theignoramus
Member
Awkward interview with the Swedish prosecution's office:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLy2UOaA0CU&feature=player_embedded#!
:lol
:lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
WikiLeaks founder falsely accused of rape (Tin Foil Hat Thread)
- Thread starter Forsete
- Start date
- Status
JGS said:
I think people say 'CIA' when broadly they might mean any one of the US intelligence agencies.
As for the CIA, though, they could well have an interest here. National security is obviously well within their remit, and they often coordinate on matters military. The US army has made it clear that Wikileaks is a threat to them.
I was kidding, but the danger the guy poses is zilch or already caused. The documents have been leaked, more will be leaked, & this would do nothing to stop it.Jexhius said:
Maybe if they knew something else was coming down the pipe, but it's not like this guy is the one personally inputting the information so they still couldn't stop the site. Even if the CIA was behind it, what exactly is accomplished. Unless Sweden is in on it too, there's no plea bargain to be had.
There is no scandal because no one knows what the guy was like in the first place. So even if he was a serial rapist, no one is saying "Bu...Bu...But he's the Wikileaks founder!" as if that is a sign of moral superiority. All indications are was that he was a weirdo to begin with.
The only reason then would be for revenge, but whose feelings at the CIA were so hurt that they wanted to publically harass the guy at the expense of them being exposed? None of the bigwigs are phased in the slightest (This isn't Watergate) and no one by name has been exposed as botching the job to the degree required for a revenge move. There have been plenty of spies that have stolen information that have not had loose women planted on them.
delirium said:
Well, it's a wiki. Anyone can do that, I'm sure they already do get a tonne of shit. I presume they've a system for prioritizing attention depending on where and how info comes to them. Don't ask me what that is, but either way spamming them own't stop, sooner or later, legit stuff coming under their gaze.
Smearing their head would be a more effective way to at least temporarily disrupt what they're doing. It would do some damage to their credibility in the eyes of the media/public and perhaps more importantly in the eyes of potential leakers/whistleblowers. If I'm johnny-do-good with some info on my hands, I'm probably gonna think twice about handing it over to 'a rapist' or his buddies.
Bear in mind though that there's no such thing as the perfect counter. Only imperfect ones that'll have varying levels of impact. As counters go, a successful smear like this wouldn't be bad.
JGS said:
First off, as long as governments are doing shit, this isn't a passing threat. It's an ongoing way to leak information on an ongoing basis. The Afghan docs are old news now (or at least, most of them...I think he's preparing to release more), the problem is what this means for future activities. If such info is going to pass out into the public domain consistently going forward.
Second, what is a perfect counter to this? If there is none, do you think the US Army or intelligence agencies would just not do anything? I think it's very possible they'd seek to disrupt it, even if it wasn't a knockout blow or permanent one. A successful taking down of this guy would at least for a time damage credibility, perhaps reduce cooperation from whistleblowers, but also, I think, make those around him think about their own position. It makes the game dangerous. If the US Army or others could scare people away from this, or THINK they could, I think they would probably give it a go.
What? It's as easy as making up documents that look like they're the real deal (but not) and submitting in to Wikileaks. Something that would be trivial to do if you already have real secret documents. If they overload Wikileaks, they will reduce Wikileak's capacity to process real leaks. And how would Wikileaks know if the leak is legit or not? Their process gives the leaker true anonymity.raphier said:
empty vessel
Member
delirium said:
That probably wouldn't be feasible, since doing that--creating forgeries of its own classified documents--could have very severe repercussions for the US itself. It could create serious international confusion and misunderstandings and damage US "national security" (by which I mean imperial economic) interests.
It's a perfectly legal way to leak information. He's untouchable even if his leakers aren't. His company will survive whether he is jailed or hit by a bus. They have a board of directors for goodness sake. He is aware of the dangers (He could leak information from any source. He's not just anti-US).gofreak said:
Further, the damage has been done. Not only that but they knew the damage was coming and did nothing, so why worry about it now? If anything they need to bolster the punishment for leaking classified information. He is no different than a news reporter with lower standards.
They would just not do anything. They do nothing all the time. It would be easier to plant fake WMD's in Iraq than to stop news leaks, but they haven't. I have no doubts they ar e doing some creapy stuff in relation to not relasing information, covering up mistakes, or breaking privacy laws. However, this is really low calibre stuff on a guy that founded a company that they can't stop.gofreak said:
You reduce cooperation by keeping tabs on your stuff, making more stuff classified, & severe punishment of the whistleblower. Wikieleaks is not going to get that level of info ever again regardless of what they do with it's founder.
fortified_concept
Banned
theignoramus said:
Holy crap he tore her a new asshole. :lol
Yeap, I'm guilty of this.gofreak said:
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
theignoramus said:
Hahahaha
loosus said:
He sure did, she had no idea how to answer the questions. Why didn't they contact Assange? She couldn't explain that.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
delirium said:
Because they actually get in contact with the sources, they don't just randomly post stuff. It wouldn't work.
JGS said:
The damage is only already done if you believe that there is no further potential for leakage.
I don't know if I believe that, no matter how hard they come down on people found out to have leaked stuff.
I don't think the US Army would be at all displeased to place him in a very uncomfortable and discredited position for what he has done, and for what he might do.
JGS said:
The extent and impact of the leaks here seems pretty novel so far though, no? They might turn a blind eye to some things, but this seems to have annoyed a lot of people.
Chittagong
Gold Member
theignoramus said:
:lol
Poor lady, being the laugh of tbe day, all in the days work for an US loyal nation
God damn, maybe this is why they were scared of Wikileaks. They didn't want to found by their rabid fans and every information they have exposed.Sealda said:
If they falsely claimed raped, I'm sure Sweden has a lawful method to punish them in a way that wouldn't violate their privacy.
delirium said:
Actually she did not file anything. She apparently been involved in these kinda things before so she is well aware of how it works. What they have done is they went to the police and "talked" not wanting to file a report or anything. The police then had no other choice than to tip the prosecutor. These girls knew exactly what they were doing. The fun thing is that the woman that they think are guilty actually wrote earlier on her blog about ways to revenge someone. One of the ways was falsely accusing the person of cheating. She is active on a blog in swedish called "Christian left".
What they think is that she wanted to revenge Julian or some sort of master plan to gain her career. Some people are claiming she is bi or homosexual but its probably just that she often hangs out in those circles not that she actually is homosexual.
Overal she been a very active member of the queer, socialist and feminist worlds.
Let me quote from her blog
"If you for example want to revenge someone who been unfaithful or have dumped you, the punishment should have something to do with dating/sex/fatefulness."
Since she been around Julian for a long time, she might have thought they were having a romance then she finds out he cheated on her with that 20 year old girl!
"If you for example want to revenge someone who been unfaithful or have dumped you, the punishment should have something to do with dating/sex/fatefulness."
Since she been around Julian for a long time, she might have thought they were having a romance then she finds out he cheated on her with that 20 year old girl!
delirium said:
They have no name but they guess that she just like the 30 yo. have been in the presence of Julian the last weeks. So she is probably in the same sphere. Its possible the 30 year old convinced her to come to the police with her. After the 30 year old hears that jualian had sex with the 20 yo she convince the 20 yo to come with her to the police to revenge him. But seriously who knows. Julian just signed the pirate party in Sweden, its possible the christian socialists were bitter that here they invite him to Sweden and kisses his butt for a couple of weeks, then he goes and signs with the pirate party. Apparently the 30 year old been his private secretary or something during his visit to Sweden. For instance she was the one meeting him at the airport. Imagine she working for weeks to get him here, then she works with him for weeks here. They start a romantic relationship, then he cheats on her with the 20 year old and then he rejects her party in favor of the pirate party.
well if the pentagon/cia or whoever does want to make him fall off of his balcony, they are kinda in a pickle. Everyone will know it was them, though now that i think about it. What the hell would anyone do? We would all know it was them, but we wouldn't actually do anything about it.
empty vessel
Member
DennisK4 said:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Enjoy decades of them. See especially Iran and Cuba.
Patriots know their history.
DennisK4 said:
They hired this feminazi so that they could have plausible deniability. The blocks all fall into place. YOU JUST NEED TO READ UP ON THEIR HISTORY! Then you'll truly know how devious the CIA is in planting half-assed rape stories that evaporate after five minutes so GAF's intelligentsia can deconstruct their potential motives in this after one second of careful consideration about how the CIA used to operate.
And of course, THEY'RE NOT SAYING IT IS THEM, just that they have a motive so it's not fair to dismiss saying it's them.
Psst. But it's them.
The interview states that the 30-year-old was there as support and didn't want to file a report, but that the other woman did.Sealda said:
Some pretty selective translating there. The first part reads "The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge shouldn't just match the deed in size, but also in nature."Sealda said:
Did Assange accuse her of rape? Get her in trouble with the police? Murder her sister? Or maybe she's batshit insane and needs no reason, but it's not a good idea to selectively dismiss parts of her blog because it suits your argument better.
empty vessel
Member
Amir0x said:
I hate to break this to you, but, regardless of what the cause of the false allegations turns out to be (which we do not yet know), you will still have been completely and utterly wrong and I completely right.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
None of this still explains why the Prosecution's office felt the need to call the press the very next morning simply based on hear say. For them to hours later say there is no reason to suspect him of rape essentially equates there being nothing in the story, no evidence of any sort. Being a suspect is one thing, and then a warrant for your arrest is another, but to tell the world about it based on nothing..?
empty vessel
Member
Amir0x said:
It would help if you bothered to educate yourself at all, yes. It would also help if your reading comprehension skills improved. Or, if those are okay, if you would be honest about your opponent's debate position. But that's too much to ask?
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Amir0x said:
I updated my post. As said in the above video interview, the issue isn't whether or not a press conference was called, but in hindsight if only hours later it was determined that there was nothing in the whole thing, it makes a mockery of whatever reason they had to suspect him to the point of calling a press conference to announce the allegations.
If I "talk" to the police that you, Amir, raped a woman and the police were forced to investigate this even though I give them no evidence whatsoever, how would you feel if the next morning your being mentioned as the prime suspect for a rape? All this because of someone merely "talking". This means anyone can be accused of anything, and although you may not be charged with the alleged crime, your name will be all over the world as being suspected of doing it based on nothing but what someone said.
If, for example, there was e.g. semen involved or signs of a rape - anything that could substantiate these women's claims, then I could totally understand why they may go public. But they then admit to themselves there was no rape hours after they told the world you were a suspect for it.
Does that make sense to you?
Of course, maybe the Prosecutor jumped the gun and wanted some media exposure. But it also increases suspicion.
empty vessel the hilarious thing about this whole debate is that you somehow think I'm not aware of what the CIA has done in the past during different political administrations. The fact is - and this is a fucking fact, which you'd know if you weren't so busy posting outdated stories about how the CIA was during the fucking Cold War - is that the CIA operates differently based on the threat, the time period and the people in charge.
I actually have read many books on the CIA, on the time period in general and the many different things that the intelligence community in general has been apart of. Not only do you not have a monopoly on CIA knowledge, your interpretation has frequently been factually incorrect.
As it was here. Your passive aggressive stance about how "I'M NOT SAYING THE USA DID IT, JUST THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO DISMISS THAT THEY'VE DONE IT" is built upon a stack of cards that literally does not apply to the way they operate today.
This is also not the same as saying they don't still perform dirty, nasty covert operations. Just that if they were to smear the Wikileaks founder, it would have been done with more grace than a failed JBaird thread. Particularly if, as you're fond of pointing out as the major motivational evidence, they have been planning this for years (since the Wikileaks self-serving memo).
I actually have read many books on the CIA, on the time period in general and the many different things that the intelligence community in general has been apart of. Not only do you not have a monopoly on CIA knowledge, your interpretation has frequently been factually incorrect.
As it was here. Your passive aggressive stance about how "I'M NOT SAYING THE USA DID IT, JUST THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO DISMISS THAT THEY'VE DONE IT" is built upon a stack of cards that literally does not apply to the way they operate today.
This is also not the same as saying they don't still perform dirty, nasty covert operations. Just that if they were to smear the Wikileaks founder, it would have been done with more grace than a failed JBaird thread. Particularly if, as you're fond of pointing out as the major motivational evidence, they have been planning this for years (since the Wikileaks self-serving memo).
Meus Renaissance said:
Yup. See the Duke LaCrosse case. Prosecutor thought they had a huge case, jumped the gun with virtually no evidence and smeared the name of all involved until it all collapsed on the word of a single lady with virtually no credibility to name of.
But I'm sure the CIA was involved in that too.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Amir0x said:
Out of interest, have their methods and how they identify threats changed from period to period or is there a consistent pattern in their behaviour that would lead you to think they probably aren't involved?
Meus Renaissance said:
In general, the CIA automatically sends red alarms whenever they perceive someone is either a thread to America's interests or a threat to America's intelligence community. That's about as generally consistent of a pattern there has been (the Wikileaks Memo was not suggesting they destroy this guy, but that they STOP THE LEAKS getting to them). Outside of that basic fact, how far they go, what methods they employ and even the type of targets they choose is fluid based on who is in charge of these branches, what the political environment is and the severity of the potential threat.
Just to name a simple example... Bush administration CIA employed waterboarding, Obama administration CIA banned it.
- Status