Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[justdrew]

oh for phuchs sake, it's just as likely Cryptome was never anything but a controlled fake-opposition site setup to make things look good and free here in the land of Fleeced and the home of the Knaves.

[Montag]

oh for phuchs sake, it's just as likely Cryptome was never anything but a controlled fake-opposition site setup to make things look good and free here in the land of Fleeced and the home of the Knaves.

The guy that's runs Cryptome -- if you're ever seen him -- gives it hella credibility. He looks like one the dullest guys you'd ever "want" to meet. Probably a civil war reenactor, who wears bow ties, and enjoys hobbies such as taxidermy, ham radio operating and whittling...

Just as the CIA can find someone from the Anne Hamilton Byrne family to front for a psyop undoubtedly they can find a guy who's about as fascinating as plywood probably too.

[Elvis]

I apologize for wasting scroll space with that letter from "A" to Cryptome. I've always admired John Young but by publishing that, he's ax-grinding. And hell, I'm on Wikileaks' side...so far.

I've been awake too long. Judgement impaired. Sleep good.

[Montag]

I apologize for wasting scroll space with that letter from "A" to Cryptome. I've always admired John Young but by publishing that, he's ax-grinding. And hell, I'm on Wikileaks' side...so far.

I've been awake too long. Judgement impaired. Sleep good.

Sorry to have posted that to the other thread and hung you out to dry. I'm a believer that anything can pan out (a belief that seems to not be shared by many here), haha. Having said that, I had read that before you posted it and declined to post it myself.

[barracuda]

Montag, every time I open or respond to this thread, I have to hear fucking Alex Jones say "Webster Tarpley". Can we somehow disable the autoplay function on that goddam audio? Or remove the embed in favor of a mere link?

And from Young to the Wikileaks listserve, via Cryptome.org:

To: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org>
From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list.
Date: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:47:00 -0500

Cryptome is publishing the contents of this list, and how I was induced to
serve as US person for registration.

Wikileaks is a fraud:

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]

Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate
dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

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

I'd say Young has it right.

Have you actually read the material at that link? If not, here's a summary:

After agreeing to serve as the public face and name for the organization, John Young - whom those postings show was hardly an insider during the development phase, let alone a "founder" - jumped to a very sudden conclusion on the eve of the project's launch, deciding - within four hours of hearing that the fundraising goal was $5 million, and on no evidence at all apart from a bemused reference by someone on the list (probably Assange, based on context and style) to published speculation that Wikileaks was seeking funding from Soros - that it was "a disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent" and attempt to "fleece" the CIA.

Fast-forward three years: After abruptly leaving Wikileaks without a named frontman just when media interest was at its initial peak, and the Soros rumor on which he hung his hat while pitching that tantrum having evidently proven false, John Young is now out there shamelessly telling the press that it was a rumor started by Assange in order to get his name in the papers. Without mentioning that the job of being Wikileak's name in the papers was, coincidentally enough, the very job that he, John Young, signed up for and then abandoned at the eleventh hour. This despite considerable evidence that the fundraising goal was actually attributable to nothing more sinister than the project's successfully realized ambitions all along.

Even if Assange isn't a sworn agent and was just trying to "fleece" the CIA and other intel units out of sheer naked greed, he's even dumber than he looks if he thought he could trust his handlers. But I expect he's not that dumb and we'll soon see a quiet release or disappearance or maybe "suicide" or "murder by deranged illegal alien" or Ken Lay attack and our brave little albino will disappear into an Afghan cave to await his next cue.

Do you have any evidence that he has "handlers"? What happened was that John Young had an attack of scrupulousness about the company he keeps, which appears to have been a one-time thing:

Today, on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, Aaron has an EXCLUSIVE interview with a WikiLeaks co-founder, John Young. You do NOT want to miss this interview! G. Gordon Liddy joins the show to discuss the interview and what can be done to Julian Assange.Special Guest, Jackie Mason, joins the show to discuss these topics while trying to make you laugh! Also, updates on the fire in Israel. This is an action packed show that you need to hear!

Wow. G. Gordon Liddy on "what can be done to Julian Assange." I wonder if John Young was able to pitch in with some kind of suggestions at the time.

[vanlose kid]

Julian Assange extradition attempt an uphill struggle, says specialist
Former CPS extradition specialist predicts Sweden will find it 'very difficult' to get WikiLeaks founder sent back

Vikram Dodd, crime correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 21.03 GMT

A former extradition specialist for the Crown Prosecution Service today predicted it would be "very difficult" for Sweden to get the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, sent back to face sexual assault allegations.

Raj Joshi, a former head of the European and International Division at the CPS, said Sweden's lack of a formal criminal charge against Assange increased his lawyers' chances of success in blocking the extradition attempt.

Assange's lawyers are scheduled to visit him tomorrow in prison for the first time since he was jailed on remand yesterday after Sweden requested his extradition.

Swedish prosecutors say they want to interview Assange about allegations of sexual assault against two women. His lawyers say they fear the US will attempt to extradite him to face charges over the release of hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables though Washington has not so far taken any legal action against him.

Today, a British group campaigning for more rapists to be punished questioned the "unusual zeal" with which Assange, an Australian citizen, was being pursued over the allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

In a letter to the Guardian, Katrin Axelsson from Women Against Rape said it was routine for people charged with rape in the UK to be granted bail. Assange is yet to be formally charged by the Swedes. Axelsson also said Sweden had a poor record bringing rapists to justice: "Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations … There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety."

Assange is due to appear before City of Westminster magistrates's court next Tuesday where his lawyers will attempt to secure his release on bail, a request the court rejected this week.

Assange was arrested by the Metropolitan police's extradition squad on a European arrest warrant issued at the request of Sweden. But Joshi, who headed the CPS's international division for five years, said Sweden faced an uphill battle.

"On what we know so far, it is going to be very difficult to extradite. The judge has to be satisfied that the conduct equals an extraditable offence and that there are no legal bars to extradition.

"Assange's team will argue, how can the conduct equal an extraditable offence if the [Swedish] prosecutor doesn't think there is enough evidence to charge, and still has not charged."

Joshi said other bars to extradition would be Assange's rights under the European human rights legislation.

Assange is being held in Wandsworth prison, south London, where he has limited communication with the outside world. He has no internet access and today was allowed one three minute telephone conversation with his solicitors.

WikiLeaks volunteers today sent him a parcel containing clothes, letters of support, toiletries and a selection of books including one by his barrister Geoffrey Robertson.

Amid suggestions that the US is examining ways to take legal action against Assange, one of his lawyers, Mark Stephens, repeated his claims that Sweden's actions were politically motivated, perhaps as a stalling tactic while the Americans bring a charge: "If there are talks between Sweden and the US for his rendition, we have every reason to be concerned."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... on-attempt

*

[elfismiles]

I know others have spoken to this (AJ and others) and more and more it seems like a possibile consequence:

Stop Us? You'll Have to Shut Down the Web
Julian Assange Jailed on Charges: Politically Motivated, or Just Convenient?
By DEVIN DWYER and JIM SCIUTTO
http://abcnews.go.com/International/jul ... d=12333753

"This is a turning tide and starting a trend that you can't really stop unless you want to shut down the Internet."

[vanlose kid]

I know others have spoken to this (AJ and others) and more and more it seems like a possibile consequence:

Stop Us? You'll Have to Shut Down the Web
Julian Assange Jailed on Charges: Politically Motivated, or Just Convenient?
By DEVIN DWYER and JIM SCIUTTO
http://abcnews.go.com/International/jul ... d=12333753

"This is a turning tide and starting a trend that you can't really stop unless you want to shut down the Internet."

here you go:

http://www.turnofftheinternet.com/

*

[MacCruiskeen]

vanlose kid, are you Danish? Can you tell us anything about Swedish laws on rape and sexual abuse, and exactly what Assange is being accused of?

[wintler2]

THREAD PROLIFERATION KILLS.

Nah, this one is just mistitled, should be Cryptome does a Dre*ms End, lupercal turns under a new rock.

Nah. They had six months since the CNET story to fork over a measly couple of grand and they couldn't be bothered. Asshat obviously isn't poor (hookers anyone?) and obviously doesn't give a shit about Manning. He can't even give the poor slob credit for his big "scoop," that stupid UN memo.

Thankweb theres a whole lot of wire between me and that.


Assange getting Geoffrey Robertson to represent him is a bit of a win, GR is telegenic as hell and damn smart.

[82_28]

No, fuckin' way! "They're" using this as a pretext to "shut down the web"?!?!? Whoa. Who could have possibly considered such an absurd idea and actually was stupid enough to publish it? Probably people from other planets.

[nathan28]

No, fuckin' way! "They're" using this as a pretext to "shut down the web"?!?!? Whoa. Who could have possibly considered such an absurd idea and actually was stupid enough to publish it? Probably people from other planets.

Stop being obtuse. Find some actual content that demonstrates that someone wants to or is going to shut down the internet, not a single line from a WikiLeaks admin in a story I'm not too convinced you bothered to read.

[82_28]

No, fuckin' way! "They're" using this as a pretext to "shut down the web"?!?!? Whoa. Who could have possibly considered such an absurd idea and actually was stupid enough to publish it? Probably people from other planets.

Stop being obtuse. Find some actual content that demonstrates that someone wants to or is going to shut down the internet, not a single line from a WikiLeaks admin in a story I'm not too convinced you bothered to read.

OK, I'll quit. Just tell all the other people who think the same thing to do the same.

http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12 ... hair_backs

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024571-266.html

It's not like it isn't a meme or even a bona fide issue regardless of how obtuse I am. Or didn't "RTFA".

[barracuda]

Some late comments to earlier posts on this thread:

Looks like those Swedish hookers aren't the only ones albino boy stiffed:

Dude, I don't appreciate the language here, which borders on hate speech with regards to the possible victims of sexual assault, as well as the disparaging remarks related to skin color which you find appropriate and humorous when applied to Assange in terms which would probably get you banned from this board were you to focus them on a person of darker complexion. Cut it out. I don't care how poopy you are about the Democratic Party.

Raising millions for a charity and then stiffing it doesn't make the Assange hole smell well.

That would be one million, not "millions." (And somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000 actually, when it comes to the funds in question, as far as we know.) And although the WaPo does its best to bury it, there's material on the record showing that the failure to disburse was Wau Holland's fuck-up, not Assange's:

According to Paterson, Courage to Resist corresponded with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in July and on subsequent occasions confirming that WikiLeaks would cover about half of the expected fees, or $50,000, for Manning's defense. On its Twitter page, WikiLeaks frequently solicited donations for the defense fund through a German charity, the Wau Holland Foundation.

Paterson said that in an e-mail exchange Tuesday with a foundation official, he learned that the foundation had not yet been authorized by WikiLeaks to disburse the money. Foundation Vice President Hendrik Fulda said it was his understanding that 15,000 euros, about $20,000, would be set aside for the defense fund but he still needed to confirm that with WikiLeaks, according to Paterson.

The contribution was informally agreed upon quite some time ago and that was relayed to the defense fund," Hrafnsson said in the e-mail. "I was under the impression it had been formally authorized as is required by the trustees [of the] Wau Holland Fund. This situation has now been rectified and the payment is being processed now."

Paterson said the development was "awesome." He said: "Super. I hope the check is in the mail."

WikiLeaks has engaged in an aggressive fundraising campaign and has raised about $1 million through Wau Holland, according to media reports.

But in recent days it has faced difficulties in keeping its conduits for donations open.

On Friday, the online money service PayPal cut off WikiLeaks' account, depriving the site of its principal - though not exclusive - means to receive contributions. The move froze 60,000 euros, or about $80,000, in donations to WikiLeaks, the group said in a statement.

The money was supposed to go to Wau Holland.

On Monday, Swiss bank PostFinance froze an account used for Assange's defense fund and personal assets of about 31,000 euros, or about $41,000, saying in a news release that Assange had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when opening the account. Assange had stated he lived in Geneva. "Upon inspection, this information was found to be incorrect," the statement said.

Assange's failure to prove Swiss residency, a requirement to open an account with the banking arm of the Swiss postal service, entitled PostFinance to close the account, the statement said.

Fulda told Wired.com's Threat Level blog in September that WikiLeaks had authorized him to release funds from its account for Manning's defense. The money was expected to go to Courage to Resist, Wired.com reported.

Nah. They had six months since the CNET story to fork over a measly couple of grand and they couldn't be bothered. Asshat obviously isn't poor (hookers anyone?) and obviously doesn't give a shit about Manning.

Again, the failure to fork wasn't due to some bad act by Assange, who's been kinda busy over the last six months. In fact, apart from a hit piece in the Washington Post, there's no reason to think that there even was a bad act. And again - "hookers"? That's not making it with me.

He can't even give the poor slob credit for his big "scoop," that stupid UN memo.

Manning is facing 52 years in prison for allegedly leaking those cables to an organization that operates by providing anonymity to whistleblowers because a third party ratted him out. Assange wouldn't be giving Manning credit if he named him as the source of his big scoop, he'd be testifying for Manning's prosecution. Think about it. Do you have some evidence that WikiLeaks is doing something other than following Manning's wishes with regards to his identification as the leaker of the documents? If so, please cite.

[justdrew]

it's impossible, not going to happen. "Shutting down the internet" would cause ten thousand times more disruption