Between the donation lock-out from every major bank, the heavily biased media coverage, and the clearly false charges against Assange, this has become too painful to watch.
All of this for a guy trying to create a press outlet that tells the real truth, using anonymous and protected (but verified) sources, for free, to the whole world.
I'm curious how you were able to come to the conclusion that the charges are "clearly false." The charges sound serious to me, and while I have not concluded on their truth, I cannot dismiss them. They sound like they have enough merit for a trial. For example, "Given that one of the women said she awoke to find Mr. Assange having unprotected sex with her, she could not possibly have given her consent, Ms. Montgomery argued." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.htm...)
I'm surprised you see the issue in such black and white terms. Certainly some of Mr Assange's comments might lead some to suspect he sees conspiracy where there is none [1] and that his judgement is not impeccable. Wikileaks and Assange have also turned on their partners, notably the Guardian, when circumstances have suited them [2] and their concerns for the safety of those mentioned in their releases have not always appeared sincere [3].
I'm not saying that these pieces of evidence point towards Mr Assange being guilty, evil or anything else, but they do suggest he's human and fallible, and perhaps not 100% pure in his intentions. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but it does make me question any entirely polarised assertion about the man.
I've not been able to spot anything untoward in the way the UK courts have treated Assange, and I can't help but feel that if the charges are 'clearly false' they can be demonstrated as such in Sweden - a country that Mr Assange himself has in the past admired [4], but now seeks to label as the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' [5]. Clearly going through such a procedure must be harrowing for all involved, and I'm not dismissing the stress lightly, but accusations of criminality being investigated is a key principle of society and in the Swedish legal system formal charges occur after extradition and questioning. This seems reasonable.
If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy.
I was not there to witness what did or did not happen with Assange and the girls in question. As a result I cannot comment on his guilt or innocence. Through what evidence have you concluded that they are clearly false charges?
Wikileaks sadly lost a lot of respect from me and many people I know when some of their comments and many of their followers weren't about Assange's innocence, but instead in defense of rape, both directly and through criticism of conditional consent.
Even if only some zealous defenders had done so rather than wikileaks (most likely) accidentally doing so, it would still taste quite bitter.
While I wholeheartedly agree it's not been handled well at all by the Swedish prosecutors and government, and that there are irregularities and that Wikileaks and Assange should* criticize and question this, seeing people defend rape to defend them is bizarre. Although I am well aware this happens whenever rape is discussed.
Conditional consent IS a legal concept in Sweden, and one I personally agree with.
This saddens me, as I'm a rather big fan of Wikileaks and since I am also a fan of Assange I hope he's innocent.
*Conditional Consent:
While you might argue that there may be a need for different words for varying degrees and types of sexual crimes.
Rape, at least for now, is defined solely by the presence of consent, as far as I understand.
If my consent hinges on a condition, and this was explained, my consent is nullified if the person willfully lies about this condition to be able to have sexual contact with me.
Ex: A woman lies about being on birth-control or a man lies about condom or being sterile.
Possibly unpopular question: why is WikiLeaks so expensive?
I'm well aware that hosting costs money -- especially if you're trying to find a service that is resistant to pressure from companies and governments around the world -- but WL seems to have run out of funds every time I try to access the site.
I mean, if the goal is to freely distribute information, distributing leaks by torrent only would be a simple, insanely cheap option that would save WL money.
But as far as I can tell, WikiLeaks hasn't exactly been forthcoming with details of where their money goes. I could be wrong, but I think every query Cryptome made to Wau Holland has been ignored, and some promised funds from WL to Bradley Manning have come up consistently short...
It's quite clear that WikiLeaks doesn't want to distribute via BitTorrent because they want control. Just look at how they handled the cables: they worked with media partners to analyze and release some of them. Later they totally screwed up and released everything unfiltered.
Since they want to maintain control they need people and bandwidth/hosting. Even if the the latter were free, people tend to cost money.
Let's momentarily put aside the question of Asange's legal troubles, and concentrate only on WikiLeaks.
It is greatly disturbing that an informal impromptu collusion of financial companies and governments is successfully shutting down a while blower outlet.
What bothers me more is that people have been powerless in helping Wikileaks with their struggle. There are people who want to donate to Wikileaks but are unable to do so in an easy manner because of the blockade. It's a really good demonstration of where power lies.
I think Assange took to much of a central role, creating a huge weakness that is being successfully exploited.
I personally want to support wikileaks, but I have mixed feelings about Assange.
This may be a really, really dumb question... I don't know the laws possibly preventing this and how shady it could actually be, but is there a possible way to set up an intermediary payment system? Whereas one could accept easy payments and then do the work of transforming those into checks or whatnot and sending them to Wikileaks?
A sneering, cynical summary, typical of a press which attacks alternative sources for purely selfish reasons. You'd have thought that "the press" would stick together to protect press freedom, freedom of speech and whistle-blowing, but no - they seem more interested in sniping at Wikileaks. Even the U.K. Guardian has joined in, I only hope these institutions aren't one day hoisted on their own petard.
WikiLeaks has been dead for a long time. Ever since the release involving the video of helicopter firing on the people below, someone out there got serious and decided to take Assange down by discrediting him and by diverting the focus away from information and toward the rape charges. Assange was probably given some "offer" he could not refuse and the rest is all for show.
I'll agree that WikiLeaks died (for me) when they released the helicopter video, but not because of some sort of grand conspiracy. It was because they editorialized the story into the ground. They weren't releasing unadulterated pure data and allowing people to analyze the data; they were attempting to force people into a certain manner of thinking.
That's when I realized WikiLeaks was just the same as any major media outlet.
[+] [-] maqr|14 years ago|reply
All of this for a guy trying to create a press outlet that tells the real truth, using anonymous and protected (but verified) sources, for free, to the whole world.
[+] [-] scott_s|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tompagenet2|14 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that these pieces of evidence point towards Mr Assange being guilty, evil or anything else, but they do suggest he's human and fallible, and perhaps not 100% pure in his intentions. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but it does make me question any entirely polarised assertion about the man.
I've not been able to spot anything untoward in the way the UK courts have treated Assange, and I can't help but feel that if the charges are 'clearly false' they can be demonstrated as such in Sweden - a country that Mr Assange himself has in the past admired [4], but now seeks to label as the 'Saudi Arabia of feminism' [5]. Clearly going through such a procedure must be harrowing for all involved, and I'm not dismissing the stress lightly, but accusations of criminality being investigated is a key principle of society and in the Swedish legal system formal charges occur after extradition and questioning. This seems reasonable.
If Wikileaks' cause was noble it does not mean that Assange is automatically innocent, or that any investigation of him is a conspiracy.
[1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-j... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-un... [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14765837 [4]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-... [5]: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/02/why-is-julia...
[+] [-] epenn|14 years ago|reply
I was not there to witness what did or did not happen with Assange and the girls in question. As a result I cannot comment on his guilt or innocence. Through what evidence have you concluded that they are clearly false charges?
[+] [-] FrankenTan|14 years ago|reply
Even if only some zealous defenders had done so rather than wikileaks (most likely) accidentally doing so, it would still taste quite bitter.
While I wholeheartedly agree it's not been handled well at all by the Swedish prosecutors and government, and that there are irregularities and that Wikileaks and Assange should* criticize and question this, seeing people defend rape to defend them is bizarre. Although I am well aware this happens whenever rape is discussed.
Conditional consent IS a legal concept in Sweden, and one I personally agree with.
This saddens me, as I'm a rather big fan of Wikileaks and since I am also a fan of Assange I hope he's innocent.
*Conditional Consent:
While you might argue that there may be a need for different words for varying degrees and types of sexual crimes. Rape, at least for now, is defined solely by the presence of consent, as far as I understand.
If my consent hinges on a condition, and this was explained, my consent is nullified if the person willfully lies about this condition to be able to have sexual contact with me.
Ex: A woman lies about being on birth-control or a man lies about condom or being sterile.
[+] [-] owenmarshall|14 years ago|reply
I'm well aware that hosting costs money -- especially if you're trying to find a service that is resistant to pressure from companies and governments around the world -- but WL seems to have run out of funds every time I try to access the site.
I mean, if the goal is to freely distribute information, distributing leaks by torrent only would be a simple, insanely cheap option that would save WL money.
But as far as I can tell, WikiLeaks hasn't exactly been forthcoming with details of where their money goes. I could be wrong, but I think every query Cryptome made to Wau Holland has been ignored, and some promised funds from WL to Bradley Manning have come up consistently short...
[+] [-] jgrahamc|14 years ago|reply
Since they want to maintain control they need people and bandwidth/hosting. Even if the the latter were free, people tend to cost money.
[+] [-] wcchandler|14 years ago|reply
Productions: $400,000
Campaigns: $300,000
Publications Research: $500,000
Technical Information: $500,000
Security: $300,000
Legal Costs: $1,200,000
From their main page: http://wikileaks.org/wlnet.html
Not sure how truthful the numbers are, but it's what they're advertising.
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
It is greatly disturbing that an informal impromptu collusion of financial companies and governments is successfully shutting down a while blower outlet.
Like seriously f-ing disturbing!
[+] [-] mvanga|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willvarfar|14 years ago|reply
Oh, and someone make them an attractive homepage please!
[+] [-] antoinehersen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khafra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deanproxy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zobzu|14 years ago|reply
and yes, banks control the world, they don't like something, they kill it. simple and easy apparently.
[+] [-] must_learn_more|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Bungholio|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomdeplume|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinh|14 years ago|reply
That's when I realized WikiLeaks was just the same as any major media outlet.