Slashdot Mirror
Assange Internet Link Cut By State Actor, Claims Wikileaks (rt.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report by RussianToday: WikiLeaks has activated "contingency plans" after its co-founder's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet. The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world. Facing extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, which he denies, the Australian computer programmer has been holed up in the embassy in West London since 2012. He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating WikiLeaks. The unverified claims of state sabotage come as WikiLeaks continues to release damaging documents, most recently thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta.
It's good to see the NSA step up to patriotically ensure Hillary's ascendancy to the throne. They were slacking compared to the loyalty of the DOJ who selflessly made sure to destroy the laptops of anybody on her staff who might have had incriminating evidence.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Clinton went out of her way to avoid denying they were real. That's like Sherlock Holmes "The Case of the Dog that Didn't Bark." If they weren't real, why didn't she say so, instead of saying "they might not even be legitimate"? After all, she sure as hell knows if they're legitimate - or is this another example of her brain shutting off for 3 months from that concussion so that (she claims) she can't remember any briefings about security procedures?
She's no more credible than Trump - and in the process, she's managed to drag down Barack Obama. How can you have a secretary of state who admitted she went around in a brain fog for 3 months and NOT NOTICE???
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The emails aren't her's, they're from and to a friend of her's, Podesta. She has absolutely no ability to tell how many, if any, of the emails are legitimate. So actually her comments are absolutely the right thing to say, and it would have shown poor judgement to say anything else.
FWIW, once passed through the Russian media filter, at least one series of emails was attributed to her that had nothing to do with her, resulting in false allegations Clinton had used the N-word to describe her supporters. This smear was sufficiently believed by the anti-Clinton groups that I saw it posted over and over again in the comments sections of various news sites I read during that time. Again, this underscores how unwise it would have been to "confirm" jack shit.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.
If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Oh look, lets see how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK
Technically, he's not in the UK. He's in Ecuador.
Embassy grounds are considered foreign territory.
You are presuming that he's using the connection of the main Ecuadoran embassy (for which it may have more than one). And, yes doing so would likely cause a diplomatic issue, However I'd like to propose a couple of things : * It does not say which state. If the connection is a separate one facilitated by the Embassy, it does not say that Ecuador did not cut it. * If could be a separate connection not used for official business by the Embassy, but for visitors etc. but on contract facilitated by the Embassy that was then cut by a request to the provider by the UK. There are a number of ways this could be setup, and still be consistent with the published statement. Perhaps notching back on the histrionics would provide, overall, a better perspective on whats actually in play here.
At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.
Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.
Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".
But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.
See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What is most amusing to me is that, when Assange's target was the U.S. Military during the Manning document dissemination, he was the darling of The Left and villified by The Right. Now that the leaks speak Truth to a Power of The Left, The Right is crowing and The Left is trying to intimidate those who support him.
The fact that he has so thoroughly infuriated knuckleheaded idealogues on both sides just validates what he has to say, IMHO.
Could be the Ecuadorians are getting annoyed with having to live with a random, annoying guy 24/7 and cut it themselves, hoping it might convince him to go somewhere else.
I keep hearing this stupid talking point. I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election. If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton and if he just released them instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the releases actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what he's doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why he's lost so much respect.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The leaked speeches are, without a doubt, legit. It's so obvious she's squirming, what with her "maintaining a public position and a private (favoring the banks an 0.1%ers) position".
If Hillary doesn't know what her campaign chairman is up to, she's incompetent. If she doesn't have the guts to ask him whether they're legit or not, it's because she wants to maintain a semblance of deniability - which again, not asking Podesta if they're legit or not means she is either afraid of the answer or again incompetent.
Of course, there's still more to come. That may be why "desperate times call for desperate measures."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I don't like what Assange is doing right now because he's trying to manipulate our election. If he wasn't exclusively trying to harm Clinton and if he just released them instead of timing the releases for the most damage and if the releases actually contained something worth giving a damn about I would be ok about it. But as it is what he's doing has nothing to do with transparency and that's why he's lost so much respect.
Maybe because the only dirty player in this election is the Clinton team? Maybe Bernie and the GOP were playing by the proper rules - rather than rigging the entire thing for themselves, so there IS no dirt on Trump or Bernie - just Clinton.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Or maybe Assange has an agenda.
You seriously think Trump is clean?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What crime did Assange commit in the UK?
In order to be "extradited" you first have to be a criminal suspect or a convicted criminal, Assange is neither in the UK.
But, because of the EU treaties, any member of the EU can hold an individual for a crime that was committed in any other EU territory. In this way, because Sweden claimed criminal wrongdoing, the UK held Assange so that he could be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for the crimes alleged there.
Assange has to first go to Sweden before the US can ask for Extradition, because Sweden is the one alleging criminal wrongdoing. If the UK simply sent him straight to the US, it would be obvious that the whole thing was a farce as it would have been an illegal extradition because Assange is not wanted for any crimes in the UK.
The whole pretense for the arrest warrant issued to Assange was so that the Swedish Prosecution Authority could interview him on the particulars of the case. Assange had offered to be interviewed multiple times by Swedish Investigators, but they all declined. Making it pretty clear that the point of the arrest warrant wasn't to interview him, but to get him onto Swedish soil.
The question then becomes: why?
My internet goes down twice a week and nobody starts a hashtag and pushes out press releases for me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Has anyone suggested that Assange should try rebooting his router? Sometimes that works for me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Or maybe Assange has an agenda.
If someone tried to assassinate me, personally, I'd have an agenda too.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
There hasn't been much uncovering of anything. The whole Wikileaks dump reminds me of the Prince Charles Spider Letters, where the Guardian put so much effort into getting access to Prince Charles' letters and memorandums to the British cabinet, absolutely certain that he was influencing policy in some evil nefarious way, only to find out he talked a lot about his concerns about agriculture.
Yes, there are some embarrassing things in the email dumps, as there would be if anyone's emails were leaked, but there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate this bizarre conspiracy theory that Clinton is the Lizard Queen of the Illuminati.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem is that electing Trump in place of Clinton because of this would be a boneheaded move.
Or, to simplify my statement above: The problem is that electing Trump would be a boneheaded move.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Let's be crystal clear - the Republican Party fell to an outsider this year. One could make the argument that they tried to cheat the outsider, and failed, but it's more likely that they literally ran a fair and balanced primary election.
The Democrat Party, on the other hand, excluded outsiders by cheating this year. One could make the argument that they would've won even without cheating, but that's highly unlikely.
Or maybe Assange has an agenda.
You seriously think Trump is clean?
Actually, yes, at this point.
Here is a guy who's being audited by the Obama administration and has the full force of the Clinton political machine digging into every aspect of his life.
Man, he really must be squeaky clean if all they have is that he only paid the taxes he had too legally and he said "pu$$y" 11 years ago.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.