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.'"
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
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.
Read radical news here
'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
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.
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?
Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.
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."
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.
Dystopia, and the best thing you can do is not be a party to the whole thing.
In Guantanamo tonight?
Animatronic skeleton with glowing blue eyes for a sidekick.
Have gnu, will travel.
"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..."
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.
Max Keiser, and Bill Maher walk into a bar...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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?
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.
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.
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.
Read radical news here
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
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.
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/
True, they did.
-- Socialism is slavery.
did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.
1850.
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
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.
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/
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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"
"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.
"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.
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.
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?