December 10, 2010

Wikileakers abandon Assange; world leaders embrace him

With a small band of former associates stepping up their inner egos and more publicly turning on him (and getting the usual turncoat book deals), a ‘growing band of international leaders’ have broken rank with the US and Australian by coming out in support of Assange.  Among them, bizzarely, Vladimir Putin, who has described Assange’s detention in Britain as “undemocratic”.

Weird but true.  

Even weirder:  Russians are calling for Assange to be nominated for the Noble Peace Prize, which might be a step too far.  

Former Wikileaks employees – to henceforth be known as “defectors” – are variously describing Assange as:

-         autocratic
-         capricious
-         emperor
-         slave trader
-         non-consultative
-         not a king
-         not a god
-         not a leader

The defectors are going to launch a Wikileaks rival site next week, called Openleaks.  The new organisation will not host documents itself, preferring to be an intermediary between all interested parties, including MSM.

Openleaks, so the new leaders say, will be run democratically by all members.  (Good luck with that.)

The defecting group, along with their complaints and new aspirations, are par of the course for any organisation that is essentially the brainchild of an individual or small group:  when that initial cell grows, out of necessity, there comes a point when the peons feel ownership over the beast that they begin to believe they should be running the place.  It’s a dirt common scenario in business.  (It’s not unlike people who buy a house next to a pub and then insist on noise laws being changed because music and drunken customers are keeping then up at night.  Should have noticed that before you moved in ...) Did any of them think Assange was the type to consult and mollycoddle?  

Assange: "I am the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off."

His idea, his money, his baby, his rules. 

In between launching the rival site, Assange’s former right hand man, Daniel Domschelt-Berg, is writing a tell-all book -  Inside WikiLeaks: My Time at the World's Most Dangerous Website.   
One way or another, the defectors will continue to make a healthy living off their former boss. 

Funnies to note:

- In 2011 the U.S will host “World Press Freedom Day”.

- Joe Lieberman is a member of the “Global Internet Freedom Caucus” and also sponsored a bill to support “Internet censorship victims” in Iran.


  1. Solomon7:57 PM

    I loved the Putin comment. Glasnost and perestroika.

    And yes, Assange is Der GrĂ¼nder von Wikileaks.

  2. Anonymous8:39 PM

    Russians are calling for Assange to be nominated for the Noble Peace Prize, which might be a step too far.

    Yeh, he hasn't killed enough kids to get one of those yet.


  3. No, but how long can they put him away for breaking a condom, and can he sue the manufacturer of said condom?

    Have finally caught up on all of the URLs that you and/or Jacob posted (yeah, the vanishing ones) and the details of his sexual encounters, and the apparantly unmotivated collusion of the two women - who didn't previously know each other, prior to comparing condom stories - is strange.

    Bemused as to what they thought they would achieve, and I'm still unconvinced that either of them were reluctant participants sans condoms.

    (Was the blowjob at the theatre with or without rubber?)

  4. Solomon9:09 PM

    Depends if he deliberately broke the condom and/or continued to fuck the woman after she told him to stop, as some reports have claimed.

    I still don't have any idea what actually happened. The article I read (from the daily mail, from memory) was leaked but also contained a lot of blackouts, so even according to the womens own story I'm foggy as to the details. I read about an incident in a movie theatre but it may or may not have been a blowjob.

    One of the women wore a pink sweater so I guess that settles it. She was asking for it.

    I'm not as yet convinced the decision to prosecute (or at least obtain him for questioning) by Marianne Ny was politically motivated.

    If he ends up in Sweden and then is promptly extradited to the US to face espionage I might change my mind. Though why, if the US is so chummy with the UK, would that be necessary?

    Asylum in Russia might be fun.

  5. "One of the women wore a pink sweater so I guess that settles it. She was asking for it."

    Sol - I know, or assume, you're being flippant, but just to be clear on this: I have never, nor would I ever, question the integrity or truthfulness of any child or woman claiming to have been raped.

    By their own statements, neither woman was raped. I accept THEIR version of events at face value.

    See link posted earlier - it's a good enough summary of public information to date (the O/S reporting is more thorough about the charges than anything we're getting locally:

  6. Solomon9:59 PM

    Flippant? No, sarcastic.

    From your link:

    "Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose, while Miss W said the unprotected sex act had been without her consent."

    What am I missing here? Their version is that a) he deliberately sabotaged a condom and b) that he had sex with a woman without her consent. Both acts, if proven, amount to sexual assault.

    I can understand why it would have been dropped for lack of evidence (when is there EVER any evidence of such crimes?) and also why someone like Marianne Ny, might not accept such a decision as acceptable in the pursuit of justice and might be tempted to look into it a little further.

  7. Sorry, yes, meant sarcasm, or similar.

    That police statement was rather different to original - public - statements.

    I'm not bothered to go trowling through the public records found online by others, from both women, and at least one of them having spoken to a journalist.

    And yes, I should have differentiated between the police statements, as opposed to their spontaneous and happy public statements after their respective sexual encounters.

    (At least one of them has a partner ... is that why, sudden pique of guilt, one and then both was concerned about sexual diseases?)

    Anyway, you keep insisting on singling out grains of sand Sol, which is your way, not going to order to learn to collate, analyze and synthesis the grains so as to create a beach.

    I just have a different breadth of view, and it would be impossible to change my way analytic habits too.

    It's just not useful to single out grains of sand when you already know it's a beach.

  8. Solomon10:09 PM

    If Julian Assange's version is true: that he had unprotected, casual sex with two women in the course of a few days, I still don't approve. Is this 1984? Hello? But I could not give a fuck. That is his private life.

    Regardless of the truth of events, his work on Wikileaks should be judged independently of his personal indiscretions and it can survive without him and will continue.

    I'm confident he will receive a fair trial in Sweden, if it ever comes to that.

  9. Solomon10:17 PM

    I don't accept these other "spontaneous and happy public statements" at face value.

  10. Who is seeking approval or disapproval of whether or not any man and consenting women use condoms?

    It's not illegal to be stupid in sexual matters Sol.

    And, really, what man "deliberately" breaks a condom ... can't wait for the cross examination of the witness in relation to that.

    From whence does you confidence come about a fair trial in Sweden Sol?

    A whole bunch of the best legal minds in the world - genuinely, demonstrably, proven so - are quite certain that he will not receive a fair trial, and are giving their services because of their educated opinion on the matter.

    That same bunch, with more info than you or I, also believe there is insufficient evidence to support the police charges that have been made.

    Don't forget Sol, despite hanging about and repeatedly offering to be questioned, the Swedish police have still not questioned him in relation to the matters.

    One normally likes to interview the "fugitive" before charging them, just to be sure they have rudimentary facts right, eg: was he there, did he meet either woman. Even those basic questions have never been put by the police.

    Yet you assert that he will be given a fair trial. You assessment is better than the best legal counsel in the world?

  11. Apologies for sloppy number of typo's in that last comment.

    Late, tired, grumpy, much to get done.

  12. Solomon10:24 PM

    He has the best legal counsel in the world to defend him.

  13. Solomon10:27 PM

    I'm not at all convinced the decision to prosecute was justified. Such decisions are, at least in Australia, discretionary and unreviewable. Which is problematic.

    But the weaknesses in the case will be brought out when and if it goes to trial.

  14. Solomon10:29 PM

    Also I meant 1984 the year-when-we-knew-less-about-AIDS not 1984 the Orwell concept.

  15. Yes, indeed, indeed.

    However, it remains true that the best defence is not the basis of a fair trial. If only that was true.

    OJ had the best defense: he murdered two people, brutally, and walked free.

    Ah, I'm conflating justice and a fair trial ... not always in alignment and certainly not fungible concepts.

    Those best legal minds, in the first instance, are going to try to see to it that he doesn't go back to Sweden, such is their concern that a fair trial is impossible.

  16. A little earlier actually: 1981 and 82 were alarming. Anyone in 1984 who claimed they had no idea would have been kidding themselves.

    (Well, you know, other than Reagan.)

    Gay men were dying in droves, and AIDS had quickly spread to a couple of dozen countries, or rather, was identified in ... although it was firmly considered a gay disease and intravenous drug user disease at that point, so those women in Sweden and Assange, if engaging in congress back then, would not have felt any need to use condoms; you're quite right.

    I was partial to your comment being 1984 - the book - rather than the year.

  17. Solomon10:41 PM

    My apologies, given that I was born in 1983 it was merely an estimate.

  18. I was well aware that you had not been born Sol; was not having a dig.

    It was an interesting time.

    Have you ever read the book "And the band played on"?

    The film was utter crap, but the book was compelling, and, dare I say it: a page turner!

  19. Solomon10:46 PM

    It seems less like a "concern" than a legal strategy intended to best serve the interests of the client. And he will receive a fair extradition hearing in Britain, so far as these things go.

    Most political prisoners should be so lucky.

  20. Solomon10:49 PM

    I'm afraid I haven't read it and/or heard of it. Though I have seen the movie "Philadelphia" a number of times (I jest).

    "The law has been broken. You remember the law don't you?"

  21. I don't get all woozy over every little law broken Sol.

    Even those great legal minds cringe over the particular laws in this case.

    Me ... I'm more worried about broken condom and the fastidiousness of the head job.

  22. geoff5:30 PM

    Y'know Caz, I reckon a whole thread here has gone down that Blackberry sinkhole now. It's on the march I tell you. Either that or I'm having those weird dreams again.

  23. I'm resorting to the Blackberry incident of 2010 Geoff, even though, technically, the Blackberry is blameless.

    My searching has thrown up no solution, and has identified very few others who have had the same problem, but they are out there. Seems to have been some incidents 12 months ago, and others more recently.

    Each time, I deduce that the problem passes, in due course, and the people affected conclude that it was a known issue and a fix put in place. Clearly it's not a known issue and no fix has been put in place.

    I'm figuring we will all tough it out and this too will pass. In the meantime, so very, very, very, bloody annoying.