Wikileaks Greatest Hits: Steve Jobs' HIV test report

[struggle4progress]

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

As countless fans worldwide thrill to the breath-taking adventures of the brilliant journalist and dare-devil Julian Assange (who is currently planning a long vacation in Ecuador to avoid the Saudi feminist movement in Stockholm), it is worthwhile to pause and remember Wikileaks many selfless efforts to improve life on our planet

And so, today, we bring you yet another delightful historical vignette: Steve Jobs' HIV test report

When Steve Jobs died last October, Wikileaks promptly launched a small media campaign to call everyone's attention to a 2004 medical report showing that Jobs had tested positive for HIV. But the medical report was quickly exposed as a fake

... The document is a fake and one which the site has previously linked to in 2008. The most obvious clue that the document is a fraud is the fact that the results, supposedly from 2004, are from a company titled SxCheck – which was not founded until 2006. Julian Assange’s Wikileaks linked to the image of the document minutes after Jobs’s death was announced ...
Friends and relatives gather at Steve Jobs’s California mansion as shrines pop up across the globe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046297/Steve-Jobs-dead-Friends-relatives-gather-mansion-shrines-pop-globe.html

... Just minutes after news broke that Steve Jobs had died, Wikileaks tweeted a link to "purported Steve Jobs medical records." The link goes to a torrent file for a couple images of test results from a company called SxCheck which supposedly show Steve Jobs tested positive for HIV in 2004. They're obvious fakes — most obviously because SxCheck wasn't even founded until 2006 — and even Wikileaks concludes "the images should not be taken at face value" ...
Wikileaks Honors Steve Jobs with Fake HIV Report
http://gawker.com/5847341/wikileaks-honors-steve-jobs-with-fake-hiv-report

Maybe Assange was hoping to snag a columnist position at Weekly World News?

[gateley]

1. Disappointing. WikiLeaks perpetrating this, I mean.

[AntiFascist]

2. .... and the demonization of Assange continues...

all to the delight of Karl Rove.

[backscatter712]

12. Be careful...

You'll get dogpiled by a small number of people with a large number of DU accounts...

They might even label you as a rape-loving misogynist!

[renie408]

43. Oh, no, the only people that give a shit about this are right here.

Seriously. Nobody I know in the 'real' world really cares. Most of them have no idea who Julian Assange is and even if they do, they aren't getting worked up about it.

Nope, it is pretty much just here. I mean, maybe you and your friends talk about it, but start asking people outside of your normal 'current events circle'. Nobody else knows or really cares.

[AntiFascist]

84. ....which seems to be Strategy #2....

belittle him and downplay the importance of Wikileaks.

[Mmm_Bacon]

58. If it's a fact...

... then what do you care? Should only information that promotes your particular viewpoint be distributed?

Double irony points for the Wikileaks topic...

[AntiFascist]

85. Wikileaks' "Greatest Hits", are you serious?

I've never even heard a rumor about Jobs having AIDS.

[arely staircase]

59. well leaking someone's medical records is pretty friggin' demonic. nt

[girl gone mad]

109. Yes, but this is a red herring...

since wikileaks did not leak Steve Jobs' medical records.

[MADem]

101. Demonization? He released that fake thing in 2008, and AGAIN when Jobs died.

Unless you are suggesting that the Evil Karl Rove HACKED Assange's Twitter account? AND the "Wikileaks.org" website as well?

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

And here's what's really sick--Assange thought they were faked...but he RELEASED THEM ANYWAY.

TWICE.

[AntiFascist]

105. As I've said elsewhere...

I can't vouch for Assange's character, and maybe Wikileaks would be, or is, better off without him at the helm. But, make no mistake, the right-wing would like nothing better than to bring both Assange and Wikileaks down and any legitimate information they have uncovered swept under the rug.

[MADem]

117. You said "...and the demonization of Assange continues."

Assange put that lie out--while acknowledging it was a piece of crap, but doing it ANYWAY-- about Jobs WAY BACK in 2008 and again when the guy died. Unless someone hacked HIS wikileaks.org site AND his twitter account, this shit isn't "demonization," it's evidence of lack of character going back over four years.

[AntiFascist]

119. and perhaps he does lack character going way back...

but his demonization also serves a much larger purpose, and that is ultimately to marginalize Wikileaks and prevent that type of whistleblowing to ever happen again.

[MADem]

123. If you do go way back, you'll see that he behaved very badly as an adult in his

mid-thirties, refusing to take "no" for an answer from a teen aged girl who became concerned when he found her phone number and started phoning/pestering her at her parent's home. And his "Harry Harrison" dating profile? It reads like that of a Mom's Basement dweller with sorely arrested development. Teen ager in an adult's body, and not in a "happy go lucky, approach life with youthful vigor" good way. He's creepy, frankly.

The guy is just not a very good representative for the whole wikileaks enterprise. He's the enemy of the effort, to put it bluntly, by his own skeevy conduct--not by anything that anyone has done TO him.

He does it to himself, this "demonization"--no one is doing it to him. We hold people like rMoney and Ryan accountable for their behavior. Why should this guy get a pass?

[AntiFascist]

129. Romney and Ryan are both high profile public servents...

of course we hold them accountable and they will be out of office (usually) when things like this are uncovered.

Someone in Assange's position, from my point of view, is taking a huge personal risk and has virtually no support from the PTB. Perhaps it takes a reckless personality with a questionable background, that doesn't have a lot to lose, to be in this position in the first place. Many of us would like the head of Wikileaks to be a squeaky clean heroic figure, but reality is much more complicated.

In the case of the rape allegations, the behavior of Sweden is highly questionable and that's what I choose to focus on, regardless of whether or not Assange is arguably guilty. Assange's behavior and background provide the fuel for demonization, and that is tragic.

[MADem]

135. Assange has been in the public eye since he was a teenager.

He was one of the early "hackers" of his day. They have even made a film about his life as a teen hacker:

http://www.webpronews.com/julian-assange-gets-movie-based-on-his-life-2012-04

The film will be written and directed by AFI Award winning filmmaker Robert Connolly (Balibo). The film is not only about Assange as it explores the young group of hackers that Assange led during the late 1980s and early 1990s in Melbourne. Here’s the official synopsis from the filmmakers:

“UNDERGROUND is the story of teenage Julian’s early foray into computer hacking up until his first arrest. Set in suburban Melbourne in the late 1980s, UNDERGROUND delves into Assange’s turbulent upbringing with activist mother Christine as well as his first friendships and girlfriend. Forming a hacking circle, nicknamed ‘The International Subversives’, Assange begins breaking into the computer systems of the world’s most powerful organizations. In an era before the internet, the teenagers wage a technological war from their bedrooms, hacking into the US military from their home-jigged computers and parent’s phone lines. All the while they are being hunted by the Australian Federal Police led by Detective Ken Roberts who is charged with shutting them down.”

The studio tapped the aforementioned big names to play two of the pivotal roles in the film. Griffiths will play Assange’s mother while LaPaglia will be playing Detective Ken Roberts. The other actors in the film are Callan McAuliffe (The Great Gatsby), Laura Wheelwright (Animal Kingdom) and Jordan Raskopoulos (The Axis of Awesome).

The producer behind the film, Helen Bowden, gives a few more details about UNDERGROUND:

“Underground is the incredible, true story of a group of schoolboys in Melbourne who were hacking into the some of the biggest corporate and military organizations in the world, at the dawn of the internet age. It is a fascinating tale and we are very excited to be bringing it to the screen.”

Wikipedia confirms that the events being portrayed in the film actually happened. Spoiler alert: Assange was caught but never went to jail for his hacking exploits.

When you live life in the public eye, you need to conduct yourself accordingly in order to not discredit your stated "life's work," or not be surprised when consequences accrue.

[AntiFascist]

138. So what is your morality point about the film?

Hacking government secrets is illegal, but we already knew that.

Just because people choose to exploit the life of Assange does not mean that he has to live up to any version of the public's expectations for him. I doubt if that his style anyway.

Wikileaks does what it does based on contributions, so all they really need to worry about is their contributors. Don't worry though, Visa and Mastercard are doing what they can to cut that off, so I guess it doesn't "pay" to piss off the banks.

[MADem]

140. I haven't seen it, how can I have a "morality point" about it?

Film is an art form, anyway--there are "good" movies and "bad" movies, but unless the producers/directors are craven opportunists with a principal goal of raking in massive cash or currying influence with authority figures (porn and propaganda) there's not much to say about "morality," really. It's a film about a brazen teenager, made in Australia with one very recognizable Australian performer (Rachel Griffiths) -- that's pretty much all I know at this point.

Most people I know either go to the movie or don't--based on factors including reviews, one's favorite actors, a subject matter of interest, etc. They don't have to "approve of" the story's essential features -- or be a cheerleader for them, either--to enjoy the show.

I usually wait until they leave the theaters and I can get them at Redbox or Netflix or one of the other cheap-o opportunities. I don't need to be the first in line to see the latest pic. I will make an exception for drive-in theaters--I like that sort of experience--night air, bring your own dinner, discuss the film with your companions without having to worry about bothering others, etc.

[AntiFascist]

141. So, anyway, your point seems to be...

that because Assange is the subject of this film, and because he has made such a name for himself due to his exploits, that he must have some responsibility to behave morally and be an upstanding citizen of the world, otherwise he can and should face the demonization process.

I would disagree. I think Assange has made a reputation as something of a 'bad boy' who will brazenly stand up to the PTB and has no fear in exposing the dark side of the Western world.

I have no interest in defending all of Assange's exploits, and if I were more of a fan of Steve Jobs I might also be offended by that particular exploit. I'm much more interested in analyzing the consequences of having the dark side of the Western world exposed, and the contorted posturing that governments will go through to hide this dark side.

[MADem]

146. No, that's not my point at all.

My point--and I did express it pretty saliently, is that he's not a "Babe in the Woods" when it comes to an understanding of being in the public eye.

He can behave like a dickheaded, teen-girl-stalker, Swedish-woman-molesting, horrible Icelandic Disco Dancing asshole if he'd like--but he should know, as he's had a shitload of experience dealing with the press, what might come of his conduct when news of it reaches the public.

And he should not be surprised.

Bad boy? If he were a "Bad Boy" he wouldn't have any trouble.

He's an antisocial nerd who cannot take no for an answer. His problems all stem from how he fails to deal appropriately with women--not the "PTB."

[AntiFascist]

158. Your last sentence is clearly wrong...

The rabid right wing was calling for him to receive the death sentence, and at least one was calling for his assassination. Even some Democrats were calling for his prosecution for espionage, and according to the White House his involvement with Wikileaks is still under investigation. There may even be a sealed indictment. These very serious problems did not stem from "how he fails to deal appropriately with women".

[MADem]

165. No, it's not "clearly wrong."

Last time I checked "the rabid right wing" wasn't in the White House. You also could benefit from some education on European Union extradition law.

Why do you take the pronouncements of crazy people as somehow "controlling?" They aren't. What, you're saying Rush Limbaugh runs the country? Get real.

There "may" be this, and there "may" be that. If the USA wanted Assange jailed, they should have nabbed him in the two years he was farting around UK--he's been there since 2010, you know. And guess what? If that IS what they really, truly wanted, they got their wish at the hands of the Ecuadorans. They don't need to snatch him up and spirit him off to Gitmo (like no one would notice). He's jailed in the Ecuadoran Embassy, and Correa is paying the freight. You want a conspiracy theory? Here's one that's is every bit as valid as the tripe being shopped about "PTB."

The "PTB" has made a secret deal with Correa, who is positioning himself as the ideological heir to Chavez, to PRETEND to be outraged at the UK while ENTICING Assange to come and get protection from him, so that Assange could be neutralized and trapped in Knightsbridge for the duration. The Swedes, of course, are "in on it" too, and they want Correa to hold him for at least four years, the maximum sentence he might get if his charges in Sweden are upheld. The Brits will have to monitor the guy, but they've already installed cameras everywhere--even inside the public hallways of that multi-use building where the Ecuadorans are renting out a chunk of the first floor--so Assange cannot escape without being noticed. Of course, what does Correa get out of this? He gets additional most favored nation trade concessions from the USA, in order to plump up his faltering ecconomy, and, of course, we all know that Ecuador uses the US dollar as their official currency, so they need to keep that trade flowing. Correa will pretend to be opposed to USA and UK, but he'll make some money with 'em anyway. Correa and Obama are chuckling insanely as they watch the hectoring crowds whining about freedom for the antisocial nerd, who has been cut off from his business of gathering up documents and publishing them without verification of their validity. They've all gotten their wish, while pretending to be something else entirely. Can we get a great big Bwahahahahahaha, now?

That's about as realistic a plot as the bullshit I've heard thus far. The bottom line is this--Assange is a pervert who doesn't know how to treat women appropriately. That is what his "problem" is and it is one of his own making.

[still_one]

152. Do people believe that if Assange is a creep, it means the governments he exposed aren't?

The truth is a million people were killed in the Iraq war based on lies from our government

The Vietnam war killed millions, and that war was based on a lie also

When Scott Ritter tried to expose there were no wmds, suddenly his character was attacked

Why are so many trying to shift the focus?

[MADem]

169. If you're equating Assange to Ritter, you are not doing the guy any favors. nt

[girl gone mad]

110. This is such a strange way to characterize what happened..

that I can only assume your biases have gotten the better of you.

Wikileaks posted a link to the widely circulated documents on its website in 2008, pointing out several inconsistencies and concluding that these photos were likely not authentic. They did not "release" the documents. The pictures had already been spread through email, and had appeared on web pages, including CNN's "ireport".

Take a deep breath and think it through. I know you are passionate about this case, but your common sense seems to have fallen victim to those passions.

[MADem]

118. I beg your high-handed pardon? I'm only responding to the accusation of "demonization."

Pull the string, read the thread, get down off the high horse before you get dizzy, and YOU take one of those bated breaths, my dear.

YOU think it through.

Assange put that crap out in 2008. Four long years ago. Before he did any diddling in Sweden.

Then, when Jobs died, he did it AGAIN.

Are you seriously suggesting that the "PTB" have a time machine, and they went back to 2008, hacked Assange's wikileaks.org site (which is where he put out the Jobs HIV lie the first time), and then, when Jobs died, those eeeeeeevil "PTB" used the time machine AGAIN to go back to that point in time and hacked Assange's personal Twitter account?

Surely, you can't be serious!! Yours is probably one of the most amusingly huffy posts I've read in a long time. You can keep that sanctimony, too--you might need it.

I know you are passionate about this case, but your common sense seems to have fallen victim to those passions. You keep THAT advice, too!

[girl gone mad]

120. Once again, you are responding emotionally, not dealing in facts or logic.

Please re-read the thread, or simply re-read my post and then try to write something that actually addresses the topic at hand rather than ranting and raving about "eeeeeeevil "PTB"", time machines, twitter, hacking accounts and diddling (none of which have anything whatsoever to do with what I wrote).

[MADem]

122. No, I'm not--I'm responding with facts and you're getting "emotional" over them.

Fact--Assange released the phony Jobs HIV medical report in 2008 via his wikileaks.org site.

Fact--Assange TWEETED the same phony info he released in 2008 on the day Jobs died.

Who's getting emotional and "ranting and raving" at me over these facts? You are.

[girl gone mad]

124. No, those are not the facts.

Wikileaks/Assange did not release these fake documents.

The fake documents had already been circulating through e-mail and had been published on CNN and various other web sites before wikileaks linked to the documents in an effort to debunk them.

It's likely that wikileaks twitter feed is programmed to generate links to newsworthy documents, which means after Jobs' death, with his name appearing so frequently in the news, the link would be automatically added. There is absolutely no reason to see a nefarious agenda at work in any of this.

The OP has abandoned ship so I'm guessing at this point even he knows this line of attack is silly and indefensible.

[MADem]

125. Now you're just being silly.

And of course out of the goodness of Assange's heart, he RE-RELEASED the faked document via his Twitter account on the day the man died.

Please.

[girl gone mad]

128. Wikileaks never "released" or "re-released" these documents.

Wikileaks linked to and debunked the images in 2008, then linked to their debunking page on its twitter feed after Jobs' death.

Replace Assange/wikileaks in this scenario with someone you do not clearly loathe and see if that helps you understand events better.

[MADem]

136. Sure they did. They publicized them, and there was a goal behind that.

I'm surmising that the goal wasn't the lionization of the late Steve Jobs, either.

Don't try to tell me what I loathe--clearly or not--because I can guarantee you that you'd be mistaken.

I hold people to certain very baseline standards of conduct. Nothing terribly difficult, just reasonable human decency.

I don't think much of people who don't behave appropriately when dealing with other human beings, but that doesn't rise to the level of loathing--I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

[On the Road]

157. Is That What Happenned?

Thank you -- I would have had absolutely no idea from this entire thread.

[pnwmom]

126. Why should we trust any documents anonymously posted there?

What is to stop Karl Rove's associates from posting false documents there?

[AntiFascist]

131. Because the important stuff...

(unlike the Jobs HIV record, which I've never heard of before) gets vetted by legitimate media sources such as the New York Times, and others.

[pnwmom]

134. So the unredacted diplomatic files that he published without getting them vetted by

legitimate media sources weren't part of the "important stuff"?

[AntiFascist]

139. There are various levels of "publishing"...

once the documents are made public, anyone is free to vet them and then publish the material in their more legitimized outlet. I suppose they would have to be careful once the source gets demonized beyond a certain point.

[MADem]

170. Or taking valid documents and altering them JUST enough, and then handing them over...

There's no vetting or analysis attending most of the stuff they put out. That is a problem.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. I hope your paycheck is large. nt

[HangOnKids]

4. You Survived A Very Ridiculous Alert!

At Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I hope your paycheck is large. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1201877

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is an ad hominem attack on the PO, implying that the person is a paid operative. It is uncalled for and disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:23 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh BS, if struggle for progress is not a paid operative at the very least they are a complete disruptor. Let this stand.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Paranoid bullshit, the post could have several meanings. Stop trying to debate with alerts instead of actual skill, because this sort of thing borders on alert abuse.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The OP is much ado about nothing, and deserves attack.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[AntiFascist]

6. Umm, aren't you posting secret information?

Watch your back.

[HangOnKids]

7. Results of Alerts are posted everyday on DU

I read at least 25 a week. Your post is quite weird.

[AntiFascist]

19. Sorry, just my failed attempt at humor. n/t

[still_one]

164. I didn't know that. Personally, I think those who are so inclined to post alerts are unprofessional

that is, if those who post the results were part of the decision making process on whether a post should be hidden or not

[struggle4progress]

10. I'm flattered that you, and your friends (be they real or imaginary), consider my remarks on Assange

professional enough to earn me hard cash

It is less clear to me why you, or your friends (be they real or imaginary), think that anyone would be willing to pay anyone to post on DU about anything, except perhaps spam for a commercial product, which we do see from time to time: the accusations, that you repeat in the guise of jury quotes, involve no clear-headed interest group analysis that I can discern

[struggle4progress]

9. The issue of fakes and forgeries associated with Wikileaks, matters if we call Assange a journalist:

and, unfortunately, it may not be that uncommon

The issue has been floating around for at least three years now, and it seems that Wikileaks has always been rather unconcerned about the possibility, which does undermine its claim to be a form of journalism:

... There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility". When challenged on fake content, Schmitt twists the potential criticism into a positive. "A fake document is a story in itself," he says. Wikileaks publishes documents for the coverage that it will generate and the political reform that it hopes will follow. But who at Wikileaks maps and controls this reform trajectory? It seems to be the site's cofounder, Julian Assange ... [/i

Exposed: Wikileaks' secrets
By Annabel Symington
01 September 09
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets?page=all

In the case of the bogus Jobs HIV report, Wikileaks instantly, on the death of Jobs, linked to a dubious report and circulated the link by twitter, without doing any research, which strongly suggests the only object was to gather attention

Less than a month ago, Wikileaks confessed to an out-and-out hoax:


... The fake piece, written under the name of the Times' Bill Keller, defended the controversial group known for acquiring, and publishing, secret documents from governments throughout the world. On Sunday, the group said its supporters were behind the hoax, which was published on a Web page that looks convincingly like a page on the Times' site.
Fake New York Times op-ed a WikiLeaks hoax
WIKILEAKS
July 30, 2012|By Doug Gross, CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-30/tech/tech_web_fake-nyt-editorial_1_wikileaks-ecuadorian-embassy-fake-twitter-account

[AntiFascist]

20. Can you enlighten me as to...

the political purpose behind posting the story about Steve Jobs in the first place? Was it just to draw attention?

If WikiLeaks' purpose is to "publish any document as long as it appears on official paper" then it seems more likely that someone planted that fake document in order to discredit the website. Better yet, maybe they knew that if the story about the fake document were posted on something like DU or Daily Kos or Huffington Post, then it might turn off liberal-minded readers who were fans of Jobs.

No doubt the volume of material that appears on WikiLeaks needs to be carefully vetted. The fact that legitimate news sources such as the New York Times have helped sift through the material speaks for itself.

http://gigaom.com/2012/08/24/why-wikileaks-is-worth-defending-despite-all-of-its-flaws/

[Warren DeMontague]

8. you should start a website devoted to exposing the hidden truth about wikileaks

you could call it wikiwikileaksleaks.

[struggle4progress]

11. It is all readily available information: none of it is hidden

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Someone could- of course- expose the inner machinations of that operation, through a site called

wikiwikiwikileaksleaksleaks.

[sabrina 1]

77. So you think there is something wrong with a person having HIV??

Why do you think this is a bad enough thing that you are using it as a weapon to try to discredit someone with??

Why would any democrat thinks such a thing is what I would like to know. Do you know how hard people had to work to end the misinformation about HIV and here you are, going back to the bad old days of Ronald Reagan.


Absolutely shameful! A new low on DU.

[grantcart]

13. You do realize that posts like this show that you are obsessed with Wikileaks to the point

that you actually destroy your credibility of being a neutral commentator on the rape charges.

It is clear that you would go along with an fabrication to put an end to the Assange with whom you are consumed with hatred for.

Also I have to say that those who are suggesting that you are getting paid as a professional provocateur are way out of line.

There is nothing professional about your posts.

[struggle4progress]

15. I've taken no stand on the rape charges. Maybe he's innocent. I think Sweden can sort it out fairly.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. there ARE NO RAPE CHARGES

There are no rape charges. Julian has invited Sweden to question him in the UK and Sweden refused. He answered allegations once and then Sweden dropped it, and he left Sweden.

Ironically the UK protected one of the world's worst war criminals , Pinochet from extradition, yet won't protect Julian from extradition to a country where there is no bail, trials are secret, and where Julian hasn't even been charged.

Allegations of rape are a typical tactic of a govt to smear a whistleblower.

[struggle4progress]

74. Two women charged Assange with sexual assault and rape, but no formal charges have been filed:

the second Swedish interview is the beginning of formal process, perhaps roughly analogous to arraignment; and that sercond "nterview (that the Swedish authorities seek) would take Assange into custody in order to make a determination about bringing him to trial. Assange, of course, left Sweden the day after his lawyer learned the authorities intended to take him into custody

Perhaps you might want to brush up, not only on your knowledge of Swedish criminal procedure, but also on your grasp of ordinary English?

[bullwinkle428]

93. I believe the legal term you're looking for is "ACCUSED", not "CHARGED".

[struggle4progress]

94. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not in court; and I'm using ordinary English words with ordinary meanings

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

95. "No charges have been filed against Julian Assange."

Sweden has issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol Red Notice in order to further investigate four allegations of sexual offences. No charges have been filed against Julian Assange.

http://justice4assange.com/Allegations.html

One of the women threw a party in Assange's honor two days after the alleged "crime" occurred.

[struggle4progress]

98. I don't intend to try the case on DU: Assange should go to Sweden where he is wanted

for criminal processing

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. Woman AA Destroyed Evidence

Deleted tweets

Complainant AA documented her interactions with Julian Assange on social networking sites. Shortly after ’accompanying’ the other woman (SW) to the police station, AA deleted two tweets that are important evidence in the case. They were made after the alleged crimes, during lunchtime on 14 August 2010) and at 2 in the morning on 15 August 2010.

Complainant AA deleted her tweets, and presumably the picture of Julian Assange lying in her bed on 20 August 2010, the day the complainants went to the police station.

Complainant AA deleted her tweets from the mirror site bloggy.se on 13 September 2010.

Complainant AA deleted the 7-step guide to taking legal revenge against one’s boyfriend.
On 12 December complainant AA changed the 7-step guide to a single step:
Step 1: Think very carefully about whether you really should take revenge. In most cases it’s better to forgive than to get even. (emphasis in the original).

http://justice4assange.com/Evidence-Destroyed.html

[struggle4progress]

99. I don't intend to try the case on DU: Assange should go to Sweden where he is wanted

for criminal processing

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

97. This went before a prosecutor in 2010 & she dismissed it

Assange is no longer suspected of rape

"WikiLeaks frontman Julian Assange was arrested in absentia late on Friday on suspicion of a case rape and one case of molestation.
But on Saturday afternoon was lifted anhållningsbeslutet.
- I do not think there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape, says chief prosecutor Eva Finné."

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/assange-inte-langre-misstankt-for-valdtakt_5167469.svd

[struggle4progress]

100. I don't intend to try the case on DU: Assange should go to Sweden where he is wanted

for criminal processing

Your link is from August 2010; the investigation was reopened a few days later, and the arrest warrant has been upheld repeatedly in the UK courts

[Zorra]

17. Yeh...even the comic appeal is wearing thin. nt

[grantcart]

21. Yeah we passed that point some time back.

We then passed the "hold up a mirror and see if the image embarasses" point.

And now we have that embarassing "oh for Fuck's sake" point in our rear view mirror.

[treestar]

24. It's a lot of useful stuff to counter the

worshippers who take everything he says at face value and run with it - to inaccuracy.

For instance, their demands of what Sweden should do are out of bounds.

People can be interested in a topic and share as much as they want to on DU. This topic is interesting - the most interesting part being the facts are counter to the adorers' memes, which they picked up from Julian and run with, with no vetting.

[grantcart]

25. I couldn't disagree more. I think it undermines more substantial criticisms of Assange/Wikileaks

pls see reply 22 below.

[treestar]

32. The other day Struggle posted a link to a pdf

that sums things up very well:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1801343

And struggle posted David Allen Green articles which give insight into Swedish procedures and undermine the demands that he be interviewed from the UK and all the other stuff he thinks he can use his fleeing to leverage (not to mention that he uses refusal to do HIV test or even withholding other documents to gain leverage).

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

so many just refuse to read and consider them and keep repeating the talking points about how there are no charges in Sweden and how Sweden should interview him, as he demands, via Skype from the UK

[grantcart]

33. This would be over in a NY minute if Sweden simply states that they will bring him

to Sweden for the rape charges and only the rape charges

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should

If this is about rape in Sweden then all Sweden has to do is make it about rape in Sweden.

[treestar]

36. Well again, it is not for Julian to dictate terms

He fled and now he wants to use that to dictate terms. I can see where they don't want to.

All he has to do is give himself up and go to Sweden.

[grantcart]

42. He is not dictating terms he is offering to negotiate.

Also it is the same terms that the Ecuadorean government is asking for.

In any case if this is about rape then Sweden could make it about rape.

Extradite him to Sweden on rape and only rape charges.

Issue is settled.

[treestar]

47. Negotiating from a place where he fled the legal system

I can see where they don't want to set that precedent. I rob a bank, get into another country and say well if you'll just charge me with what I want to answer to, I'll agree to come back.

The Swedes didn't have to negotiate, they won in the UK court system. The only reason he's not in Sweden now is that he pulled this Ecuadorian asylum trick. Jumping bail and thus losing money for his supporters in the process. This is not a person who acts in good faith or for anyone's gain but his own.

On top of that, he's sort of stupid, as, if you read the Alisdair Roberts article, you will see. He thought he could bring down the world by leaking a huge amount of material; finally realized that's not happening because it's too overwhelming an amount of information, and he needed real journalists to cull it through and make a narrative.

Then he had problems getting along with them, (NYT, Guardian) etc. and started holding back the information to gain leverage. That is not the act of someone who idealistically wants to expose government evil. It's mere self aggrandizement and not done too well.

[grantcart]

57. Again you are arguing that he be prosecuted for a rape charge because of what he did at Wikileaks.

Apparently you don't see how undemocratic that whole idea is.

There is only one question in Sweden, getting justice for the rape victims.

If this is a real crime then why don't the Swedish prosecutors focus on that and prosecute on that?

The only logical answer is that they don't move forward on that prosecution because they don't believe it is a real crime but a pretense for a bait and switch.

[treestar]

67. What?

No, he should be prosecuted for the rape charge because the prosecution has the evidence. Why should he escape any charge for any criminal violation just because he leaked a huge amount of documents?

What is undemocratic about pursuing charges against someone? Anyone could claim there is some other "reason" for any criminal charge!

That is all they are prosecuting. they have not charged him with anything else.

The bait and switch has been debunked over and over and over. The UK is even more likely to extradite to the US than sweden is, and that's where he's been all this time. the US have made no effort to extradite and has no proceedings against him. It's a lie on his part to get his emotional supporters to think he's being persecuted when he is not.

[msanthrope]

54. He has no rights to negotiate, as a fugitive. nt

[grantcart]

56. Again, what the fuck.

Fugitives, defendants all have the right to negotiate with prosecutors.

Its done a million times every day all through out our system.

Negotiation for surrender. Negotiations to testify. Negotiations to bring in evidence in order to plead to a lesser charge.

Your hatred for Assange has taken you to a very strange place indeed.

[msanthrope]

62. Um...no. I'm a criminal defense attorney. And I can tell you categorically that

a fugitive.....he jumped bail..and has no right of negotiation.

[grantcart]

65. Very funny that you would out yourself as a defense attorney

If he didn't have any rights to negotiate he would be sitting in a British jail and not in an Ecuadorian embassy.

Yes if he was in the state where he 'jumped bail' then he wouldn't have any rights.

He currently is residing on sovereign territory, that of Ecuador.

No precedents here, something that the US also particpates in.

In fact just a little while ago the EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED IN CHINA

A blind Chinese dissident who escaped from house arrest is under U.S. protection, his supporters said Saturday, creating a dilemma for Washington ahead of a visit next week by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Chen Guangcheng, a civilrights activist who has exposed forced abortions and sterilizations in rural areas, escaped a week ago from his heavily guarded home in Shandong province in eastern China.

On Saturday, U.S. officials would not confirm reports that he sought protection at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

But a Texas-based activist group that has promoted Chen's case said the 40-year-old dissident was "under U.S. protection."


Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Chinese+dissident+takes+refuge+embassy/6537369/story.html#ixzz24fk6gSWm

The result was that a negotiation occurred and he left the country.

I wouldn't really advertise that whole professional criminal defense attorney connection if you aren't more informed about how similar cases on point were handled by the US government.

[msanthrope]

70. Um..this case doesn't involve China or the US, nor did Chen face a valid EAW for rape.

In fact, I'm at a loss to understand why you would compare Chen to an alleged rapist who jumped bail.

Mr. Assange is a fugitive. That is quite different from a defendant.

[jberryhill]

76. "out yourself"

What is that supposed to mean?

There are attorneys and there are ones who play on on the Internet. Misanthrope has mentioned that before.

[struggle4progress]

78. Quito's London embassy is not "sovereign territory ... of Ecuador" but sovereign territory of the UK

London, in the interests of smoothing communications and lubricating relations with Quito, allows Quito a diplomatic outpost in London, together with customary immunities to ease the difficult work of Quito's ambassador, and these immunities are offered with the traditional understanding that Quito's ambassador will respect and obey the laws of the UK

[MADem]

137. A blind Chinese dissident molested 2 Swedish women in a sexual fashion?

The two incidents aren't at all the same.

Do you think the US Embassy would have shielded the blind Chinese dissident if he was accused of the same sorts of things Assange is charged with? Do you think the blind Chinese dissident would have even tried to run to the US Embassy if he were accused of such a thing?

[msanthrope]

40. But Sweden can't promise that...it's entirely possible there

might be other victims, in other countries.

Why would you preclude prosecution for other crimes?

[grantcart]

44. Promises to extradite for limited prosecution is done all of the time

We make agreements with Mexico and Canada regularly.

The reason that you would preclude prosecution for other crimes is to avoid Prosecutorial misconduct so that you would extradite a person on one charge on a bait and switch premise to actually try him on another charge.

If the charges in Sweden are substantial and likely to be proven then why not prosecute him on those and send him to jail on those.

Other countries, yes well that could include any pliant state that is willing to do dirty work for a fee wouldn't it, maybe like the old Mubarak regime. They would have been willing to do that work for a fee.

if the US has a criminal basis against Assange then why don't they convene a grand jury and indict him?

[treestar]

49. That's exactly what they want to do

All Julian has to do is go there, be arrested and charged, and defend himself. He wants to be above the law - the "heroic" act of leaking documents means he should never be charged.

US has not charged him with anything and isn't even looking into it - there's no chance he would be extradited here. And if he was such a hero, he would be willing to face the music (like Ellsberg). And further the UK is more likely to extradite him here than Sweden is.

He uses the fact people don't know these facts and lies to his supporters - they want to believe in him and believe he'd never do anything wrong, so they fill the internets with his lies and omissions (the US wants his head ((but only vis Sweden, lol)); there are no charges pending in Sweden, or if there are, he's not guilty, and should not have to answer to them like anyone else would, with the usual misogynistic attacks against the accusers, and the false claim that the women don't want the prosecution to continue - they do, and even if they didn't, a prosecution can still take place and ought to, as people don't get to level charges and drop them at will.)

[grantcart]

55. The fact that you link your general distaste for Assange to the prosecution in Sweden proves

my point.

But your anger at Assange makes you blind to the larger point of misuse of prosecution.

If Sweden wants to have him to try him on the rape charges they could have him tomorrow.

If they want to participate on a bait and switch and send him to some other country (and I don't think that it would be the US) then Ecuador will protect him.

Glennwald demolishes the legal nonsense here;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

Now here is the fundamental problem with your post.

Assange is not the leaker, he is the publisher.

Manning is the leaker and should be prosecutede. Assange is the publisher. Just like the NYT in the Pentagon Papers.

He didn't take the secrets he received them. Not a crime in the US with our First Ammendment.

I dislike the guy but if you want somebody to step forward the next time there is a build up to a war and you want secrets out then that means sometimes you have to stand up for the point of law with people you don't like.

If the US has a case against him then convene a grand jury and get an indictment, which they have not.

Don't participate in some bait and switch phony prosecution where he ends up in sume Mubarak like country.

[treestar]

66. Quit with the personal attacks about my alleged anger at this person

He is not above the law. I am not particularly angry. You are not reading the links or finding out the information but just parroting talking points of his supporters that have all been debunked by those of us studying the matter.

It is laughable to accuse me of anger. His supporters are so much worse with their emotions regarding him. They love him to distraction and are even willing to smear women who accused him of sexual irregularities. They think he's above the law and should never have to answer it. All for the little ineffective things he did, which they exaggerate to death. If you're going to make personal accusations, consider their emotional investment in this guy.

[msanthrope]

51. Yes. If there's an extradition request on the table. Which there isn't.

I don't think the US will bother to extradite him.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/assange-eaw-sexual-sweden

I have a link for you to read....Sweden's investigation of Assange took a very different turn after the statement of Donald Bostrom. Assange is going to jail and he knows it.

[struggle4progress]

75. The international extradition law, that applies to Sweden here, has been pointed out again and again

Sweden simply can't just forward Assange to the US, if the US were to ask. The Swedish prosecutorial authority states that clearly on its website. The English courts have also also pointed out that fact

That fact has been pointed out here at DU, over and over again, with links -- though perhaps you yourself regard such posts as spam and so do not read them

[HangOnKids]

72. I LMAO at that grant!

Because, it was S4P that injected the professional part. The post that was alerted on said "I hope your paycheck is large". 6 folks on DU said it should stand, S4P then made a rambling post about me and my real or imaginary friends thinking he was professional poster. I didn't make the alert, I served on the jury. I am not sure what the real or imaginary friends BS was about.

Lots of distraction and noise I suppose. But for your comments.

[pnwmom]

127. What are you saying the OP is fabricating? Are you saying he's incorrect

about the Steve Jobs posts?

[girl gone mad]

130. This is a fabrication:

When Steve Jobs died last October, Wikileaks promptly launched a small media campaign to call everyone's attention to a 2004 medical report showing that Jobs had tested positive for HIV. But the medical report was quickly exposed as a fake

In fact, when Steve Jobs died, wikileaks merely posted a link on their twitter feed to a wikileaks report debunking fake documents relating to Jobs health.

And this:

... The document is a fake and one which the site has previously linked to in 2008. The most obvious clue that the document is a fraud is the fact that the results, supposedly from 2004, are from a company titled SxCheck – which was not founded until 2006. Julian Assange’s Wikileaks linked to the image of the document minutes after Jobs’s death was announced ...

In fact, it was wikileaks which first exposed the images as fakes, citing the discrepancy in the SxCheck launch date, among other questionable elements.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

[Ichingcarpenter]

132. Wikileaks exposed that it was fake! you are right but....

[pnwmom]

133. Why were they posting an image that they suspected was fake?

And if you read the entire page, it doesn't definitely conclude that it was fake. They deliberately posted a document that was likely false, but left open the possibility that it was real.

http://www.informationweek.com/personal-tech/smart-phones/wikileaks-owes-steve-jobs-an-apology/229208058

I have a great deal of respect for the journalistic principles that Wikileaks espouses, but the site has done itself and journalism a disservice: It has published images that purport to show part of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' medical file, one of which is acknowledged to be fake and the other of which is deemed suspect.The photos, one of which includes what looks to be Jobs' signature, purport to reveal that he's HIV positive.

The Wikileaks summary points to a variety of the problems with the photos, which have supposedly been circulating on the Internet and on CNN's iReport, the user-generated news site responsible for promoting a fake story about Jobs suffering a heart attack.

"Due to the contradictory dates, visual evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value," the summary concludes.

If that's the case, what possible reason does Wikileaks have for publishing them, particularly after acknowledging that the photos are probably an attempt to influence Apple's stock price?

___________________________________

This part of the Wikileaks page isn't debunking the image, but still supporting it:

The results by HIV testing company SxCheck are dated 1 Sep 2004. Though SxCheck's website did not launch until 2006, its parent company Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation has existed since the 1980s. It is thus plausible that the results are a re-issue of earlier tests associated with its parent company. SxCheck's website advertises "decades of experience".

If Steve Jobs did have HIV, it is possible that his pancreatic cancer was a Kaposi's sarcoma, which are noted to emulate pancreatic cancer in HIV-positive patients. Steve Jobs also follows a diet occasionally recommended to AIDS patients as an alternative therapy

[struggle4progress]

160. Steve Jobs purported HIV medical status results, 2008

... It is thus plausible that the results are a re-issue of earlier tests associated with its parent company. SxCheck's website advertises "decades of experience"[3].

If Steve Jobs did have HIV, it is possible that his pancreatic cancer was a Kaposi's sarcoma, which are noted to emulate pancreatic cancer in HIV-positive patients[4]. Steve Jobs also follows a diet occasionally recommended to AIDS patients as an alternative therapy ...

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

Wikileaks played coy here. It's not cute

[Puregonzo1188]

14. Oh wow this one is in English!

[Cha]

18. I have a different take on this..

I appreciate your posts, struggle4progress.. they're informative.

Again, sorry you are personally attacked. They could just not post on your thread if it so bothersome..and Trashbin them. Wonderful feature.

[grantcart]

22. Dear Cha, I don't believe that they are informative in the least.

Dear Cha

(I said Dear Cha, because I have such respect for your posts).


The poster is spamming with a deluge of anti Wikipedia material trying to create an atmosphere where the prosecution of Assange in Sweden for rape will be seen as a useful surrogate prosecution for his other bad behavior.

For the record (and I despise that saying) I am not a Wikileaks supporter nor a fan of Assange. Beyond the piecemeal attack of the poster are two much more substantial and systemic criticisms of Wikileaks;

1) They are undisciplined and self promoting in the way that they decimate information. Rather than picking an objective and releasing well screened documents that are aimed at specific policies they are releasing tons and tons and tons of material as a kind of a blackmail attempt at various institutions. I don't like the lack of discipline or purpose but it also results in a lot of collateral damage.

2) More specifically he has released lots of cable traffic among diplomats who were discussing negotiating positions. These communications, like communications with a Priest, an attorney or a doctor, should never see the light of day. Any truly civilized person should see that diplomats need the ability to converse freely about their opinions without the fear that these discussions are going to published. Even if Assange was publishing damaging communications about a bad policy (and the large bulk of Wikileaks actually showed the opposite, how insightful and non parochial the diplomats were) it is not helpful if it causes the general work of diplomats to be less successful. We should give diplomats more tools to eliminate armed conflict and reduce violence, not take any away.

Actually I believe that this spamming of everything about Assange actually trivializes the criticisms of Wikileaks, and in that sense is completely counterproductive. It makes all criticisms of Assange appear as petulant and obsessive as this poster has now become.

There is a much broader and more important issue than Wikileaks now, however. Comparisons have been made between Assange and Daniel Ellsberg. Assange is no Daniel Ellsberg. DE was an inside Pentagon analyst who, after years of supporting the Vietnam policy, sought to have an impact on the policy by first gathering all of the policy history into a unified set of papers so it would have impact on the policy makers, and later on the general public.

In the Pentagon Papers analogy Manning is Ellsberg and Assange is the New York Times.

This is why those in government can prosecute Mannning and not Assange. It is a crime to release classified material, but it is not one to receive it and publish it. That is because of the first Amendment.

So because it is difficult what laws Assange may have broken, and there is no attempt to prosecute him for that, he now is facing rape charges.

Sweden could state the following; They are going to prosecute Assange for the rape charges and then either punish him or release him. They have not done so. They have indicated that once in custody they plan to extradite him, even if they decide not to prosecute him on the rape charge.

So now progressives are faced with an unpleasant task, being sceptically of a questionable prosecution of a person that they may not like, not like at all.

Because its not about Assange now.

Its about the First Amendment. In a time where the media is become more and more compliant with the right. After they did absolutely nothing to expose the lies that got us into Iraq, and all of the other lies of the Bush administration, we cannot accept any further diminishing of the power of the First Amendment.

Supporting the First Amendment sometimes requires that you have to fight for the rights of some people you don't really like.

In this case it means that you have to be sceptically of the charges brought against the little shit Assange.

And posting dozens and dozens of articles on Wikileaks does nothing to elevate the quality of debate at DU.

By having such an obsessive and unfocused attack on Assange by dozens and dozens of posts the poster is actually immunizing attacks on Assange/Wikileaks on DU. It makes all of the attacks on A/W look shallow and it gives the general readership a "not this shit again" reflex. It is completely counterproductive to what the OP would like to achieve. Sometimes less really is more. In this case it would be a whole lot more.

DU's biggest danger is not becoming too ideologically leftist or too moderate. The real danger to DU is that it becomes trivial and boring. In that field the poster is setting a new standard. If you have a case against Assange and Wikileaks pull all of your facts together and make a comprehensive argument. The fact that in the tens of thousands of releases by Wikileaks you can find some alarming examples (like this OP) is quite irrelevant, really. If the operation of Wikileaks was successful in stopping wars then you would have to accept the bad with the good. The much more important discussion is whether Wikileaks policy actually is helping to stop war or make it more likely.

And finally holding a mirror up to a poster and making sarcastic biting comments about their posts and arguments is not a personal attack. It is a comment on what the OP is posting.

Sincerely,

grantcart

[msanthrope]

27. Sweden has most certainly not indicated plans to extradite Assange to a third country. nt

[grantcart]

29. Not true. Sweden has indicated that the only condition that would prevent extradition is

if he faced the death penalty.

Assange has stated he is willing to go to Sweden immediately if they provide a gurantee of no extradition, so why don't they make it clear?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.

They have said that they won't, only if he is facing the death penalty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-says-it-will-not-extradite-assange-to-us-if-he-faces-death-penalty-2012-8

[msanthrope]

39. Nonsense. There isn't an extradition request from the US. His lawyers tried that

tactic in court and utterly failed to prove that accusation.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Why would Sweden promise anything about a hypothetical prosecution? It's just a bullshit tactic by Assange who is trying to avoid responsibility.

Show us the extradition request.

[grantcart]

41. Wrong 5 different ways

First the US isn't the only country that could request an extradition.

In fact because of the first amendment I think that Assange has cleverly avoided breaking any US laws in the same way that the NYT avoided prosecution for publishing the Pentagon Papers. It is more likely that he would be extradited to some other country.

Secondly if the US was to extradite him then they could always make the request after he was in Sweden.

Thirdly The only relevant government action that is at stake is that of Sweden. It is what they promise to do or not to do that is at question.

Fourth

Why would Sweden promise anything about a hypothetical prosecution? It's just a bullshit tactic by Assange who is trying to avoid responsibility.

Assurance by one government to another government about the limits of prosecutions in particular cases are done every day of the weak . We regularly give assurances to Canada and Mexico about not invoking the death penalty or not having 'life without parole" on the table in order to get them to extradite.

Fifth

Also in regards to the point above. Sweden has already given some assurances in this so called 'hypothetical' case.

Sweden has stated that they won't extradite to any country where he will face the death penalty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-says-it-will-not-extradite-assange-to-us-if-he-faces-death-penalty-2012-8

[msanthrope]

52. Exactly my point! You could have other countries, other than the US who

may have claims. Why would Sweden preclude prosecution in other countries?

[grantcart]

60. To get justice for their clients.

They represent the victims of an alleged rape attack.

So let me get this straight you don't have any problem with them (making the example in the absurd to prove the principle) getting Assange on a rape charge and then finding that they cannot prosecute but then hand him over to another government, let's say North Korea so that he can be prosecuted for 'betraying state secrets'.

Of course Norht Korea is absurd, but there are plenty of pliant countries with dictators in them that would love to seem him with a bullet in his head.

[msanthrope]

64. Again, is there an actual extradition request? Or are you just speculating?

Fyi...the prosecutors don't represent the victims. They represent the State.

[grantcart]

68. Oh for god sake

Of course they are paid by the government but the spirit of the prosecution is that they are seeking justice for the clients.

Just as it is said "Justice is blind" it is said that the Prosecutors' clients are the victims.

But your silly semantics aside if they wanted to focus on obtaining justice on the rape charges they could have the defendant in Sweden, Ecuador has already stated that they would withdraw their protection if Sweden would extradite for that and only that.

Because you have descended into a silly Tucky tacky discussion, not engaged on relevant points, and now repeating points already demolished I am leaving the subthread, to stay any further would really be masochistic.

[msanthrope]

73. grantcart....Sweden doesn't have to promise anything. And they won't. Nt

[girl gone mad]

106. Then they are doing a grave disservice to the two women...

for whom they supposedly care so much about getting justice.

[msanthrope]

114. Failure to negotiate with a fugitive alleged rapist is a feature, not a bug. nt

[girl gone mad]

115. I have no doubt it is a feature..

of Sweden's puppet governance.

Which is precisely why Assange has acted wisely in seeking asylum.

[riderinthestorm]

28. [phone]. I agree, its at the level of spamming

I've stopped following or posting on virtually any of the Assange threads because they have gotten utterly boring and futile. The same five posters diligently working their side, calling anyone who disagrees "adorers" or Assange lovers" which trivializes the conversation and now you have OP's like this one . Its a wonder the "sarcasm" isn't worse.

[MADem]

147. HIDE THREAD is your friend.

You say you've stopped following and posting, yet you are here to complain, as are many others--with PERSONAL invective that is entirely unnecessary....if you don't like the thread and others like it, hide it.

Calling an opposing view "spamming" is a cheesy and shitty thing to do, and no, I'm not going to hit the alert button and whine about it--I am telling you that you have options to avoid that stuff but good.

I would urge you to use them if you can't bear to see an opinion that differs from yours.

[treestar]

23. They had so much stuff they could not digest it and make a narrative for it

A lot of it could be fake or misleading by itself.

That's why he had to bring in the NYT and other newspapers, to try to get actual reporters to review the material.

[SidDithers]

26. DU rec...

keep posting. It's hilarious watching the Assange disciples twisting themselves into knots to continue defending him. And even more hiliarious is their sputtering outrage and cries of "how much are you paid!!?!" in response to your posts.



Sid

[grantcart]

30. Your characterization of those that object to this tripe as being Assange disciples is

to be perfectly blunt, full of shit.

See reply #22 above on why this garbage actually undermines real criticism of Assange and completely avoids important questions of the first amendment.

[SidDithers]

34. Much of your "criticism" of the posting of these articles has been just as full of it, pal....nt

Sid

[grantcart]

37. That is not what you said

You said

DU rec...

keep posting. It's hilarious watching the Assange disciples twisting themselves into knots to continue defending him. And even more hiliarious is their sputtering outrage and cries of "how much are you paid!!?!" in response to your posts.

Now I have posted the most extensive criticism of this OP at DU. I have offerred a biting satirical thread in Meta where the poster has basically tried to set himself up as the object of a persecution plot at DU.

I have detailed how this type of low level spamming of Assange (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021201836#post22 up thread) actually undermines more substantive critiques of him.

Its decision time. Either you think this is all great fun or you are bothered by it, 'pal'.

Right now you give it the big Sid Dithers 'rec'.

[SidDithers]

45. Decision time?...

I'm bothered by "paid poster" accusations, when a DUer expresses an opinion that runs counter to DU's conventional wisdom. I'm bothered that so many of Assange's supporters sound like Todd Akin in their efforts to sweep Assange's actions under the rug.

I share an opinion with the OP, and many other DUers, that Assange needs to face the charges in Sweden.

And, I think it's great fun, and hugely entertaining, to watch so many DUers pop blood vessel after blood vessel when articles critical of St. Julian continue to be posted.

If you think s4p's posts are against DU standards, alert on them. If you think they're violations of DU's TOS, alert with that checked.

Contrary to the apparently prevailing opinion, though, Julian Assange does not enjoy protected status at DU.

As for post #22.

Sweden could state the following; They are going to prosecute Assange for the rape charges and then either punish him or release him. They have not done so. They have indicated that once in custody they plan to extradite him, even if they decide not to prosecute him on the rape charge.

After fleeing from Sweden to the UK to avoid arrest, then fighting extradition for a year and a half in the British courts, then fleeing to the Ecuadoran Embassy when those appeals ran out, why the fuck would Sweden do any favours for Julian Assange? Why would they make any special allowances or give him any preferential treatment?

pfftt.

Sid

[grantcart]

50. Anoher steaming pile

First point

After fleeing from Sweden to the UK to avoid arrest, then fighting extradition for a year and a half in the British courts, then fleeing to the Ecuadoran Embassy when those appeals ran out, why the fuck would Sweden do any favours for Julian Assange? Why would they make any special allowances or give him any preferential treatment?

So you think that it is about Sweden doing or not doing favors, is that it?

Prosecutors should have only one thing in mind (as the brother of a former prosecutor I know that real prosecutors never get personal and only have one thing in mind) and that is getting justice for the victims.

So the answer to your question is "if Swedish prosecutors are interested in getting justice for the women who were raped" then they could get that settled in a New York minute, or atleast but the burden on Assange.

Second point

i never said that it was against the rules to spam on low brow shit, I said it trivialized more important issues. All of the posts are well with in legal posting rules,

You Better Believe It. Same thing different tune.

Third point

In reccing this post you are reccing this post and all of the other posts by this OP.

By reccing this post you are not, in fact, making a statement against charges of being a paid poster, unless you have a 'caucus' mentality and rec posts simply based on whether or not you think you are in the same group as the poster.


Finally

The charges that the OP is a professional poster are ridiculous. There isn't anything professional in his Assange posts.

[SidDithers]

91. How would Swedish prosecutors get justice "in a New York minute"?...

when Assange has fled their jurisdiction, fought extradition through the British courts, and then finally holed up in the Ecaudoran Embassy to avoid being arrested?

Oh, and "Sweden should just guarantee he won't be extradited to the US" is not an answer. That's providing special treatment to Assange, something that any other alleged rapist running away from the European Arrest Warrant wouldn't get. And interviewing him at the Embassy won't work either, because the interview is really more of a prelude to arrest than a fact-finding mission.

I eagerly await the convoluted logic you'll have to employ to tell us how your "New York minute" scenario is going to work.

Second point

I don't share your concern about whether the important issues are being trivialized by posts made at our little corner of the internet.

Third point

I'm reccing this post because I share an opinion with the OP, and because I think they've unfairly taken a shit-kicking from you and your buddies. If you want to view that rec as a "caucus" rec, I don't really give a shit.

Finally,

The paid poster accusations are fucking ridiculous, not because of the quality of the posts, but because they speculate on the motive of the poster, which is impossible to know. It's the absolute weakest type of reply, and says volumes more about the one making the accusation than the one it's directed at.

Oh, and your copycat thread in meta was about as far from "biting satire" as one could get.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Read what Grantcart wrote upthread, Sid. He makes points and unlike the OP and yourself

his points are about the subject matter, not about other DUers. You see, when I see the same folks who always post snark about DUers and not about political issues posting more snark about DUers, I just figure they are jumping on the latest excuse to say ugly bully shite about others. I do not even think it is an attempt to disrupt the discussion, I think it is purely for jollies, to say 'fans' and 'disciples' and to announce your joy at seeing people argue. I don't think the actual issue matters at all, I think any reason to say shitty things to and about DUers is good enough for many posters here.
Your post, of course, is devoid of so much as a shred of opinion about the subject of the OP and lacks any content about Asasange. It is not about him. It is about DUers you don't like. The Assange part is just the excuse of the week. Used to be Greenwald. Summer reruns.

[SidDithers]

35. ...

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Again, no content whatsoever.

That's all you got, an emoticon? No response to Grantcart's words nor mine, just a wee emoticon. Never a shred of content about the subject, just as I said.
Summer reruns.

[SidDithers]

46. Wrong again, eh?...

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

154. Hang in there Sid. I see you're being dogpiled as well, and from quite an unlikely source.

Will wonders never cease?

[grantcart]

71. Of course there is no content

Sid isn't in it for the content, he's in it for the posse.

It doesn't matter if he agrees with the argument its about sides.

Look upthread when he is confronted on the OP he doesn't defend what is written in the OP he defends the OP because somebody else somewhere else at some other time has suggested (in frustration with the spamming of the OP on the subject) that he was doing it for money.

This isn't being rec'd because he agrees with what the OP said, its being recc'd because for some its a matter of running with the same posse.

"Somebody said something bad about this guy somewhere else so I am going to rec this thread because my Posse-mate is my Posse-mate, and the more posts that are made the better it is because the more the posse-mate can rec the posse-mate."

Oh and the use of the when there is nothing actually funny? Its a substitute for "I got nothing" by weak minds.

[dionysus]

48. bully

[valerief]

53. Maybe the company was founded retroactively. nt

[MADem]

102. Does Bain Capital own a chunk of that enterprise???

That 'retroactive' shit is right up rMoney's alley!!!!!

[arely staircase]

63. so what if it was fake, the most stunning thing here is the utter immorality

of posting someone's medical records.

[sabrina 1]

79. Wikileaks was not the leaker of these documents. Wikileaks actually

questioned the validity of the report noting that symptoms of pancreatic cancer can mirror some of the symptoms of HIV.

Wikileaks also questioned the report noting that the leaking website had not started up until 2006 but the report was dated from 2004.

The report was linked to by many sites, so this OP has left out quite a bit of information, using only the Daily Mail, a tabloid, in order to try to discredit Wikileaks, a mission he has been on relentlessly for weeks now.

Iow, Wikileaks did not put these leaks out there, they linked to the website that did and then raised questions about their validity.

[arely staircase]

86. so they did NOT publish this?

then i stand corrected.

[girl gone mad]

107. You could just read the wikileaks page and find out for youself.

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

Wikileaks linked to the documents, which had been circulating through e-mail and on the web, and pointed out several discrepencies, stating:

Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value.

For the OP to claim that wikileaks was trying to spread a false rumor about Steve Jobs is a bit like claiming that Snopes spreads false rumors when it publishes and fact-checks urban myths.

When Steve Jobs died last October, Wikileaks promptly launched a small media campaign to call everyone's attention to a 2004 medical report showing that Jobs had tested positive for HIV. But the medical report was quickly exposed as a fake

Yes, in fact, it was quickly exposed as a fake by wikileaks, when they first linked to it in 2008, after it had already appeared on CNN and other web sites.

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, except Wikileaks was not the leaker of those records. They and other sites

merely linked to them, AND, Wikileaks did question the validity of the claims.

This OP is not credible on this subject nor is the Daily Mail, on most subjects actually.

Otoh, is there something wrong with having HIV? Why would the OP think that?

[arely staircase]

87. is there something wrong with having hiv?

wth does that mean? the point is that it is a personal private medical issue. what is wrong is violating a very personal and private confidentiality and anyone who would link or otherwise broadcast such information is a pos.

[girl gone mad]

108. "anyone who would link or otherwise broadcast such information is a pos."

Including the person who started this thread? After all, this thread links to or otherwise broadcasts that very same information.

Am I a pos for linking to the wikileaks page which links to the fake document?

Personally, I believe you are being a bit obtuse. Posting a hyperlink to a widely circulated document and pointing out that it is most likely fake is not a violation of privacy or confidentiality in any meaningful way.

[arely staircase]

111. obtuse is as obtuse does

eom

[girl gone mad]

113. Do you stand by your comment or not?

[arely staircase]

116. more than ever

i was just kinda luke warm on it until you weighed in but now i feel very very strongly about it.

[girl gone mad]

121. So to set the record straight

you feel very strongly that CNN, the OP, wikileaks, and anyone and everyone else who linked to these fake documents, even if only to debunk them, is a piece of shit who has made a serious violation of ethics.

Okay, so now I know. /conversation.

[arely staircase]

145. i have looked into it

you actualy have a point on that. mea culpa ggm.

[Cleita]

69. Don't you need a vacation?

What are you going to do if the charges turn out to be with no merit and Assange goes free? Hmm?

[struggle4progress]

80. As I already posted in #15 above: "Maybe he's innocent. I think Sweden can sort it out fairly."

Your ESP seems be somewhat on the fritz; while you're waiting to get it back from the repair shop, you might consider adopting an old-school technique: read the thread BEFORE attempting to summarize the views of folk posting there

[Cleita]

83. So you are beginning to doubt yourself it seems.

I stopped reading your threads about 100 or so back because they were so biased I couldn't anymore. I want a real discussion not a stoning.

[struggle4progress]

89. Your ESP has apparently been on the fritz for quite some time

I'm afraid I can't help you with that. I myself don't have ESP and so I can't recommend how you might fix it

[Cleita]

90. Nice strawman there.

ESP? Honestly.

[rachel1]

81. what does this have to do with exposing the corruption and intrusiveness?

of all the things they could relase they chose that?

unless steve jobs lied about some contagious disease he had and negligently tried to hide it why should anyone care?

seriously

[Alduin]

88. You've turned into a one-topic record here on DU.

One that you've unhealthily obsessed over.

[struggle4progress]

92. I do appreciate your opinion on how DU should be used as a resource

[HangOnKids]

103. No You Don't

You do not appreciate how anyone who objects to you is viewed. You are flame baiting and running wild. Knock yourself out S4P, keep going, it is so sad but very amusing.

[MADem]

148. Why are you "unhealthily obsesssed" over someone else's interest?

You can hide the thread. You can block the poster.

What you can't do is net-nanny. And it would appear that's what you are trying to do, via excoriation.

This post of yours says more about YOU than it does about the interest of the poster you are criticizing.

YOU have the power to avoid the things you dislike. I should think you might want to use that power rather than snarking snidely.

If anyone deserves the as a free-speech suppressor, it's not the poster you're criticizing. Avert your eyes if you can't 'deal.' Skinner has given you the tools to do just that.

[Alduin]

149. Why do you have to butt into my business?

The poster posts nothing but anti-Assange crap and it's annoying me and many others.

If you don't like what I have to say, heed your own advice.

[MADem]

150. Because I find your enthusiastic abrogation of the poster's free speech rights "obsessive."

And I find your arguments perverse.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

And you do not HAVE TO LOOK. You CHOOSE to--and you choose to make disparaging comments about a person because they are saying something that YOU don't like.

You have tools to avoid these remarks, yet you refuse to use them. Instead, you use invective and insult, like you're going to sway anyone with that kind of treatment.

Hardly progressive, that--to try to shut people up because they aren't toeing YOUR line...?

[Alduin]

153. I make the comments because the poster can post one thread on the subject...

and not spam GD with half the threads saying how much he/she hates Assange. We get it. Struggle4progress doesn't like Assange. S/he doesn't have to post 975934857934573948573 threads about it.

Christ.

And if you can read, you'll see that many DUers in this thread share the same view as I do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

156. If you all feel the same, then by all means, please take MADem's advice, en masse.

Like he/she said, Skinner has given you the tools, it's up to you whether you choose to use them.

[MADem]

166. HIDE THREAD is your friend. Stop telling people what they can/can't do.

What you call "spam" is what other people call interesting information.

What's spammy is your repeated calls of "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP." Whatever happened to the progressive notion that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant?" The best cure for speech is MORE speech--unless you're a rightwing fascist who wants to control every aspect of people's lives....and we aren't that, here, now, are we?

And if YOU can read, you'll see that many DUers in this thread do NOT share the same view as you do. So get off that high horse, stop acting like you're an admin with the authority to determine what is or is not acceptable to post, stop telling people what they are "allowed" to discuss, and use the damn tools the admins have given you so your delicate eyes are not affronted, if the conversation disturbs you.

You're not the DU Censor here, so stop acting like you are. Again--HIDE THREAD IS YOUR FRIEND. I urge you to USE it.

[Alduin]

167. All I see here is...

"blah blah blah."

[MADem]

168. Thank you for showing us what you're all about. There's no doubt, now. NT

[apocalypsehow]

104. I am quite firmly on the fence regarding Assange, and the whole matter swirling about him.

That tends to make neither side - his supporters and detractors - happy, but that's where I think a lot of us are.

Regardless, keep posting: attempts to silence and attack you personally are bullying, and that's simply unacceptable.

[morningfog]

112. As(SPAM)ange. You need a wiki-hate forum.

[frylock]

142. WIKILEAKS DEBUNKED THE HIV STORY FFS!

this is more fucking bullshit from s4p and his minions. read how wikileaks DEBUNKED this garbage. they did not not leak this.

[struggle4progress]

143. Nope. When Jobs died, Wikileaks tweeted a linkon Wikileaks site to a supposed HIV report for Job

Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/121738677910122496

At the tweeted link, you will find speculation about Jobs having HIV:

... If Steve Jobs did have HIV, it is possible that his pancreatic cancer was a Kaposi's sarcoma, which are noted to emulate pancreatic cancer in HIV-positive patients ...
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

So, naturally, this is how it was reported at the time:

Steve Jobs the C.E.O of Apple Inc is reported to have HIV+ according to WikiLeaks ...
Steve Jobs Suffering From HIV-1, Says WikiLeaks
by Daudi - on May 2nd 2011
http://www.freakgeeks.com/steve-jobs-suffering-from-hiv-says-wikileaks/

In fact, the alleged "journalists" at Wikileaks had plenty of time to investigate if they had wanted to do so:

... A lot of people thought these were newly leaked. In fact, Wikileaks posted the documents in 2008, and they've been fueling conspiracy theories about Apple and Steve Jobs ever since ..."

http://gawker.com/5847341/wikileaks-honors-steve-jobs-with-fake-hiv-report

[AntiFascist]

144. What exactly are these "conspiracy theories"?

This sounds more like tabloid gossip to me. There are famous people who have AIDS, and in most cases they want to keep their status very secret. Beyond that, I can't imagine what kind of conspiracy Apple would be participating in. There was a lot of speculation that Jobs was going to die, but there is a high probability of this happening to people with pancreatic cancer anyway, even when leaving AIDS out of the equation.

[struggle4progress]

162. Wikileaks Owes Steve Jobs An Apology

Thomas Claburn
January 20, 2009 07:50 PM

I have a great deal of respect for the journalistic principles that Wikileaks espouses, but the site has done itself and journalism a disservice: It has published images that purport to show part of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' medical file, one of which is acknowledged to be fake and the other of which is deemed suspect.The photos, one of which includes what looks to be Jobs' signature, purport to reveal that he's HIV positive.

The Wikileaks summary points to a variety of the problems with the photos, which have supposedly been circulating on the Internet and on CNN's iReport, the user-generated news site responsible for promoting a fake story about Jobs suffering a heart attack ...

If that's the case, what possible reason does Wikileaks have for publishing them, particularly after acknowledging that the photos are probably an attempt to influence Apple's stock price? ...

Journalists don't always get all the facts right. No one does. But surely there's some minimum standard at Wikileaks for accepting documents and posting them. Posting such obvious fakes borders on malice ...

http://www.informationweek.com/personal-tech/smart-phones/wikileaks-owes-steve-jobs-an-apology/229208058

[still_one]

151. So are you saying everything that wiki leaks reported is a fraud? And this does not mean I think

Assange is a great moral person because that really isn't the issue in my book. The issue is have governments been doing unethical, immoral, and illegal things without their citizens knowledge?

[struggle4progress]

161. I'll assume your reading comprehension skills are really better than that

[still_one]

163. I am trying to make a point. There is a consorted effort, and maybe not on your part, or

those here at DU, but definitely more than just reporting that he has done some things, perhaps criminal, in order to move the message away from the content of what he has released, to now focus solely on his questionable conduct.

Ever since Viet Nam, though it was happening before than, I just wasn't aware of it, I have become very skeptical of the lengths governments will do to change the subject when it is in their interest

[Matariki]

155. wow. you're just a little one man army against wikileaks, aren't you?

why not give it a rest?

[struggle4progress]

159. You don't wanna read my posts, then don't read em