Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

Guy is a rapist. He has been worryingly unhinged for years. He is constantly digging himself lower these days. Shame on Jill Stein for calling him a hero, and saying his rapes were his own personal business.

I don't disagree with Greenwald's comment.

Frederik B, star chamber judge

At one point wikileaks was pro-transparency. Know they use their own secrecy ("we don't comment on who our sources are") to fan conspiracy theories.

Has Greenwald commented on this? I can't find it.

Dude

Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

Yeah, sure. I meant the Seth Rich allegations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html

I’ve had my own run-ins with Mr. Assange. During the making of my 2013 film, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” I spent an agonizing six hours with him, when he was living in an English country house while out on bail. I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, “I am WikiLeaks” repeatedly. (Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)

NYTimes, a name you can trust

the author is alex gibney, not the nyt. gibney made such films as we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks & enron: the smartest guys in the room. the NYTimes is not the author, merely the publisher.

also basically everyone who has spent time with assange thinks he's a pos, including former colleagues.

read the lrb piece from Andrew O'Hagan that I reposted upthread 2 weeks ago.

Alex Gibney is also the maker of the recent documentary Zero Days, which relates the US-Israeli creation of the Stuxnet cyberwar virus.

I haven't seen all of Gibney's documentary work, but being in the business of constructing documentaries and doing the requisite interviews seems like a career that would help develop your sense of character

Alex Gibney is also the maker of the recent documentary Zero Days, which relates the US-Israeli creation of the Stuxnet cyberwar virus.

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:24 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what is your point?

ginbney's films aren't groundbreaking experiments in form but they are excellent both in their detective work and in telling stories. the james brown documentary was surprisingly meaty. but apparently he made a doc about israel so he can't be trusted.

my point is Mordy will love it

and stop addressing me, you prick.

are we on a playground?

xxp also could not figure out what his pt is but if it was really just a film recommendation i will check it out

it does sound interesting!

judging by the 16-year history of your posts, yes, nitwit

xxp

STUXNET

for a putatively left-wing gay shut-in, you sure act a lot like biff tannen online

idk I thought it was pretty obvious Morbs was just providing that as a point of information before getting oddly accosted for it

I get oddly accosted for breathing by board 'regulars'. too old for this shit.

given his history of reflexive anti-semitism zionism and baiting mordy, you can understand how we might have taken it as a jab

if you're too old for this shit, then stop doing it. don't blame us for "addressing" you. you have the power to step away from the board.

i guess this is why all the experts say that bullies are essentially filled with self-loathing...

^ban this fucker for life NOW.

you're a ridiculous self-parody.

anyway, sorry for derail. back to julian assange....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1151/877040314_a4a912d946_o.jpg

NPR really knows their listeners expect whoring for the Dems

@theintercept
NPR host demands that Assange do something its own reporters are told never to do

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/17/npr-cant-accept-assange-protect-sources/

David Greene is an ass.

They did it again, this time exposing Saudi Arabian rape victims and doctoral records. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKILEAKS_COLLATERAL_DAMAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-03-30-45

"giant library of the world's most persecuted documents."

persecuted documents

persecuted documents

the clintons have some kind of bizarre superpower: everyone who hates them turns into an idiot or a liar at some point.

i mean look at this quoted email

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/768076098555023361

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html

i have some problems w/ this article -- on occasion they seem to take smoke for fire -- but it's still worth a read.

The Wikileaks response is here fwiw:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp2gj0

this strikes me as indefensible, and draws a sharp line between assange and e.g. snowden

And public spats with would-be allies are not uncommon.

One involves Mr. Assange’s insistence that document troves should be published in their entirety, not curated by journalists who might have agendas.

In his interview with The Times on Wednesday, Mr. Assange criticized the Panama Papers consortium for not making all the documents in its possession public, calling it censorship. “It is not the WikiLeaks model,” he said. “In fact, it is the anti-WikiLeaks model.”

WikiLeaks did collaborate with journalists on the war logs and diplomatic cables. But Mr. Assange’s decision to abandon that approach in the name of total transparency is what led Mr. Snowden to work with Mr. Greenwald and another journalist on the N.S.A. revelations. Mr. Snowden felt openness should be balanced with concern for people’s privacy and safety.

After the release of the Democratic Party documents this summer, Mr. Snowden criticized WikiLeaks on Twitter for not redacting the Social Security numbers and credit card information of private individuals named in the trove.

lol the moment am posted that link i thought how long until SV posted the apologetic

I am critical of Wikileaks - including in this thread - but thought it was worth noting their response given that they challenge a lot of the assertions on factual grounds.

x-post

interesting response. he's right about some of the article's insinuations, but he also seems to have misread the article on some counts. for example the article doesn't say assange "has not produced critical material on the Assad government."

i do agree w/ assange that some of the more dubious reporting in the article involves questions of "timing." there are def. some times when the time of assange's tweets about subjects seems oddly coordinated with the priorities of the russian gov't, but there are times in the NYT article where assange's comments /months/ after some russia-related event are taken as evidence that he's sympathetic to russia. that kind of thing seems like a stretch at best and doesn't help the article's argument, such as it is.

though i don't think assange should be lecturing anyone on what "journalism" is, since he doesn't do it. he refuses to do it on principle.

Lol, the response seriously begins like this The New York Times Editorial Board has endorsed Hillary Clinton, however this is not disclosed in the article. The lead author, Jo Becker last retweeted Hillary Clinton (a smiling and dancing animated Hillary Clinton), on March 3.

Well, that surely proved them wrong, Assange!

yeah that was dumb. but he does make a few criticisms of the article that seem valid to me.

I'll get to them! Once I stop laughing.

But seriously, his response seems to be something like 'the idea that just because the dnc docs were hacked by the russian government, that I would have gotten them from the russian government, is totally circumstantial speculation, and also the journalist tweeted about Hillary proving this is all a conspiracy!'

why don't you actually read them before writing that "his response seems to be something like..."?

his responses are mostly him asserting that he /has/ been critical of things the NYT article implies he hasn't been critical of.

sorry i don't really have a "side" in this argument but it seems like Frederik's last post is textbook jumping to conclusions based on preconceived opinions rather than actually giving something a fair shake. i'm not singling Frederik out -- we all do this. but sometimes the way that people fall immediately into familiar (opposed?) camps in these threads is a little dispiriting.

Ok, 'the first two lines of his response seems to be...'

:)

But quite honestly, at this point, Assange and wikileaks has become so rotten, that I don't feel particularly bad for not giving them 'a fair shake' or something like that.

I'll jump to conclusions on Trump as well, for instance, and won't feel particularly bad about it.

i feel like there's got to be a good sitcom about assange at the ecuadorian embassy.

in principle i don't like wikileaks' carelessness wrt to publishing of sensitive personal information, but...has there ever been any actual reporting on people who have been materially harmed by this? it seems like there's a lot of handwringing and speculation and then...nothing

Yeah, some of the DNC donors were then immediately attacked by identity thieves. Nobody knows what their spreading of personal information has done in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but from interviews some of the targets sound pretty terrified.