Ghoul Directory

Death to Julian Assange, his offspring, the Wikileaks board, all of us, the internet, etc. Contrary to what these clowns have learned from video games and Hollywood, most countries do have laws. And public opinion works both ways. This is a list of the ghouls and it will soon contain what can be done about them. Sadly, I expect it to grow faster than the NOD. While reading this sickening post, please keep in mind that no one associated with Wikileaks has broken any laws, and Wikileaks’ work over the past four years has caused no physical harm to anyone. If the world ever needed a more pure indication of how long and how much the world’s media has been lying, take a look at what happens when a media organization tells the truth.

Bob Beckel

“A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, a treasonist and has broken every law of the United States. I’m not for the death penalty and if I’m not for the death penalty there’s only one way to do it, illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”

Bo Dietl (Beau Dietl & Associates)

Agrees with Bob Beckel, making shooting sounds with imaginary gun like a four year old on national TV. “Obama, if you’re listening today, you should take this guy out, have the CIA take him out.”

Tom Flanagan

Former Harper adviser, former US draft dodger, who now wants Obama to send a drone after Julian Assange as his personal form of Viagra. After watching the show a woman sent Flanagan an email protesting and received a one line answer saying “Better be careful, we know where you live.” For those not familiar with this former advisor to prime minister Stephen Harper, he was also responsible for one of the most revolting moments in recent Canadian politics when he attempted to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman to vote with the conservatives by offering Cadman, who was dying of cancer, a million dollar life insurance policy for his family. It was turned down.

Update: Charges filed against Tom Flanagan. University of Calgary is doing nothing about a professor making death threats on national television while continuing to persecute students for posting feedback about a professor on facebook. Have a petition.

Newt Gingrich

“We should treat (Assange) as an enemy combatant, and as an absolute enemy of the United States.”

“And no one from WikiLeaks should feel comfortable the rest of their lives. These are bad people doing bad things, and they’re gonna get Americans and our allies killed. And we should recognize that, and recognize that it is in effect an act of war against the United

Jonah Goldberg

“Why wasn’t Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?”

States.”

Kimberly Guilfoyle

“If we can find a way to get him to come to the United States we can take matters into our own hands.”

“Jonolan”

(on twitter @DarkOgham, myspace.com/jonolan1967)
Assange “has at least one acknowledged son, Daniel Assange, who lives something close to normal life in Australia and who is easy to find and equally easy to harm either physically, legally, or economically. Physical harm would be best.”

“That’s makes Julian Assange vulnerable and quite “touchable.” Threaten his child and it’s an odds-on bet that he’ll let himself be taken and that, once in custody, he’ll divulge the information needed to eliminate the rest of his cell. Even if he won’t surrender voluntarily, credibly threatening or taking his son should rattle him enough to cause him to err and be an easier target.”

Update: Now this blog has been updated with:

CENSORED]

Some of the “people” that have been defending Assange’s “freedom of speech” have complained to my hosting provider in such a manner that I have been forced to censor / redact this post.

Ironic isn’t it?

Some of them found my statements profoundly disturbing and were frightened by the thought that they might cause someone harm. In response they had me silenced by the most efficient methods at their disposal.

Actually, they proved my point and validated my opinion of what should be done, as did various deleted death threats against my family and I (all reported to US Agencies and agencies of their own nations).

[/CENSORED]

Earlier Daniel Assange had added this comment:

somnidea Says:
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:56 am

Why must people use such terrible, terrible photos? Look! I have pretty sparkly purikura!: http://www.facebook.com/somnidea

As to the content… hmm. I’m not sure my father is the sort of man to submit to such dastardly tactics. I haven’t spoken to him in three years, so there’s certainly no immediate emotional connection to be preyed upon. Even if it were effective, I suspect that Wikileaks has now reached a point where it simply cannot be permanently destroyed. Now that the concept has been demonstrated, I expect another organization would rise in its place even if my father and everyone he knows were to be silenced. Technology as a force for social change is extremely difficult to suppress.

And received in response:

jonolan Says:
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:57 am

Mr. Assange,

Believe me or not at your own whim, but I actually bear you no malice whatsoever; you would just seem to be useful tool to reach your father if your father proved difficult to track and pin down or if he failed to cooperate.

If it is as you say that putting pressure upon you would not be an effective lever, then I see no point in any nation’s military or intelligence community doing. Hopefully, if you are both honest and correct in your claim, they already know this and have come to the same conclusion.

As to the photo quality – it was the only one I could find. Post a better one on your FB and I’ll use it instead. ;-)

As to Wikileaks – Removal of key personnel and informants / contributors would be quite effective in quelling such things. The tech is sound and pervasive, but the content and content “contributors” can be controlled or culled as needed for national interests.

Addendum: You do have a loyal following of “twits.” Ironically though, many of them are calling for my being silenced through one set of measures or another.

They seem to think that the limit of Free Speech is when it harms people or says that agents of a government should do so…

I wonder what your father would think of that. ;-)

Update 2: See comments.

John Hawkins

“In Assange’s case, he’s not an American and so he has no constitutional protection. … Can we do anything legally about someone from another country leaking this information? Maybe not. Can we have a CIA agent with a sniper rifle rattle a bullet around his skull the next time he appears in public as a warning? You bet we can — and we should. If that’s too garish for people, then the CIA can kill him and make it look like an accident.”

Peter King

‘asked the Obama administration today to “determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a foreign terrorist organization,” putting the group in the same company as al-Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult that released deadly sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.’

That’s this Peter King, IRA promoter. “The risk is that broader discussion of domestic support for foreign terrorism would lead to greater media attention for his history with the IRA support network. King claims that truth is terrorism: worse, even, than the killing of innocent American citizens. One has to wonder who here is the terrified party, and why.”

Charles Krauthammer

“Think creatively. … Franklin Roosevelt had German saboteurs tried by military tribunal and executed. Assange has done more damage to the United States than all six of those Germans combined. Putting U.S. secrets on the Internet, a medium of universal dissemination new in human history, requires a reconceptualization of sabotage and espionage – and the laws to punish and prevent them. Where is the Justice Department?

“And where are the intelligence agencies on which we lavish $80 billion a year? Assange has gone missing. Well, he’s no cave-dwelling jihadi ascetic. Find him. Start with every five-star hotel in England and work your way down.

“Want to prevent this from happening again? Let the world see a man who can’t sleep in the same bed on consecutive nights, who fears the long arm of American justice. I’m not advocating that we bring out of retirement the KGB proxy who, on a London street, killed a Bulgarian dissident with a poisoned umbrella tip. But it would be nice if people like Assange were made to worry every time they go out in the rain.”

William Kristol

Title is “Whack Wikileaks”. (I love all the tough guy euphemisms for murder these guys come up with behind their desks, in their little cubicles.)

“It’s hard to see why Thiessen isn’t right. Why can’t we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can’t we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible? Why can’t we warn others of repercussions from assisting this criminal enterprise hostile to the United States?”

“Acting together to degrade, defeat, and destroy WikiLeaks should be the first topic discussed at today’s White House meeting between the president and the congressional leadership.”

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

“Assassinate Assange” was the title. “The world is witnessing the absurd, almost surreal spectacle of the American superpower standing helpless in the face of a lone hacker.” Jeffrey needs to meet Anonymous, JA’s imaginary friends.

Bill O’Reilly

“If we catch you, we’re going to hang you.” etc., etc., etc.

Don Laird (commenter)

“Julian Assange, his assistants, staff and those who have provided Assange with administrative, logistical, operational and financial support and should, using the mechanisms and resources of their own intelligence and military infrastructures, with a sense of extreme prejudice, unmistakable permanence and finality render the same completely unable to continue their murderous crusade.

“Let the silence that follows the neutralization of Julian Assange, his staff and his co-conspirators speak volumes to the enlightened socialist academia, liberal intelligencia and those sneering, malicious self appointed bringers of “clarity and truth” remaining who toy with the idea of dabbling in what is nothing more than a treasonous, seditious exercise in self gratification wrapped in the robes of the self righteous.

“The sooner, the bloodier, the better.”

email is: acginc@telus.net IP is: 142.179.237.89 Bonnyville, Alberta

Update: This one added the following comment to the post at Zero Anthropology:

Don Laird permalink
5 December 2010 8:28 pm

Max Forte,

Your repeated references to my post are transparent, attempts to provoke a response. These repeated references in addition to revelations regarding email addresses and IP addresses. So I will respond with this.

Firstly, your readers will be rather amused at your “outing” of my email address, which troubles me not but may trouble them from several stand points. This will also no doubt be noted by your coworkers and students, to your considerable disadvantage.

Secondly, is the remarkable similarity between the difficulties, a tempest in a teacup, facing Professor Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary and you, an associate professor of Concordia University. Both are men who have made public statements advocating violence and murder, “should be assassinated” and your little quip, “then we all call for your fucking little head to be cut off and flushed down the toilet”. Both will, as a result of their indiscretion, suffer a withering scrutiny of their remarks by both the president of the university and its board of trustees.

There is no ambiguity in your incitement to decapitate me. This will be of significant concern for your coworkers, fellow professors, students, students parents and your superiors. In addition, considering your affection for decapitation and radical islam, I am certain this will be of interest to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service as well as the RCMP. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that radical muslims and radical muslim sympathizers are not terribly popular in Canada.

Understand very clearly Mr. Forte, parents of students in attendance at Concordia University are made most uncomfortable by university professors who, in close proximity to their children, advocate and promote the sort of violence you have today. This is something that is also not lost on your employers and your coworkers who, as you suffer your own consequences, will no doubt distance themselves from you.

You may try to dismiss your gaffe as a “passionate moment” but rest assured Mr. Forte, considering your proximity to Ecole Poly Technique and the massacre of the young women there at the hands of an unbalanced murderous student, there are many who will be most uncomfortable knowing they and their students are walking the halls with a very unstable man. Your avocation of violence and murder is a breech of trust with your students and employers and no doubt this will be viewed in the same light by the community at large.

Most Sincerely,

Don Laird

Adrian Lamo

Still desperately seeking attention, after already ensuring his name in history’s most despised. Twitter name 6. Drop him a tweet.

Ezra Levant

“Why is Assange still alive? … WikiLeaks could have its assets seized, just like the Taliban has. And U.S. President Barack Obama could do what he’s doing to the Taliban throughout the world.

“He doesn’t sue them or catch them. He kills them. Because it’s war.

“Obama has even ordered the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

“How does Obama see Assange any differently?”

Mitch McConnell

(US Republican Senate leader) “Congress should change the law if necessary to pursue the 39-year-old Australian.”, “I think the man is a high-tech terrorist.”

Joel Mowbray

“He’s a blackmail extortionist terrorist.”

Sarah Palin

(reality TV star) “Hunt down the WikiLeaks chief like Taliban”, “He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders?” Unintentional hilarity: Palin copies Jonah Goldberg’s “serious question”, but both of them are answering Assange. He asks the world to look at the “serious questions” he puts in front of them, they say the serious question is why is he alive?

Rick Santorum

The “founder of the WikiLeaks website should be prosecuted as a terrorist”.

Marc Thiessen

“Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business.”

“the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law” and that an “arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.”

Christian Whiton

“1. Indict Mr. Assange and his colleagues for espionage, regardless of whether he is presently in a U.S. jurisdiction, and ask our allies to do the same.

2. Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.

3. Freeze the assets of the WikiLeaks organization and its supporters, and sanction financial organizations working with this terrorist-enabling organization so they cannot clear transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.

4. Give the new U.S. Cyber-Command a chance to prove its worth by ordering it to electronically assault WikiLeaks and any telecommunications company offering its services to this organization.”

Accountability

Australia: s.11.4(1) of the Criminal Code : inciting a crime is illegal.
Canada: Section 22 (counselling or aiding or abetting culpable homicide when an actual crime has been committed) and Section 464 (the same but re a crime not yet committed).

JA’s imaginary friends: Anonymous

Regarding the updated post and comment: Do you believe these two? Sit and complacently order up murder from behind a computer screen and cry like babies when they are called on it? Janolin cries about having to redact something that would harm a person he supposedly wants to harm to get back at someone for supposedly not redacting enough. Don Laird deplores violent threats.

Obviously, persons of very little intelligence who see the talking heads on TV doing something think it’s perfectly ok for them to do it too. Time to address the talking heads on TV.

53 thoughts on “Ghoul Directory

  1. Love the title. ;)

    I’ll look around as well for Ezra Levant’s vomit-worthy piece in the Sun chain papers. I think he couched his insinuations carefully since he’s a lawyer and has also run into a few other legal challenges lately. But he belongs on your honour roll.

  2. The Yanks have always had this stupid view that ‘decapitation strikes’ will work on their enemies. it is dopey schlock from B-grade westerns.

    It also has some nice embedded ‘herrenvolk’ mentality: if you lobbed a missile into the Oval Office, the supposition is that the US state machine would not grind to a halt… but if you off the guy with the biggest feather head-dress, the rest of the braves will turn their pintos and head for them thar hills.

    This silly b-grade Western “kill the chief” view wasn’t true even back in the Wild West as the US Army was butchering as they stole the land – the first modern genocide. And it’s most certainly not true now.

    As William S Lind has written for DECADES, the characterising feature of 4th generation war the decentralisation of the command structure; even if you believe in the “Kill Sitting Bull” view, you can’t cut the head off a snake if it has no head.

    The US is trying to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, using 2nd Gen (pre-blitzkreig) tactics (with some limited 3rd gen “mobility warfare” capability that the US is actually not very good at)… agaisnt a 4th gen enemy that is more sophisticated than the 4th-gen enemies in either Vietnam or Somalia (both conflicts thatthe US lost, unambiguously: their only possibility for victory was to commit genocide).

    If anything, the as-yet-undeclared wa

    • oops – hit ‘enter’ by accident.

      Continuing my great long book-length comment:

      If anything, the as-yet-undeclared war on Wilileaks is against a FIFTH-generation enemy (which I will now define, extending the theory of military doctrine); the ‘enemy’ is distributed, has no identifiable command structure, and exists in a battlespace that cannot be defined geographically. The contrast to 4th-gen is that 5th-gen participants are also within one’s own borders, can operate pseudonymously, and are not identifiable among your own population.

      Recipe for a humiliation…

      Cheerio

      GT

  3. Excellent coverage. Those who support such statements as you listed above, never stop to think: using violence to achieve political aims, calling for murder, and attempting to strike fear into those who support those with different positions…well, that’s “terrorism” isn’t it!?

    ter·ror·ism   
    [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

    terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)
    — n
    1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
    2. the act of terrorizing
    3. the state of being terrorized
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
    2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
    Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

    Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
    Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r-”i-z&m
    Function: noun
    1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
    2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism> — ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun — ter·ror·is·tic /”ter-&r-’is-tik/ adjective
    Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    Not only it is terrorism, and it’s terrorism at home, and against us, it is supported by the state which whips up this frenzy and never cautions restraint or calm–no P.J. Crowley, no Hillary Clinton, no Robert Gibbs, no Barack Obama, no Stephen Harper is to be heard saying: “…but let’s keep cool, we will not support vigilante behavior, and we will prosecute anyone inciting violence against Wikileaks or its supporters.” Nothing like that.

    It is terrorism, designed to support a fundamentalism of the state: the state has absolute rights, we have none except those the state allows us. We are not entitled to know the truth…the state will tell us what truth is, and keep as much as possible secret–because the best way to promote the truth is by keeping secrets. The terrorists you quoted NEVER confront themselves with even these basic questions–it makes them lunatics, dupes, and dangerous. At they very least they deserve or contempt and mockery. If they bite us, we should be ready to bite back, harder.

      • From my limited point of view, I saw the notion of terrorism shift from: “attacks against civilian, with no military meaning but only mediatic effect”…

        …to “any guerrilla by rebels or groups analigned with states”. And so all it takes is to blame one group’s legitimacy in the popular vote to open up carpet bombings.

    • and this makes it even more plausible that they were actually behind 9/11 themselves methinks. As they are very supportive of terrorism, indeed it seems to be one of their first methods of attack.

  4. Implied in Harold Koh’s letter to JA and his lawyer (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AR1E420101128), if I read it correctly, is the threat that WL supporters might be targeted by the US as a result of the publications. Here’s what he says…
    “Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security”
    This strikes me as a list of those calling out for freedom of speech, rule of law, and democracy.
    Am I mistaken?

    • It’s not an illegal threat like the rest, but this is fascinating: “It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.”

      So, documents go from source => Wikileaks => The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, the other three are responsible journalists. Amazing.

      • What would it take for those newspapers to go from being respected publications to being criminalised profiting from newly defined espionage activities? It’s not a situation that I would like to think about and it sounds downright paranoid, but Assange’s security measures prior to November were often thought to be paranoid.

        Also, with all the talk of changing legislation to “get” Assange, I thought it was a sort of legal impossibility. It seems he has been meticulous about sticking to the letter of the law so he knows exactly what is going on whereas the American establishment has been taken by surprise.

        Applying laws retroactively opens a whole can of worms that judges and the law in general simply cannot allow. To allow it once would be the thin edge of the wedge. Using a different example it would be like outlawing abortion and then tracking down every woman who has ever had a legal abortion and punishing her for it. The chaos and injustice it would cause is pretty much unthinkable, although I’m sure many law students have had class discussions on it.

  5. You misquoted Alec Baldwin. His words started off harsh but he made his point at the end of the article. Allow me to copy and paste it for you, since you couldn’t be bothered the first time:

    “Even if you can not prove that anyone directly suffered as the result of those leaks, it’s the principle, right?

    Kind of like an attempted murder charge, right?

    Only one condition. You hold formal hearings on the Valerie Plame scandal. And you put that Low-Down-Gutless-Excuse-For-A-Vice-President Dick Cheney and that crypto-fascist maniac Richard Armitage on trial. Same as Julian Assange.

    Cheney and Armitage. Assange goes on trial, they go on trial.”

    • I am a little perturbed with this. Cheney, Armitage, Bush, Blair, Howard and so on should all be put on trial full stop. There is no trade off or deal to be done with this. It’s insulting in the extreme to their victims to suggest that this should be done if Julian Assange is tried.

    • Alec Baldwin is a comedy actor and best known for screaming at his 12 year old daughter. He might play a smart guy on 30 Rock but he’s really not.

  6. Just echoing Jeremy above. Alec Baldwin was making a brilliant point and unfortunately you have defamed him badly. PLEASE amend this mistake as quickly as possible. It is not a good look to shoot your own supporters.

    PS Great website otherwise . keep it up

  7. @Jeremy and Joseph. Oops. That was sent to me as a threat, and reading it with all the rest of the stuff above, I didn’t get his sarcasm. Apologies to Mr. Baldwin and thank you for pointing it out.

    @skdadl, x7o, xdiesp Thanks guys!

  8. Before the weekend, Bernd Debusmann wrote a smear piece on Assange and Wikileaks. It doesn’t call for violence though, it’s mainly a shoulder-shrugging cables-schmables number. This is what a Reuter’s field journalist who was twice shot on the job inexplicably thinks about Wikileaks.
    http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2010/12/03/a-counter-productive-wikileak/

    Reuters has blocked my comments to the piece, both yesterday and today. I made today’s comment milder in tone — In yesterday’s comment I had called the piece “utter rubbish” and used the word “idiotic” instead of “silly” — and added responses to other commenters, but it was still rejected without explanation.

    Bernd, you elide or deny critical points about the current extent of government secrecy as reported in the Time article that you referenced.

    You significantly misrepresent Assange’s views which are consistent in the public record, inaccurately accusing him of seeking utopia (how dare he), but then quoting him as saying, “It’s our goal to achieve a more just society,” which you then go on to characterize as “bombastic prediction.”

    You indulge in the silly cliche of suggesting that the leaks are too dangerous for the light of day yet contain nothing more than banal gossip, when in fact they reveal matters of grave public interest. One of several collateral benefits of these leaks is to demonstrate which old media journalists remain true to their craft.

    You cite an online Zogby poll and imply that such a poll genuinely represents U.S. opinion. The methodology of these “interactive” polls is not scientific.

    Your worst and most general error lies in seeking to blame Wikileaks for the potential actions of others. By doing so you only call your own ethical standards into question.

    This above point also addresses the question of the diplomat repeated here in comments. The purpose of a Q&A is to ask honest questions, not share your own views for which there are other available forums. Julian was pointing that out, if rather tersely.

    Bernd, those of us taking you to task on this editorial recognize that it is only your opinion. There is, however, a large difference between an informed opinion and the sort you have laid claim to here. The facts that should guide your views are widely available.

    Reuters says it “will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous” yet they permitted a comment calling Assange a “sociopath,” amongst other things. Nice one old media.

    Georgie, your coverage has been topshelf. Thanks.

    • Reuters freely admits in public forums that it writes articles under the direction of various British Government interests. So why read them? They are for sale. There is no integrity there.

      • I see. Thanks for the heads up. I guess an honest assessment of the people who disclosed the circumstances surrounding the killing of two of their employees is too much to ask.

  9. I read somewhere a comment saying something like “This leak is to the West what the Satanic Verses was for the fundamentalist part of the muslim world”.
    In a way it’s comparable.
    It’s a ray of sharp light straight into the deepest darkness.
    And it’s obvious just how dark the darkness has become accustomed to be. How big the mountain is to climb.

    Lies are truth.
    War is Peace.
    Secrecy is Openness.
    Evil is Good.

    There IS reason to be concerned. How the hell could our world go so fundamentally wrong?

  10. Wikileaks was inevitable with advancing technology, and only when the world wakes up to the will to achieve truth and justice, and we have true independent international laws which cannot be broken and hidden by the most corrupt and the richest and rogue countries, will we have a chance to survive.

    Unfortunately, with the religiously motivated half-wits alike Palin (or others of any delusion/denomination) running world affairs, only a secular world order can eventually hope to keep us from annihilation.

    These morons need to be brought to international courts for their threats, and thrown out of any office. Manipulating the dumb masses is becoming more difficult each day.

    I hope I live long enough to see it. This list might be the start? :)

    Best wishes to all we Georgie’s out here. X.

  11. One thing I’m not so sure about, is the publishing of non essential information. I mean: there’s lot of neutral or useless stuff, to browse through before reaching the scoop. Don’t care about those, but detractors use it to say WL is about a total transparency dictatorship with no privacy.

    Or like this medical facilities list all over the world: it’s probably public stuff, but it still looks like an unwarranted target list (unless someone sees anything particular about those industries).

    • I lolled when I got that they were targets alright… but of the USA: each site has to be monitored without resident countries knowing.

  12. (…)”documents go from source => Wikileaks => The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, the other three are responsible journalists. Amazing.” (georgiebc, 05.12.2010) That’s how to create surplus from information, the source gets zero. Assange and everyone else gets “fragged”, and the media giants make “a whole lot of cheddar” out of it, which they’ll feed us and our children. So they can pull it out of their sleeves, when they want us to be furious about some “petty little thing”, like the CIA torturing innocents hostages and the US and every other actor involved giving a flying rat’s shit about “human rights”, “democracy”, “empowerment” or whatsoever if they’re in their way, which of course is global economic and geostrategic expansion, “the new world order”, as how they’ll put it. People will become adjusted to this type of “leaks” and conditioned. They want Assange dead because then they’ll take control of the information, but media consumers around the globe will find his “intelligence-induced demise” even better proof of US-Repression on Information Freedom. WikiLeaks should be protected by US-Constitution Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (The United States Constitution, 1791 ), and US-Institutions should further rather make use of the redress-option as in: “redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [<OFr. redresser.] Source: AHD" like it is mentioned there, if they don't want to loose all their credits.

  13. Hey GeorgieBC, it looks like wlcentral is being censored too. Any URL that contains word wlcentral will turn into this:

    Forbidden

    You don’t have permission to access /about-us on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
    Apache/2.2.16 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.16 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_fcgid/2.3.5 Phusion_Passenger/2.2.15 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at wlcentral.org Port 80

    I dont know if it’s only happen to me, but please announce the mirror site! (if there is)

  14. You might, perhaps, consider me a “semi-reformed” ghoul. I was forced to redact my post that you quoted, but chose to delete in it’s entirety after seeing the pain it seemed to be causing a lot of otherwise uninvolved Australians who I had, and still have, no anger against.

    You can, of course, believe me or choose to say – as some who do not know me have – that it was a fear response. That’s up to you.

    • Erm, yes. “Semi-reformed”. Whoever wrote your apology for you did a good job. Unfortunately, they left up all the rest of your posts and let you answer comments. Thusly:

      “I still think Julian Assange needs to be nailed in some manner.”
      “I still stand by my assertion that the US Govt., or the Govs. of other Western powers should have green-lighted Julian Assange.”
      “I have done nothing more illegal than a great number of people, most of whom are for more important than I and who could effect far more chance of something coming of their words. I’m fairly sure that my statements, though admittedly reprehensible and hence deleted and apologized for, didn’t broke any US laws.”

      And “which legal entities would these be?” I think you’ve met them Jonolin. It’s not so fun being “green lighted” yourself, is it? By an organization that doesn’t bother going through the courts any more than your beloved government does? Personally, I don’t think your apology is going to help you. Do the words “We do not forgive. We do not forget.” mean anything to you? Or “Expect us.”?

      I think your best course of action would be to live in the same manner as the entire Assange family now has to. Do the police offer protection to those who issue death threats?

  15. This one by Biden is priceless:

    “This guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and OCCUPATION­S of people in other parts of the world.”

    Especially occupation­s in Afghanista­n and Iraq by american people, I dare say.

  16. Pingback: Look At What Just Happened | GeorgieBC's Blog

  17. Pingback: Full Sized iPhone Keyboard | My Blog

  18. Pingback: Zuberberg’s Facebook Page Hacked | My Blog

  19. Pingback: iCard ECG brings heart monitoring to the iOS device of your choice (video) | My Blog

  20. Pingback: New Windows 8 leak hints at SMS support, feature licensing, geo-location | Virginmed

  21. Pingback: Google Movies now available on Motorola Xoom WiFi tablets | Microchip technology

  22. Pingback: Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 retail version gets rooted | My Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s