Wanted by the CIA: Julian Assange - Wikileaks founder

[jaxx]

By Matthew Bell Monday, 19 July 2010

<snip> His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

<snip> Spending time with Assange, it's hard not to start believing that dark forces are at work. According to him, everyone's emails are being read. For that reason, he encourages anyone planning to leak a document to post it the old fashioned way, to his PO Box. It's ironic that an organisation bent on blowing secrets is itself so secretive, but Wikileaks couldn't operate without reliable sources. Except that, amazingly, Wikileaks does not verify them. "We don't verify our sources, we verify the documents. As long as they are bona fide it doesn't matter where they come from. We would rather not know."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/wanted-by-the-cia-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-14880073.html#

[librechik]

1. so--are they going to rendition him to some place where they can torture and detain him?

Apparently that's standard policy in the CIA nowadays.

[jaxx]

2. Is that your suggestion for the box?

You'd think someone who is out screaming transparency is good would give his donors names to the press too. Hard to figure out some people's motives.

[librechik]

3. not sure what you mean, but IMO Obama has dumped any plans for transparency, that's obvious

and has decided whistleblowers are terrorists. That is both anti-democratic and hypocritical. It's a situation that makes it very difficult to defend Obama overall, even with his many successes (unappreciated by and large)

[jaxx]

5. Did the hacker blow the whistle?

Not according to what they say is in the papers. It's all known information. Or did he just grab onto what he thought would be vilifying? Something doesn't smell good about this whole deal.

[librechik]

6. who are you calling a hacker?

:shrug:

[jaxx]

7. The one who took the papers, who else?

[librechik]

11. No hacking was alleged, and Wikileaks prefers on-paper submissions

If you had read your own OP you would be aware of that. What Wikileaks does has nothing whatsoever to do with hacking.

[WinkyDink]

4. Yes, let's put whistle-blowers in jeopardy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. He's protecting his sources. See Manning for the reason why.

[avaistheone1]

8. I want him too

but for other reasons.

:blush:


:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. "According to him, everyone's e-mails are being read."

What is this dipshit reporter, a junior high school student? Of course they're being read. 31,000 people in the DC area work for the agency that reads them. Ask any one of them -- in plausibly deniable general terms, of course -- how the system works. That shit was "leaked" to Harpers and the New York Times years if not decades ago.

As for 9-11, that was a conspiracy. By Al Qaeda. Now who ELSE was behind al Qaeda, it's hard to say.

People refuse to ask those hard questions and get booted into the dungeon with the "no plane" yahoos.