Operation Avenge Assange

[BiBottomBoy]

As you may know Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, was arrested in London today.

What you may not know is that the members of /b/ have now launched Operation Avenge Assange.

They are starting their war by targeting PayPal, Twitter and Post Finance Bank. Other organizations that have tried to hurt Assange or Wikileaks are expected to come next (which means I'd fucking stay off Amazon today.)

Obviously the more people who contribute to Operation Avenge Assange the more effective it will be.

Not that I'd ever suggest someone participate in a DOS attack - but if one was curious how to participate there are easy to follow directions on /b/.

[Guest Conway]

Personally, I think that the guy should be executed in front of a firing squad.

[BiBottomBoy]

What's your beef with him?

[JKane]

I'm glad /b/ has taken up the cause. I don't feel certain internet backbones should be allowed to shit all over Internet standards, pulling stuff like not replicating WikiLeaks' DNS info or otherwise blocking access. It's not up to them to censor what I can access especially when there's been no court finding against the site. Amazon and Paypal, not so much, but they knew who they were doing business with long before this, to yank service with no notice was pretty shitty of them too.

And if we can't have a watchdog press anymore (or at least one concerned with anything more than the latest celebrity gossip or which seasonal parade changed their name to Holiday instead of Christmas) I'll take what I can get.

I'd really prefer stuff like All the Presidents Men and The Pentagon Papers, but if Wikileaks is all that's left, it's a hell of a lot better than what was available to us as we went to war in Iraq!

[JKane]

Personally, I think that the guy should be executed in front of a firing squad.

Really? Before anybody in the Cheney/Bush administration who actually committed treason against their own country in the Plame affair?

Before the people who lied to the American people and congress in order to go to war for oil, in which they didn't even manage to *get* any oil but did manage to kill thousands of Americans and countless Iraqis?

Before the contractors and corporations who killed American soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan through gross negligence in the name of a buck? Before the contractors who killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians but face no criminal prosecution whatsoever?

Yep, those priorities make exactly as much sense as cutting the Estate Tax and holding our government hostage until the wealthiest 2% get their rediculous tax cuts extended--i.e. only in a Republican's mind!

Wikileaks and The Extreme Hypocrisy of Sarah Palin

[Guest Conway]

Really? Before anybody in the Cheney/Bush administration who actually committed treason against their own country in the Plame affair?

Before the people who lied to the American people and congress in order to go to war for oil, in which they didn't even manage to *get* any oil but did manage to kill thousands of Americans and countless Iraqis?

Before the contractors and corporations who killed American soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan through gross negligence in the name of a buck? Before the contractors who killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians but face no criminal prosecution whatsoever?

Yep, those priorities make exactly as much sense as cutting the Estate Tax and holding our government hostage until the wealthiest 2% get their rediculous tax cuts extended--i.e. only in a Republican's mind!

Wikileaks and The Extreme Hypocrisy of Sarah Palin

That's what I love about you hypertensive left wingers. You're all emotion and no fact.

For the record, a special prosecutor was assigned to the Plame affair.

The prosecutor found no ties to "Cheney/Bush" as you claim. He found that the now deceased journalist Jack Anderson was the source of Plame's identification. Anderson was never charged leading any reasonable person to believe that Valerie Plame had not been deep cover for a number of years at the time she was "exposed" and no crime was committed.

The Plame affair was nothing more than a left wing smear campaign invented by the national press and Plame's husband, an advisor to then Presidential Candidate, John Kerry. And, that is how history will remember it.

But, why let fact stand in the way of an emotional rant? I won't even bother addressing the lack of fact in the rest of it.

[BiBottomBoy]

Didn't Cheny's aide go to prison over that?

[JKane]

But, why let fact stand in the way of an emotional rant? I won't even bother addressing the lack of fact in the rest of it.

TALK About all rant and no fact! Typical Republican tactic, state something AS fact often enough, even with no backup, and expect people to buy it!

At least two Bush cronies, Libby and Armitage, were actively involved, and authorization clearly came from higher in the Administration...

On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, from information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[31][32] Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, allegedly establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.[32][33][34]

In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his grand jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003 — "when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown" — and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.[14]

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[14] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[35] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[36] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[37] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[38] President Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever had outed Plame.[36]

A court filing by Libby's defense team argued that Plame was not foremost in the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges – made by her husband – that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicated that Libby's lawyers did not intend to say that he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[39] The court filing also stated that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important," indicating that Libby's lawyers planned to call Karl Rove to the stand. According to Rove's lawyer, Fitzgerald has decided against pressing charges against Rove.[31]

The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to federal investigators (two counts).

But by all means pretend that that a boldly stated lie is all the justification needed for the fucking ridiculous statement Assange should be murdered when the many different Republicans mentioned have done FAR worse, to their own country! (Not even counting Plame!)

[Guest Conway]

TALK About all rant and no fact! Typical Republican tactic, state something AS fact often enough, even with no backup, and expect people to buy it!

At least two Bush cronies, Libby and Armitage, were actively involved, and authorization clearly came from higher in the Administration...

On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, from information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[31][32] Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, allegedly establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.[32][33][34]

In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his grand jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003 — "when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown" — and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.[14]

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[14] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[35] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[36] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[37] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[38] President Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever had outed Plame.[36]

A court filing by Libby's defense team argued that Plame was not foremost in the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges – made by her husband – that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicated that Libby's lawyers did not intend to say that he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[39] The court filing also stated that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important," indicating that Libby's lawyers planned to call Karl Rove to the stand. According to Rove's lawyer, Fitzgerald has decided against pressing charges against Rove.[31]

The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to federal investigators (two counts).

But by all means pretend that that a boldly stated lie is all the justification needed for the fucking ridiculous statement Assange should be murdered when the many different Republicans mentioned have done FAR worse, to their own country! (Not even counting Plame!)

Armitage was a career bureaucrat. He served both Democratic and Republican administrations over the years. To brand him as a crony of Bush or any other politician is simply intellectually dishonest.

Libby was never accused of outing Plame. He was accused, indicted and convicted of of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation by not providing subpoenaed information. Specifically, he claimed not to remember specific conversations that had occurred several years earlier.

It was all Fitzgerald could get because there simply wasn't any evidence there to suggest that Plame's identification was anything more than an error committed by a couple of journalists who were unaware that she was still classified deep cover despite the fact that she had not been functionally deep cover for a number of years.

The facts simply aren't on your side here...no matter how many words you use to express your radical and fictional ideas.

You should read more newspapers and watch fewer Oliver Stone movies.

The one fact that you can't argue in the case is that Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was an advisor to the campaign of John Kerry at the time the charges were made. That, in and of itself, should have set off credibility alarms among the members of the national press who made a story out of something that simply did not exist.

[KYTOP]

What's your beef with him?

Ahhh, he may have raped 2 women. That's what he is under arrest for. Seems like people seem to just brush that aside.

[BiBottomBoy]

Not brushing it aside.

Just wanted to know if he was pissed off about that or about Wikileaks in general.

[Lucky]

How vulnerable are smaller websites such as this one if anyone can download a program off the internet which then attacks the site with multiple requests for information? How many people would need to do this before the average small website is overwhelmed?

A dangerous can of worms may have been opened here when the average Joe sees how easy it is to bring down a website.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/10/international/i065847S70.DTL&tsp=1

[Lucky]

Ahhh, he may have raped 2 women. That's what he is under arrest for. Seems like people seem to just brush that aside.

We are all paragons of sexual virtue here, so we don't brush it aside. We just give it the credibility it deserves! The government is having a devil of a time making those charges stick, so doesn't it occur to you that perhaps the man is innocent? That would stop me from using the allegations against him. It's so easy to make an accusation of sexual impropriety, so much harder to prove it. We here can all throw the first stone, but even so, just think how easy it is for an underage guy to tell you* that he's 20, then go to the authorities on you and reveal that he is only 16. It's your word against the minor's that he told you he was 20, and even if he did, the fact that he was underage sticks with you for life. People will not brush it aside when it's your picture on the front page! Nor will they presume that you are innocent. Is that the kind of society we want?

(*The "you" here is generic, not specific to the original poster!)

[KYTOP]

We are all paragons of sexual virtue here, so we don't brush it aside. We just give it the credibility it deserves! The government is having a devil of a time making those charges stick, so doesn't it occur to you that perhaps the man is innocent? That would stop me from using the allegations against him. It's so easy to make an accusation of sexual impropriety, so much harder to prove it. We here can all throw the first stone, but even so, just think how easy it is for an underage guy to tell you* that he's 20, then go to the authorities on you and reveal that he is only 16. It's your word against the minor's that he told you he was 20, and even if he did, the fact that he was underage sticks with you for life. People will not brush it aside when it's your picture on the front page! Nor will they presume that you are innocent. Is that the kind of society we want?

(*The "you" here is generic, not specific to the original poster!)

You should note that my comment says "MAY HAVE" not did. He has been accused of Rape. He should return to Sweden to face the allegations against him. I am not assuming he is innocent or guilty. It appears you have already declared him innocent of the charges. I thought that is what courts were for?

[JKane]

You should note that my comment says "MAY HAVE" not did. He has been accused of Rape. He should return to Sweden to face the allegations against him. I am not assuming he is innocent or guilty. It appears you have already declared him innocent of the charges. I thought that is what courts were for?

Except the charge isn't rape, it's sex without a condom apparently due in at least one of the two cases because the condom broke.

[KYTOP]

Except the charge isn't rape, it's sex without a condom apparently due in at least one of the two cases because the condom broke.

You will find that multiple news organizations from CBS to the BBC to the UK Guardian and multiple more, have all stated he is wanted in Sweden for "Rape and sexual molestation charges" Google it. Again let him return to Sweden and let the courts figure it out.

[JKane]

It was all Fitzgerald could get because there simply wasn't any evidence there to suggest that Plame's identification was anything more than an error committed by a couple of journalists who were unaware that she was still classified deep cover despite the fact that she had not been functionally deep cover for a number of years.

The facts simply aren't on your side here...no matter how many words you use to express your radical and fictional ideas.

You should read more newspapers and watch fewer Oliver Stone movies.

The one fact that you can't argue in the case is that Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was an advisor to the campaign of John Kerry at the time the charges were made. That, in and of itself, should have set off credibility alarms among the members of the national press who made a story out of something that simply did not exist.

Sorry but this is a steaming pile.

Mistake by a couple journalists? Because they didn't know she was still deep cover? What the fuck does that matter? It was still against the law and it could have put her life in danger even if that was the case! And the point of their bs was that it was she who was sent to Niger--not her husband, so she'd obviously *just* been on a gov't mission!

And where exactly did the journalists get the information in the first place? From a source so powerful one chose to go to jail rather than reveal it.

Followed by refusals to testify under oath by senior administration.

None of this comes from the Oliver Stone movie, which may well have exaggerated several things. But the core is clear: 'his wife is CIA' was casually talked about within the Cheney administration and the best case to be made is that a reporter overheard this and used it without thinking. Except reporters get confirmations and the government usually acts to get injunctions or embargo this type of info, often not ultimately succeeding but usually delaying the story for several weeks at least.

How long before the Wikileaks dumps did we know something was out there and the government was trying to prevent it's release? And for all people have to say about Assange, some things weren't released, on *reasonable* government request. Funny, don't remember any such fight before the Plame info...

Why would I ignore that Joe Wilson had a couple meetings with Kerry? The real question is WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MATTER? HE WAS ULTIMATELY PROVEN **CORRECT**!!! There was no yellowcake deal from Niger and the documents in question were forgeries! AND HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT RELATE TO THE TREASONOUS OUTING OF HIS *WIFE*?

Christ, being wrong on both sides the equation doesn't cancel the wrong out!

[JKane]

You will find that multiple news organizations from CBS to the BBC to the UK Guardian and multiple more, have all stated he is wanted in Sweden for "Rape and sexual molestation charges" Google it. Again let him return to Sweden and let the courts figure it out.

From the first result in google, a thorough story that makes it clear that at it's worst it's a lot more complex and a lot less like "Rape" then it's made out to be. Even the Swedes agree:

Aug. 21: The chief prosecutor dismisses the rape charge and arrest warrant, saying what occurred were no more than minor offenses.

In the following days, the claimants appeal, and a special prosecutor reopens the case, eventually reissuing the arrest warrant.

By now the press had gotten hold of the story. Miss A spoke to a Swedish newspaper, saying: "In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse."

[Lucky]

You should note that my comment says "MAY HAVE" not did. He has been accused of Rape. He should return to Sweden to face the allegations against him. I am not assuming he is innocent or guilty. It appears you have already declared him innocent of the charges. I thought that is what courts were for?

This so-called rape is a side issue drummed up to smear the guy for leaking documents. Why not respond to what he actually did that we can prove? He leaked troves of classified documents, and threatens to release more.

Here's a thorough look at the so called rape charges:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=78430

[MsGuy]

Thanks for the research, Lucky. The "rape" charge had been bothering me. What's bothering me now is why mainstream media, both domestic and international, can't bring themselves to report the actual charge (didn't use a condom, for God's sake) and continue to characterize the charges as "rape."

So there's been an international manhunt for some random guy whose condom broke? Yeah, right. And folks wonder why he doesn't just volentarily return to Sweden to clear up the charges.

[JKane]

And folks wonder why he doesn't just volentarily return to Sweden to clear up the charges.

Pretty sure he did just turn himself in--when asked.

[KYTOP]

This so-called rape is a side issue drummed up to smear the guy for leaking documents. Why not respond to what he actually did that we can prove? He leaked troves of classified documents, and threatens to release more.

Here's a thorough look at the so called rape charges:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=78430

I am surprised that you of all people would already have this guy judged as innocent by trial in the media you have chosen to read a story from. I thought the courts were for that and not the San Francisco newspaper. Maybe you should just contact the Swedes and tell them so and maybe they will drop the charges?

I read or scan 10-12 or more online newspapers or news sites each day. Including several from across the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Asia, and 1 from South America. I have seen similar stories as you linked but have also seen several stories stating the second woman when she found out he didn't have a condom told him to STOP!!! He didn't. Also seen stories were they say there did not seem to be an issue with the guy until the 2 women found out about each other. What is the old saying about a woman scorned? Also read stories about what the Swedes define as Rape by their laws as compared to the USA and some other countries. Seems like you will find multiple takes on this story depending upon which news site you wish to read.

I am not a Swedish lawyer, Prosecuter, JUDGE, nor do I know very much about Swedish law. I do not know all the details of his alleged "Rape and Sexual Molestation charges" (Quote from a Montreal paper Friday) and do not presume him to be either guilty or "innocent". But he should have his day in Swedish Court for each side to present their case.

[Guest zipperzone]

I am not a Swedish lawyer, Prosecuter, JUDGE, nor do I know very much about Swedish law. I do not know all the details of his alleged "Rape and Sexual Molestation charges" (Quote from a Montreal paper Friday) and do not presume him to be either guilty or "innocent". But he should have his day in Swedish Court for each side to present their case.

Good job it won't be in a French court - who wants to wait 10 years for the verdict.

[Lucky]

I am surprised that you of all people would already have this guy judged as innocent by trial in the media you have chosen to read a story from. I thought the courts were for that and not the San Francisco newspaper. Maybe you should just contact the Swedes and tell them so and maybe they will drop the charges?

I read or scan 10-12 or more online newspapers or news sites each day. Including several from across the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Asia, and 1 from South America. I have seen similar stories as you linked but have also seen several stories stating the second woman when she found out he didn't have a condom told him to STOP!!! He didn't. Also seen stories were they say there did not seem to be an issue with the guy until the 2 women found out about each other. What is the old saying about a woman scorned? Also read stories about what the Swedes define as Rape by their laws as compared to the USA and some other countries. Seems like you will find multiple takes on this story depending upon which news site you wish to read.

I am not a Swedish lawyer, Prosecuter, JUDGE, nor do I know very much about Swedish law. I do not know all the details of his alleged "Rape and Sexual Molestation charges" (Quote from a Montreal paper Friday) and do not presume him to be either guilty or "innocent". But he should have his day in Swedish Court for each side to present their case.

We are not communicating here. I see the charges as a red herring, or an alternative way to trash this guy for leaking the documents he did. The sex charges would be of no concern to us if he was just another Swede. It's the document leaking that is the issue. Those who think he did something awful in leaking them are using the alleged rapes as a further attempt to dirty him up. I think the leaking is something that stands apart and should be judged separately.

[MsGuy]

Wikileaks publication of private US comments on the curruption and nepotism of the "sclerotic" Ben Ali regime in Tunisia is believed to have played a role in generating the mass demonstrations that toppled him from power Monday.

World's first 'Wikileaks Revolution??