Rothschild's "Hero" Program: Project Julian Assange loses funding

[bigron]

Published on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 by The Tech Herald


Data Intelligence Firms Proposed a Systematic Attack Against WikiLeaks


by Steve Ragan

MORE

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/09-6

[bigron]

Continued US Investigation of Assange Comes Up Empty

Still No Links Between Manning, Assange

by Jason Ditz, February 09, 2011

One certainly can’t fault the Justice Department for lack of effort when it comes to trying to hang a political dissident out to try, but the results of the continuing investigation into Julian Assange are still turning up nothing.

Indeed, nearly three weeks ago the administration was forced to admit they had “no evidence” of any links between Pfc Bradley Manning, the presumptive leaker of the WikiLeaks cables, and Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who many US officials are calling a “terrorist” for embarrassing them so badly.

MORE

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/09/continued-us-investigation-of-assange-comes-up-empty/

[tritonman]

Not a huge surprise there, but I do not expect that to stop the attacks none the less.

[bigron]

The leaked campaign to attack WikiLeaks and its supporters


By Glenn Greenwald

Aaron Barr, a top executive at computer security firm HB Gary.

Salon, February 11, 2011

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html

(updated below)

There's been a very strange episode being written about the past couple of days involving numerous parties, including me, that I now want to comment on.  The story, first reported by The Tech Herald, has been been written about in numerous places (see Marcy Wheeler, Forbes, The Huffington Post, BoingBoing, Matt Yglesias, Reason, Tech Dirt, and others), so I'll provide just the summary.

Last week, Aaron Barr, a top executive at computer security firm HB Gary, boasted to the Financial Times that his firm had infiltrated and begun to expose Anonymous, the group of pro-WikiLeaks hackers that had launched cyber attacks on companies terminating services to the whistleblowing site (such as Paypal, MasterCard, Visa, Amazon and others).  In retaliation, Anonymous hacked into the email accounts of HB Gary, published 50,000 of their emails online, and also hacked Barr's Twitter and other online accounts.

Among the emails that were published was a report prepared by HB Gary -- in conjunction with several other top online security firms, including Palantir Technologies -- on how to destroy WikiLeaks.  The emails indicated the report was part of a proposal to be submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams.  News reports have indicated that WikiLeaks is planning to publish highly incriminating documents showing possible corruption and fraud at that bank, and The New York Times detailed last month how seriously top bank officials are taking that threat.  The NYT article described that the bank's "counterespionage work" against WikiLeaks entailed constant briefings for top executives on the whistle-blower site, along with the hiring of "several top law firms" and Booz Allen (the long-time firm of former Bush DNI Adm. Michael McConnell and numerous other top intelligence and defense officials).  The report prepared by these firms was designed to be part of the Bank of America's highly funded anti-WikiLeaks campaign.

The leaked report suggested numerous ways to destroy WikiLeaks, some of them likely illegal -- including planting fake documents with the group and then attacking them when published; "creat[ing] concern over the security" of the site; "cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters"; and a "media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of wikileaks activities."  Many of those proposals were also featured prongs of a secret 2008 Pentagon plan to destroy WikiLeaks.

One section of the leaked report focused on attacking WikiLeaks' supporters and it featured a discussion of me.  A graph purporting to be an "organizational chart" identified several other targets, including former New York Times reporter Jennifer 8 Lee, Guardian reporter James Ball, and Manning supporter David House.  The report claimed I was "critical" to WikiLeaks' public support after its website was removed by Amazon and that "it is this level of support that needs to be disrupted"; absurdly speculated that "without the support of people like Glenn, WikiLeaks would fold"; and darkly suggested that "these are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause."  As The Tech Herald noted, "earlier drafts of the proposal and an email from Aaron Barr used the word 'attacked' over 'disrupted' when discussing the level of support."

In the wake of the ensuing controversy caused by publication of these documents, the co-founder and CEO of Palantir Tech, Alex Karp, has now issued a statement stating that he "directed the company to sever any and all contacts with HB Gary."  The full statement -- which can be read here -- also includes this sentence:  "personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters."  Palantir has also contacted me by email to arrange for Dr. Karp to call me to personally convey the apology.  My primary interest is in knowing whether Bank of America retained these firms to execute this proposal and if any steps were taken to do so; if Karp's apology is genuine, that information ought to be forthcoming (as I was finishing writing this, Karp called me, seemed sincere enough in his apology, vowed that any Palantir employees involved in this would dealt with the way they dealt with HB Gary, and commendably committed to telling me by the end of the week whether Bank of America or Hunton & Williams actually retained these firms to carry out this proposal).

* * * * *

My initial reaction to all of this was to scoff at its absurdity.  Not being familiar with the private-sector world of internet security, I hadn't heard of these firms before and, based on the quality of the proposal, assumed they were just some self-promoting, fly-by-night entities of little significance.  Moreover, for the reasons I detailed in my interview with The Tech Herald -- and for reasons Digby elaborated on here -- the very notion that I could be forced to choose "professional preservation over cause" is ludicrous on multiple levels.  Obviously, I wouldn't have spent the last year vehemently supporting WikiLeaks -- to say nothing of aggressively criticizing virtually every large media outlet and many of their leading stars, as well as the most beloved political leaders of both parties -- if I were willing to choose "career preservation over cause."

But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights.  For one thing, it turns out that the firms involved here are large, legitimate and serious, and do substantial amounts of work for both the U.S. Government and the nation's largest private corporations (as but one example, see this email from a Stanford computer science student about Palantir).  Moreover, these kinds of smear campaigns are far from unusual; in other leaked HB Gary emails, ThinkProgress discovered that similar proposals were prepared for the Chamber of Commerce to attack progressive groups and other activists (including ThinkProgress).  And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.

That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal.  As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns.   The only unusual aspect here is that we happened to learn about it this time because of Anonymous' hacking.  That a similar scheme was quickly discovered by ThinkProgress demonstrates how common this behavior is.  The very idea of trying to threaten the careers of journalists and activists to punish and deter their advocacy is self-evidently pernicious; that it's being so freely and casually proposed to groups as powerful as the Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DOJ-recommended Hunton & Williams demonstrates how common this is.  These highly experienced firms included such proposals because they assumed those deep-pocket organizations would approve and it would make their hiring more likely.

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power.  I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres --  because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics.  Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized.  There is very little separation between government power and corporate power.   Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former.  The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did.  It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that:  corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.

That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally:  it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation).  The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government.  The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented.  And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly.  That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity on lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks. 

The exemption from the rule of law has been fully transferred from the highest level political elites to their counterparts in the private sector.  "Law" is something used to restrain ordinary Americans and especially those who oppose this consortium of government and corporate power, but it manifestly does not apply to restrain these elites.  Just consider one amazing example illustrating how this works.

After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks.  But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline.  Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous.  Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest.  Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening.

MORE

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html

 

[bigron]

Swedish PM Taps Assange as ‘Public Enemy Number One’

Comments Add to Argument Assange Cannot Get a Fair Trial in Sweden


by Jason Ditz, February 13, 2011

Can Julian Assange count on a fair trial in Sweden? Not if you believe the nation’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who insisted over the weekend that Assange is “public enemy number one” for the nation.

MORE

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/13/swedish-pm-taps-assange-as-public-enemy-number-one/

[bigron]

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE


Wikileaks

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/8r1dqb


February 14, 2011

Tomorrow (Tuesday morning), a federal magistrates court in Virginia's national security heartland will be the scene of the first round in the US government's legal battle against Julian Assange. The US Attorney-General has brought an action against Twitter, demanding that it disclose the names, dates and locations of all persons who have used its services to receive messages from Wikileaks or Mr Assange. It is understood that Twitter will resist the order, so as to protect the privacy of its customers.

Assange said today "This is an outrageous attack by the Obama administration on the privacy and free speech rights of Twitter's customers - many of them American citizens. More shocking, at this time, is that it amounts to an attack on the right to freedom of association, a freedom that the people of Tunisia and Egypt, for example, spurred on by the information released by Wikileaks, have found so valuable".

On December 14, 2010, the US Department of Justice obtained an Order requiring Twitter turn over records of all communications between Wikileaks and its followers. This Order was acquired through the use of the "Patriot Act", which establishes procedures whereby the Government can acquire information about users of electronic communication networks without a Search Warrant, without Probable Cause, without particularizing the records that relate to a proper investigatory objective—and with without any public scrutiny. The basis for the Order remains sealed and secret.

Whilst happy that Twitter plans to resist the subpoena, Wikileaks said it was confirmed that other service providers like Google and Facebook and Yahoo may also have been served with a production order back in December, at the same time as Twitter, and may already have provided information to the government by way of a deal under the secrecy provisions introduced by the Patriot Act. "We are all asking all service providers to explain whether they too have been served with a similar order, and whether, they have caved into it" said Mr Assange.

Tuesday’s case in Virginia, involves the United States government seeking to obtain vast amounts of private information that would jeopardize and chill First Amendment rights of association, of expression, of political assembly, of speech. At its essence it seeks information that can be converted into a list of individuals, across the globe, who have followed, communicated with, and received messages from WikiLeaks – the very sort of government intrusion into basic freedoms that the Supreme Court ruled was prohibited by the First Amendment. WikiLeaks will not participate directly in that proceeding because it believes that the US lacks jurisdiction over expressive activities beyond its borders, but it strongly supports the associational rights of its followers and all who work toward a more open society.

Mr Assange will not himself be intervening in the action against Twitter because as an Australian who has committed no criminal act on US territory, he claims that the American courts have no jurisdiction over him. The head of his UK legal team, Geoffrey Robertson QC, has brought in Alan Dershowitz, the distinguished Harvard Law Professor, as part of the team to advise on the US Attorney General's actions.

END

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/8r1dqb


 

[bigron]

US targets Twitter in bid to trap Assange


by Paola Totaro in London
February 15, 2011 - 11:41AM
 

Julian Assange.

The US government's legal hunt for Julian Assange will begin in a magistrates court in Virginia today when its Attorney General seeks a disclosure order on Twitter to obtain the names, dates and locations of anyone using its services to communicate with WikiLeaks.

However, the Herald has been told Twitter intends to fight the order, claiming it is too broad and breaches its right to protect the confidentiality and free speech of its users.

The new demands could affect thousands of individuals all over the world, including Australia, Britain and the US.

Advertisement: Story continues below A court order was sent to Twitter on December 14 by the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia, demanding details about the accounts of Mr Assange and Private Bradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst suspected of supplying classified information to WikiLeaks.

The US is trying to build a conspiracy case that Mr Assange solicited the leaks.

The other Twitter accounts known to have been targeted are those of Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp, and US programmer Jacob Appelbaum. All have worked with WikiLeaks.

According to a WikiLeaks source, the new tactic is an "attack on the right to freedom of association - a freedom that the people of Tunisia and Egypt, for example, spurred on by information from WikiLeaks, have found so valuable".

MORE

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-targets-twitter-in-bid-to-trap-assange-20110215-1atwl.html

[bigron]

   
 

Why Our Government Would Fear Wikiarguments More than WikiLeaks
 

By Carmen Yarrusso

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27485.htm

                                  “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”—Thomas Paine

February 15, 2011 "Information Clearing House" --  In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court said: “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

 

Our “free press” is clearly abdicating its responsibilities. Worse yet, mainstream media do much more to aid and abet government deception than to expose it. For example, The New York Times and The Washington Post functioned as cheerleaders to deceive the people in America’s disastrous, illegal invasion of Iraq. Enter WikiLeaks to take on a job shirked by our “free press”.

 

Our government fears WikiLeaks, not because it poses a national security threat, but because it exposes government deception. Deception is the currency of our political system. If our government couldn’t lie to the people, our present system of lobbyists transferring millions from special interests to our so-called “representatives” in return for taxpayer billions would disintegrate.

 

Democracy requires that the people know the truth. The truth is our government often lies to us. The truth is our government’s foreign policies make us less secure (we’re making enemies faster than we can kill them). The truth is government deception is used to justify spending trillions on endless, illegal wars and on an endless, bogus “war on terror”, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of foreigners and tens of thousands of Americans.

 

The truth is our government fears WikiLeaks because our government wants us to remain blissfully ignorant of what it’s actually doing in our name with our tax dollars. The truth is..., an enemy of our government and WikiLeaks enables that enemy. Enter Wikiarguments.

 

Aspects of a Wikiarguments system

 

Wikiarguments is an Internet-based (wiki) system that would force congressional accountability and make government deception much more difficult. It would provide a secure mechanism for anonymous submissions to expose government deception, but, more importantly, it would also provide a simple system of forced accountability where our “representatives” could no longer evade giving us clear, rational justifications for their positions (instead of the evasive, specious claptrap they typically give us now).

 

We'd be able to visit an Internet site and view clear, rational arguments for all Congressional bills -pro and con - side by side for easy comparison. We wouldn’t need mainstream media pundits to interpret government policies for us; we’d be getting both sides right from the horse’s mouth. Evasions and flawed reasoning by either side would quickly become apparent. A search capability would allow us to find the current best arguments - pro and con - for any bill in Congress.

 

When a bill is introduced, those "representatives" initiating the bill would be required to post a clear, rational (wiki) argument explaining the merits of the bill. Those opposing the bill would then be required to post their corresponding clear, rational (wiki) argument explaining why the bill is unfair and shouldn't pass.

 

What makes a wikiarguments system such a powerful weapon against government evasion and deception is this: the individual arguments are dynamic. As you will see, dynamic arguments prevent lots of mischief and tend to punish liars while rewarding truth-tellers. The individual wikiarguments would be managed much like Wikipedia entries except there would be multiple entries per subject (pro and con arguments) instead of the one entry per subject in Wikipedia.

 

Thus all members of Congress would be able to edit – update and improve - the wikiarguments they favor. Both sides of an issue would be free to update their respective wikiargument as new facts emerge, to correct mistakes, or to highlight flaws in the opposing wikiargument. In this manner, wikiarguments for both sides - pro and con - would evolve as collaborative efforts, which would converge toward a best (consensus) argument for each side of any given issue (bill).

 

A wikiarguments system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue - where people argue back and forth - because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging, end product: the current best argument(s) for each side of an issue. The emphasis would be on building a clear, concise, rational argument for a given position, which would then compete with its corresponding – opposing - argument openly on the Internet.

 

The American people would watch as wikiarguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. Our "representatives" would not be able to fool us with deceptions because any evasions, flaws, speciousness, or other deceptions would be promptly emphasized in the corresponding opposing wikiarguments, which would be posted on the Internet for the entire world to see.

 

But unfair bills are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a wikiarguments system force our "representatives" to post honest arguments against such unfair bills? By providing two additional - pro and con – "shadow" wikiarguments for each issue that could be edited anonymously by anyone on earth, like Wikipedia entries.

 

The American people would have direct input to legislation through these “shadow” wikiarguments. A visitor to the site would view two pairs of pro and con wikiarguments per issue (bill), one pair maintained by members of Congress and a corresponding pair maintained by the public at large. If our "representatives" were in cahoots, and not providing a cogent wikiargument against an unfair bill, the corresponding (con) public wikiargument would expose the disingenuous (con) government argument.

 

Cogent wikiarguments would stand out starkly from specious wikiarguments. Why? Because it’s relatively easy to construct clear, cogent arguments when truth is on your side. But when truth isn’t on your side, the best you can do is clever specious arguments.

 

But even clever specious arguments couldn’t possibly survive the vast inquiry an Internet-based wikiarguments system would subject them to—the whole world would be watching and someone would point out flaws and deceptions. Dishonest politicians would no longer be able to hide from us and shrink from inquiry.

MORE

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27485.htm
 

[bigron]

Rep. Peter King introduces anti-WikiLeaks legislation

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 -- 6:48 pm

Legislation aimed at helping the United States prosecute WikiLeaks and other sources of leaked information was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Tuesday.

"Julian Assange and his associates who have operated and supported WikiLeaks not only damaged US national security with their releases of classified documents, but also placed at risk countless lives, including those of our Nation’s intelligence sources around the world," Rep. King, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement.

"As international pressure has held back Assange, we now find that his colleagues are planning to spin off a new website called OpenLeaks, dedicated to the same dangerous conduct."

The bill, known as the the SHIELD Act, would amend the Espionage Act to make publishing classified information "concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community" an act of espionage.

Sens. John Ensign (R-NV), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA) introduced similar legislation in the Senate last week.

MORE

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/rep-peter-king-introduces-anti-wikileaks-legislation/

[bigron]

Assange hires leading 'lawyer of last resort'


By Adam Sherwin


Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Alan Dershowitz in court during the OJ Simpson trial in 1995, AFP/GETTY IMAGES

During a high-profile career, Alan Dershowitz has defended OJ Simpson and Claus von Bülow against murder charges and advocated the use of torture against terrorism suspects.


In December Mr Dershowitz echoed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's claim that WikiLeaks poses a danger to the US and to international diplomacy, following the publishing of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

Now the New York lawyer has become a surprise addition to Julian Assange's defence team. Geoffrey Robertson QC, Mr Assange's head lawyer, unveiled the Harvard law professor as an adviser in his battle against the US Justice Department.

A Federal Magistrates' Court in Virginia is seeking a subpoena to obtain the personal details of anyone who used Twitter to communicate with WikiLeaks. The US is trying to build a conspiracy case that Mr Assange solicited leaks from individuals including Pte Bradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst suspected of supplying classified information.

Mr Assange, still under bail conditions in Britain as he awaits his appeal against a European arrest warrant for his extradition to Sweden on allegations of rape, will not appear in the Virginia court.

MORE

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/assange-hires-leading-lawyer-of-last-resort-2216178.html

[citizenx]

His Rothschild-appointed barrister ain't enough, he needs Mr. Chutzpah.

More drama.

That's like bringing a cannon to a pillow fight.  Like his CIA/NSA superiors are really gonna hang him out to dry.

He'll be staying in the Playboy mansion when he comes to the states.  That's my guess.

Better bring a ventialtor mask, though, from what I've heard.  They've got some strange new disease running around there, and you don't even catch it the fun way.

Oh well.

[No2NWO]

Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Assange has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December. He has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.

Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate, delivered his ruling at a hearing at Belmarsh magistrates court in London. It is unlikely to be the end of the matter, however, because an appeal is expected, which would delay the final decision until the summer at the latest.

At a two-day hearing earlier this month, his legal team argued that Assange would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden was invalid because the Australian had not been charged with any offence and that the alleged assaults would not be legitimate extraditable offences.

Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables.

If this was to happen, Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for the onward extradition. No such charges have been laid, though the website's activities are under investigation in the US.

The Swedish prosecutor, represented in court by the British Crown Prosecution Service, argued that despite the lack of charge, Assange was being sought for prosecution rather than merely for questioning, which meant the warrant was valid.

The most serious of the four allegations relates to an accusation that Assange, during a visit to Stockholm in August, had sex with a woman, Miss B, while she was sleeping and without a condom, and without her consent. Three counts of sexual assault are also alleged against another woman, Miss A. If found guilty of the rape charge he could face up to four years in prison.

Assange will now be detained in custody, because there is no system of bail in Sweden, until a possible trial or release.

The Australian ambassador to Sweden, Paul Stephens, wrote to the country's justice minister last week to insist that, if extradited, any possible case against Assange "would proceed in accordance with due process and the provisions prescribed under Swedish law, as well as applicable European and international laws, including relevant human rights norms".

EAWs were introduced in 2003 with the aim of making extradition swifter and easier between European member states. But campaigners have raised concerns about the application of the warrants, arguing that they are sometimes applied before a case is ready to prosecute, and that while they were originally intended to counter terrorism, their use has greatly increased. Seven hundred people were extradited from the UK under the system last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/24/julian-assange-extradition-sweden-verdict

[agentbluescreen]

Great, now they can drop him off in Syria and get a couple more "confessions" on the way.

[larsonstdoc]

Maybe they should drop him off in Syria and get a couple more confessions on the way

  GOOD ONE.  Maybe he will drop the ball on Bank of America before he gets extradited to Sweden.  I can't wait for that one!!  Wall St and DC are sweating.

[agentbluescreen]

  GOOD ONE.  Maybe he will drop the ball on Bank of America before he gets extradited to Sweden.  I can't wait for that one!!  Wall St and DC are sweating.

Yeah can't wait for that decryption key to read the Israeli cables

[No2NWO]

Yeah can't wait for that decryption key to read the Israeli cables

Perfect timing, no?

[GH0STMASTER]

Yeah can't wait for that decryption key to read the Israeli cables

many will be sweating over this.  Is this just Israel cables?  Or could this also be on 911, and all of these other major bombings over the world?   I heard these encrypted files are mind blowing.  Assange had said in the past if the encrypted files were to become public it would hurt Nations.  Since he said files, I take it as meaning he has covered his butt for all the major nation players.  I am not sure though, I am just guessing.   

Which brings me to another point, and that is that the USA may not touch him at all, favoring to see if another nation goes after him, and what their consequences (file) are.

[usefulidiot,uselesseater]

The most serious of the four allegations relates to an accusation that Assange, during a visit to Stockholm in August, had sex with a woman, Miss B, while she was sleeping and without a condom, and without her consent.

LOLWUT!? How does that work?
No, don't tell me I really don't want to know. 

[wvoutlaw2002]

many will be sweating over this.  Is this just Israel cables?  Or could this also be on 911, and all of these other major bombings over the world?   I heard these encrypted files are mind blowing.  Assange had said in the past if the encrypted files were to become public it would hurt Nations.  Since he said files, I take it as meaning he has covered his butt for all the major nation players.  I am not sure though, I am just guessing.   

Which brings me to another point, and that is that the USA may not touch him at all, favoring to see if another nation goes after him, and what their consequences (file) are.

If Assange was for real, he would leak the HARDCORE TRUTH about 9/11, 7/7, and Oklahoma City.

[citizenx]

OK, where's the huge data dump they were going to do when this happened?

Oh, that's right.  More bullshit.

[No2NWO]

OK, where's the huge data dump they were going to do when this happened?

Oh, that's right.  More bullshit.

It's officially pending appeal...  O_o

Wikileaks founder criticises extradition ruling

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has described an extradition hearing in the UK as a 'rubber stamping' process. He insists he is appealing against a decision to send him to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The 39-year-old Australian is accused of committing the crimes in August whilst he was visiting Stockholm. He denies any wrongdoing.

Mr Assange, speaking outside the court said he always knew he would have to appeal.

Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12570344

[citizenx]

Meh, how hard can Swedish prison be?

I think the threat to "drop the bomb" still stinks to high heaven.

But we'll see I guess.

[fradus]

OK, where's the huge data dump they were going to do when this happened?

Oh, that's right.  More bullshit.

And when it does happen will you then concede he is not a CIA plant?
Im sorry, but Im still not convinced its all a charade, you might have to throw water on my face

[No2NWO]

Meh, how hard can Swedish prison be?

You'll never take me alive coppers.... 

[citizenx]

And when it does happen will you then concede he is not a CIA plant?
Im sorry, but Im still not convinced its all a charade, you might have to throw water on my face

Fradus, his lawyer is a Rothschild lawyer paid for by a Rothschild relative.

It is a charade.

Try splashing some cold water on YOUR face right now.

Oh, and he's staying on an estate owned by a Soros fund which is financed by -- you got it -- the Rothschilds.


The only thing about him that isn't Rothchild is probably his Champagne.  He probably prefers "Crystal".  Rotschild-Lafitte is probably declasse for Julian.



And, No2NWO, thanks for that.  It cheered me up looking at all those happy Swedish convicts exercising.

I got a little stress right now.

[GH0STMASTER]

If Assange was for real, he would leak the HARDCORE TRUTH about 9/11, 7/7, and Oklahoma City.

That is what i use to think...  But the hard core stuff is his insurance.  That is not saying it will never be seen.  If he gets something worse than 911, then yes he will release the 911, and keep the worse. 

[citizenx]

Bullshit.

He said we truthers were cracked.

He didn't have to do that.

He went out of his way to debunk 9/11 truth.

Screw that.

If he published the "truth" about 9/11, I for oe wouldn't read it.  I wouldn't need to at this point.

Bullshit.

His support is no longer necessary.

[bigron]

"If law fails, CIA will assassinate Assange"

Judge Howard Riddle, the bane of Julian Assange's existence for the past three months, has granted Sweden's extradition request. The WikiLeaks founder has already repealed the ruling, but his worst fears have been cemented: the rape charges are going to follow him for the rest of his life, perhaps even after years of repeals. Former Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts says there is a concerted effort to shut Assange up. If the legal attempt fails, he'll be assassinated by a CIA assassination team.

WATCH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuYLHCvM-7s&feature=player_embedded

[Protean]

The CIA giveth and the CIA taketh away.

I think Paul Craig Roberts needs to read an article and give his naive view about Assange an awakening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

Who is Behind Wikileaks?
by Michel Chossudovsky

Excerpts from article--

"The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role.

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)

This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.  "

"Wikileaks has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.    

America's corporate media and more specifically The New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. "

Full article here--
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389