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.

12 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. Good to see some patriotism. by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  2. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Does anybody ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:Does anybody ... by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Good and bad exposures by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Good and bad exposures by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss."

      Try an actual legal dictionary.
      http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

      "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."

      That's ALL that's required for assault.

      An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery; since there was unwanted ('offensive') physical contact too.

  6. Re:Does anybody ... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Does anybody ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:Does anybody ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Does anybody ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe Assange has an agenda.

    You seriously think Trump is clean?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:How does he know by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has anyone suggested that Assange should try rebooting his router? Sometimes that works for me.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:Feel The Bern by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!