The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Jeff Carter]

37 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Gee Jeff, there's a big difference between a "whistleblower" and an admitted hacker recruiting others to burglarize a building and then hiding behind journalistic license. This is how journalists (actual ones) get slaughtered in other countries (think Putin/Russia) not to mention the actual innocent parties who are exposed as a result of those disclosures. There are plenty - it's not just Hilary or whoever else you've targeted, justified or not. The prosecution's version of events in this case isn't in dispute as there are plenty of witnesses and records to back it up.

If Assange was acting as a journalist in the usual sense of the word, then his sources and methods wouldn't be available for all to see. I personally would rather see whistleblowers and sources maintain a certain anonymity while providing the information to the public but that's not Assange's aim by all appearances.

As I said, the Washington Post and New York Times didn't cultivate their sources by recruiting insiders. That seems to be what Assange has done on more than a few occasions though I'd be happy to hold judgement on that until after the trial.

The sources for the “Assange recruited hackers” indictment presented by the US Department of Justice, to which you refer, were two highly compromised individuals who became FBi informants to escape their own legal difficulties - namely Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson and Hector Xavier Monsegur (“Sabu”). Monsegur attempted to entrap Wikileaks in a cash-for-leaks scheme, while Thordarson was fired from Wikileaks after he attempted to embezzle about $50,000 from the organization. Are you aware of that? You seem very certain that “prosecution's version of events in this case isn't in dispute” and yet Thordarson made public statements just weeks ago that everything he told the FBI re: Assange was made up. Do you know that?

This is the context by which you anticipate Assange’s “taxi” - yet another participant in this thread relishing punishment for persons they disagree with.

“Key Witness Against Assange Admits To Lying In Exchange for US Immunity”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/28/assa-j28.html

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/02/the-kafkaesque-imperium-julian-assange-and-the-second-superseding-indictment/

[Bob Ness]

42 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The sources for the “Assange recruited hackers” indictment presented by the US Department of Justice, to which you refer, were two highly compromised individuals who became FBi informants to escape their own legal difficulties - namely Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson and Hector Xavier Monsegur (“Sabu”). Monsegur attempted to entrap Wikileaks in a cash-for-leaks scheme, while Thordarson was fired from Wikileaks after he attempted to embezzle about $50,000 from the organization. Are you aware of that? You seem very certain that “prosecution's version of events in this case isn't in dispute” and yet Thordarson made public statements just weeks ago that everything he told the FBI re: Assange was made up. Do you know that?

This is the context by which you anticipate Assange’s “taxi” - yet another participant in this thread relishing punishment for persons they disagree with.

“Key Witness Against Assange Admits To Lying In Exchange for US Immunity”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/28/assa-j28.html

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/02/the-kafkaesque-imperium-julian-assange-and-the-second-superseding-indictment/

These are hardly the only "key witnesses" that are going to testify against Assange. There are several witnesses (David House) that will testify against him from Wikileaks and if you think the feds are stupid enough to hang their case on these two you are completely wrong. Siggi's testimony was only retracted for basically irrelevant garbage and the fact is he was a part of the conspiracy and therefore his previous testimony is still valuable in the sense that YOU DON'T KNOW NOW WHICH STORY HE'S TELLING IS TRUE, do you? He's useless to Assange for exactly that reason.

What kind of War Crime was he trying fight when they hacked the Police and Fire department Jeff?

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Gee Jeff, there's a big difference between a "whistleblower" and an admitted hacker recruiting others to burglarize a building and then hiding behind journalistic license. This is how journalists (actual ones) get slaughtered in other countries (think Putin/Russia) not to mention the actual innocent parties who are exposed as a result of those disclosures. There are plenty - it's not just Hilary or whoever else you've targeted, justified or not. The prosecution's version of events in this case isn't in dispute as there are plenty of witnesses and records to back it up.

If Assange was acting as a journalist in the usual sense of the word, then his sources and methods wouldn't be available for all to see. I personally would rather see whistleblowers and sources maintain a certain anonymity while providing the information to the public but that's not Assange's aim by all appearances.

As I said, the Washington Post and New York Times didn't cultivate their sources by recruiting insiders. That seems to be what Assange has done on more than a few occasions though I'd be happy to hold judgement on that until after the trial.

"As I said, the Washington Post and New York Times didn't cultivate their sources by recruiting insiders". -Bob N.

I would expect any journalist to "recruit" all the sources he/she could, anywhere. 

Both those newspapers cited above certainly routinely posit they have (unidentified) inside sources.  Surely, those "inside" sources are recruited, and deals struck, quid pro pros etc.  Continued access is a matter of staying on the right side of those with power and information. 

Assange is different---he does not seek accommodation with government. 

A very squishy area---are we to accept a journalist must only accept information given to her/him, or aggressively seek out additional information? 

Frankly, I wish governments everywhere were hacked a lot more. 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

21 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

These are hardly the only "key witnesses" that are going to testify against Assange. There are several witnesses (David House) that will testify against him from Wikileaks and if you think the feds are stupid enough to hang their case on these two you are completely wrong. Siggi's testimony was only retracted for basically irrelevant garbage and the fact is he was a part of the conspiracy and therefore his previous testimony is still valuable in the sense that YOU DON'T KNOW NOW WHICH STORY HE'S TELLING IS TRUE, do you? He's useless to Assange for exactly that reason.

What kind of War Crime was he trying fight when they hacked the Police and Fire department Jeff?

David House had nothing to do with Wikileaks. He got upset about the Manning prosecution in 2012 and made public comments against Assange related to that,  but has no direct knowledge of any matters covered by the indictments. The information about Thordarson is rather damning and extensive, as published in the Icelandic press and covered in the link I shared. Which you didn’t read, obviously. You are simply repeating incorrect mainstream media talking points.

As well, despite your poorly informed assertion, Wikileaks has never revealed sources or methods. Wikileaks publishes official documents which have been leaked to the organization by individuals not directly associated with them. No government has ever questioned the authenticity of the published documents. No individual has knowingly been harmed by the publication of documents by Wikileaks, as senior officials from the Pentagon conceded. Julian Assange’s legal jeopardy is entirely due to the fact that very powerful persons, who assume they are not answerable or accountable for criminal or unethical behaviour, have been embarrassed by Wikileaks releases.

As former CIA head and Obama admin SecDef Leon Panetta stated to German television: ““All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing.”  Which reveals both the revenge motive for the officially sanctioned torture of Assange ( as determined by UN Rapporteur), and also the essentially political nature of his persecution. It's a shame you have invested yourself in such a travesty.

[Bob Ness]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

David House had nothing to do with Wikileaks. He got upset about the Manning prosecution in 2012 and made public comments against Assange related to that,  but has no direct knowledge of any matters covered by the indictments. The information about Thordarson is rather damning and extensive, as published in the Icelandic press and covered in the link I shared. Which you didn’t read, obviously. You are simply repeating incorrect mainstream media talking points.

As well, despite your poorly informed assertion, Wikileaks has never revealed sources or methods. Wikileaks publishes official documents which have been leaked to the organization by individuals not directly associated with them. No government has ever questioned the authenticity of the published documents. No individual has knowingly been harmed by the publication of documents by Wikileaks, as senior officials from the Pentagon conceded. Julian Assange’s legal jeopardy is entirely due to the fact that very powerful persons, who assume they are not answerable or accountable for criminal or unethical behaviour, have been embarrassed by Wikileaks releases.

As former CIA head and Obama admin SecDef Leon Panetta stated to German television: ““All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing.”  Which reveals both the revenge motive for the officially sanctioned torture of Assange ( as determined by UN Rapporteur), and also the essentially political nature of his persecution. It's a shame you have invested yourself in such a travesty.

Jeff, I haven't. I'm perfectly willing to let a jury determine his guilt or innocence. The same can be said of Wikileaks who although they may have not been the originator of the material, certainly has provided a means to disseminate information that could be harmful to innocent people. This is what Judge Baraitser thinks:

As part of his assistance to Ms. Manning, [Assange] agreed to use the rainbow tools, which he had for the purpose of cracking Microsoft password hashes, to decipher an alphanumeric code she had given him. The code was to an encrypted password hash stored on a Department of Defence computer connected to the SIPRNet. It is alleged that had they succeeded, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the network under a username that did not belong to her. This is the conduct which most obviously demonstrates Mr. Assange’s complicity in Ms. Manning’s theft of the information, and separates his activity from that of the ordinary investigative journalist.

At the same time as these communications, it is alleged, he was encouraging others to hack into computers to obtain information. This activity does not form part of the “Manning” allegations but it took place at exactly the same time and supports the case that Mr. Assange was engaged in a wider scheme, to work with computer hackers and whistle blowers to obtain information for Wikileaks. Ms. Manning was aware of his work with these hacking groups as Mr. Assange messaged her several times about it. For example, it is alleged that, on 5 March 2010 Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had received stolen banking documents from a source (Teenager); on 10 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had given an “intel source” a “list of things we wanted” and the source had provided four months of recordings of all phones in the Parliament of the government of NATO country-1; and, on 17 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he used the unauthorised access given to him by a source, to access a government website of NATO country-1 used to track police vehicles. His agreement with Ms. Manning, to decipher the alphanumeric code she gave him, took place on 8 March 2010, in the midst of his efforts to obtain, and to recruit others to obtain, information through computer hacking.

Mr. Assange, it is alleged, had been engaged in recruiting others to obtain information for him for some time. For example, in August 2009 he spoke to an audience of hackers at a “Hacking at Random” conference and told them that unless they were a serving member of the US military they would have no legal liability for stealing classified information and giving it to Wikileaks. At the same conference he told the audience that there was a small vulnerability within the US Congress document distribution system stating, “this is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking”. In October 2009 also to an audience of hackers at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” he told the audience, “I was a famous teenage hacker in Australia, and I’ve been reading generals’ emails since I was 17” and referred to the Wikileaks list of “flags” that it wanted captured. After Ms. Manning made her disclosures to him he continued to encourage people to take information. For example, in December 2013 he attended a Chaos computer club conference and told the audience to join the CIA in order to steal information stating “I’m not saying don’t join the CIA; no, go and join the CIA. Go in there, go into the ballpark and get the ball and bring it out”.

So that's what the Judge thinks and I'm inclined to think that's enough to test. 

[Benjamin Cole]

BTW, the federal government, that is the national security state, is going after Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. 

In the recent past, NPR raised red flags that the act, formerly used on real spies, was being turned on leakers and others---people are who are not spies. 

From NPR June 28, 20178:07 AM ET:

"A hundred years ago this month, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act to deal with spying against the U.S. in World War I.

Historically, the most notorious U.S. spy cases have been tried under the act, like the one against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted in 1951 of giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union and executed two years later.

But prosecutions have been relatively rare and limited almost entirely to spies — until recently. The Obama administration used the Espionage Act to prosecute suspected national security leakers and now the Trump administration is doing the same.

The act is sweeping and bars any disclosure of secrets that could harm the country's defense.

Reality Winner, a 25-year-old government contractor accused of leaking a government document about Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has pleaded not guilty to charges under the Espionage Act.

"It applies to what would be the conventional [spies], who are spying for an enemy, but it also includes individuals who leak classified information," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security cases.

During the Obama administration, eight people were charged or convicted of leaking national security secrets under the Espionage Act — more such cases than under all previous administrations combined. The cases included Chelsea Manning, the former Army private who was recently released after serving seven years in prison, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who remains in Russia but still faces charges in the U.S.

---30---

Is this really the direction we want the US to go? 

It reads much like the Obama and Trump administrations politically weaponized the Espionage Act. 

 

[Bob Ness]

54 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"As I said, the Washington Post and New York Times didn't cultivate their sources by recruiting insiders". -Bob N.

I would expect any journalist to "recruit" all the sources he/she could, anywhere. 

Both those newspapers cited above certainly routinely posit they have (unidentified) inside sources.  Surely, those "inside" sources are recruited, and deals struck, quid pro pros etc.  Continued access is a matter of staying on the right side of those with power and information. 

Assange is different---he does not seek accommodation with government. 

A very squishy area---are we to accept a journalist must only accept information given to her/him, or aggressively seek out additional information? 

Frankly, I wish governments everywhere were hacked a lot more. 

It's very squishy but the point is those entities are prepared to go to court to prove their assertions of journalistic protection and Assange is not. Because he isn't one. Under the prevailing theory we would have to protect the free speech rights of any entity claiming "journalism" when they publish the names and addresses of police officers online for instance. Especially if the publisher can make up something about them that seems dastardly!

[Bob Ness]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

BTW, the federal government, that is the national security state, is going after Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. 

In the recent past, NPR raised red flags that the act, formerly used on real spies, was being turned on leakers and others---people are who are not spies. 

From NPR June 28, 20178:07 AM ET:

"A hundred years ago this month, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act to deal with spying against the U.S. in World War I.

Historically, the most notorious U.S. spy cases have been tried under the act, like the one against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted in 1951 of giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union and executed two years later.

But prosecutions have been relatively rare and limited almost entirely to spies — until recently. The Obama administration used the Espionage Act to prosecute suspected national security leakers and now the Trump administration is doing the same.

The act is sweeping and bars any disclosure of secrets that could harm the country's defense.

Reality Winner, a 25-year-old government contractor accused of leaking a government document about Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has pleaded not guilty to charges under the Espionage Act.

"It applies to what would be the conventional [spies], who are spying for an enemy, but it also includes individuals who leak classified information," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security cases.

During the Obama administration, eight people were charged or convicted of leaking national security secrets under the Espionage Act — more such cases than under all previous administrations combined. The cases included Chelsea Manning, the former Army private who was recently released after serving seven years in prison, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who remains in Russia but still faces charges in the U.S.

---30---

Is this really the direction we want the US to go? 

It reads much like the Obama and Trump administrations politically weaponized the Espionage Act. 

 

Ben, trust me, spies don't have business cards that say Joe Schmoe - Professional Spy for Israel or whatever.

Intelligence information that is harmful to any country can be revealed or or learned in many ways. Charging under the espionage act is sketchy but has more to do with the result.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Ben, trust me, spies don't have business cards that say Joe Schmoe - Professional Spy for Israel or whatever.

Intelligence information that is harmful to any country can be revealed or or learned in many ways. Charging under the espionage act is sketchy but has more to do with the result.

Bob N-

Sheesh, all the same, I prefer to err on the side of press freedoms and not throwing people in jail who cross the national security state. 

Assange is not a journalist? And Chris Cuomo is? 

Reminds me of a statement made to me by a call-girl.

"I might screw for money, but I sure wouldn't marry for it." 

So...who is the real whore? 

 

[Bob Ness]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Bob N-

Sheesh, all the same, I prefer to err on the side of press freedoms and not throwing people in jail who cross the national security state. 

Assange is not a journalist? And Chris Cuomo is? 

Reminds me of a statement made to me by a call-girl.

"I might screw for money, but I sure wouldn't marry for it." 

So...who is the real whore? 

 

That is determined in court. I guarantee Cuomo would get the same treatment if he helped publish or recruited people to hack into sensitive Government servers, circulate hacking tools or whatever they end up charging him with. Press freedoms come with responsibilities too. They will need to specifically allege and prove that Assange and his co=conspirators broke the laws they're charged with. There's no mystical phantom lurking around or cigar chomping back roomers doing him wrong. 

[Steve Thomas]

All the things that you see were driven from the top," Christie said during an appearance on ABC's This Week, in response to host George Stephanopoulos' comment about the events that led up to the Capitol riot, including the role of those loyal to Trump in the White House during his presidency.

"It may explain why the former president and his allies are working so hard not to cooperate," said Stephanopoulos.

Christie responded: "The [former] president made it very clear that he did not want to concede the election, that he would not concede the election, and you got a bunch of people around him by the time we got to the end, with very few exceptions, that were C-team players, at best, on their best day."

Steve Thomas

[Paul Bacon]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Reminds me of a statement made to me by a call-girl.

"I might screw for money, but I sure wouldn't marry for it." 

You must've been a very charming trick for her.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

If you're extradited to the US from a country with a treaty with us (it's common) when you land you don't have to fetch a Taxi. The Feds will give you a ride to where you're going.

Thanks, Bob. I understand extradition. What are his crimes, and do they have merit? Or, does it seem like the long arms of empire plucking a foreign national from abroad and punishing him to set an example? 

[Jeff Carter]

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Jeff, I haven't. I'm perfectly willing to let a jury determine his guilt or innocence. The same can be said of Wikileaks who although they may have not been the originator of the material, certainly has provided a means to disseminate information that could be harmful to innocent people. This is what Judge Baraitser thinks:

As part of his assistance to Ms. Manning, [Assange] agreed to use the rainbow tools, which he had for the purpose of cracking Microsoft password hashes, to decipher an alphanumeric code she had given him. The code was to an encrypted password hash stored on a Department of Defence computer connected to the SIPRNet. It is alleged that had they succeeded, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the network under a username that did not belong to her. This is the conduct which most obviously demonstrates Mr. Assange’s complicity in Ms. Manning’s theft of the information, and separates his activity from that of the ordinary investigative journalist.

At the same time as these communications, it is alleged, he was encouraging others to hack into computers to obtain information. This activity does not form part of the “Manning” allegations but it took place at exactly the same time and supports the case that Mr. Assange was engaged in a wider scheme, to work with computer hackers and whistle blowers to obtain information for Wikileaks. Ms. Manning was aware of his work with these hacking groups as Mr. Assange messaged her several times about it. For example, it is alleged that, on 5 March 2010 Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had received stolen banking documents from a source (Teenager); on 10 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he had given an “intel source” a “list of things we wanted” and the source had provided four months of recordings of all phones in the Parliament of the government of NATO country-1; and, on 17 March 2010, Mr. Assange told Ms. Manning that he used the unauthorised access given to him by a source, to access a government website of NATO country-1 used to track police vehicles. His agreement with Ms. Manning, to decipher the alphanumeric code she gave him, took place on 8 March 2010, in the midst of his efforts to obtain, and to recruit others to obtain, information through computer hacking.

Mr. Assange, it is alleged, had been engaged in recruiting others to obtain information for him for some time. For example, in August 2009 he spoke to an audience of hackers at a “Hacking at Random” conference and told them that unless they were a serving member of the US military they would have no legal liability for stealing classified information and giving it to Wikileaks. At the same conference he told the audience that there was a small vulnerability within the US Congress document distribution system stating, “this is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking”. In October 2009 also to an audience of hackers at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” he told the audience, “I was a famous teenage hacker in Australia, and I’ve been reading generals’ emails since I was 17” and referred to the Wikileaks list of “flags” that it wanted captured. After Ms. Manning made her disclosures to him he continued to encourage people to take information. For example, in December 2013 he attended a Chaos computer club conference and told the audience to join the CIA in order to steal information stating “I’m not saying don’t join the CIA; no, go and join the CIA. Go in there, go into the ballpark and get the ball and bring it out”.

So that's what the Judge thinks and I'm inclined to think that's enough to test. 

Bob - you have repeated Barraister’s comments which essentially merely repeat the prosecution’s presentation at last year’s extradition hearings. Assange’s lawyers very effectively dissected the factual misinformation and distorted surmise of intent at that same hearing. Some very astute persons witnessed and commented on the hearing, and have since been at a loss to explain Barraister’s comprehension. You have formed strong opinion but apparently have not bothered to look into any but the prosecution position. Did you know that Assange spent that hearing locked in a glass cage at the back of the courtroom, with access to his legal council limited? Do you know that access to the public was extremely limited during the hearing? Assange, if he doesn’t die in Belmarsh - which seems to be the intention - will be tried in a US jurisdiction with 100% conviction rates for national security cases. He won’t get a jury, just as he never did in UK. Obviously you reject Wikileaks as a journalistic enterprise and agree with Pompeo that it is a nest of spies. Not sure you’ve really grasped what is going on here.

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I notice that Jeff Carter managed to duck the details in this 2017 Intercept article describing multiple Wikileaks messages to Donald Trump, Jr. in 2016, including the October 21, 2016 message (above) -- not just the 2016 Election Night message that Matt referenced.

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/wikileaks-julian-assange-donald-trump-jr-hillary-clinton/

Jeff has also consistently ducked the history of Roger Stone dining with Assange in London in 2016, before he dropped hints about the impending Wikileaks dumps to undermine the Clinton campaign.*

(BTW, Jeff also ducked the damning facts from the Reality Winner interview on 60 Minutes, concerning the Trump administration suppressing the NSA data about Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. election.)

As for protecting the safety and freedom of journalists, it's a cause we all support, but why has Jeff Carter never expressed any concerns about the numerous Russian journalists murdered by Putin?

* Wikileaks and the 2020 U.S. Senate Intelligence Report on Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. election

• In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
• WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
• Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
• At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.

I'll try again.  Perhaps the third time is the charm... 

(Benjamin Cole keeps changing the subject right after I post, with his tangential gibberish.)

In this case, it's about Jeff Carter's least favorite subject-- Putin's 2016 cyber warfare campaign to put his Orange Asset, Donald Trump, in the White House, with the help of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.