Last active
3 years, 5 months ago
  • I’m not sure language is as much of a barrier as you imagine. Here’s something from an old 1999 cypherpunks mailing list, in which Julian Assange discovered an NSA patent for “machine transcription of voice calls”, pre-programmed to be able to interpret all the naunces of idiomatic speech patterns. The patent had first been loged in 1997. That’s an awful long time in which to develop the capability to transcribe and keep a permanent record of 100% of any country’s phone calls they like. I’m sure they’ve reached that capability by now.

  • Whoops, the link I attached to last comment didn’t come through. Weird.

    Chris Hedges: Food Behind Bars Isn’t Fit For Your Dog

  • Great article, Kevin. There’s only one sentence in it I’d disagree with:

    He soberly recalled how this order had been used to get rid of political enemies and put individuals into concentration camps. Of course, this is not happening now.

    Yes, it is. What else would you call the US prison system, currently incarcerating millions of people, half-starving them and using them as cheap labour?

    Chris Hedges: Food Behind Bars Isn’t Fit For Your Dog

  • Hey Kevin, what’s your response to the fact that the Washington Post has updated their article to change the quote of that anonymous DoJ official they quoted? Apparently, they’ve removed the bit that says “If Assange came to the US today, he would not be arrested”:

    Did WaPo get called on just making that bit up? Did the anonymous official get a drubbing-down by his superiors about misrepresenting the DoJ’s current strategy? Does this mean that if Assange were to travel to the US today he WOULD be arrested?

    Your thoughts, please.

  • Hi Kevin,

    Will you be covering the second lawsuit, to Germany? That one claims that illegal surveillance activity at the CCC in 2009 by a US Marine, Martin Hosburgh (one of the witnesses at Chelsea’s court martial) was used, in part, for the “wanton publication” conviction against Manning. There’s a hint in the affidavit that the outcome of the German investigation could be used in Chelsea’s upcoming appeal.

  • All you need to know about this movie: the last date on which Daniel Domscheit-Berg was physically present at Wikileaks was February 7, 2010 (four days after Bradley Manning made his first upload). From that date on, DDB was completely out of the loop – he confessed to Der Spiegel that he was taken by surprise by the Afghan War Logs release. The Iraq War Logs and Cablegate he learned of through the media, same as the rest of us did, although he was still comment in his interviews as if he was an insider.

    The whole premise of this movie is therefore a joke.

  • Gibney’s telling Fibneys again…

    “There is some doubt as to what condom is pictured on screen, so it seemed pointless to add detail about dna.”

    There is only ONE picture and only ONE condom in the police forensics report, and Gibney knows that full well if, as he claims, he’s researched the Swedish case. So, yes, if Gibney shows a used-looking condom with a bloody great tear in the top that the one that Assange supposedly “deliberately ripped” during sex and the fact it has no trace of any DNA on it – not male, not female either – is a very big deal indeed. And Gibney knows it. (What was submitted to the forensics lab from the other woman is only a fragment of a condom. That does have DNA on it, but she’s the one who claims he DIDN’T use a condom.)

    “The Swedish prosecutor is prepared to charge Assange but cannot do so unless he is “arrested,” which must happen in Sweden. The only questioning that the Swedish prosecutor needs to do is to give Assange the opportunity to provide information which would prevent her from arresting him…”

    This, too, is complete bunkum. Is Gibney seriously suggesting that Swedish law makes it possible to charge someone with a crime and put them on trial before the police have even questioned them a first time? Assange has only been questioned by police about an allegation of NON-sexual molestation, as that was the only allegation still in existence at the time, the other lady’s case having been closed by a senior prosecutor after reading her testimony with the words “I do not think there is any reason to believe Assange has committed rape. I don’t disbelieve her but there is no reason to think that a crime has been committed.” Assange has therefore never been given a opportunity to give his side of the story to police for three out of the four current allegations. What kind of justice system charges people before even talking to them?

    FYI, Mr Gibney, under Swedish law it is not permitted for a prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute until the preliminary investigation is completed (including all questioning, obviously). Then, if they charge, they have to hand over the entire police file, including all the stuff they are not even using for their prosecution. Wonder how they feel about doing that to the world’s most prolific publisher…?

    If a Swedish prosecutor is alleging that Assange may have tried to make the women pregnant against their will (the basis of a possible charge) is it not relevant to understand his past practices?

    The Swedish prosecutor has never said any such thing. And, again, Gibney would know that if he had done any research.

    With this “rebuttal” Gibney is just embarrassing himself.

  • It is unclear if the government knew these documents on the Iraqi Federal Police were submitted by Manning before he said he had submitted them in his statement.

    So much for the quality of the US prosecutors’ forensics on Bradley’s computers then…
    If it’s true the government didn’t know these particular documents were in Wikileaks’ possession, can they now be used to undermine the US government’s case against Bradley in other areas (I’m thinking about the Garani video in particular) or its other case – against Wikileaks itself?

  • Arbed commented on the blog post Bradley Manning’s January Motion Hearing, Day 2

    2013-01-10 06:26:01View | Delete

    “The prosecutors also said they would present logs of Internet chats in February 2010 between Private Manning and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, including one in which the two men appeared to be “laughing” together about a New York Times article. The March 17, 2010, article said that the Pentagon had listed WikiLeaks as a threat to military operations and security.”

    Manning and Assange laughed in February about an article printed in March? How is that possible?

    These chat logs are, presumably, those where the US Govt claims the Nathaniel Frank alias is Julian Assange. There’s a lot of problems with whether those chat logs can be authenticated as not being overwritten at a later date. I’ve said before that Nathaniel Frank – an actual person, btw, a campaigner against the US Army’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – doesn’t strike me as one that Julian Assange would choose. Maybe Bradley (or an Army “forensic investigator”), but not Assange.

  • “The prosecutors also said they would present logs of Internet chats in February 2010 between Private Manning and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, including one in which the two men appeared to be “laughing” together about a New York Times article. The March 17, 2010, article said that the Pentagon had listed WikiLeaks as a threat to military operations and security.”

    Manning and Assange laughed in February about an article printed in March? How is that possible?

  • Regarding RT, I didn’t know that Al Jazeera English had also sought to air the show. Nonetheless, I think it has hurt Assange’s reputation to have accepted Russian government money.

    So, following that logic, how would you have viewed a series funded by a licence deal with the BBC, another State-funded broadcaster? I’m sure you can’t view the UK media climate as particularly healthy for a free press, given the use of D Notices, the problem of UK libel ‘tourism’ by wealthy elites to suppress negative coverage, and the well-known bias of the BBC itself?

    Granted, journalists seem to be singled out for particularly brutal treatment under the Russian regime but your logic seems to say that if Assange had produced his series (for which, he says, he was given complete editorial independence) using money from the BBC his reputation wouldn’t have been hurt at all. Despite the fact that all sorts of cases are now coming before the courts showing the UK government’s complicity in torture interrogations by MI5 personnel, rendition flights, etc, etc.

  • Not sure how ex post facto would work in respect of Assange, but I’m sure they’ll make it work somehow. It might be relevant that just this week the Pentagon made a public statement that Wikileaks “possession of classified US govt docs” was an “ongoing violation of the law”.

    Something like that maybe…

  • Is anyone else able to see the elephant in the room that I can here? To me it’s SO obvious that Section 1021 has been crafted specifically to nab Assange, and that that’s the real reason underlying all the vagueness of the government lawyers in the Freedom Seven lawsuit (ie. the detail behind it is currently all tucked away in those 42,135 pages of DoJ/FBI investigation file for the Wikileaks Grand Jury). It also explains this subsequent push to get the S1021 provision reinstated. I mean, didn’t Holder state all the way back in November 2010 that if there were gaps in US law with which to prosecute Assange/Wikileaks “we will fill those gaps”?

    Those timings to file briefs also raise my antenna. I can’t find it now but didn’t Assange state in an interview just after his speech broadcast from the UN session that the optimum time for the US to disclose its indictment/extradition request was either just before or just after Bradley Manning’s trial?

    That speech gave some pretty hair-raising details of the Wikileaks Grand Jury (also very ably reported here by Kevin) but Wikileaks also released new FOIA docs of an internal DoD investigation which clearly sets out a legal definition of Assange/Wikileaks – “enemy of the state” – which fits perfectly both with the “aiding the enemy” charge against Manning and the new definitions and phrases of Section 1021. Note that new stuff – that’s what basically differentiates 1021 from the AUMF, ie that’s what the administration is fighting so hard to keep, at least until January 2013.

    Kevin – or anyone here – able to dig out that interview with Assange where he makes that point about timing? It might’ve been on RT immediately following the UN speech.

  • Hi Kevin, sorry to butt in on an unrelated article but I’ve just seen a press article using one of your tweets to attack Assange in the row over a Wikileaks tweet last night about the Libyan embassy raid. So I just wanted to fill you in on some details about his ‘equating’ the Libyan situation with his own. Here’s a comment I’ve posted to that article using your tweet, which I hope does fill in that detail:

    The corporate press has conveniently ‘forgotten’ that 30,000 people watched a livefeed from outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London on the night of 15 August. We saw 50 to 60 police officers around and going into the building. We saw 4 police custody vans grouped around the building. We saw a special marked “diplomatic custody” vehicle. Later, an AP photographer caught police instructions about arresting Assange that warned of “risk to life” and made it clear that UK counter-terrorism police units and also Special Forces were involved in the operation. And we heard Assange describe how that night he could hear “police swarming up the internal fire escape of the building”. Now the UK government – and the press – is trying to deny any of this ever happened. But we SAW it. For all those criticising Assange’s subjective response to the Libya raid, have you ever been through an embassy raid yourself? No, thought not. Where’s YOUR sense of empathy?

  • Arbed commented on the blog post Assange Accuser Named by Former British Ambassador on BBC Show

    2012-08-22 12:55:55View | Delete

    What really gets me mad is that it is illegal under Swedish law to name the ACCUSED as well as the accusers under a conviction has been secured.

    Julian Assange has had TWO YEARS of being ‘named’ by every journalist and broadcaster on the planet, often in the most despicable and prejudicial terms. He has been subjected to the most vile abuse AGAINST THE LAW. Agreed, rape accusers shouldn’t be named but, as someone upthread pointed out, calling them ‘victims’ prior to conviction – especially when the accused has been publicly named – is also highly prejudicial to his chances of a fair trial.

  • Arbed commented on the blog post Why a Fake NYT Op-Ed Shouldn’t Hurt WikiLeaks’ Credibility

    2012-07-30 22:59:49View | Delete

    Once a year most mainstream newspapers deliberately publish an April Fools hoax story. I suppose we must now say they no longer deserve to be taken seriously as credible news outlets?

    Or do different rules and standards apply just because it’s Wikileaks?

  • Whappen? I get my preview AND my hit-the-button version? Meh! Computers.

  • Damn! I’ve been using “unredacted” for months – but I love neologisms anyway. It hadn’t struck me as particularly Orwellian for some reason but now you mention it, perhaps I should switch back to uncensored.

    God knows we have enough examples of Doublespeak nowadays that are far worse (or farcical even – “kinetic intervention” is a personal favourite on that score). I once did a little study on the military use of euphemism and was surprised how many used very ‘domesticated’ terms – Little Boy, Fat Man, ‘smart’ bombs, and the like. I’ve even come across ‘bomblets’ – wtf are they supposed to be, sweeties? Helps the grunts cope with the horrors, I suppose, and the ‘home’ audience, of course.

    I know Assange gets criticised for it a lot, but “Collateral Murder” was a GREAT title – it cut straight through all that bullshit.

  • Damn! I’ve been using “unredacted” for months – but I love neologisms anyway.

  • Load More