in Hague and as such nothing will happen because the US commanders(GWB in particular) seems to see themselves as being above international regulations such as the Geneva Convention whenever such regulations become inconvenient.

    11. Re:Waste of airtime! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the documents were illegally obtained by an agent outside of the Wikileaks organisation, still wrongly classified, and not authorized for disclosure because of the embarrassing nature of their contents. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results of demonstrating wide-scale cover-ups of illegal acts by Coalition forces in an ongoing theatre of war. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities, especially if they are guilty of hiding the murder of civilians from the public eye.

      I put it to you that the agencies contacted new the documents were going to be released anyway, and they could have done more to protect their sources by cooperating with the requests of Wikileaks (as well as many reputable news sources who agreed to help redact the documents as best as they could). In my eyes, this is just one more example of those agencies letting innocent people die because of their inadequacies or lack of culpability to the public who they are supposed to protect.

      I hope your comment is modded up, so others can have input on the matter. You do have a valid opinion, and it should be discussed.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Waste of airtime! by surgen · · Score: 2

      Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure.

      And yet they still worked with the NYT to limit the data released.

    13. Re:Waste of airtime! by tqk · · Score: 1

      If he works - on air - but NOT talking about his "unlawful" activities, he won't lose any earnings.

      Other than the purported rapes, which of his activities are "unlawful?" Accepting and reporting on information from so-called "whistleblowers"? Would you include the Guardian, der Spiegel, and the New York Times in that charge?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Waste of airtime! by cavreader · · Score: 2

      War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances. The US military could have totally destroyed any city in Iraq without endangering and ground troops just like the allies did in WW2 too many allied and non-allied countries. That strategy produced a definite end to that war with no ambiguity as to who won. The Geneva convention allows for the summary execution of combatants captured on the battlefiled who are not in uniform or lack any other insignia. Goes back to WW2 for after spies. The heilopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher. The moron who actually brought childeren into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child recevied. And US medivaced the child for aid after the attack. If it had been an American child injured we would have probably seen footage of then dead childs body being mutilated and hung from a bridge for all to see.

    15. Re:Waste of airtime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on whether or not he solicited the information, or was a passive recipient of it from a whistle-blower/leaker.

      If he solicited the data, he could run afoul of espionage statutes. Of course, this would have to be proven, much like the alleged rapes.

    16. Re:Waste of airtime! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also important to remember that no intelligence agency is going to go "Well, since you're already in possession of our classified documents which you obtained via illegal means, I guess we'll help you tidy them up for publication!" If he actually DID approach intel agencies asking for the help he claims he did, he's lucky he didn't find himself stepping out of a plane cruising at 30,000 feet somewhere over the mid atlantic.

      By way of comparison, let's use an analogy. Somebody breaks into your home, and steals your big-screen TV. They sell it to somebody on the street for a hundred bucks. The person who bought the TV then comes to your house and says, "Hey, since I already have your TV, can you come over and help me mount it on the wall and connect it to the entertainment system? I'll totally let you come hang out once a week and watch tv with me if you do."

      Would you say, "Well the TV's already been stolen, so I guess I should just help him," or "Fuck you, that's not you TV, give it back, and I'm calling the police, because that's stolen property?"

    17. Re:Waste of airtime! by tqk · · Score: 1

      Other than the purported rapes, which of his activities are "unlawful?" Accepting and reporting on information from so-called "whistleblowers"?

      Depends on whether or not he solicited the information, or was a passive recipient of it from a whistle-blower/leaker.

      As a mere occupant of this planet, I think it's better that politicians' bad behaviour sees the light of day. You believe in the letter of the law instead, it seems.

      I believe the truth should set you free. I hate your litiginous regime. Clifford Irving did the world a favor, and you should think this is very much in the style of that, if you're not a USA LEO.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Waste of airtime! by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      The helicopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher.

      Yes which is exactly why a military unit is only permitted reactive(such as only firing when being directly fired upon or in direct support of allied units taking direct fire or to protect civilians) actions when operating in an area with a heavy civilian presence. Pretty much everything can look like something threatening under the wrong circumstances which is why preemptive actions by military units in heavily populated areas is forbidden! Besides civilians is permitted to carry weapons for self defense in wartime.

      The moron who actually brought children into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child received.

      No not at all, not even a single shred. The sole responsibility lies on the helicopter pilot/gunner and their commanders because the civilians have no real alternative, their whole country is potentially a war zone, they can never know when and where the fighting will erupt, the helicopter was not taking fire and as such was not in any imminent danger.

      War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances.

      Yes, the circumstance is when taking direct fire and then the military unit should minimize the risk to the civilians.(That is also the only circumstance when it would be an acceptable response).
      Personally I think it's worse to knowingly endanger or kill civilians when your unit is not being directly fired upon than to execute POW's(as in captured enemy military personnel) because the military personnel was or should have been aware of the risk that when participating in a war there is the chance that you might die in various gruesome ways, they could have elected to not join the military. Civilians cannot similarly opt out or choose to go home.
      Systematic executions of "any other undesirables" is an atrocity yes and executing POW's is not even remotely comparable.

      War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched.

      So if we the democratic states who supposedly hold ourselves to higher standards(compared to the various despots and tyrants all around the world that we like to impose our will upon) and actually wrote the Geneva Convention can ignore it whenever we feel like then who are we to judge others? What gives us the right to tell Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules?

    19. Re:Waste of airtime! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.

      Yeah, put it on Assange, messenger and speaker of truth. It's all his fault that people are getting hurt, not the corrupt politicians whose dirty laundry got aired. It's all Assange's fault for sparking peaceful revolutions throughout most of the Arab world and setting fire to one in the U.S. as well. Stupid selfish Assange, not caring who gets "hurt" by his actions.

    20. Re:Waste of airtime! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      It's also important to remember that no intelligence agency is going to go "Well, since you're already in possession of our classified documents which you obtained via illegal means, I guess we'll help you tidy them up for publication!"

      Of course not. The power of ego and pride is a powerful thing.

      If he actually DID approach intel agencies asking for the help he claims he did, he's lucky he didn't find himself stepping out of a plane cruising at 30,000 feet somewhere over the mid atlantic.

      Yes, they are murderous and corrupt bastards, which is exactly why the cables needed to be released, redacted or not.

      By way of comparison, let's use an analogy. Somebody breaks into your home, and steals your big-screen TV. They sell it to somebody on the street for a hundred bucks. The person who bought the TV then comes to your house and says, "Hey, since I already have your TV, can you come over and help me mount it on the wall and connect it to the entertainment system? I'll totally let you come hang out once a week and watch tv with me if you do."

      Here is a better analogy: someone breaks into your house and takes pictures of all the midgets you have chained to the wall in your torture chamber, and the piles of human skeletons in your closet. This person then contacts you a few days later offering you the chance to look over the photos and blot out/remove any personal information besides the incriminating evidence, before they are released. You refuse. When the pictures become public anyway, you then throw a temper tantrum because one of them shows your birth date and SSN, and try to make out like the picture taker is the bad guy here.

    21. Re:Waste of airtime! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Systematic executions of "any other undesirables" is an atrocity yes and executing POW's is not even remotely comparable.

      Sure it is. They are both manifestations of the same thing--cold blooded murder.

      You think those 18 year old soldiers really had a choice about whether or not to come and fight you? They were raised up in a society that told them day in and day out that you are evil and the enemy. So were the 36 year olds for that matter. Many/most of them were drafted into service, or if not drafted, heavily pressured. They are trying to kill you because they've been told that you're trying to kill THEM and rape their women.

      Do they deserve to die for this?

      I guarantee that a huge percentage of what YOU believe about some other people in the world is incorrect and wrong. Do YOU deserve to die for this?

      "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"

    22. Re:Waste of airtime! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules" These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military. Large numbers of people need to be willing to sacrifice many of their people to obtain their stated goals. You can be damn sure the US will not deploy anymore human ground based resources to deal with these internal conflicts. There is not a single politician of any party how would support such an action. I did not support either the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars because it was a total waste of time and money from the beginning. Both Iraq and Afghanistan wasted their opportunities to form a better government without fear of prosecution. The US military accomplished it's goals, which was to neutralize the current leadership and help protect the citizens from reprisals while the citizens tried to take control and implement their changes. Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way. The investments in these countries offered a good return on investment. In Iraq and Afghanistan the radicals and terrorist organizations are so busy searching the sky for Hellfire missiles they probably need a chiropractor to get their neck muscles unwound. If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military. The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militarises in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Isreal or any other country. Add the fact that Israel's military technology is at the same level of the US they are doubly fucked. And finally I do not believe the west, especially the US, should be held to higher standards. A real standard only emerges when everyone is judged using the same criteria. The majority of countries you listed use killing and imprisoning thier own citizens as their standard. The good news is that as long as these countries are busy killing one another there isn't not much time or resources to engage in any international mischief.

    23. Re:Waste of airtime! by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      "Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules" These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military.

      Well the fact of the matter is that EU and US did intervene in the conflicts in Libya and Serbia(twice!) In Libya EU and US deployed substantial air and naval assets but did not have to deploy troops on the ground because there already was an armed resistance we could substitute for a ground presence(and they actually did not want EU/US ground military presence because it would have been counterproductive in that it would have strengthened Qaddafi's claim that the rebellion was instigated by the west) But in Serbia both the US and other Nato members deployed a substantial number of troops on the ground.

      And well even if the population greatly outnumbers the military that is largely irrelevant if the military is the only one to possess weapons and are willing to use them

      The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militaries in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Israel or any other country.

      Well Israel definitely did not win the latest Lebanon war(who btw were using Iranian military hardware). So I would not be so sure that they can't do it again. They learned something from those failed wars in that they could not win in a direct force against force confrontation but guerrilla warfare has once again proved to be extremely effective because Israel could not pin down the resistance sufficiently to use their technological advantage.

      If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military.

      Well I would not count Iran out quite yet they do have at least some modern military technology and they currently have the element of surprise and as the Millennium Challenge War Games showed that an inventive even if inferior force can achieve surprising results with limited resources and Iran is substantially more advanced than the enemy simulated in those war games, I would not put it past them to manage to sink or incapacitate a US aircraft carrier in a first strike scenario, add to that that even if their missile technology might be inferior if they have enough of them they can just send more than enough to overwhelm the missile defense of a carrier battle group or Israeli ground based missile defenses. The US cannot expect a bloodless war even if they restrict themselves to air and naval engagements at range.

      Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way.

      FYI they were given no choice, in both cases the allies made sure to maintain a crushing military superiority for quite some time after the surrender and since their military had been crushed they had no realistic means to resist even had they wished to do so.

      Japan btw is an excellent example is what happens when you force someone into a corner, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they felt they had no other alternative because US and UK had refused to export oil to Japan(who had no/very limited oil production of their own) and as such felt the need to acquire means of oil production by means of invasion since trade was no longer an option. As long as there is someone willing to buy oil from Iran they most likely will not resort to warfare but if we leave them with no other option than to submit or to attack they will undoubtedly choose to attack. And as long as we leave them an option they will continue their nuclear program, a classic catch 22.

    24. Re:Waste of airtime! by metacell · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't mention how John Young knows Wikileaks is selling secrets on the black market, nor does it provide a specific example. Until I read something a little more concrete, I'll assume the accusation is baseless.

      Also, it doesn't make much sense to start a high-profile organisation that attracts the attention (and ire) of powerful governments, if you want to profit by selling secrets on the black market. You'd want to stay as low-profile as possible.

    25. Re:Waste of airtime! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure.

      The documents were illegally leaked (because Bradley Manning was in the military, and therefore bound by US secrecy laws). The documents were not illegally obtained, since Wikileaks' staff is neither in the military, nor are they American citizens.

      Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.

      And the US military doesn't care who gets hurt by keeping their own mistakes secret. For example, when they lied about how ineffective their drones were and how many civilians they killed.

      You have to weigh the potential damage of exposing secrets, against the potential damage of keeping them secret.

      Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers

      Taliban courts are preparing to try and punish any Afghan informers identified in thousands of sensitive documents due for imminent release by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.

      But so far, it's only amounted to loose threats. There's no evidence they've actually been able to get at someone with the leaked information.

      Besides, if the US government is so concerned about the safety of their Afghan informants, why don't they offer them asylum in the United States? Wouldn't that be a fair reward for assisting the US in their war efforts?

  16. Lol, did you read the parents sig? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    You expect people with that kind of dogma to be sensible and focus on the facts?

    You must be new here.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  17. Julain Assange, by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Max Keiser, and Bill Maher walk into a bar...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  18. noplace does it say WHERE by swschrad · · Score: 1

    my guess is that he's on deep cable on Jupiter, top tier plus $20 a month.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:noplace does it say WHERE by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      my guess is that he's on deep cable on Jupiter, top tier plus $20 a month.

      Damn, that's still better than Keith Olbermann's new network.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:noplace does it say WHERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone who sees it should use upload it to the web for everyone. Information wants to be free.

    3. Re:noplace does it say WHERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On RT:
      http://rt.com/news/julian-assange-rt-exclusive-617/

  19. Until he names the station he's NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, until he says which station will be broadcasting it he's not hosting a chat show. Or does he believe that talking to people is all that it takes?

  20. This could be bad. by toddmbloom · · Score: 1

    I don't know if his head will be able to fit in the camera shot.

    Then again, maybe he can have a show with Bill O'Reilly to determine who the bigger arse is.

  21. Julian Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, is he still around?

  22. It's the Assange case not shoplifiting by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Have you been paying attention? It's a brand new Swedish law applied on a doubtful edge case and being used for extradition when nothing similar has while looking a hell of a lot like it's just a pretext to get him somewhere so something different can be done. That looks complex to me, and if I were him I'd be looking for people that can handle such complexity.

    1. Re:It's the Assange case not shoplifiting by tqk · · Score: 1

      Have you been paying attention?

      Have you? Just a couple of days ago, Britain pretty much granted the extradition of an "IP Pirate". So, why's it necessary to involve Sweden here?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  23. jerk ? by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    benjamin franklin had the habit of stripping naked, throwing a stool in the middle of the corridor that ran through his mansion in the upper floors, open all windows on both sides of the mansion and sit there naked in the wind.

    he would get arrested for it today.

    and yet, he is one of the people who gave us what we have today.

    tesla hated fat people and even fired a fat assistant. he openly scolded fat people in public. for being fat or eating too much.

    i can go on and on with examples from important and beneficial figures in history, who shaped this current times with their very important contributions to society. ..................

    unfortunately, as of today, speaking against governments not doing stuff against their people behind their back, exposing them, has become a greater evil to face than inquisition. with inquisition at least, all the people knew that you were stirring up something that was wrong, and approved you silently. but look at this discussion now - the persons who are braving the perils of going against the very bastards doing stuff behind our back, are being villified, by LITERATE and intelligent people. ..............

    i dont care about 'jerk'. what i care about is, what he is doing. something we needed, and nobody was doing it.

    1. Re:jerk ? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      benjamin franklin had the habit of stripping naked, throwing a stool in the middle of the corridor that ran through his mansion in the upper floors, open all windows on both sides of the mansion and sit there naked in the wind.

      Well, no. It's inside his mansion, on an upper floor, not even in a room with a window (though I've no doubt he could be seen through one or two windows if you made an effort).

      Hell, I walk around my upper floor naked from time to time, usually just out of the shower or bed. And occasionally the windows are open (not often - air-conditioning season is nine+ months long here (hell, I needed my AC on yesterday)). Haven't been arrested yet.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:jerk ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Well, no. It's inside his mansion, on an upper floor, not even in a room with a window (though I've no doubt he could be seen through one or two windows if you made an effort).

      yes and that could get you arrested by someone reporting you to the police. would totally end someone's career.

    3. Re:jerk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget about Tycho Brahe's clairvoyant midget. And didn't he also have an unusual relationship with a pet goat?

    4. Re:jerk ? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Seriously? I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK you're perfectly within your rights to walk around your house naked, with only a few restrictions - mostly relating to intent. E.g. if it can be demonstrated that you intended for your neighbours to see you then you may be in trouble; if they merely happened to catch sight of you through a window, well, they shouldn't have been looking. (Of course, regularly being naked near windows when you live opposite a school will most likely get you in trouble; as with most things in life, the unofficial rule is "don't take the piss")

    5. Re:jerk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah .. this is what happens in the us: http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/65162972.html

      Note, however, that this only applies to males. Wommyn can do whatever they want though.. only males are seen as distgusting / offensive by the legal system.

    6. Re:jerk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/naked-man-charged-with-in_n_330037.html

    7. Re:jerk ? by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Inquisition lacked much public support. Religion is a powerful tool to control the illiterate.

    8. Re:jerk ? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Both of the other replies to this comment have pointed out the single case I'm aware of where this happened recently: Eric Williamson, of Virginia. What they BOTH fail to point out is that his misdemeanor conviction was overturned in 20 minutes on appeal.

      Indecent exposure laws have quite a bit to do with intent - if you're standing outside on your balcony with a spotlight and marching band drawing attention to yourself, yeah, that's pretty obvious intent. The guy making coffee early in the morning walking around naked in the house? Not so obvious intent.

      Of course, this case just shows that the system works. The police have to take the report seriously, because it's entirely possible he WAS exposing himself to children and women passers-by. But then upon examination of the evidence, it became pretty clear that the story the woman testified to was rather far-fetched, and she was just freaking out because she happened to see a dick hanging loose through somebody's window. I live in a rather large apartment complex, and I've caught glimpses of neighbors walking around inside their apartments in nothing, or next-to-nothing. It doesn't occur to me to get them arrested, much like it doesn't occur to 99% of the rest of the population who this happens to. If you happen to spot somebody naked in their house, I think you have two choices: 1) enjoy the view if the person is attractive; 2) learn to keep your eyes from wandering to other people's windows.

    9. Re:jerk ? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Both of the other replies to this comment have pointed out the single case I'm aware of where this happened recently: Eric Williamson, of Virginia. What they BOTH fail to point out is that his misdemeanor conviction was overturned in 20 minutes on appeal.

      And what you fail to point out is the profound effect this had on his life, reputation, and financial situation. How expensive, embarrassing, and humiliating.

      Of course, this case just shows that the system works. The police have to take the report seriously, because it's entirely possible he WAS exposing himself to children and women passers-by.

      Could you justify that statement? Why is it so important for them to "this this seriously"? What does "taking it seriously" mean, anyway? Last I checked it more or less means (in practice) "kill them all and let God sort em out."

      Of course, this case just shows that the system works. The police have to take the report seriously, because it's entirely possible he WAS exposing himself to children and women passers-by. But then upon examination of the evidence, it became pretty clear that the story the woman testified to was rather far-fetched, and she was just freaking out because she happened to see a dick hanging loose through somebody's window

      Well I'm sure the victim here (the man in question) is quite comforted to know that the system "works." Yeah, it works to strip citizens of this formerly great country of their dignity, wealth, and possessions, then cast them out to the wolves. The lawyers get paid, the judges get paid, the cops get paid, the citizens get bent over the table and fucked.

      Is that really the America you want?

      Vote Ron Paul 2012 and let's start putting and end to this waking nightmare of tyranny and oppression. How far we've fallen.

    10. Re:jerk ? by Americano · · Score: 1

      And what you fail to point out is the profound effect this had on his life, reputation, and financial situation. How expensive, embarrassing, and humiliating.

      And what you fail to recognize is that one case does not constitute a sinister pattern of systemic corruption and abuse. A woman got overly hysterical because she saw a strange man naked, and felt that he was exposing himself to her and her 7 year old son. She called the police, the police felt her story had merit, they arrested him and charged him with indecent exposure - a misdemeanor. He was initially convicted because 2 people reported it, then the conviction was overturned on appeal when new evidence was brought forward. Is it unfortunate that this guy was "harmlessly nude," and somebody got offended by that? Sure. Is it the end of the world, or does it show some sort of sinister machinery at work? Not at all.

      Could you justify that statement? Why is it so important for them to "this this seriously"? What does "taking it seriously" mean, anyway? Last I checked it more or less means (in practice) "kill them all and let God sort em out."

      When somebody breaks the law - and exposing your nude body to others in public *is* in fact illegal - the police are obligated to enforce the law. When a citizen comes to them reporting what sounds like a violation, they are obligated to respond and investigate. Now, you can argue that the law is silly, or that it shouldn't be illegal, but the police aren't the ones who make the law, so arguing that point is irrelevant at this point - take that issue up with your state and local legislatures. "taking it seriously" means exactly what it says: they are obligated to investigate the report, and if the investigation turns up evidence that there probably was a violation of the law, it's their duty to arrest the violator and then turn the case over to the legal system for due process to determine the facts of the matter.

      Is that really the America you want?

      An America where the rule of law and the rights of citizens is respected and upheld by the police? That's absolutely the America I want. A single case where a naked man was reported by 2 separate people, police arrest him, court convicts him, and then later overturns that conviction, and sets him free with a not-guilty... THIS is your grand example of the corruption and infernal machinery of a system run amok? Because as far as I can see, it's only evidence of a single case where a guy should've put some shorts on, and two passers-by should have just ignored the naked guy making coffee.

      We can argue whether or not the law in this case is silly (I'd argue that standards against public indecency aren't all that silly, though the application in this SINGLE CASE is certainly questionable), but the police responding to 2 separate reports of a man breaking that law? That's the way the system is supposed to work. People report crime, police respond & investigate; if probable cause is established, an arrest is made, and the plaintiff and defendant both get to argue their case with facts in front of a court.

      I'm stunned that "dancing around naked in your house" is your choice of hills to die on, frankly.

  24. He needs the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikileaks does not pay his personal legal bills. He needs the money, and yes he needs the publicity.

    I doubt he has the skills to make this a winner, but at least he is approaching the problem with some kind of integrity.

    Looking forward to it.

  25. "he'll vanish overseas" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very much what we in the UK think of the US bias in the formation of the current extradition rules. Yes, I know "we" signed them without thinking how the US would manipulate them, but that was Tony "poodle" Blair doing what he does best. Never mind, the laws and legal process in Sweden are as fair as in any other Western Democracy. He's got nothing to fear if he's innocent, hasn't he?

  26. -- Socialism is slavery.Re:Good. But... by Maow · · Score: 2

    -- Socialism is slavery.

    did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.

    1850.

  27. Re:topic #1 by tqk · · Score: 1

    Is change better effected through union or through cult of personality?

    this needs modpoints.

    No, it doesn't. "Cool" sounding, but barely articulated opinions, never do.

    I'm in favor of unions, if by that we're speaking of sexual relations between consenting adults. Babies are wonderful things and excellent examples of change. There's no way to tell if that's what's being spoken of here. He's just acting "hipster" from what I can tell, and from there I can easily segue stage right into Apple's Reality Distortion Field and the Now Divine Steve Jobs cultism.

    See how words can be misused by someone intent on doing so?

    Say what you mean and nail it down so far it cannot possibly mean anything other than what you mean. "A man's a man who looks a man right between the eyes." -- Neil Young?

    Oh, and hyperbole doesn't work all that well on the net. There's too many out there who'll take it literally.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  28. Aces High by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's hope his show is better than Sam Rothstein's "Aces High".

  29. Scary. by blinking_at · · Score: 1

    It is truly frightening how effective the campaign against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has been. You have to think twice before you say anything in favor of them, on *any* platform.