Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism






Truthdig Bazaar
Geronimo

Geronimo

By Robert M. Utley
$30.00

more items

 
Arts and Culture

WikiLeaks Springs a Leak

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 11, 2011

By Laurel Maury

(Page 2)

Yes, we’re hearing only one side of the story, but despite his anger Domscheit-Berg tries to be evenhanded. He mostly succeeds. With a sort of concerned and beleaguered detachment, he recounts large abuses, such when Assange called him a pathological liar. (Though he loses his cool when describing how Assange deliberately tormented his cat.) However, the final straw wasn’t personal betrayal, but that the author came to the conclusion that Assange had lost sight of WikiLeaks’ mission. Domscheit-Berg believes an organization founded on transparency should be transparent in how it functions, and that both sources and the innocents mentioned in leaked documents should be better protected. In practice, Assange doesn’t agree.

This belief in transparency is a great turn-around from their early days at WikiLeaks, a time when Domscheit-Berg says he and Assange lied a great deal. Using a host of pseudonyms, they claimed technology they didn’t own, volunteers they didn’t have and legal teams that didn’t exist. The initial reason for their lies is clear: Both wanted to make the system look more widely supported and more technologically powerful and secure than it actually was. For instance, Assange and Domscheit-Berg claimed dozens of nodes across the globe back when their system still lived on a single, rickety server; “…truth was, our technology was junk,” he writes. But Assange also lied for no apparent reason, spinning incredible, self-aggrandizing stories, even telling lies that could hurt others. For instance, Assange bragged to the U.K.’s Guardian and other newspapers about WikiLeaks’ “harm-minimalization” policies designed to prevent the persecution of innocents—long before he’d mentioned these policies to WikiLeaks’ staff. Not only were the policies not in place when he described them, they simply didn’t exist. So the safeguards designed to protect military informants from disclosures in the so-called Afghan Diaries were last-minute and somewhat haphazard. 

 

book cover

 

Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website

 

By Daniel Domscheit-Berg

 

Crown, 304 pages

 

Buy the book

Is WikiLeaks really crippled?—possibly. Perhaps even probably. A check of the WikiLeaks site reveals that, yes, it is not accepting new material online. Assange spreads tales about his own genius, implying he can fix, or break into, just about anything, but according to Domscheit-Berg he’s only a reasonably talented, rather adventurous hacker. For instance, Domscheit-Berg claims Assange didn’t really crack the encrypted video of the infamous Apache helicopter attack; those files arrived with the password, the book says. (The idea that a sole hacker could break what was likely an NSA-approved military encryption is far-fetched, but one should note that Assange was convincing enough to make a believer of The New Yorker.) Also, WikiLeaks was turned into a strong, secure system not by Assange, the book alleges, but by the mysterious architect, whom Domscheit-Berg described as the real “in-house genius.” It was the architect who locked up the submissions platform and left at the same time as Domscheit-Berg. A perceptive reader might suspect that, if these two men used high-end encryption protocols and locked up documents as well, it may be that the WikiLeaks system must be rebuilt from the ground up, and that some leaked data will be forever lost to the site.

Always in the background is Domscheit-Berg’s strange affection for Assange. The author’s anger is palatable, but you get the feeling that he’s still under the WikiLeaks founder’s spell, and that if the lanky Australian arrived, shivering and penniless, at Domscheit-Berg’s door, the wronged man would welcome him back as a prodigal son. The author has passion and, quite possibly, integrity. What he lacks is perspective. One imagines loved ones engaging in interventions to pry his heart away from the charismatic towhead who appears to go through friends as one might cookies.

Although the book lacks perspective, its core message is clear: WikiLeaks is not Julian Assange; it’s an idea. (You can jail a man, not an idea.) Already, a Domscheit-Berg website, OpenLeaks, is in the works. Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera has a “leaksite” up and running. The Al-Jazeera site has already published articles based on a set of leaked documents it calls the Palestine Papers. And The New York Times claims to be planning its own leaksite. All these groups have a point. Journalism, as it’s currently practiced, is too much an ivory tower full of arcane ways and passwords known only to a few. It’s a one-way street. Journalists find stories to write about, but regular people with stories have no real way of finding journalists who will listen. Assange is incidental. WikiLeaks, the idea, changes the game.

Laurel Maury writes book reviews for a variety of publications and has written over 150 pieces for national and international publications, including The Los Angeles Times and NPR. She teaches English at Anne Arundel Community College and enjoys knitting.

1   2

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Mr. Fish Goes to Egypt

Next item: Arnold’s Next Act: Another ‘Terminator’?



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, March 2, 2011 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

If it turns out that WikiLeaks only contribution is to spawn several similar “leaksites,” it will be a worthwhile contribution. The more the merrier.

Report this

By NABNYC, March 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

What a bunch of garbage.  What is the point of this book?  Wouldn’t you love to know how much money was paid to the author by those who want to damage Assange before throwing him into a blackhole prison and leaving him to rot?  Honestly, who would even write a review of this.

Assange screws around?  A lot?  So what?  He lies to those who would destroy Wikileaks?  So what?  Who cares?  Are we all groupies?  Or is it possible to put principles before personalities?  Is it necessary to “like” Assange in order to appreciate the disclosure of information which governments have tried to cover up not for legitimate national security reasons, but simply to hide their own tacky and often illegal conduct.  Does anybody really care who is in Assange’s bed? 

Here’s the thing:  we need to stop having the groupie mentality and return to evaluating conduct and proposals.  Particularly this is true in situations like this in which the U.S. government is out to destroy somebody for hanging out our dirty laundry.  Do we really care about Assange’s sex life?  Do we need to know or want to know?  Is it possible to evaluate a person other than by snooping through their bedroom?

We need to get out of the groupie business when it comes to politics too.  Stop saying that we like or dislike a politician, and instead focus on what they have done, or not done.  Otherwise, we should shut down all the news sites and just read People magazine.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 24, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Good Morning good people of TD Folks!  If one watches the birds
one can tell it is going to be a very nice day!  That is called augury. 
Watch out boys for the birdshit!  Be sure to wear your tin hats!  And
don’t keep your mouth open.

ANNOUNCEMENT!  We have a new duopoly!  It is like a two-headed
venomous split-tongue snake!  Using alphabetic order, may I present
the ardee/diamond duet whose main perversion among many is to
dwell on the virtues of the ShrewShepotamus!  They have nothing better
to talk about, first of all because they just don’t have anything better to
talk about but also because their conjoined twin shrunken brains that
put together do not amount to even a half of one.  Hence the term half-
wit came into being.  They do not use toilets but defecate right here on
Trughdig in front of everybody! And the crap oozes right out of their
fingers as they type their tripe.  Yikes.  They just don’t know their AH
from their fingers!  It is wondered whether ardee is on the back of
diamond or if diamond rides the back of ardee.  It is really hard to say
but it is hysterically hilarious to imagine, don’t you agree? 

Havana nice day boys and don’t forget to bow with puckered lips five
times towards WIkileaks!  Oh! oh! that’s right, snakes don’t have lips.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 24, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

The frustrations of love affairs have motivated many rejected lovers to write novels. I tend to think such was the case with the novel written by the person with the alias, “Domscheit-Berg.”  Although, for me the gender of the person still comes into question.

However, the intent of the aliased “Domscheit-Berg” seems to me to be more sinister than the typical behavior of ferets.  It reminds me of a friend, several years ago, who was horrified one morning, as a large rat climbed out of the toilet bowl.  How this could happen is still a mystery to me, while novels by rejected lovers are sort of standard.  As are fictitious characters and aliases, whether CIA or MOSSAD operatives or not.  Not everyone gets the breaks of a Monica Lewinsky.

Report this

By ardee, February 24, 2011 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

diamond, February 24 at 6:08 am

The real tragedy is that the Shrew fails to see how her distortions and slander affect only her own repute. The way she avoids debate or discussion of the points that explode her positions, the way she insults Assange and all who dare support him, and without once posting any factual content, the way she diminishes those who dare to take an opposing stance while ignoring the points made, all point to a troll or a disturbed human being. So very sad for her.

Report this

By chelseasbeach, February 24, 2011 at 4:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Diamond,
Please don’t insult ferrets!
lol!

Report this

By diamond, February 24, 2011 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

“Seems many look at Assange as some kind of hero,  I just do not see him that way, I would classify
Assange as some sort of shit distorter.”

No, Leefeller, that’s Shenonymous. She loves the sound of toilets flushing in the morning, to paraphrase ‘Apocalypse Now’. Dumbshit-Berg, on the other hand, looks and sounds exactly like a ferret (if a ferret could speak) and that’s because he is one.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

I do find it troubling that there are Americans who called for the
death of Assange and that is something I deplore.  I do not know
of what he might be guilty of legally, it does seem there is much
overreaction to his being besieged on both sides:  Those who
clamor for his extreme punishment and those who have more or
less deified him as witnessed by a website called Julian Assange
fanciers, a guild no less.  Neither disposition is morally defensible
and in my mind is reprehensible.

While I do not like his choice to release classified documents that
could possibly lead to the harm and death of people, I do not know
if it was legal or not.  It depends on his status as a news editor.  On
Feb. 16 2:07 I said I had no antagonism or hostility towards Assange,
but that I found him creepy.  Another post where I said I thought he
was an arrogant exploiter extraordinaire but that in itself is a personal
reaction to watching his interview on 60 Minutes weeks ago.  He might
even enjoy that description.  Many more found him enchanting. 
Personal taste.  And I noted he most assuredly would get off without
any penalty and that if he was in fact criminal, which I did not say he
was, that it was a matter of law.  I also said Feb 17 8:49am that both
Assange and Manning are owed the kind of legal process all of us are
owed, called due process.  England will decide in a couple of days
whether to extradite him to Sweden or not. 

That I am excoriated, publicly cursed by the likes of a caliban diamond,
for voicing my unpopular observations about the excessive adulation
that describes so many on a blogsite shows the shameful hypocrisy of
those, like ardee, who express they value free speech.  They make a
pathetic mockery of the freedoms to which they only give lipservice. 
The sacred freedom on which this country is based is the freedom of
dissent.  But those who New Speak have no idea what that really means.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 21, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

To me, the peculiar thing about Assange is the hysteria he has provoked.  We have had whistleblowers and publishers of whistleblowing from just about since there was publishing at all, but this is the first time I have seen one threatened with death by big-ticket, supposedly responsible politicians.  I am wondering what that hysteria is a symptom of—the final loss of collective sanity among the ruling class?

Incidentally, I read in a techie magazine the unprovable and mostly unsupported assertion that most of the DoS attacks on the Wikileaks web sites came from China.  I leapt immediately to the distant conclusion that the U.S. has now become effectively a protectorate or satellite of China, and they were trying to defend it lest the relationship be revealed.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 21, 2011 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Wikileakes has only substantiated what I have always suspected about our government. I guess it feels good to be substantiated. What is really sad about all this, is it would feel a whole lot better if I had been wrong!

What I gather from this article, egos and personalties within the organization of Wikileaks seem to be no different from many patterns in human kind, a bickering over the pecking order.

Assange does seem the opportunist in his own light, judging only from what I have read. I am not sure what Assage felt his cause to be, calling people on their shit? It seems to be Wikileaks has utilized a form of entrapment against peoples own stupidity. Since I have always thought my government quite stupid, Wikileaks only verified it.

Seems many look at Assange as some kind of hero,  I just do not see him that way, I would classify
Assange as some sort of shit distorter.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 21, 2011 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

You have not shown I was lying about anything, you have not
shown I made inaccurate statements, you have not shown I made
lying insinuations, you have not shown I made asinine arguments,
you have not shown I was wrong about Wikileaks (I did not say
anything about the truth of Wikileaks), you have not shown I was
wrong about Assange, you have not shown I was wrong about
Greenwald, you have not shown I am wrong about any idiotic
nonsense about toilet paper, you have not shown flushing toilets
won’t save me, you have not shown flushing toilets won’t make
me look smart, you have not shown I was disingenuous in making
a claim about against Assange and Wikileaks and Greenwald (I was
not making a case against them), you have not shown I was taking
the Fearnotruth path, you have not shown I was claiming to be just a
humble seeker after truth, you have not shown I hate the truth, you
have not shown I hate anyone who tells the truth, you have not shown I
made any manic attacks on Wikileaks, you have not shown I have made
any badly made bad points, and finally you have not shown I have
hanged myself.

Because of your inability to show anything anything at all, your bleating
a violent diatribe and malicious fulminations at me is your fault. 

Hatred is a self-eating affliction and it looks like you will have eaten
yourself all up before too long.

diamond, did you know if you took that bucket of crap off your head
you could then vomit in it instead of messing up your computer?  Are
you Coprophobic?  Now now now diamond, your misogyny is showing.
Misogyny comes from the Greek misogunia from misos (hatred) and
gyn? woman
.  Does your cursing help you to feel good, big,
powerful?  Does it give you relief as would a laxative?  Cathartic as it
might be, there is a pathology for the use of excessive profanity.
Psycholinguistic studies have demonstrated that profanity and other
obscene words produce physical effects in people who say or read or
hear them, such as an elevated cardiac rate, increased Galvanic skin
response, blushing, trembling, shallow breathing, and in extreme cases
loss of normally regulated bowel and bladder function.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I was not thinking about my grievances.  My attitude towards coercion derives from my perception of the world as, among other things, a conflict of wills.  If I want to be at least partially free (that is, to have the power to do as I please) then I must either conquer the world or make some deal with it.  I prefer deals in which I think I am likely to be coerced the least.  Once upon a time I thought liberalism was the deal.  I have arrived at my present views through a process of elimination which took many long years, an unaccountable wandering in the wilderness. Perhaps I am not as bright as I pretend.

Now, you seem to be looking for my view of a law to escape the law.  I don’t know if I can provide one.  The laws I know about, the Torah, for example, provide mitigations but, as far as I know, no escape hatches.  Suppose we had a law forbidding the initiation of unprovoked violence, for example, ‘Thou shalt not murder.’  There might be a situation in which one thought it was best to murder anyway, but one would still come under judgement, by one’s peers, by the gods, maybe by oneself.  Does this make any sense?

I can’t speak for other communists, socialists or anarchists, of course.  It seems to me most of them have been most concerned with gross imbalances of power and class war, of survival in the crudest terms.  But it is true that, however long the odds, they should be on guard lest they by chance succeed.  And indeed, in recent years, when I have looked in on this commune or that affinity group, there has been endless conversation about right and wrong, far more, going by appearances, than I would expect to find in the houses of Congress or the boardrooms of great corporations.  And yet there are still also a lot of jerks.

Report this

By diamond, February 20, 2011 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

For Christ’s sake, Ozark Michael, if you’re going to try (and fail miserably) to insult me at least learn how to spell ‘chauvinist.’ And how am I a chauvinist because I hold Shenonymous to account for her foolish and inaccurate statements? If she can’t stand the heat she can get out of the kitchen - or she can stop peddling lies and babbling like a lunatic when she’s “exposed”. Her choice. All her smarmy garbage about “Wizard JA” just makes me want to vomit. It’s a free country with free speech and if she makes me want to vomit with her lying insinuations and her asinine arguments I have a right to say so. I notice her kind always head for the toilet and start not only talking shit but talking about shit when they run out of arguments and she ran out at the very beginning because she is simply wrong about Wikileaks, wrong about Assange and wrong about Greenwald and when you’re wrong all that idiotic nonsense about toilet paper and flushing toilets certainly isn’t going to save you or make you look smart. And it’s disingenuous to say the least for her to claim she hasn’t been trying to make a case against Assange and Wikileaks and also Greenwald. Of course she has and she must think everyone on here is so stupid they haven’t noticed her fanatical and obsessive hatred of both Assange and Greenwald and her desire to do them damage any way she can. She’s now taking the Fearnotruth path of claiming to be just a humble seeker after truth but she hates the truth and anyone who tells it, as is obvious from her manic attacks on Wikileaks.

The first thing I learned at university was that a good point badly made becomes a bad point but in Shenonymous’s case all the points she’s trying to make are bad points and also incredibly badly made. All I did was give her enough rope and she hanged herself. That’s hardly my fault.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 20, 2011 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

diamond said: Sarah Palin speak for “I’m a stupid cow with nothing to say and I can see America from my verandah because, yup, it’s a big country.”


Which is diamond speak for “I’m a stupid chauvenist but because I am a Leftist I can get away with it.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

What is it diamond that you cannot get through your rubber head?
”Shenonymous. You haven’t made a case against Wikileaks,
Assange or Greenwald…”
  I am not making a case against
these individuals.  Don’t you get it?  Do you not critically think at
all?  Sheesh!  (Sorry for the italics Leefeller, I’ll offer an apology
every time I use them!  Have you tried zooming in the text?  Check your
View selection in the File Menu at the top of your screen.)

Do you think if you tell yourself a lie enough time, diamond, and
keep repeating it, it becomes the truth?  Did you know that is a
theory of Joseph Goebbels?  So are you Goebbelling?  It is people
in the ranks that I mock as fatuously creating the New Religion
Wikileaks.  I might be Goebbelling. 

Is it thought that ThomasG has vanished and his attendant MarthaA is
soon to demise the forums?  Maybe I’m reading the signals wrong.  But
if not, and if they are the resident sock puppets, hmmm which one is
mimicking which?  Which one is the sock puppet?  Interesting dilemma. 
Maybe we need the goat?  With the bucket off his head, ThomasG is
still strolling apparently alive and well the hallowed halls of TD.  Check
it out.  It doesn’t look like he and she are going anywhere.  Does
MarthaA swear?  I don’t ever recall that she does.  I do once in awhile.
I’ve been goaded into it!  Maybe I’m the target?  I can’t think of any
reason why.  I know diamond is gunning for little ole liberal centrist
me. ‘cept his weapon has no real ammunition.  Is he the diversion?  Oh
oh, not a good choice.

Looking for a “systematic sock puppet theater,” one need not look any
farther than Republicans in Congress. Not to deny there aren’t a few
such actors among the Democrats, and left wing progressives.  The
thing is, should anyone take a political stand that aligns with even one
other, and they happen to say something similar, then a sock puppet is
said to be born and a system is borne.  That means liberals, libertarians
(not to confuse the two), and anarchists are not exempt.  For instance,
on TD, the sock puppets always rear their stinky socks whenever there
is a mention of Israel and ITW says anything in its defense even though
he has never shirked criticizing Israel when he felt they were egregious
in their behavior towards the Palestinians.  So this whole idea of
euphemistically calling seconded and repeated agreement characterized
as “sock puppetry” is rather high school pop language or psychodrama
class.  Truly a laugh riot.  Almost as good as the staging of the new
religion Wikileaks.

Report this

By diamond, February 20, 2011 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

Give it up, Shenonymous. You haven’t made a case against Wikileaks, Assange or Greenwald and now you’ve retreated into the kind of blathering that makes you sound like Norma Desmond in ‘Sunset Boulevard’. Your marbles may not yet be lost but they have certainly been misplaced.

“Yup. America’s a big country.’

Sarah Palin speak for “I’m a stupid cow with nothing to say and I can see America from my verandah because, yup, it’s a big country.”

Why don’t you go out and round up the other cows on the farm you left? That would at least be useful.

Pathetic.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 20, 2011 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

As far as sock-puppets are concerned: One of the sock puppets seems to be missing so i think my little campaign a month ago had some success. That is actually the second time, since we banned one of them last year, if you remember. The bans are temporary, sad to say.

My goal is to get both sock-puppets taken off at the same time. i am watching and waiting for the right moment, Leefeller. Time is running out on the ban of the right hand sock-puppet. Cant wait too much longer.

The first thing is to embolden the remaining sock-puppet with some weak attacks that are trivial, and then later enrage her… tempting her to go for the throat, and yet feel unafraid to do it. Thats when they say something wicked enough to get banned.

When I am gone it will be entrusted to you, Leefeller, to trim the sock-puppets around here when they get too unruly.

In the past, Leefeller, it was forbidden to give you any sharp objects, but soon you will be presented with the Dialectic Scissors, with Occams Razor, and best of all… with the Mighty Guillotine of the French Gawdness “Reason”. Or was her name “Raisin”?

It will up to you to do all the logic-chopping around here.

Leefeller, my parting advice to you: Dont put anything in a sock-puppet that you would like to keep at its natural length.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 20, 2011 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie: “I think it is going to be pretty difficult to achieve clarity with regard to all forms of one person overriding the will and interest of another, which is one of the meanings of coercion.

You are turning the conversation back to your grievances. I wont stop you because grievances are important, and can be legitimate grounds for using coercion against the government. I have grievances too. Are yours so much better than mine that i should play by the rules while you dont?

The question: “When do we abandon legal means of redress and use coercion instead?” is of longstanding importance to conservatives, especially to those of us still living with the memes of the old Gawds and Gawdesses. We are compelled by our own tradition, by conscience, and by our opponents to face the question squarely.

One would think that radicals(Communists, Anarchists, Socialists) would have the most clear understanding of the question since they are so quick to point out any potential infraction by folks like me. 

As always, i wont force the question if you dont want to answer. In that case dont complain that the vocabulary is too obscure, because then i will take you at your word and keep explaining.

I havent read “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” and will do so. Family members inform me that the author is very good and some of her books are in the house.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, Feb 20 6:15 pm
“The ‘worth of America’!  That’s a pretty big order!  We will have
to bring out a pretty large set of scales for that job.”

Yup, America is a pretty big country.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

This webside does not facilitate a lot of nested quotations and comments—in fact, it prohibits double-blockquoting, which might help a little. 

Extended, nested quotation-plus-commentary, so common now on web sites, is actually a rather tricky design problem which I have yet to see a good solution for.  Maybe the Talmud system is the best.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Anarcissie, I appreciate the explanation and thanks for acknowledging me wishes. The problem really compounds when some posters add a series of paragraphs with italics for quotes with intermediate comments. I find it impossible to know who is quoting and commenting,..... just damn hard to follow.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

The ‘worth of America’!  That’s a pretty big order!  We will have to bring out a pretty large set of scales for that job.

Leefeller—part of the problem you may be having with italics lies with Truthdig’s choice of typeface (‘Verdana, Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif’—they’re very determined!).  The ‘italics’ here are actually merely slanted letters, not the same thing at all and much less visible.  Real italics are derived from cursive forms and should look like it.  I have been slavishly following the MLA’s recommendations, but I shall take your wishes into consideration in the future.  To hell with the MLAuthoritarians!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 20, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, Feb 20 3:45pm- I don’t see The Ones Who Walk Away
From Omelas as an allegory.

JTBC: I didn’t say you did but it’s prudent you made it clear.  Nor do I
see it that way.  I do not include myself in the ‘some’ who do.  It is a
shoe/fit/wear it appointment.  Nor I am quick to demean and reduce
the worth of America.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 20, 2011 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

As I fall apart at the seams, like a worn out and seen its day sock puppet. Things just do not work like they used to. In this case me eyes! I must say I hate italics, not because they are italics, not because they may have something to do with Italians, no I hate italics because they do not define as they are suppose to, for my vision has a real problem with italics, especially on my five inch screen!

It may be just me, but I prefer quotes instead of italics, for one thing I do not know how to institute italics and secondly I just cannot visually see them…...  How about it,  For instance if I type the title “Gone With The Wind” opposed to me writing; I know The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, I can easily see the quotes but not the italics, of course it is a well known fact, I cannot see a lot of things. .... By the way, the only reason I would walk away from an Omelet, would be if it included the ingredient spinach.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

(I posted this here and it wound up in another discussion.  Trying again….)

Ozark Michael—the little gem you discovered is very interesting, but it could be a hoax or a satire.  The idea of automating sock-puppetry has been around for quite a while.  It’s generally thought that anyone with the resources could build a considerable system of sock-puppets, and the U.S. government certainly has the resources.

However, automation may not be necessary.  Back in the days of one war or another, I recall encountering alleged servicemen on the web sites of local newspapers (and before that, in their letters-to-the-editor columns) supporting this or that military adventure and citing this or that exciting personal experience with the noble American forces, dastardly enemy, hapless victims, etc.  It was not hard to determine that the unit and personal names were often dubious or fictitious.  Indeed, in the early days of search engines it was possible to observe the same letter popping up in dozens of different publications signed by different persons.  I wondered then if the business had not already been automated.  However, I later came across the testimony of someone who said he had been assigned to do such work.  It made perfect sense.  Where there is an abundance of cheap labor automation may be unnecessary.

You’re quite right in saying that such things are illegal.  However, as you may have noticed, the authorities often believe that they own the law and are therefore above it.  It is like the policeman who routinely runs red lights even when he is off duty, something you may have observed yourself.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

I don’t see The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas as an allegory.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 20, 2011 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Good morning!
Why diamond, you are so couth!  Your ignorance has reduced you to
a cursing half-wit.  You mean to say you didn’t mean to compliment
me?  No?  Aw, gee.  Nooo.  Looks like you can’t recognize ridicule
unless it bit you right in the ass!  Even then I’m concerned that you
wouldn’t.  M’thinks your brain is having trouble.  Looks like you
inherited the bucket of crap you are wearing on your head that flies
around this website and someone else used to wear.  He was several
cuts above you and shone so much more brilliant.  He was fun!  He
turned out to be a real gem.  Though he did blather for a time, but
he wasn’t some yapping dolt whose ability to think is impaired from
the bitterness that’s coming out of your ass.  (Poor thing.  Why are you
so bitter?  What’s been done to you?)  Why one day, the bucket flew
right off his head!  It was glorious!  And pshaw, you have no sense of
humor, but then morons really don’t need one.  Shhhh…for a
couple of bucks, though, I think Leefeller would send you some.  He
bottles the stuff.  Gawd, you do need to get a hold of some vintage
tapes of Rodney!  You know, Dangerfield! Rodney Dangerfield. 

Of course all of the media genuflects to Wizard JA, look at the mileage
they are getting out of his behavior and his HolyBook.  It’s symbiotic. 
They get to present his releases.  They have life!  He has a life!  Where
else are they being released?  Good grief, man!  Get a grip!  Do we
have to spell everything out for you?
  My Gawdness.  Are you
maligning the media too?  I mean where else would the HolyPages have
any vigor if the media didn’t give them space?  Don’t forget Facebook,
Twitter, and the Internet are part of the media too now.  BTW: Is all of
the media in the toilet?  How many of the SacredNotes have you read? 
Did I say mainstream media?  I did not say mainstream media!  Again
you demonstrate your sloppy reading.  I think you need a trip to
LensCrafters.  And your powers of logic!  Where are they?  If the
SacredLeaks have to be Leaked through lowbrow media, then doesn’t
that say something about why the Leaks aren’t verified?  You know, if
thens.  Some people will believe anything!  Don’t you think Wizard JA
knows that?  Oh, right, you don’t think.  I don’t claim to know anything. 
Show me where I’ve claimed to know something.  So little star, your
twinkling is fading fast, you are showing to be just a dud.  Soon you
might have to seek out one of Le Guin’s caves yourself.  Do you
imagine you are saying anything meaningful?

Gawd I do bring out the worst in some small-turd minds.  Are you out
of toilet paper toooo?  Grrrrrr.  Now calling me daft.  Now that was
an insult!  Phtttbt!


Hey!  Hey Leefeller!  See I’m trying to help you out, would you
please tell the Great Unyun?  Much obliged.

Time to start the day!

Report this

By diamond, February 20, 2011 at 3:43 am Link to this comment

“diamond, diamond, diamond.  I have never claimed to be a genius,
but I thank you for the compliment.”

It wasn’t a compliment you daft bitch: if you read what I actually wrote (as you’re always urging me to do)I said you clearly weren’t a genius but you thought you were. And if you’re taking your view of the world from Ursula K. le Guin that certainly explains a lot. Bullshit pressed in between two covers sums up her mighty tomes and if you’ve been filling you head with that nonsense it explains your confusion and delusion. You’re clearly away with the fairies.

“Notice it is the media where they are exposed!
Have the media redeemed themselves?”

Journalists by and large support Assange so I don’t know how you think the “media” has exposed him. What some of them have exposed is their lapdog allegiance to the Pentagon and the intelligence services and their hatred of anyone who tells the truth about either of them. Assange spent a lot of time hiding out in the ‘Frontline Club’ in London which is a journalists’s hangout and no one turned him over to the police. Most of the world’s INHABITANTS support him because they’re sick of being lied into wars for the profit of the corporatocracy and having fake terror attacks rammed down their throats. It’s only dimwits like you who go on with this moronic drivel about how the truth must only be delivered by the mainstream media and if it comes from whistleblowers within the elites that’s oh so naughty! That’s because you know the mainstream media hasn’t told the truth about anything much since Watergate and the days of Woodward and Bernstein and Deep Throat and you want to keep it that way. Have they redeemed themselves? No they certainly fucking haven’t and if you think they have you’re obviously operating short of a few billion braincells and bumbling around one of le Guin’s caves in the dark talking to yourself and playing with yourself.

“Fortunately for me, I left the farm
ages ago.  I’ve got hot running water and flushing toilets.”

Jesus Christ! Flushing toilets? No shit, if you’ll pardon the pun. You may have left the farm but I bet they haven’t let you leave the funny farm in many a long year. 


It’s the revolution, stupid.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 20, 2011 at 2:19 am Link to this comment

I know this story was not directed at me, but I know this story. 
Le Guin’s story is in many ways a beautiful idea.  Ursula Le Guin
has the gift of writing mostly science fiction or fantasy. Her setting
of Omelas can be described only as a city of incredible splendor, a
place where there is unsurpassable prosperity, sui generis, and of
course unimaginable joy. As with all Brave New Worlds, there was a
price for it all. For Omelas to remain so beguilingly splendid and the
people happy, a boy must be kept, perpetually, in a filthy basement.
He is mentally handicapped and deeply terrified of two brooms that
are leaning against the basement’s wall, and only as long as he is
there and no one, absolutely no one may speak with him, will splendid
Omelas remain the perfect city that it appears to be.  For one’s utopian
dream, what has to be sacrificed for others?  One’s dream may not,
most likely not, be any others.

For some this is an allegory that asks if the United States is Omelas,
who is the mentally handicapped boy?  Or maybe we should send the
story to Kim Jong il?  Or Gaddafi?  Or maybe Myanmar is utopia?  Not
an anarchy as it is run by a military junta.  But the people offer only
smiling faces.  They seem to be the happiest people on earth.  But are
they really?  I know the U.S. and England do not accept the changed
name from Burma.  Perhaps their child soldiers are the boy in the cellar? 

Some of us are always so quick to demean and reduce our worth of
character when in the world, even though it condemns America’s
Guantanamo, Amnesty International reports, even worse scandalous
treatment of human beings in the rest of the world.  What kind of
utopias are promised to them?  What do they have to barter for it? 
Estonia’s language laws?  Or hardly utopia, but nevertheless is it a
possible Saturnia regna with Zimbabwe’s practice of food distribution? 
Can these poor wretches even barter anything if they have nothing? 
Where does anarchy flourish?  No where, as the piper always demands
payment.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and I do not defend the U.S. for any
inhuman treatment of people under any circumstances, but it is also
necessary to give contemplated thought that it is by comparative
degrees of inhumanity coerced by circumstances that must be taken
into account and all violators equally denounced. 

Thank you for the reminding of the story, I will leave you with a few of
her other words:

“Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to
undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and
the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward towards the light;
but the laden traveler may never reach the end of it.”
Ursula K. Le Guin (The Tombs of Atuan)

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 20, 2011 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I think it is going to be pretty difficult to achieve clarity with regard to all forms of one person overriding the will and interest of another, which is one of the meanings of coercion.  Just think of the politics of family life, for example.  We don’t have trouble seeing that physical violence or threats of it are coercive, but there are many gray areas, like the application of economic and social pressure, the weight of tradition, emotional judo, and so on.

In regard to specifying the characteristics of the future, we (anarchists) are too ignorant; it would also be rather unanarchistic to tell future generations how to behave, even if we knew how to.  But even a faint idea of our ignorance should prevent us from even thinking of going so far.

I don’t think evil is likely to bring about good.  I suppose it might by chance, but I don’t recommend counting on it.

See The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas if you do not already know the story.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 19, 2011 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

I committed a hypocritical act. I checked a Leak site just to see what it was like. Peeped at some pics. Saw some vids. Read some trashy accusations.  Yeah i was chillin’ until i found this:

http://www.seankerrigan.com/docs/PersonaManagementSoftware.pdf

A document which, if legitimate, causes much concern. Is our government creating ‘fake’ people on the internet to generate the illusion of consensus on various issues?

Its pretty cheesey when people like Martha/Thomas do that. Cheesier still if corporations and political parties do it. But the government? It isnt right for the government to take a side on an issue. To pretend to be citizens and try to influence the citizenry with that disguise. Isnt that against the law somehow?

Am I joining the WikiLeaks dark side?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 19, 2011 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment

Oh my Gawd!  Or should I say Oh my Gawdess!?  I meant no
disrespect, please oh please believe me.  Please, Leefeller, please
intercede on my behalf to Her Unyuness. The priests I used to know
would do that when I committed sins! I just had to put a coin or two
into the tray and light a couple of candles and my mind could take a
sigh of relief. They preferred candles over solar light. 

Anyway, I would be honored if the Great Unyun ditty would come for a
visit.  She could have one of my bathrooms just for herself!  I’d even
make sure there was direct sunlight for her to do all her reading.  She
could stay as long as she wants.  And if she ever broke down anywhere
I’d go get her and bring her home.  Since I really don’t have any tequila,
l’d better run out and get a few bottles (no, a case!) of tequila.  Do you
think she will smack me upside the head?  Oh my Gawdness! 
Okay O k a a a yyy!  I get it.

I am so sorry if anything I said made her cry. Aw, you are just foolin’
aren’t you?  You’re just trying to scare me.  Gawdesses don’t cry!  I’ll
send over a big 24 roll package of the softest toilet paper that’s made! 
But you have to promise not to let Billy your goat eat it!  Put up a shelf
in the shrine.  Least if she comes to my place for a visit then everybody
can go potty again, for a while.  Well, if she didn’t use the toilet paper
for going to the potty, what did she use it all up for?  Oops, there goes
my skepticism again.  I was just trying to add to her congregation!
Whine whine I will go quietly with head bowed and say the Act of
Contrition to the Great Unyun.  Oh Great Unyun, I am heartily sorry for
having offended thee.  I confess my sins and dread the loss of your
Great Grace and the pains of DisGrace, but most of all because I have
offended thee O Great Unyun, who art most interesting and powerful
(well sort of) and deserving of all my extra attention.  I firmly resolve
with your Pardon, to do penance (with lots of tequila in the pantry) as I
intend to make up for it… somehow.  Leefeller, how? Will the tequila
really do it?
 

Okay, Leakians, take a hint.  This is how to treat a ditty.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 19, 2011 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

The Great Unyuns is so upset her head is burning, because she read the Shesters comment making fun of her about the alleged TP shortage in the old outhouse. By the way I have running water on occasion, especially when it rains.

It should be made clear,  the Great Unyuin does not use the old outhouse as a potty, instead she requested I make it into a Great Unyun shrine, which I have done,.... but without the candles, (she believes it more green to use solar lights. )

Damn it Shester, ...the Great Unyun was so upset when she read your Shester comment, the Unyun came over to my place and cried in my Tequlia until I ran out. So to get even,.... I told the Great Unyun your pantry is chock full of Tequila, so expect a Great Unyun visit shortly, you should be aware she has her own Great Unyun steins. By the way in a pinch she will settle for cooking Sherry or rubbing alcohol.

Geeze, the Great Unyun started sounding like Rodney Dangerfield, she kept repeating ...“I get no respect”... now that I think about it, she sort of resembles him.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

Ozark Michael— Words like force and power are pretty ambiguous, actually.  Coercion, the word I used in what you quoted, maybe a little less so, but it is hardly free of all ambiguity.

If ambiguity is a problem, we can compare how citizens use ‘force’ (or ‘coercion’) against how citizens use ‘normal means of redress’ until we attain perfect clarity. If ambiguity is preferred I will not press the issue. 

Since people generally disagree with the broad form of my ideas, (I know how ya feel) I seldom get to the nuances, subtleties, and finer logic-choppings about them, but questions will certainly arise if anarchism or even libertarianism ever become popular.

Anarcissie, if your methods are not what they should be now, it is only going to get worse when your ideas are popular, and then the questions that will certainly arise will be mere afterthoughts. When you get that far down the road your answer will be a moot point, because the road you travelled became the existential answer. It so happens that i like your idealism, i take it more seriously than you think.

The methods we choose today are not nuances, subtleties, and finer logic-choppings. The methods we use today will be an example for others tomorrow. Anarcissie, you have a very fine idealism, you may end up being one of the ‘first born’ of a multitude… if anarchism becomes popular.

If anarchism becomes popular, any imperfect methods used today will slip down a notch or two further. In other words, others will follow your example… and many people will be willing to use even less noble means to accomplish the precious ends which you believe in today.

So the process becomes even more compromised and less consonant with your idealism.

Why is this important? Because the final outcome(the goal you dream of) when it finally arrives, will be at risk to the degree that bad methods were used. When you finally pop the the anarchist cake out of the oven, it will only be as good as its weakest ingredients. If the methods were bad enough, the whole thing could come out ruined.

What shall we call your fine dream that comes out ruined? A nightmare. Bad enough to make everyone wish we could return to how things are today.

What shall we call your idealistic community that becomes ruined? A dystopia. How to escape? It will be too late to escape.

Therefore now, in the early days, the first thing to establish is which methods are permissible, which methods fit the idealistic goal. If you dont do this now when it is calm and you have complete control, how will you do it later when you are overwhelmed by an enthusiastic crowd and victory is within reach?

At this stage of things I am just trying to stop or reduce the gross uses of malignant force we observe in war, imperialism, police-statism, plutocracy, environmental destruction and so on, and to promote the goofy because stunningly obvious idea that another world, another social order, is possible.  Pretty crude stuff, actually.

Maybe you are saying that using a small amount of evil is justified because you fight against a large evil? How far are you willing to go with that?

I’m not trying to evade your question, but I’ll have to say the answer is under construction.

You have some subtle poetry in you!  Do you mean that you already have a secret answer which will become evident as events unfold? If the construction site is boarded off I will not search for a peaking hole.

Or do you mean you are doing this ad hoc, meaning that the answer changes as circumstances dictate? If so, why?

Anarcissie, do not mistake my questioning for dislike or displeasure.  Please know that i apply intense logic-chopping to everything that seems worthwhile(especially the things i believe in) and to everyone who is worthwhile(most of all to myself). It is not dislike, but friendship between us if you can put up with it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

diamond, diamond, diamond.  I have never claimed to be a genius,
but I thank you for the compliment.  Also you have a real problem
reading so that I always have to reinterpret things simply said.  So
we cannot include you in the genius class either.  So welcome to the
club for non-geniuses.  Shall we or shall we not socialize?  But you
really should take the knots out of your pantyhose.

Seems like there are several on this Truthdig forum who like you
have a hearing problem, and can’t hear what they read.  I’ve said
several times now that “I have no confidence in Greenwald,” and I’ve
given plenty of reasons why.  That does seem to burn your ass.  It is
suggested you get a fan to cool it off.  Greenwald’s opinions do not
annoy the crap out of me, I have no crapping problems, not diarrhea
nor constipation like you seems to suffer both!  At one time! How do
you do that?
  Oh yeah it is diarrhea of the mouth and constipation
of the ass.  Okay. 

I am not making a case against the Wizard JA, we will let the authorities
to do that!  I am making a case against all the little puckered-lipped
swooning acolytes who accept the release of thousands and thousands
of documents that flood the media and are not verified as if they
belonged in a HolyBook.  Notice it is the media where they are exposed! 
Have the media redeemed themselves?  The same media that everybody
curses at least five times a day while bowing East to Specious Being. 
Do try reading for content instead of letting your bile blind your eyes. 
Usually, gods do not create their own religions.  It is stupid grasping
believers who need to grasp at something who do and make up a
mythology about the truth of whatever the god represents, in this
case… revelation!  See how religious it is!  It is a Revelatory Religion! 
I’m right.  Thank you for allowing me to see that.  I am a genius after
all!  Hahahaha See how I climbed right out of that hole?  I learned that
trick from my brilliant nephew, he’s from New Jersey.

If you are in need of a deity, I suggest the Great Unyun.  Talk to
Leefeller about that one.  Now I do owe you an apology.  I have bowed
to the Wise and Great Unyun in my time.  And I would again if she
would only get out of the outhouse and come by my upwardly mobile
neighborhood!  I hear she’s used up all the toilet paper because she
tends to read on the head and no one on the farm can get to go pee or
you know what…crap.  It is a crisis.  Fortunately for me, I left the farm
ages ago.  I’ve got hot running water and flushing toilets. 

And just as un petit morceau doux about Rumsfeld.  I totally agree with
you!  But, to your discredit, you have a very narrow provincial view of
what a liberal is.  By the way:  Just so you can sleep at night, much
better than you have tried for years unsuccessfully to insult me.

Report this

By diamond, February 19, 2011 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

“I did not say you should think Greenwald is an
unreliable witness.  I said, once again, I have no confidence in him,in his opinions if I need to be more exact.”

Oh, at last! You’ve actually told the truth about something. His opinions are the problem. And, of course, his opinions are both liberal and progressive and they annoy the crap out of you, don’t they? So what does that make you - liberal? Progressive? No, contrary to your own delusional beliefs, it makes you right wing and if you think Glenn Greenwald is an extremist what does that make Donald Rumsfeld and the neo cons. I’m sure you don’t have any trouble with their opinions do you? And stop patronizing everyone here as if we’re tiresome dolts and you’re a genius. You are no genius, Shenonymous. If you were you would remember that when you’re in a hole the smartest thing to do is stop digging. You haven’t made a case against Assange, Wikileaks or Greenwald and you never will because they are correct in their assessment of the current global political/military/intelligence/financial/legal situation and you are not.

Dumbshit stole a raft of Wikileaks documents when he left and is keeping them, apparently to blackmail Assange into behaving in a way that Dumbshit would approve of. To date he hasn’t specified what that is. Perhaps he wants him to be more like him - a sneak, a liar and a thief in other words. His criticisms of Assange ring hollow in view of the glaring flaws in Dumbshit’s own character.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Case in point:  last evening an old gentleman was interviews on
Anderson Cooper’s CNN program, name escapes me, he was bald
and commenting on the violence in Libya and Gaddafi’s 42-year
murderous tyranny.  He and Reuters/Ismail Zitouny cited authority
of comments from Wikileaked US diplomatic documents to someone,
the recipient was not given, but about the friendliness of working
with the government of Libya.  Also see Al Jazeerah’s online article: 

A TinyURL is provided because the original is 191 characters long!
http://tinyurl.com/6hr85eb

The real information divulged in the Wikileaks only gives information
already known about Gaddafi so the Leaks were redundant and non-
informative.  These are the kind of documents that are gushing out into
the public giving the appearance that they are saying something new
and important!  When in fact they are simply confections for sugary
starved minds.

Now I think it is immanently important that relations be made known to
the public how government see one another and what the ramifications
of those perceptions are on government actions, especially military
aggressive actions.  But when it has to do with the security of ordinary
people of a country there has to be some control or classification that
judiciously selects to make the information public or not and
particularly if people could be harmed.  No one at Wikileaks seems to
be editing for possible harm to innocents. If there are please publish
that information so I am proven wrong.

It is not my beef if the information made public is made through
legitimate venues such as recognized news organizations.  Regardless
of what anyone thinks of me, I think it is of paramount importance that
such information be revealed to the public.  But when such information
is released through the specious avenue of surreptitiously leaked
instruments like Wikileaks then I do have a complaint because as I
characterize the whole collection of such “leaked” data is like a
HolyBook and the reaction like a religious experience, there is little
chance of checking out the information for truth. That is the gullibility
I am talking about.

It is my contention since thousands upon thousands of documents are
involved with no bridling restraints attended to, that when Wikileak data
is released that Page Number, or Document Number and date of the
document, how the document was acquired is more than an imperative
to accompany the document, it is morally obligatory in establishing any
veritability of the document.  Less than that puts the data into suspect
hearsay and appeals only to the scopophiliacs and voyeurs of political
gossip and could have potential to harm people.  All Wikileaks has to
do is to get verification of the data it wants to leak and they can be
absolved of being responsible for highly spurious or deliberately
misleading data, in other words, immoral leakage of documents that
have no verifiability.  The New York Times is guilty of this kind of
cavalier printing of such documents and is unethical in doing so as is
CNN’s guest critic and CNN giving de facto credibility to the
information.

I do not expect anyone on this forum to understand what I am talking
about. So get out your bats and bash away if you must.  My armor is in
place.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 19, 2011 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I have been mainly interested in whether the factual material presented by Greenwald was true; I can draw my own conclusions about it without his assistance.  It seems you can’t give any cogent reason to disbelieve him.  We could argue over our judgements and fantasies about his personality, but it is not the sort of soap opera I’m interested in at the moment.

Leefeller—I imagine Assange is sort of a mixed bag, like everyone else, but fairly ‘crazy’ or at least very unusual.  One has to be pretty far out there to be willing to provoke the wrath of governments and other organizations that have killed millions of people for no other reason than that they were in the way.  Assange may well exhibit other curious peculiarities.  For instance, the cool way in which he indirectly threatened his adversaries during his recent interview suggests that he understands their vicious character far too well to be innocent himself.  But then, which of us is innocent?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 19, 2011 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

Wikileakes a cause to behold, one with feet of clay and seemingly the whole story reads like one of those old British espionage novels. Exposing Uncle Sam and his unpatriotic shorts made in China was not a nice thing to do.

How can one conclude anything from what is being pointed and counter pointed over and over again. .... Its a lie, no it isn’t, so Domscheit-Berg is discontented like a spurned lover and seems to be swiping his claws at Assange. Why? I suspect the seeds of lies by liars about liars may be all a bunch of lies about the truth?

All the baggage assembled and bobbing under the bridge has been contrived to destroy Assange to make him look like a boob or the baggage is full of empty hot air and Assange is a boob or is he the cats meow? Opponents discredit each other in anyway they can, why is this any different?

It seems like many people would like to see Assange go away…. Me,... frankly my dear I don’t give a damn!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 19, 2011 at 2:39 am Link to this comment

My continuation to provide anecdote after anecdote of what I
consider relevant evidence that shows to me that Greenwald uses
sophistry and exaggerates beyond veracity in his reportings will
not facilitate any resolution between us Anarcissie. Mainly because
you are unwilling to accept the fact that I find the examples I cited
as sufficient.  This is what is important and relevant. It is not my
desire or intention to correct you.

The fact that anyone can report on factual matters implies that
there is no control over the admission or submission of evidence
and whether any is admitted or submitted.  Evidence does not announce
its own implications, which means what becomes judgeable is how
those alleged factual matters are reported, then that becomes the fount
of truth.

Furthermore, as there is the unconditional probability assumption that
there are too many possible accounts of reality, factual matters can be
ambiguous and depends on what is currently accepted as objective
knowledge, which gets into a philosophical discussion and that is way
beyond the scope of this forum.  For my reality, I have no confidence in
Greenwald’s perspectives and opinions.

If I find Greenwald habitually untruthful, it is in all reality due to my
own sense of what his rhetoric means due to his lack of evidence of his
putative facts and what I perceive in both his written materials and his
spoken words in interviews about the hot stuff of incidents on which he
reports to have a high degree of emotional bias regardless of whether
he reports on factual matters.  Other than your dogged persistence that
I keep providing more reason for my opinion, you have not offered any
reason why his views ought to be accepted without reservation.  If you
disagree with my observations and measure of what he presents, I
simply accept it. 

I have sufficiently replied to what I consider is his rhetorical style that
gives me trepidation about what he writes and speaks about which
ought to answer your curiosity.  If it doesn’t then you might meditate
for a bit and let your malaise drift away.

Seems to me a dead horse is being beaten, that being my opinion of
Greenwald, which cannot be levitated.  So this is my last word on that
subject.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 18, 2011 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael— Words like force and power are pretty ambiguous, actually.  Coercion, the word I used in what you quoted, maybe a little less so, but it is hardly free of all ambiguity.  Since people generally disagree with the broad form of my ideas, I seldom get to the nuances, subtleties, and finer logic-choppings about them, but questions will certainly arise if anarchism or even libertarianism ever become popular.

At this stage of things I am just trying to stop or reduce the gross uses of malignant force we observe in war, imperialism, police-statism, plutocracy, environmental destruction and so on, and to promote the goofy because stunningly obvious idea that another world, another social order, is possible.  Pretty crude stuff, actually.

I’m not trying to evade your question, but I’ll have to say the answer is under construction.

Shenonymous—I have little interest in Greenwald’s opinions.  The hot stuff about the incidents he reports are factual matters.  So, in matters of fact, I am curious as to whether you consider him veracious, a reliable witness, or what?  You seemed to me to be saying he was unreliable, that is, a liar or a deluded person, but I am always willing to be corrected.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

Well Anarcissie, again you attempt a conjurer’s trick and try the
shell game on me.  You should really control yourself.  You don’t
like my reports of Glenn Greenwald so you say I said something I
did not say.  I did not say you should think Greenwald is an
unreliable witness.  I said, once again, I have no confidence in him,
in his opinions if I need to be more exact.  With his rhetoric he
exaggerates on whatever is his latest zealous interest, and therefore
is on the cusp of overdramatizing what he is offering as truth.  But
he does not offer reliable proof he only offers an extremist’s opinion
hence in a manner of speaking he distorts the truth.  I am only too
happy not to skip what it is I do not find attractive of the chap and I
thank you for actually assisting me in perpetrating my perverse
proclivity.  I am always suspicious of anyone who a throng thinks walks
on water!

I was not too happy with his Salon.com piece on Elena Kagan nor his
campaign against her. He did not have anything to say how such a
blatantly unqualified candidate by his assessment could have received
serious consideration and in fact how she could ever have become the
dean of the Harvard Law School.  Furthremore, his attacks on her
alleged “pro-executive-power views” were senseless.  It could be that
Kagan applauds relatively unchecked executive authority, but her
writings don’t give any evidence of it.

Report this

By diamond, February 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

“An ability to read does not appear to be your forte diamond.”

I have two degrees: an undergraduate degree with a double major in English literature. I also have a Master of Letters in German. Reading has never been a problem in my life but I also have the ability to read between the lines: very necessary with dissemblers like you, Shenonymous.

“it is highly likely you have lost your mind.”

My mind is not lost but it can see through you and knows that you never mean what you say or say what you mean. Your attacks on both Greenwald and Assange prove you are not a liberal or a progressive despite your claims, and your support of Mubarak against the protesters proves it beyond all doubt. Progressives don’t doubt that a dictator ‘deserves’ to be deposed by non-violent protest. They love the truth and you hate it. They want a better world but you’re happy in the same crappy old cave that Plato wrote about. You have a little mind and it’s a little mind that loves injustice and hates the truth and also hates anyone who reveals the truth - people like Assange and Greenwald, for example. All of this proves you’re a fake, and I despise fakes.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 18, 2011 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

What I and people like me suggest is the nonviolent replacement of coercive institutions (governments, corporations, etc.) with noncoercive ones.  As the functions, support and recognition were withdrawn from the government, it would wither away.

Anarcissie, there should be an explanation for the use of force to accomplish goals. Force suspends the democratic process. Please note that force is not defined only as violence.

We must be aware of the gradations of force and not carefessly slip into using the lesser types of force “since it isnt violence.”

For example, one lesser type of force is to simply stop paying taxes as a protest. A stronger type of force is to march and occupy a government building to block its use. Another type of force is to steal something secret and make it public. Another type of force is to threaten violence. And then the final type of force is to perform a violent act.

We ought not resort to force at all if the problem can be redressed through normal means. If force is needed we must to use the least violent one that will work. This is our heritage, although it was developed by Christians in the crucible of persecution, this concept is our shared heritage.

Any use of force ought to be thought out and even prayed about, and then there ought to be a rational explanation or declaration to all mankind and especially to other citizens of why normal means of redress have been abandoned.

I have never yet seen this thinking and explaining process on Truthdig, only applause for action, and only abuse for anyone who doesnt applaud action.

From my point of view, Truthdig never gets to the   most important concepts. It is pretty much just “hooray for our side as it fights fascism!” repeated endlessly, over and over again as the only theme through each news cycle.

You Anarcissie, are a thoughtful one that i respect. If you cannot answer my question, then i do not expect anyone on your side ever will.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 18, 2011 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—You still haven’t showed us why we should think Greenwald is an unreliable witness.

As for his style, I think we all understand that you don’t find it attractive, and you can skip reciting your distaste for it now.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 18, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Good morning!

An ability to read does not appear to be your forte diamond. 
Nor are your powers of logic. It takes memory to do both and
it is highly likely you have lost your mind.  In this country, at
least, you have the right to believe anything you want, to bow
to anything you want, but so do I, except I don’t bow…to anything. 
But you do seem to have reactive bluster as a talent.  Be careful,
apoplexy can be harmful and with all the hot air you just lost
you are in acute danger.

Havana nice day!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 18, 2011 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

“OzarkMichael” How you can forget something that you never knew, and which is not factual anyway, is interesting. If you are relying on your ESP, it might need a new set of sparkplugs or you may need a refresher seminar.

On “- you children don´t actually vote - “. Considering the age-range of childhood, as recognized by professionals, I haven´t been a child in sixty-one years.  Also, I voted in the last U.S. presidential and more recent state elections.  How the elected officials, whom you rely on, processed my votes with their criminal, voting machine software, is another question. 

“OzarkMichael”?  I tend to think your alias is as fictitious and non-fitting as is the alias, “Domsheit-Berg.”

Report this

By diamond, February 18, 2011 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

“I’m surprised you, Anarcissie, do not know more about Greenwald. The mere fact that Greenwald has ascended to be part of an indubitably anticipated new book released about WikiLeaks,advertised on this very web-page tells how much of a celebrity he
has become.  I don’t know about all of his problems, but his well-known fulminations about journalistic conspiracies puts him near the edge of delirium if not over the edge in my opinion on that
score.  Oh well…”

“Oh well…” indeed, Shenonymous. So now the reason you oppose both Wikileaks and Assange is because you disapprove of ‘celebrity’? And Greenwald is guilty of the same crime? The dread crime of celebrity. But we both know the truth is that neither Assange nor Greenwald are despotic enough for you. If they were Middle Eastern dictators or banksters with billions of stolen loot in a Swiss bank no doubt you would be defending them.

“It is not required that I show that Greenwald practices lying, I never said he did, Anarcissie. There is no reason to make false statements about me unless it makes you feel good.”

But you, of course, can make false statements about Assange and Greenwald until the cows come home: intimating that there is something suspect or even criminal about Greenwald being involved in a book on Wikileaks. It’s becoming more and more obvious that you don’t believe in the First Amendment but the problem is, Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and he does believe in the First Amendment which is why he supports freedom of speech and freedom of the press, of which Wikileaks is the newest form. But clearly all of this is just too complicated for you and creates puzzlement in your little brain.

People who admire Greenwald admire him for certain reasons:

1. He’s honest and does not manipulate or conceal facts to suit an ideological agenda as most mainstream journalists do.

2. He writes clear, well-reasoned prose (something you are incapable of, Shenonymous).

3. He has a passion for justice and truth (something you also don’t have).

4. He is consistently on the side of the individual and not the state.

“On a different but politically relevant issue I’ve just signed up with Russ Feingold’s newly regenerated Progressives United.com group whose intention is to go against Corporate America and government reform.  Listening to him on Rachel Maddow, I’ve become a groupie of a sort.”

And isn’t this exactly what you’ve accused those who support Assange and Wikileaks of being? Groupies? On a different but politically relevant issue I can only say that if you’re a progressive I’m Goldilocks and the Three Bears. And you and Russ Feingold are against both corporations and ‘government reform’? Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. But then everything you say is full of contradictions and deceit because you’re not who you say you are and don’t believe what you claim to believe. Your real mission is to defend the status quo and to tear down anyone who tries to change it. And your only interest in changing the Democratic party from within would be to turn it even further to the right.

“Russ Feingold and I are coming after
you!  Watch out! hahaha Havana Nice Day!”

Hell will freeze over before you and Russ Feingold come after anyone but I can see why you like him. The McCain Feingold campaign reform act (known as the “notorious” McCain Feingold campaign reform act in certain circles) prohibited unions or corporations from using their First Amendment rights to broadcast material critical of candidates up to 60 days before an election.  You and Mr. F. are obviously soul mates on stifling the First Amendment. Keeping the voters in the dark about what the state is doing to them and plans to do to them in the future is what you’re all about.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

drbhelthy, are you saying you are part of a coalition to demolish
governmental structures?  You have not made public any coherent
plans and have not suggested how this would be brought about. 
Is there a bit of hot air interfering with your breathing?  Doctor
heal thy seditious self!  I can understand the argument that two
very public people have done their best to ruin not only the US
government but also set themselves to ruin many other countries
and other entities around the world with the rampant dissemination
of documents that have not been shown to be genuine nor truthful.
If they hit a mark occasionally does that mean their actions are
vindicated?  Hardly.  While there doesn’t seem to be any laws against
irresponsibility there are about stealing classified documents of a
sovereign country.  It is likely that Assange will get off scott free but
the private first class probably not.

It’s more than governments that are irate about Wikileaks, e.g., Wash.
Post-Nov 29, 2010 “disclosure of a huge cache of diplomatic cables has
alarmed human rights groups, which fear that WikiLeaks or news
outlets could publish the names of local activists who have spoken with
U.S. diplomats in countries with repressive governments…two leading
groups, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First, have written to
the founder of WikiLeaks to urge him to scrub any references from the
documents that might allow other countries to identify the activists…a
significant number of activists and journalists whom it believes will be
endangered if named. The official said a number of “very sensitive
sources could be arrested or targeted with violence if their names are
published.”

Salon-Nov 30, 2010 - Greenwald’s rhetoric begins this article with
exaggeration about the “driving mentality of major factions in our
political and media class.  Briefly said, he declares “there are not many
countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets
more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government
authorities than the U.S.”  I wonder if there is any idea of a country that
does not have citizenry?  He goes on, “Indeed, I don’t quite recall any
entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American
political spectrum as WikiLeaks has:  as usual, for authoritarian minds,
those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who
commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon.”  There
are other than authoritarian minds that find the unbridled release of
hundreds of thousands of documents offensive.  Rhetoricians write for
the ignorant masses who sway to criticism as a rule without the will or
wherewithal to check things out.  Greenblum takes a couple of
notorious public personalities like Palin and Hawkins, neither of whom I
have any respect, who made frenzied inflammatory gnarls about JA ,
then generalizes that the entire United States ought to be condemned. 
It is that kind of inductive reasoning that I find disturbing.  I agree with
Greenwald when he criticized the collective of political commentators
who “routinely and casually call for the eradication of human beings
without a shred of due process as demented.”  But he again goes to the
full well of Americans, calling out just a couple of Right-Wing violators. 
Using his opinion of the war in Iraq, he sheds real reasoning and offers
instead verbal ornamentation and accuses there is a throng who thinks
the U.S. Government can and should murder whomever it wants is more
frequent and unrestrained than ever.”  It is excessive bombast and does
not in the least describe the “throngs of Americans.”  This is a bare
example of his writing and the kind of provocative style to pre-
conditioned enthusiasts that I find hollow, incendiary, and demagogic. 
Reading several of his journalistic entries on Salon.com, this is his usual
menu and I do not repent my dim view of Greenwald.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I haven’t recommended that anyone demolish the government.  The only thing that could demolish a government would be another government.  What I and people like me suggest is the nonviolent replacement of coercive institutions (governments, corporations, etc.) with noncoercive ones.  As the functions, support and recognition were withdrawn from the government, it would wither away.  Perhaps that process would never quite be complete, but in that case we anarchists will always have something to do.  If people are unwilling to do this, to take charge of their lives, then not only anarchy but the limited sorts of freedom we now profess to enjoy will prove impossible to sustain.

The problem of state secrecy is present in a republic as well as in direct democracy.  The electorate have to have the facts in order to judge their representatives and their laws.  There is no way around this.  They can certainly choose not to know the facts, but then they have pretty much chosen to nullify their role in the government, just as if they had elected a dictator and voted to repeal their constitution.  As, to some extent, we observe.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

In that case, you and all your friends can work on campaigning for “No secrets” in government. Next election everything should go well for you. Significantly.

See you at the polls!

Or maybe not… i forgot that you children dont actually vote.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 17, 2011 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

” - - one or two people to try to demolish the governmental structures which the rest of us approve of, pay for, and rely on? ” OzarkMichael

Your count may be off by one hundred and sixty million.
“- the rest of us - ” ?

The ozark folk I have been acquainted with hold a view that differs from yours. Significantly!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

I will consider the “imperial state vs democratic state”. The contradiction between state secrecy and democracy is not an either/or, but a tension. A state is not necessarily imperial if there is secrecy.

When there is competition(even friendly competition) between groups of people there is a need for some secrecy.

In sports the coach signals a play to the team captain, and neither the team nor its fans know what the play is at that time. The team is actively going to participate. The fans care intensely. But they do not know the play at first. The opposing team certainly doesnt know and thats the whole point.

Like it or not, nations are also in a competition. Hopefully it is friendly competition, but it is not always friendly. History proves that.

I understand that a democracy involves everyone equally. But i think our nation is more of a republic. We place a fiduciary trust in our elected representatives to work on problems. Certain problems are(or should be) completely transparent to the citizenry. Other problems cannot effectively be dealt with unless there is some secrecy.

Now there are rules for secret information to be released eventually. You might want those rules to be considerably stronger and have documents released sooner. I might agree. We can work to effect those changes.

You might prefer no secrets at all. However, most people in the nation disagree, and i disagree too.

Now i have a question for you, Anarcissie. How is it democratic for one or two people to try to demolish the governmental structures which the rest of us approve of, pay for, and rely on? That is what puzzles me. Is that the Anarchist way of accomplishing change? And why are many of your fellow travellers so angry at anyone who resists what they say?

There seems to be a massive sense of moral superiority on your side, which by the way makes the Christian Right look like disorganized, self tortured, overthinking, indecisive liberals.

The contradiction between state secrecy and democracy is not an either/or, but a tension. If you want to move the needle towards more transparency, campaign for it. I might get behind you.

But please dont break the law and then expect no punishment because of your moral superiority. Even the Christian Right cant do that, and we have so much moral superiority that we brush our teeth with it.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 17, 2011 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I noted that your distrust of Greenwald, Wikileaks, Assange and Manning has thus far been justified only by aesthetics.  I don’t find them tremendously attractive either, but I think they are considerably more than decor. 

You haven’t engaged the question of the contradiction between state secrecy and democracy.  My ‘reservation’ is only that one can usually concoct a case for anything—perhaps Hitler rescued a puppy-dog one day—but in general the contradiction is as near an absolute as you’re likely to find in political matters.  In the case of the United States, secrecy and disinformation have become a habitual, growing, often malign practice.  Even the undemocratic ought to be worried about it.  ‘Whistleblowers’ will help impede its ongoing increase.

Feingold’s project is yet another quest to make the ruling class behave nicely.  It will be good if you all succeed, but I am placing my bets elsewhere.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 17, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

“Why not email Wizard JA and ask him if he knew such a person?” The wikileaks.org domain currently redirects to mirror.wikileaks.info, a domain which is not included in the official list of mirrors. But try http://www.wikileaks.ch/  Shenonymous,February 14,12:43AM

I hesitate to interrupt the activities of this constructive, truth-seeking WikiLeaks association of folk.

My preference is to write the “NEWSMAX” printshop in Florida, the NAZI-GHWBushSr entourage-
Republican Party-affiliated group, and ask if they will review their lists for the fictitious name, Domscheit-Berg.

While “Newsmax” distributes accurate and useful, non-orthodox-medicine, health info, enough to hold the interests of many readers, this info is already canned, and requires only a re-listing, e.g. “Knockout” by Suzanne Somers.

Interrupting their “support Jeb Bush” activities, the former governor of Florida with the criminal software for defrauding with voting machines, the member of the GHWBushSr entourage that stole the electoral college of Florida in the 2004 election in order to “re-elect” his brother, “Jr. Bush,” seems to me to be a useful activity.

If you can provide me with a valid email address for the “Newsmax” propaganda printshop in
Florida, please do so.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 17, 2011 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Completely expected from you, ardee, a virulent salvo! Try saying
something meaningful that might affect something.  Naw, you can’t.
You just blather.  Are you a Republican troll in Green Garb?  Gee you
could wait until St. Patrick’s Day! Russ Feingold and I are coming after
you!  Watch out!  hahaha Havana Nice Day!

Report this

By ardee, February 17, 2011 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, February 16 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Good morning… again!
Back with the infantile namecalling that defines you ardee?

I have been wrong and I freely admit it. Here I thought the Shrew was simply an arrogant, pompous rear end of a donkey who thought endless support for the Democrats was accomplished by insulting any and all who deviated from her own unique brand of political blindness.

Her latest insulting commentary included greatly insulting and seriously underestimating those who dared to support Assange and his group, to which I replied in kind. This latest address to me about insults, which is only her metier and modus operandi as a Democratic loyalist of the first water shows plainly that I seriously misjudged her.

It is now obvious that she is just rehearsing a stand up comedy routine. Break a leg, shrew.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 17, 2011 at 3:49 am Link to this comment

That is where we differ then Anarcissie, and it should not be a
surprise since this difference has shown up on other forums. 
You say you think exposing state secrets is “generally” a good
thing. That means you have some reservations.  I do too yet you
paint me as being supportive of total secrecy, which I am not. 
You use an unethical dishonest tactic to garrote me.  That is a
typical strategy of those who cannot stand a shade difference
of those unlike them.  Like you, I am “generally” for an open
government.  The kind of secrecy I think is proper I have already
specified and has precisely to do with protecting the nation.

It is absurd of you to suggest my distrust of the primary characters
of the circumstances of publishing hundreds of thousands of state
documents and why I have not become a cultist follower of Assange
or Manning, and now Greenwald, is entirely aesthetic.  It is a vulgar
brand of bull shit.  Of course Assange and Manning are owed due
legal process, I’ve said as much.  Precisely, they are owed due legal
process that will determine their innocence or guilt.  If you think they
will not get due process I suggest you go and protest outside their
cells or other place of detention.  Stand outside the gates if you have to!  Send them money! 
You avoid answering my questions about your credentials.  But because I do not think
their actions are moral does not make me a person lesser than you or an aesthete.  Because
I do not care for Greenwald’s inflammatory rhetoric does not make me irrational.  It is only
irrational to you and the others who denigrate me because I do not embrace his rhetoric or
yours.  He does not give rational arguments.  His are always entirely emotionally reactionary
and apparently yours along with the others are too.  So be it.

On a different but politically relevant issue I’ve just signed up with Russ Feingold’s
newly regenerated Progressives United.com group whose intention is to go against
Corporate America and government reform.  Listening to him on Rachel Maddow, I’ve
become a groupie of a sort.  And will work, as I’ve frequently said, to change the
Democratic Party from within and as an active protester of the current state of politics. 
I informed the Democratic Party of my action and would hope the powers that be in the
Party take it to heart and understand that the Will of the People will prevail.  Feingold is a
Democrat and he believes this new intraparty movement will ignite the greater Party to get
with the program to start standing strong and grab back the country the Republicans are
trying to swipe away from us.  The new movement has had so many thousands already sign
up in just one day of declaration that the new website is clogged! But not before I did!  And
I believe it will become nationally infectious.  This is grassroots activism and it will work
because it is the only way the people have to “take care of their business” needing only a
rational and articulate known leader to get the ball rolling.  Irrational as it may be, my main
political object, as I have often expressed, is to defeat the Republicans in ways I think
would be effective to overwhelmingly rout their self-serving policies and disgusting view of
the American people.
https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/EmailSignup.aspx?X=HZh75IFMyTM=

Background article at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/russ-feingold-progressives-united-
corporate-influence_n_816693.html

If unable to link to either of these, copy/paste the address in browser.

Report this
Psychobabbler's avatar

By Psychobabbler, February 17, 2011 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

When a country identifies itself as Democracy it implies that the people are involved with their government’s actions. Without a full accounting of the motivations and reasoning behind the governments actions, the public is IN FACT not involved.

You cannot put any man on this earth into public display without them being perceived as arrogant.

YOU CANNOT DO THIS TO PEOPLE HERE (I’d say)

Manning did what he thinks was right and he should be treated with respect considering the implications of the material he is dealing with at such a young age.

His actions are a morally justified reaction to an insane situation created by the very people who are prosecuting him.

Assange/Manning +1
Government -1

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 16, 2011 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I thought if you distrusted Greenwald you would have some rational basis for your distrust, such as knowing an instance in which he lied or obfuscated.  Apparently your distrust is entirely aesthetic—he says things or otherwise behaves in ways that rub you the wrong way, and that’s it.

I guess the same goes for Assange.

I’m afraid I’m not very interested in their celebrity status, beauty, or entertainment value.  I do think exposure of state secrets is generally a good thing, and as I said regardless of whether it’s a good thing or not, state secrecy and liberal constitutional democracy are mutually exclusive—obviously.  So you can pick one or the other.

I value Manning’s contribution to impeding government and exposing its true nature, but I don’t expect others to agree.  However, regardless of what you and the others who are against him think, he is owed due process.  The suspicion that he is being worked on to generate fictitious evidence against Assange or others will remain until this particular set of state secrets is exposed.  There will also be the question of selective prosecution.  I think the government’s hissy fit about Assange has gotten it into an interesting fix.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment

It is not required that I show that Greenwald practices lying, I
never said he did, Anarcissie. There is no reason to make false
statements about me unless it makes you feel good.  I specifically
said I did not have much confidence in anything he said.  And I said
why.  That, in effect, I thought he appeared to have too much of a
fondness for celebrity status, that in itself puts me off and gives
some suspicion to their motives for saying what they do.  I gave
some of his history as found in internet publications.  There are
people you like and believe and some you don’t.  The same for me,
after reading some of his writings, I just happen not to like Greenwald
because I find his political disposition arranged and affectatious.

Nor do I care for Assange.  From his own interviews, I see him as an
arrogant exploiter extraordinaire.  Whether Assange is criminal is also
a matter of law, and at the moment a matter of opinion since he has
not been formally charged anywhere.  I am not an expert at criminal
law.  Are you?  If so, what are your credentials?  No one else on this
forum has shown to be an expert either. Yet they take delight in
denigrating me on what I say and with nothing to base their
castigations except their personal bigotries against my statements. It
shows their mental paltriness and contradictory view that they may
freely say what they want but not those who have a contrary view. 

From non-blog accounts, newspapers like The Guardian, Wired, and
so forth, about what Manning did, it certainly looks like he committed
a big booboo and will have to face the music.  He was charged with two
counts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: one encompassing
the eight alleged criminal offenses, and a second detailing four
noncriminal violations of Army regulations governing the handling of
classified information and computers.  How the US military handles any
such trials is by regulation.  He is incarcerated as a criminal while two
different and separate investigations are going on.  The Army’s
and one involving federal criminal law on espionage. From his own
admittance and bragging, he disclosed to a former hacker friend that
he was responsible for leaking “classified” information to Wikileaks. 
Manning is being detained because it is believed by the Military that
were he not put under a maximum security program, he could escape
and that would create a dangerous situation.  I cannot express an
opinion one way or another about that.  I have no personal knowledge
about such matters.  Do you?

There are documents that are classified that may be withheld from
public access that have to do with the security of this country, that I
listed earlier and from where I found this information. We have already
gone over that ground and I see no point to go over it again.  I do not
know if the same law is active in other countries. 

There are too many nonverifiable allegations flying around the aether
that it is insane to voice opinions without any authenticity.  It is too
easy for non-involved persons to emotionally decide to take on a
certain posture because they already have a view of authority on this
entire drama. It is especially egregious for those who have no real
information to base their pre-biased attitude on hearsay.  Shall
Greenwald represent Manning, given he lost his first and last big case?

For those who do not like what I say, you are invited to just curse me
if that makes you feel better, gloss over it and go on to the next
comment.

Report this

By gerard, February 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous:  “fervent partisans”  How is it that you can define supporters of civil liberties as “fervent partisans”—unless, of course, you mean they are fervent partisans of civil liberties.  That’s not what you imply, however.  You are using the phrase in a fervently partisan way, yourself, as you probably recognize, implying that it means “biased” and “prejudiced” and therefore not to be trusted.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 16, 2011 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—My understanding is that unless Assange explicitly solicited espionage, he has not broken any laws.  He is not a U.S. citizen and has not been operating in U.S. jurisdictions.  I could be wrong, in that Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, the U.K., etc., may have laws forbidding the publication of materials deemed secret by other states, but at the moment I doubt it.  Materials produced by the U.S. government cannot be copyrighted.

As for whether a democratic government can practice secrecy or fraud even with the consent of its citizens, I am sure we all see the contradiction.

As for Manning, even though he is a member of the Armed Services, I believe he is entitled to due process.

Shenonymous—You and I have different ideas of ‘celebrity’.  Regardless, you have forgotten to show that Greenwald has made a practice of lying, so your assumption that he is lying in this case, when he happens to be saying something you don’t like, seems to go well beyond any facts.  Perhaps you can repair this omission; if not, perhaps you should withdraw it?

Report this

By Flummox, February 16, 2011 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

Oh Shenonymous, I almost forgot. Why not defend wikileaks from your hysteria? Why bother? What’s the point? I have no need to defend them against hysterical and overwrought rantings. Why would I even want to discuss the ins and outs of wikileaks with you? The problem here isn’t wikileaks, the problem is your reactionary hysteria.

Your ranting and raving is not unique. No Shenonymous, there’s nothing special about your hysteria. Almost all left-leaning message boards have a least one “centrist” hysteric posting breathless nonsense day after day.

Go to Salon, their boards can be overwhelmed by your type from time to time. There’s even one who sounds exactly like you who posts around three dozen times each day with reactionary “centrist” nonsense. That person gets banned from posting but then just creates a new login and keeps on going. You “centrist” types truly have issues.

Report this

By Flummox, February 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

No Shenonymous. You are completely hysterical, not histrionic. You are thoroughly overwrought and apparently love to hear yourself talk. You love coming here day after day to not only insult the locals but also demonstrate your thorough lack of understanding of the issues. Meanwhile you take offense when somebody insults you, who would ever have the thought fighting back? Oh, somebody attacked you? What animals!

Very typical of self-claimed centrists, completely lacking in self-reflection. Strange that this particular disorder (I can’t remember the name of it off the top of my head) so often afflicts the minds of people who call themselves centrists. Maybe it is a side effect of standing so often on principle while at the same time having a total lack of the same.

Why such hysterics anyway? You claim to want to defeat Republicans so badly, but your little outbursts only turn people off. Who wants to vote for a party of principle-free hysterics? Can’t you see normal people don’t like your turrets-like outbursts of abuse? Why do you think so few people showed up to vote for Democrats in the last election? And due to the total lack of self-reflection by you and your party the same thing is going to happen in 2012.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 16, 2011 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Good morning… again!
Back with the infantile namecalling that defines you ardee?  I
prefer Shepotamus but Shrewnonymous will do. Both are par for
the course of the small mind that is yours.  Lacking more
intelligence you have no other recourse. You just blather. You
do present to the world the typical kind of petty mindedness
that defines most of your intolerant parochial opinions. Most
of the time you are a paltry bore even though there are TD
moments where you say we, amazingly enough, agree! OMG!
Shocking us both!

Histrionics maybe, but not hysterics Flummox. My method is to
choose what I say.  But no surprise an intolerant Leakian groupie such
as yourself would see my frolic as hysterics. I portray JA and Wikileaks
as a new religion. I don’t have antagonism or even hostility towards JA
in particular except that I find him creepy.  Nothing is going to happen
to Assange, nothing at all.  He is a deity!  He is JA!  What I may
rightfully comment on is what I perceive to be the action and reaction
of LeakieBelievers.  I’ve been accused of being too calculating.  Most
likely true but hardly hysterical (in the classic sense, haha).  It takes
calm concentration to be able to write the sardonic cheap shots of a
script such as I have given this forum. It does depend on one’s
perspective doesn’t it?  It’s doubtful you are even able to
understand that I am having ostentatious theatrical fun!  Why not
defend your beloved JA or your holy book?  Why not?  Maybe because
you can’t!  Maybe because you are only a simpleton playground
scrapper who doesn’t have enough wit to articulately defend WikiLeaks
or JA aka Julian Assange and can only resort to rebuking me? There are
a number of your type that regularly haunts TD. You are part of a new
religious tribe!

Manning’s condition - the Guardian, Feb 5
Manning entered his ninth month in military detention and continues
to be held in maximum security conditions critics claim violate his
human rights.

Manning was charged as a spy July 6, 2010.

Spends 23 hours a day in his windowless 6.7 square metre cell, which
contains nothing but a bed and blanket, sink and toilet. Allowed no
personal objects other than one book or magazine at a time and is
prevented from taking any exercise other than foe one hour a day when
he is taken to an empty room and allowed to walk around it in a figure
of eight.

He also remains on what is known as “prevention of injury” or POI
watch which means guards check him every five minutes and wake
him at night if he is not fully visible. For two days last month, against
the advice of prison psychiatrists, he was placed on full suicide watch,
which involved him being stripped to his underwear and having his
glasses confiscated unless reading or watching television.

Periodically he has visitors and is shackled by hand and foot in
prison fashion and accompanied by two guards at all times.  Visitor
friend, David House, said he has witnessed the soldier’s deterioration
over the past few months. “Each time I go there seems to have been a
remarkable decline. That’s physical too. When I first saw him he was
bright-eyed and strong like he was in early photographs, but now he
looks weak, he has huge bags under his eyes and his muscles have
turned to fat. It’s hard watching someone over the months sicken like
that.”  In his most recent visit, House tweeted that Manning was in a
“shocked state” as a result of his confinement, “but his mood and mind
soared when I mentioned the democratic uprisings in Egypt”.  From a
shocked state?

Now why haven’t any of you presented as much?  The above is to be
expected of a man charged as a spy!

Since all of the Manning visitors are fervent partisans, everything
they report is tainted with their bias.  Therefore, all is speculation,
all hearsay.  What is the actual case will be shown when his hearing
happens this month.

Report this

By ardee, February 16, 2011 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, February 16 at 3:00 am

Your paeon to Justice and Law seems to glaringly omit the fact that isolation is a form of torture and that has no place in either of those two noble principles you hide behind.

emergence of the real Shrewnonymous so sad to see.

And you are so compelled to attack me, ardee, you jump at every chance.  I’ve lived with that for a long time!  It is a hoot.  What really is that dragoon of yours about?  Should you care so much?  If my so-
called “attack” on JA is creepy, it is because the man himself is creepy.
His shallowness and obvious rapture for stardom is something I find
repugnant.  And as much as you Gush, I can Dis-Gush.  Ask yourself
what it is that really fascinates you about the entire WikiLeak
phenomena?  I bet you never stopped once to consider what it is that
glues you to it.  So which species of follower are you?  The Snoopian,
the Leakian, or the Need to Believe Believer?

If you are through admiring yourself in the mirror I would intrude on your egotistical madness with a bit of reality. My defense of Assange and Wikileaks has nothing whatsoever to do with either shallow thinking ( that would be your specialty) or hero worship. The expose of crooked diplomats, politicians and despots is a necessary ingredient to the healing of this world’s wounds.

You, on the other hand, take indefensible positions and defend them to your own detriment. You twist debate to exclude that which you cannot defend and insult my character and intellect, or lack thereof, instead. You are a minor league GRYM in fact, how does that feel?

I give not a rats backside about your opinion as to the character or lack thereof of Julian Assange. What you base that upon I believe is a desperate need to defend your execrable position. One with a modicum of honesty might consider debating the subject on its merits instead of assassinating the man himself and his defenders. A clumsy and rather stupid device for which you should be ashamed, frankly.

Why do I do this?  Well mainly because I am loathe to see minds given
over so willingly to our contemporary Sophists.

Oh horsepucky, what a silly way to indulge yourself

Having better things to do than to wrangle with minor minds, I’m off to
the real world.

Of course you are, after all you must continue to defend a Party that tortures, murders tens of thousands of innocents, jails hundreds without access to the courts and betrays the working people of this nation with every statement and action.

I, for one, have never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, thus your comment regarding my intellect leaves me untouched but smears you pretty well. As you seem to have a penchant for such self destruction, and who can blame you given the tasks to which you bend your own mind, defending the status quo as you do, and demeaning those who seek a better world.

I would hope you are a better person that your posts indicate, but I lean to ....NOT.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 16, 2011 at 5:11 am Link to this comment

“These symptoms point to something bizarre and possibly not right in Assange’s character.”  Laurel Maury

Of greater interest to me is the character of the secretive, “Daniel Domscheit-Berg.” “Laurel Maury” lists the alleged author as German. However, the name “Domscheit-Berg” is not listed in the telephone directory for Germany or the U.S. Although,the name Daniel Berg is listed thirteen times in the directory for Germany.  I do not have access to listings for the CIA, the MOSSAD, or their private operatives. Nor for what appears to me to be the “NEWSMAX” printshop in Florida, associated with the GHWBushSr entourage, the CIA and leaders in the party that calls itself “Republican.”

Further distorting the “rejected love” retribution of the author(s) of the book, to cast aspersion on the character of Julian Assange, is not nearly as interesting as the hateful retribution itself. That the operative behind the name, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, teamed up with Julian Assange until being overwhelmed by the feeling of “rejected love,” suggests a character structure that is perhaps even more flawed than that of Julian Assange. Perhaps also, that Mr. Julian Assange perceived the odor of a mole in his vicinity.

Instead of making a contribution to honesty by revealing dastardly dishonesty, “Daniel Domscheit-Berg” attempts to destroy the “hero” in the story. Which also raises the question of gender of “Daniel Domscheit-Berg,” and ones adjustment to the heterosexual animal kingdom.

As far as the book review, getting ones summary of a book in print is worth a few bucks, plus ones name in print. A question is raised as to the choice of books, however. Also, that the summary was selected for publication by Truthdig.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 16, 2011 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

RE: Its been released people:  Now use it.  Move the dialogue forward.  Talk about the contents
in the leaks

this has been tried, but unfortunately the ad hominem, et al, as pointed out, denigrates the
discourse

we don’t know what’s coming in the Bankster-gate leaks, but Cable-gate gave raison to
the anticipated shift of the war from Afghanistan to Pakistan and more fuel to launch on Iran

what else? fuel enough to help oust Mubarak, who had recently rejected the proposed alliance with
Israel and Saudi against Iran - we’ll see what Egypt’s new power brokers do with the proposal -
moreover, one of the cables actually revealed that the rebellion was being planned through
Freedom House for the last few years

many are suggesting the possibility that WL is being used to ‘leak’ seeded info. in an effort to better
manipulate ME politics, not so unlike Brzezinski’s manipulation of the 1979 Iranian uprising which,
of course, his faction quickly lost control of, but ZBig’s operatives were instrumental in the Shah’s
ouster and many believe his arc of crisis strategy is still in play

others suggest Israeli intelligence may have a hand in the leaks - there’s literally nothing bad about
Israel in the leaks

as suggested, substantive discourse is welcome, rhetorical antics not

Report this

By Flummox, February 16, 2011 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

Ho hum indeed Shenonymous. Your overwrought hysterics are hardly warranted, and neither is your obvious jealousy of Greenwald.

Also, people do know what is happening to Manning, it is not speculation in the slightest. If you just calm down perhaps you would be able to read up on the situation. You know, calm down? Maybe I’m asking too much. You seem to have a seriously distorted lens, though much about medication?

Report this

By gerard, February 16, 2011 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous:  You wrote:  “No one really knows what is happening to Bradley Manning, all that is talked about is all speculation.’  This is wrong.
  Manning’s situation is being watched to the extent that is possible.  A friend is entitled to visit him once a month and a couple months ago reported that his physical/mental was deteriorating due to the regimen of extreme isolation they were putting him through. Psychiatrists for Social Responsibility, Amnesty International, Courage to Resist and Committee for Constitutional Rights are all keeping an eye on the situation as much as possible, and raising money for his defense.  He has not been formally charged and people think the punishment is disproportioinate to say the least.  It is reported now on Firedoglake that his situation has been somewhat eased and he knows about, and expressed happiness about, Egyptian youth taking their lives into their own jurisdiction.  He is very interested in the future behavior of the young people of the world. Firedoglake will no doubt post subsequent releases about him.

Report this

By c1smitty, February 16, 2011 at 1:18 am Link to this comment

I am discouraged to see that most of the comments are aimed at Julian Assange, and each other, rather than aimed toward this poorly written article.  The only thing worth noting about the article is the last sentence: “Assange is incidental. WikiLeaks, the idea, changes the game.”  Assange, himself, has maintained as much on numerous occasions.  That quote is the only thing worth expanding on or debating about.  Instead, you all are still talking about whether or not this information ought to have been released.  Its been released people:  Now use it.  Move the dialogue forward.  Talk about the contents in the leaks   Most of these comments are tired.  Is anyone else tired?

And most of this article is conjecture. The author relies on the rambling opinions of a disenfranchised “insider”.  This article amounts to nothing more than gossip.  The author admits as much when she states the book is “full of anecdotes”.  Frankly, I expect more from TruthDig.  If I wanted this type of journalism, I’d be at the HP or worse yet, the LA Times. 

Lastly, please save the Ad hominem abuse for the sites mentioned above.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

I am not hating your idealism about a completely open government, its part of an important conversation. I dont hate Assange either.

As for what the government does: its methods, its policies, its consequences, those are questions that are open for discussion. We can talk about that.

But currently it is against the law to obtain secret documents from the US Government. I understand that most all of you disagree with the very concept of Secret Documents, and we can chat about that. But meanwhile, if someone breaks the law they will have to pay a fine or jail time if they are caught.

I dont understand why your side gets so angry at this principle, or upset with moderates who disagree with you. If you cant have a civil conversation with a moderate, how will you communicate with a right winger like myself? Be aware that i listen to what you say, and if something works for your side, then it might work for us.

Listen, right wingers are idealistic about some things, and as a matter of fact there are some laws that we dont like. Do you think that us right wingers should break the laws we dont like? No? Then why should it be ok for your side to break the law and try to damage the system in order to ‘expose’ and ‘fix’ it?

How is it democratic for you to break the law but not for others to do the same? Is your idealism so much finer than mine?

If we dont like the law, perhaps we should work within the process to change it. Thats a novel idea.

Or we can all do our best to break the system down… its your call.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 15, 2011 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

I’m surprised you, Anarcissie, do not know more about Greenwald. 
The mere fact that Greenwald has ascended to be part of an
indubitably anticipated new book released about WikiLeaks,
advertised on this very web-page tells how much of a celebrity he
has become.  I don’t know about all of his problems, but his well-
known fulminations about journalistic conspiracies puts him near
the edge of delirium if not over the edge in my opinion on that
score.  Oh well…

Professionally often an invited guest on various media venues of
political opinion or debate, his involvement in the public domain
in 2003 started his celebrity status climb when he took a case to
defend a White Supremacist, Matthew Hale, who was charged with
soliciting a murder hit on a federal judge who was presiding over a
copyright case regarding the name of the suprematist’s organization,
The World Church of the Creator, and who called himself supreme
leader and Pontifex Maximus, an extremist group that advocated
hate and bigotry in no uncertain terms. Previously, in 1999, a devoted
follower of Mr. Hale, Benjamin Smith, went on a three-day unrestrained
killing spree in Illinois and Indiana, killed two men, one black and one
Korean, and injured nine other Jews, Asians and African-Americans
before committing suicide to protest Hale’s being denied a license to
practice law. Four years previously, Hale had encouraged Smith to shoot
as many Jews, and other minorities as he could and long after Smith’s
killing binge, Hale continued to praise Smith’s deeds and held him up
as a model member of his group. 

Glenn Greenwald, Hale’s lawyer, said charges against his client
might spring from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client
on the Internet that ‘we (?) are in a state of war with the targeted
judge.”  Greenwald argued that there was an attempt to take a political
promotion and twist it into a criminal matter and that it was a matter of
exercising the First Amendment rights of free speech.  The [authorities]
are probably trying to take things that exist along the lines of political
advocacy and turn it into a crime,’’ Greenwald said… ‘‘The F.B.I. may
have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal
judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric. 
Hale was convicted with a maximum 40-year sentence.  Greenwald’s
bitterness is unambiguous.

Shortly after Greenwald gave up law practice.  He said he was bored, I
wonder what was the real reason?  But whatever, he had made a name
for himself.  Creating his own blog in 2005 has put him on the
electronic map of the Internet.  His bias against both major political
parties and America, for a number of personal reasons, cleverly
positioned himself to be a political writer.

BTW:  Salon a not sacred place.  No one really knows what is happening
to Bradley Manning, all that is talked about is all speculation.  But,
ironically, speculation rather than truth is the daily nourishment for
truthdippers.

I happen to agree with Lawrence O’Donnell on a couple of things. 
Greenwald has found a marketable niche in the political punditry and
has a pop fan following.  Engraving the word liberal now as progressive
aggravates me as much as it does O’Donnell.  And I have expressed this
with my reasons on a few forums.  I do not apologize in the least for
being a liberal centrist.  Take adolescent swipes at me if you must, I am
completely comfortable in that position on the political spectrum. 
HoHum…until tamarra.

Report this

By diamond, February 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

“In an interview with Time magazine, JA noted, “WikiLeaks, has never caused an individual … to come to any sort of physical harm or to be
wrongly imprisoned and so on.”  But that is not true, is it?  Those despots you mentioned are they not “individuals?”  Whether or not they
deserve to be deposed despots is not the issue.”

So now by the same process of un-reason that you apply to everything you’ve decided that Wikileaks must be held accountable for deposing despots. Are you going to declare 2011 the Year of the Despot and set up a Be Kind to Despots Week as well? In what universe, tell me, Shenonymous, has a despot not ‘deserved’ to be deposed. By their very nature, as criminals, torturers and thieves and for making war on their own people, they ‘deserve’ to be deposed and they deserve to be hauled up before the ICC. Are you opposed to that as well?

The truth is that America has for many long decades put these despots in place and armed and funded them with US taxpayers’ money while continually caterwauling about how America is the greatest democracy in the world. Well, in my opinion, if you believe in democracy, you believe in it for everyone regardless of race, creed or nationality. If you don’t then you don’t actually believe in democracy at all, you believe in elitism and power and exploitation - all of which are served by secrecy and lies. If you want the status quo and the continuation of American imperial rule via secrecy and lies then carry on with your irrational braying about Wikileaks. You’ve already proven that you don’t have a leg to stand on and your arguments are completely invalid but carry on, if that’s what rings your bell.

Report this

By Flummox, February 15, 2011 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

I swear, “centrists” like Shenonymous are worse than Tea Party activists. Its people like that who prove how far off the path the Democratic Party has strayed.

Obviously Shenonymous’s irrational hatred of just about everything makes her opinion a joke, especially when she claims to be so “above it all”. She thinks she can be a disinterested voice of rational thought and a screaming hysteric at the same time. But all “centrists” do, it has become their defining characteristic in the age of Obama.

Well there she is, in the flesh. Empirical proof that Democrats are off the rails. It’s the “centrists” party now and is now less than counterproductive. That’s why it must be shoved off a cliff.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

clearly agreed (by virtually one and all): secrecy is democracy’s principal enemy -
those who embrace secrecy fear democracy, in light of that…

considering the massive secrecy cloaking the inner workings of public institutions,
just how is one to assess the truthful quality of so-called ‘leaks’?

a serious problem, but curiously when posed in forums such as this, those posing
it are typically dismissed as intent on damaging the credibility of WL and its public
voice, JA; and, thereby conflating all ‘skeptics’ with the so-called ‘anti-
transparency’ camp

in this forum, too numerous to count are the severely aggressive, knee-jerk,
straw-man, smack downs articulated by postings like this (John Young interview
below), which goes to the heart of leaked data authenticity and internet privacy
issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRUiB_8tTc

Report this

By gerard, February 15, 2011 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

We are so far-removed from democracy that we will even plead the necessity for secrecy in government.  Quoting one commenter:  “What this boils down to is… do we want to have an effective foreign policy or not? Effective foreign policy involves secret communications from diplomats.”  In other words, to hell with “open agreements openly arrived at.”
  A lot of people have been brainwashed into believing this sincerely and have no problem with it.  Wars come and go; billions of their tax money is spent on whatever the government decides; tens of thousands of people die or are killed; dictators are bought and sold; children starve, sicken and die. So what?  We are dragged along by controlled media.
  Don’t tell me.  I don’t want to know, because then I will have to do something about it.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  And lie, and lie, and lie. 
  This is the blindness that Manning and Assange struggle against.  They have risked their lives to do their half of the job.  Institutionalized deception has caused democracy to all but die in the U.S.  It’s up to us, the people, to insist on honesty and openness if we want to save what is left of it.
  It’s up to us.  That’s exactly why people in government and their sympathizers hate and fear Assange, leaks and freedom of knowledge. If we know what they are doing we may not accept it.  Then what?  We just might get enough true information to be able to participate significantly in our own government.  “Give light and the people will find their own way.” 
  Not to use the leaked cables as a chance to self-correct a failed methodology, and instead to pursue Manning and Assange as villains only proves the knee-jerk reactivity and shortsightedness in Washington.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 15, 2011 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—the Assange-Wikileaks issue exposes a major contradiction between the imperial state and the exercise of constitutional democracy.  On the one hand, the imperial state can’t conduct its business in the open.  On the other, the citizens have to know what the state is doing in order to discuss and consider its behavior and speak and cast their votes accordingly.  This contradiction has been noticed before, but the fact that the U.S. government and major corporations appear to be hunting Assange using illegal methods throws the contradiction into bold relief.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 15, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

<b>Shenonymous, February 15 at 1:22 pm: <b>

Anarcissie - I do not have much confidence in anything Glenn Greenwald says.  He enjoys too much a celebrity status and loves the limelight as much as JA.  I have an automatic anti-reflex for those who achieve popularity for a cause who pretends to be in a profession that allegedly hunts and presents the truth. ...

I had no idea Greenwald was a celebrity outside the pages of Salon.  Live and learn.  In any case, since he is such a big celebrity, and is so prolix, surely you have some instances of lying or misconstruction to tell us about in order to justify your mistrust?  Or do you just distrust all reporters who claim to tell the truth whatever?  In that case, why are you discussing this issue, which I expect you have heard about only through the media?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 15, 2011 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Good morning!  I hope you all slept well.

And so you demonstrate, diamond, you have no powers of your
ownto contemplate what ifs.  What if your perception of the
Wizard JA is completely askew because you believe what it is you
want to believe?  Imagine yourself as a minor player in the world of
the Net, but having as big an ego as a warehouse, and a penchant
for theft and other vices like tom peeping, and loving to upset
applecarts, and imagine yourself a crusader of a perverted sort? 
Imagine then making a living out of Divulgence!  With no idea the
ramifications of what it is you Divulge! Could you follow the data
dump of 250,000 documents?  He does not! Nor ever, ludicrously,
intended to.  It is very much akin to selling guns to the insane.  In
other words, to be a Wizard “like” JA, or worse, to “be” JA?  And
where exactly do you get your information, diamond, of the
truth of anything you read? You appear to have completely absorbed
the hype.  You pick your beliefs right off the Internet! I can only
imagine what that might be like, not what it is, for I question
everything, and most often myself!  Do you?  Your defense of the
Wizard shows your thrall mentality.  Devil worship, absurd!  I don’t
know what a devil is!  Do you?  Mythology.  It is the Gushing about
Leaking that amazes me and moves me to characterize the entire
edifice that I call JA and WikiLeaks as the new religion. And religions
need holy books, which WikiLeaks has become, and a Deity to which JA
has ascended.  All worshippers attending the Church of the Internet.  It
is a drama, a postmodern drama, where the ethereal and fragmentation
of the Net gives Confidentiality and Secretivity new dimensions.  It is a
new kind of comedy.

In an interview with Time magazine, JA noted, “WikiLeaks, has never
caused an individual … to come to any sort of physical harm or to be
wrongly imprisoned and so on.”  But that is not true, is it?  Those
despots you mentioned are they not “individuals?”  Whether or not they
deserve to be deposed despots is not the issue. 

The incredible legend that has been created by those so willing to
believe anything that really does affect the world as does any religion is
appalling, ardee!  Do write a dissertation on the “good” WIkiLeaks has
done.

And you are so compelled to attack me, ardee, you jump at every
chance.  I’ve lived with that for a long time!  It is a hoot.  What really is
that dragoon of yours about?  Should you care so much?  If my so-
called “attack” on JA is creepy, it is because the man himself is creepy. 
His shallowness and obvious rapture for stardom is something I find
repugnant.  And as much as you Gush, I can Dis-Gush.  Ask yourself
what it is that really fascinates you about the entire WikiLeak
phenomena?  I bet you never stopped once to consider what it is that
glues you to it.  So which species of follower are you?  The Snoopian,
the Leakian, or the Need to Believe Believer?

Why do I do this?  Well mainly because I am loathe to see minds given
over so willingly to our contemporary Sophists. 

Having better things to do than to wrangle with minor minds, I’m off to
the real world.

Report this

By ardee, February 15, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

We are all entitled to post our opinions here, regardless of how that posting might damage our own repute. Heaven knows I have done myself much damage in the past, due, in large part ,to my passion for justice and fairness.

Shenonymous tears down her heretofore deserved reputation for intelligent dialogue with what is best characterized as a shallow and almost creepy attack on Julian Assange and the effectiveness of Wikileaks.

As to why she does this, well, ask her yourself.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 15, 2011 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

Regarding the video that explained the origin and purpose of the chemtrails that the U.S.Gov has used to pollute the world, and spread airborne illnesses - . 
The link that I previously supplied,
http://wn.com/PROJECT_CLOVERLEAF_!!!_TRUE_PURPOSE_OF_CHEMTRAILS
_!!!_AEROSOL_SPRAYING_REAGAN_!!_AC_GRIFFITH
has also been “cleansed” to remove the explanation of the purpose of spraying. The leaking of the removed data led to the murder-assassination of several persons, several years ago, two of whom were named in the original video.

Fortunately, the original was downloaded and imbedded by hundreds of persons around the world, and exists in their private collections.
After checking variously, I am unable to locate the original on the internet.
Disappointedly, I offer my apology.

Report this

By diamond, February 15, 2011 at 4:25 am Link to this comment

“So if WikiLeaks does do damage, then by its self-admittance that it does, it is a device that would need to be stopped by whatever
agencies, however evil they are perceived to be, who would feel at risk and therefore think they have legitimate legal libel against JA’s media
organization.  Doesn’t His Highest confess his Creation is lethal? Contrary to those who say his actions are innocuous therefore carries
no guilt.”

What absolute, unmitigated bullshit. No one has ever claimed Wikileaks is innocuous - it is not innocuous for tyrants, liars, gangsters, fraudsters, dictators and Fascists. Why would it be when they are its main target? Why do you demand and expect that it should be innocuous to such criminals? There’s the mystery. When has Assange ever claimed Wikileaks is lethal to all and sundry? It may very well be lethal to people like Ben Ali, Mubarak and ultimately Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney but they are all criminals and tyrants. No one with an ounce of decency would shed a tear for any of them.

I suppose you heard that Mubarak has over $70 billion tucked away in Swiss accounts etc and real estate all over the world. Now where do you suppose he got that from? He stole it from the Egyptian people, of course. Ben Ali was equally corrupt so I’m not exactly sure what your point is? If Wikileaks is lethal to such evil, anti-democratic toads, who cares?

“it is a device that would need to be stopped by whatever agencies, however evil they are perceived to be, who would feel at risk and therefore think they have legitimate legal libel against JA’s media organization.”

This is the part of your stream of consciousness, free association, un-reason that really fascinates me.In other words, because Wikileaks brings the evil undone and causes their downfall it is an evil itself and therefore ‘agencies’ and in particular THE agency have the right to use all methods, including as Dick Cheney’s former secretary stated, ‘extra-judicial’ methods to force Assange to ‘cease and desist’ from telling the truth and exposing crimes, including war crimes. What a load of codswallop.

I can only assume you call him a wizard because you want to associate him with devil worship and the forces of evil but the forces of evil don’t work for Wikileaks and don’t support it - and why would they? It is their worst enemy. As for you, Shenonymous, you are the personification of the saying, “The evil always support each other. It’s their great strength.’

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 15, 2011 at 1:20 am Link to this comment

For devotees the Holy Book WikiLeaks now gets all the credit for all
that happens in the world, such as what Foreign Policy, the agency
that is sifting through the hundreds of thousands of documents, is
doing and would of course write that the Leaks were responsible as
the catalyst for the Tunisia protest. 

However, before the leak of the US cables, unemployed Bouazizi’s
suicide by self-immolation is what initially precipitated the riot. 
His suicide was the accelerant, the explosive event.  He was a
university graduate who didn’t have enough money to pay the graft
excised by the Tunisian government to buy the vendor’s permit to
keep his street vending business going.  The target for years by the
local police, frequently harassed.  One could just as much blame his
education as the real catalyst.  It was Twitter that actually bombarded
the airwaves, the Ethernet.

WikiLeaks then came along and only anteed fuel to a fire already
burning.  I agree, the leaked information published of the US cables
bears some responsibility for the removal of Ben Ali, and on that point,
I would have to acquiesce that WikiLeaks does have some detrimental
influence on world affairs. Peripherally.

But as far as Tunisia goes, it was his friends and family and the people
of his home town that turned one angry man into thousands on the
street and it was the instigating result of the Facebook publication of
Bouazizi’s suicidal action that created the flashpoint. The Reuters Africa
article presents real history of the ruinous indictment of the Tunisian
hierarchy.
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE70G18J20110119

Of course WikiLeaks Wizard JA would connect his Tunisian HolyLeaks to
the Egyptian Peaceful Revolution.  He must keep his mythology going
and His new founded Religion of the Snoops.  The Peaceful Revolution
may have had some sustenance from news of the Tunisian Uprising that
was blasted all over every medium possible.  But WikiLeaks has to bow
to FaceBook and Twitter as the legitimate Deities of Information.

And I’m so glad some of you were happy about my peaceful sleepstate. 
I recommend it for everyone’s mental health.

So what other damage did WikiLeak release of information do?  Egypt? 
Only by the imaginative extrapolation of the High Priest of WikiLeaks
and his attendant Leakiains.  They must steal radiance away from Wael
Said Abbas Ghonim, because that is what they do.

So if WikiLeaks does do damage, then by its self-admittance that it
does, it is a device that would need to be stopped by whatever
agencies, however evil they are perceived to be, who would feel at risk
and therefore think they have legitimate legal libel against JA’s media
organization.  Doesn’t His Highest confess his Creation is lethal? 
Contrary to those who say his actions are innocuous therefore carries
no guilt. 

Anarcissie - I do not have much confidence in anything Glenn
Greenwald says.  He enjoys too much a celebrity status and loves the
limelight as much as JA.  I have an automatic anti-reflex for those who
achieve popularity for a cause who pretends to be in a profession that
allegedly hunts and presents the truth.  What follows if what Greenwald
says is not true?  Not trusting JA from the beginning even before
hearing about his trouble with sexploits in Sweden, I’ve never been
interested in what He has to say about anything.  I made that clear
months ago.  I doubt very much much will explode into a public issue
about the nature and role of the US Government beyond what is already
bandied about.  The authoritarians, hardly fans of JA, are already
crawling about out in the open and incessantly announce their hatred of
liberalism and the democracy they only lipsync.  I call them Republicans.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, February 14, 2011 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

Julian Assange is being persecuted by the institutions which have been ‘outed’ or damaged in some way. Even so, some of what he has done my be illegal, or morally wrong.

I wonder if what he has done is harmful to the ability of government officials to do the work which taxpayers pay them to do.

For example, if I was hired by the President as a diplomat to Elbownia, The President would expect reports from me.

The President wants a succinct, direct, honest appraisal whenever he asks me to report. I would not write reports as if i was giving a speech or running for office.

Knowing that my report is secret, confidential, and private, I write a sharp and meaningful report that gets my point across. My reputation is built on my clarity and precision as well as my analysis and predictions.

On the other hand, if I suspect that my report will be leaked, I will write the nicest piece of fluff. The main purpose of my report is not to inform the President. No, my report(which might become public) must promote myself as a moderate and principled fellow. My reputation is built by speaking like a politician, using the most current cliches and always keeping to the mainstream of current American political thought.

As for the President, he might as well read last week’s Time magazine article on Elbownia as read my report from Elbonia.

What this boils down to is… do we want to have an effective foreign policy or not? Effective foreign policy involves secret communications from diplomats.


Yes, I already admitted that people who are against Assange have their own agenda and they will persecute him since he hurt their interests. I am sorry about that.

But I percieve that those of you in the pro Assange crowd have an agenda of your own. Many of you would like our government to be even less informed and even less able to anticipate foreign events than it is now with our current hapless administration.

The ‘Leaks process may be violating the law. If someone in particular broke the law, then that person might end up in prison. I am not sorry about that at all.

Report this

By gerard, February 14, 2011 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

Who equates the “right to privacy” with the State Department’s (or any other government’s) “right to distribute millions of dollars of tax-payers’ hard-earned money on wars, and as graft to buy the fickle agreement of foreign dictators and toadies secretly embroiled in wheeling and deeling, selling their people down the river for weapons and mansions and influence peddling?

Report this

By diamond, February 14, 2011 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

So nice that you’re sleeping the sleep of the just, Shenonymous. I’m sure Hosni Mubarak was doing the same in whichever sumptuous villa he’s holed up in, on the run from his own people.

The Wikileaks cable that added fuel to protests in Tunisia exposed the corruption of Tunisia’s President’s family. The cable explained the family’s reach into business and referred to the President’s family as “The Family”. The government had attempted to block Wikileaks. In fact there had been a ferocious cyberwar between the government and protesters even involving ‘Anonymous’.

The Wikileaks founder told SBS’S “Dateline” on Sunday that released cables showing that former Tunisian president Ben Ali was corrupt and would not have the support of the U.S. unleashed the protests, according to an Australian news website news.com.au.
The Tunisians, according to the Australian, gave the army “the confidence that they needed to attack the ruling political elite.”

Ben Ali resigned late last month and fled to Saudi Arabia, which began a domino effect of protests on many autocratic governments in the region.
By that logic, he said, Wikileaks was also partly responsible for the resignation of Hosni Mubarak because the Tunisian revolution sparked the Egyptian people to follow suit.
“There’s no doubt that Tunisia was the example for Egypt and Yemen and Jordan, and all the protests that have happened there,” he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
world/2011/02/13/2011-02-13_julian_assange_says_
wikileaks_helped_spark_revolutions_in_tunisia_egypt.html#ixzz1Dy0WWKd9

Report this
BarbieQue's avatar

By BarbieQue, February 14, 2011 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

She:

Thanks for letting us know how you slept. Fascinating.

However, your post belies your assertion.

*****

“Can’t we all just get a bong?”
Jack Herer

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 14, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, February 14 at 5:42 am:

I said, Anarcissie, ‘maybe’…and I also said ‘I did not know.’ I have no privileges among the ruling class.  Yes, I was intentionally being stylish, responding to the flippant remark about tying the shoes of bullies.  What is really at stake when nothing WikiLeaks divulges affects anything of consequence as everybody says?  As the government says, and those defending Wizard JA.  No one has produced a WikiLeak that momentously affected anything. ...

I thought you said you had read Assange’s essays about what he was doing.  If what Greenwald says is true, then the government and the Bank of America have both been panicked into internal convulsions and illegal acts against outsiders, of the sort which can be prosecuted.  This is exactly what the pre-Madison Assange said he was about.

What surprises me is that most malign authoritarian conspiracies, mafias, have numerous internal as well as external defenses against betrayal and exposure.  One would expect outfits like the U.S. government and the Bank of America to be similarly protected.  But maybe they are as inept in this department as they have proven to be in others recently.

In any case, it seems the hunting of Assange is going to blow up into a public issue about the nature and role of the U.S. government, and its authoritarian fans are going to have to come out in the open about their hatred of the liberalism and democracy to which they so often give lip service.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 14, 2011 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Killing the messenger has historically been the standard response of dictator types, and has altered only in methodology.  Daggers being plunged immediately into the heart of the messenger has been replaced by more socially acceptable types of “deaths.”  Such is the WikiLeaks case at hand.  Similar to leaks of the “chemtrail” secrets, and Area 51 information.

The link to the interview that revealed “contrail” secrets, which for approx. thirty years were covered by „death certificates” for whistle-blowers, has been abbreviated to exclude several valuable revelations.  Attempts to block the info, are obvious. The following link includes the omitted information.  You may need to turn off the google filter, or use an older browser. You may need to remove the http://  from the link, in order to make it acceptable to your browser. You will also need to place this entire link into your browser.  If you manage to get to the “home page,” you may need to click No. 1, Project Cloverleaf: 
http://wn.com/PROJECT_CLOVERLEAF_!!!_TRUE_PURPOSE_OF_
CHEMTRAILS_!!!_AEROSOL_SPRAYING_REAGAN_!!_AC_GRIFFITH

A similar phenomenon is associated with the UFO topic.  However, several links remove schism about the existence of extra-terrestrial vehicles – and who possesses them.  Knowledgeable persons bottle-up the information for years, leaking it only to “friends”.  A short period after they leak info to friends, the leakers associated with the CIA typically develop allegedly “incurable” cancer, and die shortly thereafter.  Or, one slashes a wrist after one has already died - - . 
http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/ufo-are-real-ben-rich-lockheed-skunk.html

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 14, 2011 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

While I had a wonderful night’s sleep, diamond, m’thinks you are
continuously WikiLeaks dreaming.  Your imagination that WikiLeaks
directly started the protests in Tunisia and Egypt is claptrap blather. 
The Tunisia uprising began over unemployment, and the self-
immolation of a 26-year old street vendor?  Then five more
attempted the same thing.  Do you think they got special WikiLeaks
from heaven?  Are you insane?  It was the speed of the electronic
media that spread the protest like wildfire.  And the 20 people have
been killed in both the city of Tala.  “Twittering” was the media of
choice that had more to do with galvanizing the throngs of people
flooding the streets. Your conjured leaks is gushing over the edge of
your mind.

In Egypt, a church bombing in Alexandria killing 23 Coptic Christians
and 8 Muslims started the unrest as Christians protested in the streets
and Muslims joining them.  The Egyptians saw how successful The
People of Tunisia were in topping the government of Zine El Albidine
Ben Ali.  Facebook and the rallying cry “We Are All Khaled Saeed”
caused the huge eruption and credit also goes to Wael Ghonim
addressed the crowds in Tahrir Square after being released from
prison telling them, “This is not the time for individuals, or parties, or
movements. It’s a time for all of us to say just one thing: Egypt above
all.”  Perhaps in addition to waking up, you might take yourself,
O’Somnambulant Supplicant of Wizard JA, to a psychiatrist.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, February 14, 2011 at 4:30 am Link to this comment

“All this chitter-chatter, chitter-chatter, chitter-chatter ‘bout
Shmatta, shmatta, shmatta…

“To live in this town you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough!
You got rats on the west side, bed bugs uptown
What a mess! This town’s in tatters, I’ve been shattered
My brain’s been battered, splattered all over Manhattan

“Uh-huh, this town’s full of money grabbers
Go ahead, bite the Big Apple, don’t mind the maggots, uh-huh.”

—Mick Jaggers & Keith Richards, “Shattered” from Some Girls

Report this

By Alphysicist, February 14, 2011 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

Mossad rats should crawl back into their holes…

Report this

By bernard, February 14, 2011 at 2:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The author’s anger is palatable”?

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 14, 2011 at 1:48 am Link to this comment

anyone so desperately and pathetically needy of such fleeting thrills in which they might delight from mercilessly slamming another, with whom they are not in agreement over any single polemic point - so much so as to seize upon that person’s failure to overcome in a single instance a life-long struggle with dyslexia, is barley even a person; rather a cruel animal, pathologically stalking the blogosphere for prey upon which to feast

poor, lost soul, inhabiting an empty corpse and utterly incapable of measured civil discourse - one can easily picture such a creature haranguing a deaf person for not avoiding their careening charge down a busy street, with horn blaring

undoubtedly, this knee-jerk reaction was triggered by reference to the Wikileaks Lemming Legions - so-called Left Liberal Progressives, caught up in a cult of celebrity worship of a personage they see leading them to a promised land of TRUTH, just as they were utterly duped by the Messiah Obama, Manchurian Candidate of the American 2008 Post Modern Coup - so utterly duped, they’re no longer in possession of the sense with which they were born

nevertheless, as always: condolences

Report this

By Ray Duray, February 14, 2011 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

Tired of the toxic tirade at Truthdig? Tune in Wikileaks@Twitter for all the latest:

http://twitter.com/wikileaks

Current Release:

New cables from Peru, Guatemala, Ecuador
http://wikileaks.ch/reldate/2011-02-13_0.html

***
Truly, people, this should not be about “the messenger”. Let’s get back to the message. Which is that most governments, especially the maliciously imperialistic one situated on the Potomac, are infested with criminal cockroaches, malicious militarists and demented De-mock-rats.

It’s the truth, people, that we need to focus on. Not the personalities. They are fungible. Just observe that fungus Dumm-Sheisse, and his perfect zero percent record at releasing anything worth anyone’s while.

Let’s stick to the good stuff:

Saturday, 2011-02-12: http://wikileaks.ch/reldate/2011-02-12_0.html 

Bogata/Mexico City Embassies

Friday, 2011-02-11: http://wikileaks.ch/reldate/2011-02-11_0.html

Santiago, Damascus, Cairo Embassies

***
This list continues here: http://wikileaks.ch/cablegate.html

Knowledge is power, opinion is… ‘meh’.

Report this

By diamond, February 14, 2011 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

“No one has produced a WikiLeak that momentously affected anything.
The kind of truth that governments need to be transparent about,the kind you are suggesting is not what WikiLeaks leaks.”

Well Shenonymous in case you haven’t noticed, the governments of both Tunisia and Egypt have fallen as a direct result of Wikileaks showing the kind of corruption that was endemic in both countries. Now Yemen is in ferment and Algeria as well. I don’t know if you call this “momentously affecting anything” but it sure as hell is historic and bears out Julian Assange’s contention that if people know the truth they will act. When the truth is on the march tyrants tremble and only someone who is willfully blind doesn’t see that.

Report this

By diamond, February 14, 2011 at 1:00 am Link to this comment

“...Domscheit-Berg denied sabotage and ridiculed the legal threat, saying he had received a letter from a lawyer representing Assange “written in the worst German I ever read”, which failed to mention a single law he might have broken…”

Methinks Dumbshit should be taking a good look at himself about now. What law has Assange broken? He has never been charged with anything and in the court of world opinion he has already been found not guilty of the trumped up rape charges against him. Dumshit’s job is to take a hatchet to Assange’s character in the service of those who have actually committed crimes: those who murdered a rather large group of civilians on a street in Iraq in the ‘collateral murder’ video for example. Civilians including two children who were badly shot up, two Reuters journalists and cameramen as well as assorted passersby who were civilians and unarmed. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a genuine crime unlike the smoke and mirrors crap you get from people like Dumbshit and Fearthetruth (who apparently thinks ‘lawsuit’ is spelled ‘law suite’). How ‘suite’ it is to see the blind leading the blind and a Dumbshit leading a dumbershit. Just another day in the new world order paradise where the truth is anything the stormtroopers say it is.

Report this

By Ray Duray, February 14, 2011 at 12:53 am Link to this comment

Julian Assange’s mother speaks out:

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2011/02/14/3137876.htm

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.