Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Friday, December 17, 2010

Okay, so just who IS this Assange guy?

I'll have the rest of the Abramoff/Obama story soon. In the meantime, a word or two about Wikileaks.

Frankly, I believe Julian Assange when he says that he had no contact with the imprisoned Private Bradley Manning.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Bradley Manning is being kept in very rough detention in order to pressure him to testify against Assange. So far, all the evidence suggests that Manning did not reveal the State Department cables. The helicopter video, perhaps -- but not the later releases. I've said it before and will say it again: This poor schlub has fall guy written all over him.

In other words, the administration plans to "Dreyfus" Private Manning until he breaks. If and when he does (and keep in mind that Dreyfus finally cracked), I would counsel taking a skeptical attitude toward his testimony.

The Assange conundrum continues to perplex. On one hand, the right-wingers are screaming for his head -- literally. On the other hand, you can make a pretty good argument that most WikiLeaked material serves a right-wing agenda: Embarrass Hillary, foment hostility against Iran, boost global warming denial, and so on. Some of the leaked anti-Iran documents buttress the viewpoint propagated by these forgeries.

Michel Chossudovsky gives us a background briefing worth noting, although I advise you to read cautiously. (Even for me, Chossudovsky is too foily.) An early adviser to WikiLeaks was the right-wing Freedom House, which had links to the Bush administration. The original focus of the WikiLeaks operation was China and Russia; we are even told that Russian and Chinese dissidents helped to create the site.

John Young, founder of Cryptome.org, thinks that Assange has been secretly working for "the Man" from the beginning. (Of course, Young may simply be paranoid.) One of Assange's closest early associates in the hacker community is employed by DARPA. Right now, Assange is under "manor arrest" in the abode of a wealthy "right wing libertarian." Chossudovsky:
Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation...
Well...maybe. But story gets even odder.

WikiLeaks is allegedly supported, at least in part, by Carl Lundstrom, who can usually be spotted goosestepping around the far right of Sweden's far right. It also appears that one Israel Shamir has a place among Assange's small coterie of employees. Shamir is just about the oddest duck in Duckberg: Although he claims to be a Russian-born Israeli, he also writes ludicrously anti-Semitic material under the name Jordan Jer­mas. In Sweden, he and his son (who is just as bizarre) are counted among the Scandanivian versions of Alex Jones and Milton Cooper. At this point, I can't tell if the "Jermas" identity is some sort of cover (a la "John Roy Carlson," a pseudonym which may be familiar to some of you), or if the "Israel Shamir" persona was bogus to begin with. Either way, my nostrils detect an unpleasant odor.

Worth noting: Very little WikiLeaks material has proven embarrassing to Israel or to the neo-cons. True, we have this and this, but I consider that stuff to be weak tea. The vast majority of the WikiLeaked documentation pushes for war with Iran -- a goal of America's neo-cons and Likud's hawks.

Count me among those who think that the rape allegations against Assange seem honeytrap-ish -- downright outlandish. A raped woman isn't going to let the rapist sleep in her bed for the next week, and isn't going to tell friends that the guy is a lousy lay. Feminist readers may become infuriated by these words, but I don't care: No male dissident is safe if the unverified word of a female is considered sacrosanct. The idea of a woman making false accusations may be inconceivable to you, but not to me. (Does anyone still believe Juanita Broaderick?)

So where does this leave us? Some web sites will tell you that Julian Assange is a tool of Western intelligence; others say that he is the target of Western intelligence. Both sides can mount an intriguing argument. Some call him an anti-Semite (or at least a friend to anti-Semites), while others call him a stooge for Israel. Both sides can mount an intriguing argument.

In short: The man finds himself on the receiving end of mutually contradictory accusations. That takes talent.

One possibility: Maybe Assange's operation began as an intelligence front. Then he went off the reservation. Simple as that.

Another possibility: Assange is legit -- and naive. The neo-cons decided to use him for a two-fold purpose: First, to spread memes favoring their cause -- and second, to get laws and legal precedent in place which may one day be used to shut down all investigative reporting.

Your take...?
Comments:
If Assange were legit and NOT naive, what would he have done or be doing differently?
 
How can you know what a raped woman is or isn't going to let the rapist do? Fear motivates all kinds of behaviors later deemed "irrational."

No one says the unverified word of a woman is sacrosanct. Just like ANY OTHER HUMAN'S accusation, it deserves its day in court. That's all we feminists you don't care about are asking for.

*****A
 
Adrienne, you haven't read the stories. Portraying this woman as living in fear is just inane.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
I should probably just make this a post on Sky Dancing, but here's my 2 cents. It isn't about Assange. It isn't about the rape allegations. That's a side show to get the intellectually gullible to not see the bigger issue. Assange seems to be an A-hole. As to the rape, I'm sure he'll get his day in court in Sweden. ALL of that is beside the point. He is just a vehicle like the NYT or WAPO used to be back in the day when Journalism meant something. When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the pentagon papers, Nixon tried to make it all about him. That's why they broke into his psychiatrist's office. Assange isn't even the leaker. We're torturing the leaker right now in solitary confinement. Assange is just the vehicle. It's the thing the magicians want you to look at while they do they're illusions. I've just about had it with the intellectually gullible and lazy and that don't see through this. Flint and Moore didn't turn Assange into an icon. It's the vehicle he represents. The right of journalists and their medium to print the tales of whistle blowers. The RAPE accusations don't matter to the major story and the major ethos here. They're a distraction. Look away! Or go read Daniel Ellsberg's website. He's spot on because he faced Nixon's paranoia and power. No difference!
 
I read the story, and it seemed like sex with consent. Speaking as a woman, I can't believe the Swedish government is making a case out of it. I'm glad the newspaper got the details of the accusation, I can dismiss it as hooey.
 
Note that the Wikileaks documents strongly confute the 9/11 Truth Movement.

There is nothing in any of the Wikileaks releases that corroborates the "inside job" theory" of 9/11. This serves as a whopping big proof that 9/11 was not an inside job. Had it been anything of the kind, there would surely be plenty of references to it in the Wikileaks material.

But there is nothing whatsoever. Not a jot. There is doodley-squat.

The only group of Truthers who can explain the apparent lack of evidence in the Wikileaks documents are the ones who believe the Mossad brought off 9/11. But this scenario, too, has fatal flaws--i.,e., if the Mossad had brought off 9/11, the Truthers who say the Mossad did it would no longer be with us.
 
I largely agree with dakinikat.
But I will briefly address the rape case. I disagree with you (regarding "honeytrap-ish -- downright outlandish"). I substantially believe the accounts in the police report. There are questions of interpretation (ala Rashomon). And I have particular questions about Ardin's interpretation of stuff (for example, see Ardin's blog post claiming that her Eldorado-brand orange juice contained urine, and that she's sure it must have been added by workers engaged in a trade union protest). And I suspect that, given the circumstances outlined in the report, prosecution would likely not have occurred (and especially not with such zeal) were Assange not the individual in question (see some interesting info here). However, I believe major elements of the accusers' accounts (especially Welin's) and believe that Assange's actions constitute clear bounday violations (with subsequent failure to act responsibly regarding legitimate STD fears). And my instinct in watching him is that he has an entitlement aspect consistent with such behavior (even though I recognize his courage in founding Wikileaks). A flawed vessel (as, in some ways, was Ellsberg).
 
With regard to the content of the cables serving a right-wing agenda... Remember that only a tiny fraction of the cables have been released thus far, in conjunction with traditional media (NYT, Der Spiegel, etc). Their usefulness to any particular agenda may grow or shrink as more are released.
 
I want to second dakinikat's suggestion to go to ellsberg.net instead of attending to the distraction of judging Assange.

Fascism wants whistle blowers not to have any vehicle to be heard. Further, if something leaks, fascism will go all out to distract the people from understanding what it is up to.

What it is up to is destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
The whole story reminds me of a William Gibson story, where one character has "has recently come into possession of a very high-grade source of intelligence and is busy converting it into power." I don't think WikiLeaks is high-grade, but the dynamics are the same.

So, we shouldn't discount the possibility that there are several major actors, with contradictory motives and goals. There might not be a master narrative! For example, Assange may have been betrayed by his backers -- or his supporters! And vice versa!

As far as Juanita Broderick.... Somewhere, there's a Broderick-er site, I have no doubt. But as to the general case: Speaking to "No male dissident is safe...," the obvious riposte is "Keep your pants zipped! Then you'll be safe!" And the fact that Assange didn't do that, in the midst of what all the conflicting actors would admit is an important intel operation/developing story does not speak well of him. Very poor tradecraft! And the riposte to that brings us right back to Juanita Broderick, since if the unverified word of anybody is taken for truth, nobody is safe, not even somebody in a locked room... (Which is a feature, not a bug, for people who run disinformation campaigns.)

Rashomon, indeed.

Oh, and I'm with Hoarseface. We can't really infer the agenda of the cables from what's been released.

-- lambert
 
Re: Israel Shamir, there is a controversy in Russia regarding possibly forged, or at least heavily spun, cables.

Critics Allege Russian Magazine Is Misrepresenting WikiLeaks Cables
 
You do know that he is not actually accused of rape, don't you?
 
Part 1
There are elements of the Assange story that need more explanation

The Ray & Bruce Adreani family (Parkridge and Northbrook, IL) and Louis Chinon Family (McHenry, Il) control the flow of drugs for the Midwest. Illinois receives a $100million sized shipment of Cocaine each week which amounts to more than $5Billion per year. The US Drug business is expected to exceed $300Billion. Comparing $5Billion for Illinois suggests the Midwest alone is multiples of $5Billion. The two families mentioned which I was in one of them have a lot of control, but how much control, how much wealth? It’s been suggested to me that the Adreani family alone is the wealthiest family in the northern half of Illinois, remember this includes the Chicago area. I know the Drug Lords OWN everyone!

Bruce Adreani has bragged about the family being CIA Assets. The CIA is who is managing the Drug system and it’s now important to realize how huge the CIA presence is in the State of Illinois or others. Jesse Ventura in a video, talks about having to attend a special meeting in the basement of the Capital after being elected Governor. A meeting was held by CIA Operatives of all ages from the 20’s to 70’s. Jesse was instructed to leave alone CIA employees and when replacing, they will appoint someone. Same is true for Newspapers, Radio Stations and companies.

Then there is another part that involves our Mega Churches, Village Churches and other Social areas including the Dance Communities, Singles Communities and more. My Life, Facebook and other social systems are used this way too. Bruce Adreani told me that the Village Church in Northbrook is a collection area for people who are used for Stalking, Snooping and causing trouble on anyone they want to focus on. Murder has also happened too. I personally know that these people are supported by layers of others specializing in wiretapping, breaking and entering and much more. It’s a huge wide net of organized people working together. Also corrupted Drug Police linked to Louis Chinon who runs two Security Investigation Co hiring off duty Police is involved but it gets worse. These people work in unison with Hospitals (three were selected in the 90’s) as a way to exterminate threatening people in a real quiet manner. Bruce Adreani told me that this method is used because Families don’t question the murder. Currently there are witnesses to murders done at Central DuPage hospital. This method is so successful that the criminal system calls them “Killing Machines”. This may also be called “The Company”.

So how do targets, like Assange be led into traps? With me, the women sent were called “Death Angels” since their focus was to use love to manipulate me into trouble. In some cases this ended up in attempts on my life.

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
 
P1 showed problems with saving....

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
 
P2
After showing I wasn’t going to bite with a “Honey Trap”, they changed their tactics to “Slutty Love”. This is where the “Death Angel” snags your heart to cause you to be seriously jealous but that eventually didn’t work either. The ladies involved were deeply involved with a select group of male CIA Operatives involving a collection of things including overnight orgies with multiple partners. It seems sex was being used as an addiction for control. There are witnesses to this as well.

I’m a very high ranking Federal Level Whistleblower. This has brought a great deal of trouble for me from the criminal side. The Drug system has been purchasing homes around me and populating them with operatives. It’s thought they have been doing the same to the witnesses as well. My home is heavily populated with camera’s and listening devices. Telling a family member that I was going out would have cars immediately appear outside my home. It’s estimated they spent more than $3million in purchasing 10 homes. Police action has minimized their activities. One home was used as a command center for wire tapping and the occupants that I’m aware of are in Jail.

Assange may have been treated the same way. There are questions if he is real or not. If he is, his world and other Whistleblowers are much like mine. Anything discussed within the home or by listening to cell phones is captured and used against them.

This works because “it’s all about relationships”. This criminal group or “The Company” works very covertly in a slithering manner and they don’t seem to be worried about how long it takes. They surround you with people hoping you select someone to be friends with. If you’re already with someone, they destroy the relationship so one of their people can move into your inner circle.

So how many have been murdered this way? Stories from the family and by Bruce Adreani, it’s est over 20 years that more than 80 people have been setup and murdered.

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
 
Maybe I haven't done my homework, in which case I hope someone will lend me some notes, but I fail to see how anything I've read about bolsters the case for war with Iran. What it does seem to do is show Sunni Arab antipathy towards Iran, not surprising to me because Iran is Shi'ite and non-Arab, and a whole lot of lying about what was really being said behind the scenes. Why would Americans outside the Bush orbit take their instructions from Saudi Arabia? Please educate me.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind