The Wikileaks Question

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 82_28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:56 pm

nathan28 wrote:
82_28 wrote: If I were 35 back in 1990 and I felt things about the state of existence as I do now, where the fuck would I go to type what I happen to be typing right now?

Exactly! Nowhere. And likely, nobody would be reading it either.



Aren't you a linux dude? You'd dial a BBS or get on the usenet. Duh. Come on, even public libraries in impoverished cities had them running in 1990.


I firmly believe you know what I meant. Ubiquity, brother. Ubiquity. I was just pulling numbers out the hat.

In 1990, I was doing my own research on shit. But it WAS basically microfiche back then in order to search any kind of archives at my local library. I had a phreaker friend who's house I would go over to and check out his BBS connections and such. But I basically just watched him do what he did. I didn't get my very own computer until maybe 1994? A 386 with a 2600 baud modem yo. The Internet of then and what it is now is pure apples and oranges. I do hear you, that things were still accessible and shit could still be published, but great confluences of like-minded people was still very local. Plus I was like 15.
Last edited by 82_28 on Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:02 pm

82_28 wrote:We haven't found one fucking thing that our imaginations, in other words, couldn't have supplied on its own.


You've managed to improve on the ironic maxim that in the secrecy society we are allowed to believe anything, but to know nothing: We can imagine everything, so we don't need to know anything. We already know it, right? Right?

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby §ê¢rꆧ » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:13 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:Wikileaks is to internet freedom what 9/11 was to constitutional freedoms in the US.


Thank you, AliceTheKurious. Everybody, think about this.
User avatar
§ê¢rꆧ
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Region X
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 82_28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:21 pm

JackRiddler wrote:
82_28 wrote:We haven't found one fucking thing that our imaginations, in other words, couldn't have supplied on its own.


You've managed to improve on the ironic maxim that in the secrecy society we are allowed to believe anything, but to know nothing: We can imagine everything, so we don't need to know anything. We already know it, right? Right?

.


Absolutely not. And yet, I suppose. In an imaginary world, where all manner of reasons are put forth for why our shared nature is the way it is, the sky is literally the limit. I am a total gadget adopter. Though, I kinda quit all that when I saw a mile long line of people waiting for iphones and said, I'll never be some tech monkey. But I prefer to do it my way and your way simultaneously. Not with my hand held through the entire process by some algorithmic behemoth, nor your hand either. This is why I do use Linux in fact. It's a community, not a service.

When it comes to wikileaks and I as I said months ago, the whole of the Internet should be "a wikileaks" and it largely is. But as people begin to become accustomed to what AOL couldn't pull off 15 years ago, by funneling you through their portal -- Facebook is succeeding. Why are they succeeding? Because the content is being managed by algorithms and software that would have been impossible with the infrastructure that existed 15 years ago.

As to the question of "War". We know what happens in war. We've seen all the movies. We've all spoken with our grandpas and dads. We had the holocaust survivors do guest classes in the 8th grade. It's no real mystery as to what war is and does. Have I been affected by war myself? No. Yet I have. Now, why the fuck do I care about something that doesn't effect me personally? Because I am into the mind games. I don't believe in mind games being used in the context of scaring people. For comedy? Sure. How are people scared most often? Well, I would say that somebody intentionally scares them. What more do we need to know about technocratic, full-spectrum dominant power that we don't already know?
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 82_28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:40 pm

Like, say, Jack. Say I was able to procure your email address and phone number or something. Say I had already exhibited the behaviors of a psychopath liar sack of shit. But you didn't know who I was. I could conceivably terrorize you and your family. God forbid, me even writing that. But the ability and possibility is there. The media is adept at doing just this. When that isn't working so well and the rightwing begins to come off as verifiable lunatics, what does the "PTB" do? Well, it folds onto itself as in a reflection in a hall of mirrors.

Look at it as this: this is the goddamn government(s) essentially promulgating the fear in all of us in order to give the illusion that the fears they have instilled in the populace in order to wage their wars and scams, actually happen to them too. So they've already convinced a shit ton of people, beyond a critical mass in fact, that "they" are the one's who provide the safety -- we are incapable of providing for our own safety, our community's safety by ourselves. That it is the scapegoat du jour which is causing all your suffering. It's probably not too good to get close to the water. No swimming here. No climbing there. "Should local communities have to pay for a rescue mission for a climber on Mt. Hood?"

What wikileaks is backhandedly saying, is that, it gives the .govs the ability to say "see, it happens to us too. And what would you do without us?" Notwithstanding the clear and obvious crimes committed which were verifiable before the latest public confluence even began -- circa 2003, for instance. Wikileaks is a way to seed and spread FUD.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled.

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly.[3] FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_unce ... _and_doubt
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:55 pm

§ê¢rꆧ wrote:
AlicetheKurious wrote:Wikileaks is to internet freedom what 9/11 was to constitutional freedoms in the US.


Thank you, AliceTheKurious. Everybody, think about this.


In this analogy, I see several here looking to play the Nico Haupt. (Lead proponent of the theory that no planes crashed into the Twin Towers, for those who don't know.)

Interpol Warrant

http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wan ... 6.asp?HM=1

Image

Legal Status

Present family name: ASSANGE
Forename: JULIAN PAUL
Sex: MALE
Date of birth: 3 July 1971 (39 years old)
Place of birth: TOWNSVILLE, QUEENSLAND, Australia
Language spoken: English
Nationality: Australia


Offences

Categories of Offences: SEX CRIMES
Arrest Warrant Issued by: INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE IN GOTHENBURG / Sweden

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONTACT

YOUR NATIONAL OR LOCAL POLICE

GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF INTERPOL


Image

.

AlicetheKurious wrote:Just for the record, keep in mind that:

1) The narrative about Julian Assange successfully evading authorities in Europe, especially in the UK, "the surveillance society", is as credible as the now threadbare story of the 'elusive' bin Laden;


It might be, if such a narrative were being advanced. Except it isn't. This narrative is in your head, which may be why you link to an article that has nothing to do with said narrative. The UK authorities say they've known where Assange has been all along. (So did the Swedish, before they allowed him to exit the country.) They just haven't arrested him, and seem to be reluctant to do so on the basis of a "Sex By Surprise" warrant. I'm sure you'll have no trouble incorporating that into your preferred narrative (what appears to be application of rule of law is actually Zionist agents etc. etc.) but "for the record," at least use real facts when you twist them.

2) The 'explosive revelations' in WikiLeaks amount to little more than gossip that gives street cred to the WikiLeaks' true message:

[list]- 9/11 was NOT an inside job and the attacks were masterminded and perpetrated by al-Qaeda;


Which is the subject of exactly zero of anything Wikileaks has released.

"Twenty miles down the road from Adelphi is Reston, Virginia, home to iDefense labs, whose Web site says it is 'a comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments.' "The DC telephone number is also on the same telephone exchange as the newly created (2006) Iraq Study Group and the Afghanistan embassy of Washington."


Oh my god, it's in the same phone book as everything else in Washington!!! Why's that Assange got a WASHINGTON LAWYER?!!

Most of the rest of that post is more complaining about how the State Department in its cables keeps talking as though it were the State Department.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:38 pm

Umberto Eco:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Fed-H ... 12685.html

The WikiLeaks affair has twofold value. On the one hand, it turns out to be a bogus scandal, a scandal that only appears to be a scandal against the backdrop of the hypocrisy governing relations between the state, the citizenry and the press. On the other hand, it heralds a sea change in international communication – and prefigures a regressive future of “crabwise” progress.

But let’s take it one step at a time. First off, the WikiLeaks confirm the fact that every file put together by a secret service (of any nation you like) is exclusively made up of press clippings. The “extraordinary” American revelations about Berlusconi’s sex habits merely relay what could already be read for months in any newspaper (except those owned by Berlusconi himself, needless to say), and the sinister caricature of Gaddafi has long been the stuff of cabaret farce.

Embassies have morphed into espionage centres
The rule that says secret files must only contain news that is already common knowledge is essential to the dynamic of secret services, and not only in the present century. Go to an esoteric book shop and you’ll find that every book on the shelf (on the Holy Grail, the “mystery” of Rennes-le-Château [a hoax theory concocted to draw tourists to a French town], on the Templars or the Rosicrucians) is a point-by-point rehash of what is already written in older books. And it’s not just because occult authors are averse to doing original research (or don’t know where to look for news about the non-existent), but because those given to the occult only believe what they already know and what corroborates what they’ve already heard. That happens to be Dan Brown’s success formula.

The same goes for secret files. The informant is lazy. So is the head of the secret service (or at least he’s limited – otherwise he could be, what do I know, an editor at Libération): he only regards as true what he recognises. The top-secret dope on Berlusconi that the US embassy in Rome beamed to the Department of State was the same story that had come out in Newsweek the week before.

So why so much ado about these leaks? For one thing, they say what any savvy observer already knows: that the embassies, at least since the end of World War II, and since heads of state can call each other up or fly over to meet for dinner, have lost their diplomatic function and, but for the occasional ceremonial function, have morphed into espionage centres. Anyone who watches investigative documentaries knows that full well, and it is only out of hypocrisy that we feign ignorance. Still, repeating that in public constitutes a breach of the duty of hypocrisy, and puts American diplomacy in a lousy light.

A real secret is an empty secret
Secondly, the very notion that any old hacker can delve into the most secret secrets of the most powerful country in the world has dealt a hefty blow to the State Department’s prestige. So the scandal actually hurts the “perpetrators” more than the “victims”.

But let’s turn to the more profound significance of what has occurred. Formerly, back in the days of Orwell, every power could be conceived of as a Big Brother watching over its subjects’ every move. The Orwellian prophecy came completely true once the powers that be could monitor every phone call made by the citizen, every hotel he stayed in, every toll road he took and so on and so forth. The citizen became the total victim of the watchful eye of the state. But when it transpires, as it has now, that even the crypts of state secrets are not beyond the hacker’s grasp, the surveillance ceases to work only one-way and becomes circular. The state has its eye on every citizen, but every citizen, or at least every hacker – the citizens’ self-appointed avenger – can pry into the state’s every secret.

How can a power hold up if it can’t even keep its own secrets anymore? It is true, as Georg Simmel once remarked, that a real secret is an empty secret (which can never be unearthed); it is also true that anything known about Berlusconi or Merkel’s character is essentially an empty secret, a secret without a secret, because it’s public domain. But to actually reveal, as WikiLeaks has done, that Hillary Clinton’s secrets were empty secrets amounts to taking away all her power. WikiLeaks didn’t do any harm to Sarkozy or Merkel, but did irreparable damage to Clinton and Obama.

Technology now advances crabwise
What will be the consequences of this wound inflicted on a very mighty power? It’s obvious that in future, states won’t be able to put any restricted information on line anymore: that would be tantamount to posting it on a street corner. But it is equally clear that, given today’s technologies, it is pointless to hope to have confidential dealings over the phone. Nothing is easier than finding out whether a head of state flew in or out or contacted one of his counterparts. So how can privy matters be conducted in future? Now I know that for the time being, my forecast is still science fiction and therefore fantastic, but I can’t help imagining state agents riding discreetly in stagecoaches along untrackable routes, bearing only memorised messages or, at most, the occasional document concealed in the heel of a shoe. Only a single copy thereof will be kept – in locked drawers. Ultimately, the attempted Watergate break-in was less successful than WikiLeaks.

I once had occasion to observe that technology now advances crabwise, i.e. backwards. A century after the wireless telegraph revolutionised communications, the Internet has re-established a telegraph that runs on (telephone) wires. (Analog) video cassettes enabled film buffs to peruse a movie frame by frame, by fast-forwarding and rewinding to lay bare all the secrets of the editing process, but (digital) CDs now only allow us quantum leaps from one chapter to another. High-speed trains take us from Rome to Milan in three hours, but flying there, if you include transfers to and from the airports, takes three and a half hours. So it wouldn’t be extraordinary if politics and communications technologies were to revert to the horse-drawn carriage.

One last observation: In days of yore, the press would try to figure out what was hatching sub rosa inside the embassies. Nowadays, it’s the embassies that are asking the press for the inside story.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby barracuda » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:Wikileaks is to internet freedom what 9/11 was to constitutional freedoms in the US.


Whoa - you've got me reassessing 911 as a possible blow against the corrupt milcorp state in the name of freedom.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby nathan28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:45 pm

82_28 wrote:I firmly believe you know what I meant.


Well, you'd be wrong.

................


So. Considering this is all a psyop, I'm really confused what to make of this, where the guy who psyop-ingly called for a psyop assassination is now facing psyop'd charges.

University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan is now under investigation after suggesting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be assassinated.

Flanagan apologized but Assange demanded that criminal charges be laid. City police confirmed Monday that they are investigating.

"The Calgary Police Service will be gathering all facts and compiling a package that will be forwarded to the Crown Prosecutor's office for review," said Supt. Kevan Stuart in a statement.

"The Crown's office will then determine if this is a criminal matter.


http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101206/CGY_alberta_wikileaks_101206/20101206/?hub=CalgaryHome


http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101206/CGY_alberta_wikileaks_101206/20101206/?hub=CalgaryHome

So does that make Tom Flanagan a hero to the Palestinians? Our Certainty Generator here at Homeland Security is borked up, maybe someone here can loan me one?
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby justdrew » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:50 pm

we're past Peak Certainty.

Spoiler:things are looking more and more like a Becket play. Who's got the can opener?
Last edited by justdrew on Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby wintler2 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:51 pm

Wikileaks is to internet freedom what Bastille Day was to constitutional freedom.

Fixed.

Nathan28 - thanks for doing everybodies homework, including mine, on last page.
Last edited by wintler2 on Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby nathan28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:00 pm

barracuda wrote:
AlicetheKurious wrote:Wikileaks is to internet freedom what 9/11 was to constitutional freedoms in the US.


Whoa - you've got me reassessing 911 as a possible blow against the corrupt milcorp state in the name of freedom.



Image
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 82_28 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:28 pm

nathan28 wrote:
82_28 wrote:I firmly believe you know what I meant.


Well, you'd be wrong.

................


So. Considering this is all a psyop, I'm really confused what to make of this, where the guy who psyop-ingly called for a psyop assassination is now facing psyop'd charges.

University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan is now under investigation after suggesting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be assassinated.

Flanagan apologized but Assange demanded that criminal charges be laid. City police confirmed Monday that they are investigating.

"The Calgary Police Service will be gathering all facts and compiling a package that will be forwarded to the Crown Prosecutor's office for review," said Supt. Kevan Stuart in a statement.

"The Crown's office will then determine if this is a criminal matter.


http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101206/CGY_alberta_wikileaks_101206/20101206/?hub=CalgaryHome


http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101206/CGY_alberta_wikileaks_101206/20101206/?hub=CalgaryHome

So does that make Tom Flanagan a hero to the Palestinians? Our Certainty Generator here at Homeland Security is borked up, maybe someone here can loan me one?


Well, it's always good to be wrong about bad things. I don't give a fuck if I'm wrong or not -- in fact I hope I am. It's what I happen to think or rather, currently be thinking about. One, however must keep in mind that we are going into a possible psy-op revision. I know some may not want to hear it and you are free to give me a hard time. I honestly don't care. I'm certainly not sold on anything any which way. However, I refuse to believe this whole dust up cannot or will not be used to some added benefit for exactly the kinds of topics, say, we interact about here at RI. The entirety of the Internet and the freedoms of information and communication it affords simply CANNOT HINGE UPON ONE LONE MAN. I believe it is a set-up of some sort. The sort and the set-up, I believe, remain to be seen. I am enjoying the conversation however. Challenge me and I'll challenge you back. It's just conversation!
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby wintler2 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:16 pm

82_28 wrote:.. The entirety of the Internet and the freedoms of information and communication it affords simply CANNOT HINGE UPON ONE LONE MAN.
Of course it doesn't, maybe theres a lil' problem with your ridiculous simplification, hmm?

82_28 wrote:.. It's just conversation!

Image

You should listen to yourself sometime.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby whipstitch » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:38 pm

Old news? Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative

Image

One of the women that is accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn't use condoms during sex with two Swedish women.

Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex."

One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups," according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.

Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA.

Shamir and Bennett also describe Ardin as a "leftist" who "published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba."

Shamir and Bennett noted that Las damas de blanco is partially funded by the US government and also counts Luis Posada Carriles as a supporter.

A declassified 1976 document (.pdf) revealed Posada to be a CIA agent. He has been convicted of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people.

Ardin is "a gender equity officer at Uppsula University – who chose to associate with a US funded group openly supported by a convicted terrorist and mass murderer," FireDogLake's Kirk James Murphy observed.

In August, Assange told Al-Jazeera that the accusations were "clearly a smear campaign."

"We have been warned that, for example, the Pentagon is planning on using dirty tricks to destroy our work," Assange told the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet.

The WikiLeaks founder said he was told to be careful of "sex traps." Had Assange fallen for one of those traps? " Maybe. Maybe not," he said.

Catlin observed that both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests following the alleged "rapes."

"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.

"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said.

Ardin has also published a seven step guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.

When the charges were first leveled in August, Gawker raised doubts that Ardin was working for the CIA.

"If anything, Ardin's outing tends to undercut Assange's conspiracy theory that one of his accusers is a major figure on Sweden's left fringe, freewheelingly indiscreet on her personal blog and, until her charges, an enthusiastic promoter of Assange's visit to the country," Gawker wrote.

After Interpol issued a digital "wanted" poster for Assange on Monday morning, an unnamed Scotland Yard source reportedly told Press Association it had been given the documents needed for the arrest. Police would not comment on the report publicly.

Several British news outlets speculated that Assange could be arrested as early as Tuesday.

On Monday evening, Mark Stephens, Assange's London lawyer, was negotiating with British authorities over an arrest warrant they'd received from their Swedish counterparts. Assange has vowed to fight extradition.
User avatar
whipstitch
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests