Archive for January 2013
Pirate Pad bypass – Fact Fact Sheet for the protest at the Oxford Union Society [London, UK] on Jan 29, 2013 (feministisch angehauchter Protest gegen die von Assange für den 29.1. geplante Rede via Videolink mit einem zusätzlichen, ebenfalls nicht irrelevanten weiteren Protestgrund)
[wn030] we recently received a number of confirmations that a) several mobile apps have issues with understanding what a public setting on a facebook page is (people opening the protest event page via mobile apps are not able to see the page although it’s set to public – this issue was not observed by people opening it from their desks) and b) furthermore, we were just hinted at an issue with the pirate pad also. what this issue relates to – what causes some computers not to open a pirate pad – will be a task definitely, and an interesting question to solve, however, for the moment a repost of the piratepad content might be necessary indeed.
we were asked to repost the pirate pad content, however please note: normally, a pirate pad has to open like charm with firefox and chrome for example. you see a pad and on the right side, the nick line for the people currently connected and a chat line below that. you will first see bars where ever they land on your browser page, so adjust the bars first, to see the chat, to see the pad, as large as you want (there is a vertical bar you can adjust for the pad text size and a horizontal one for the size of teh chat) – this was a note for people who have this issue on their computer – work on it, solve it because people usually see it when they click on the link within a fraction of a second, a pirate pad has to open in – as they call it here – in “nullkommanix”. so, as soon as you solved it, above were some tips how to use it. note also that the german page does not have the huuuuuge maxi mega bug anymore – on other pads, people are trolling other people, the first thing you have to do is to type your nick (what ever you want it to be that day) in order not to let others make jokes with you. in germany (in krautland), they solved it, there it’s relaxed now, the only person that can change your nick is you and only you yourself. (for your user color). but the krauts solved it for their version only, so just as a side hint – when you (after you checked what browser setting or computer bug prohibits your browser from opening it) – when you later see other pads and the ending is not .de – the first thing you do then is type your nick in the upper field where the connected users are. you see your color, change the nick there. otherwise you will be trolled as a user, happens mostly when there are politically interesting things happening and a pirate pad is in the middle of the news agenda interesting stuff, then you can bet that it will be trolled. so: if an ending is different than .de when you see a pirate pad link – open and type your nick faster than the troll can, ok? (this will be a plus point for you, but it’s of course easy in so far as a troll can change it only temporarily, as soon as you corrected your nick, it will be fixed then.) – for those, who [maybe] live in a country that extremely values – ex-tre-me-ly values their 2-party system, and where this might [just might] be the reason why your browsers behave as they definitely not should, for people who live in such a country where this [might] be the reason, we have a screenshot if it. a screenshot of how the piratepad looks like. check it here. and -after- you clicked on the screenshot, you will need something to laugh a bit, otherwise there will be some stress if you think about it and find out this [might] be the reason. so, for the necessary humour in between the lines, take this here and turn up the volume. [update. in north america, the pad seems to open on journo desks. we have some indirect and one direct confirmation – in the direct confirmation, the question is directly above the answer you see. foolproof evidence, on journo desks it opens. now we’re trying to find out which other locations do have such issues.]
so, here is the piratepad content for the people who were not able to open the link yet. we will add a set of further links below the pirate pad repost.
source: pirate pad fact facts
Fact Sheet: “Julian Assange, his asylum,and the Swedish investigation” [Assange Supporters]
Fact Fact Sheet: “The official current chief editor of Wikileaks who is in addition currently preparing for a political campaign without clarifying the basics of his political standpoint and a collection of reasons why people are protesting against his planned speech on Jan 23 at Oxford Union Society” [Protest Suporters]
Assange Supporters: This is a fact sheet which was designed to inform those attending or protesting Julian Assange’s January 23, 2013 appearance at the Oxford Union. It is available as a .pdf to be printed and handed out.
Protest Supporters: … And replies to those “facts” by participants and supporters of the protest. It is available as a comfortable pad text that can be copypasted to an own editing application, edited as needed and handed out to Assange suppers protesting against the protest against Assange’s speech at the Oxford Union Society
Why did Ecuador grant asylum to Julian Assange?
Ecuador fulfilled Julian Assange’s asylum request due to the risk of persecution by the U.S. Government. U.S. officials have confirmed an ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks, with continued calls for the prosecution of Mr Assange. He has also faced multiple calls for his assassination. It is apparent from Bradley Manning’s hearings that the U.S. is attempting to implicate Mr Assange.
Why is the question regarding Ecuador on the fact sheet? The Protesters do not protest against his asylum or against the embassy, they protest against his planned speech on Jan 23. Bradley Manning is allegedly the person who leaked a huge part of the documents that were published by Wikileaks. As a US citizen, he is the person now facing a system running amok – with the accusation of “aiding the enemy” posing a serious risk of a life sentence. He is indeed the person who to care about. In contrary to him, Assange is evading to face allegations of quite a different kind and nature… Indeed, Assange’s repeated attempt to use Manning as a shield for himself (comparing his own situation to Manning’s) is quite probably one of the reasons that add up to the protest for a number of people involved.
Is Ecuador interfering in the Swedish investigation?
The Government of Ecuador officially extended an offer for Sweden to question Julian Assange in the Embassy, which was rejected. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has reiterated that Ecuador has no means to hinder the investigation, but only wishes to protect Mr Assange from U.S. persecution.
Equador is not mentioned in any of the public statements and publicly visible discussions regarding the protest. We are happy to see that Assange supporters regard this as an important fact for the fact sheet, this point however is not related with the reasons for the protest. No one blames Ecuador for granting asylum, the protesters are protesting against Assange as a person evading due process in Sweden.
(Well, there is maybe one sentence to add here – referring to the repeated rumours spread by Assange supporters on the facebook event page but also on diverse support webpages regarding “corrupt” Sweden – make up your mind: Sweden ranks 4th on the CIP-index 2012 of transparency international, Ecuador ranks 118 http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/(rank refers to: “A country’s rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories included in the index.” – The score of Sweden is almost 90, Ecuador scores 32 (the term “score” refers to: “A country or territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of 0 – 100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt and 100 means it is perceived as very clean.”)
Is Julian Assange avoiding questioning by the Swedish prosecution?
Julian Assange has offered to be questioned in London for over two years, and continues to offer such to this day. Questioning someone in another country is a standard EU legal procedure, which Sweden used just last year for an alleged murderer. The Swedish prosecutor offers no reason as to why she will not question Mr Assange in London.
Regarding the statement “Julian Assange has offered to be questioned in London for over two years” that the Assange supporters present as a “fact” – he has:
a) reportedly been first claiming that he offered to be questioned while he still was in Sweden. As court hearing transcripts have shown, these claims were not actually correct. Assange’s former lawyer had to admit in front of the court that Ny contacted him on Sept 21 and 22, 2010, a date for the questioning was set for Sept 28, 2010. The now former lawyer confirmed that he was not able to contact Assange in the days after that. Assange left Sweden on Sept 27th. Ny was told Assange would show up in Sweden again in Oct which was not the case. Ny filed a domestic warrant which Assange appealed, he lost the appeals. Since he did not turn back to Sweden in Oct as suggested, the EAW was issued. (Appealed in UK, Assange lost these appeals, too. The supreme court ruled the EAW valid.)
[note that the former lawyer’s statements in cross-hearing regarding this point were seen as an attemt to mis-lead the court by the judge:
b) in UK, Assange was repeatedly presenting Ny’s request in official interviews to the media as a request for a “chat”. He offered a questioning under his own conditions only (a remote interview via videolink, telephone or other communication channels). Ny has made it clear in her reply that what Assange is sought for are criminal proceedings and as such, he needs to be present in person. Her reply was accepted by the courts, that’s why the courts finally decided for an extradition to Sweden.
please see also:
high court judgement nov 2011:
supreme court judgement may 2012.
c) “The Swedish prosecutor offers no reason as to why she will not question Mr Assange in London.” – Ny stated the reason quite clearly in her reply, see p. 9 and 10 on p2 of the pdf. He is wanted for criminal proceedings, not just a “chat”. According to law specialist, the legal procedures in Sweden (late charges, quick presenting in court afterwards) make it necessary that the person is present if the prosecutor regards the probability that the charges will be filed as high enough.
d) Regarding the sentence “Questioning someone in another country is a standard EU legal procedure, which Sweden used just last year for an alleged murderer.” – Anya Palmer notes referring to this point: “This argument has been doing the rounds on Twitter recently. Here’s the newspaper report they commonly link to. (I am linking to the Swedish original but obviously you can use Google translate if you want a rough idea of what it says in English).” http://www.unt.se/uppsala/mordmisstankt-forhord-i-serbien-1701566.aspx – Anya Palmer writes: “This report dates to 22 March 2012 and says that Swedish investigators have travelled to Serbia to interview a 21 year old man suspected of the murder of a 26 year old man in Uppsala. However, there is nothing in the report to suggest that this is the second interview prior to charge which Assange is now required to undergo. The report says that Swedish police and investigators “have now interviewed the 21 year old man” which clearly suggests they had not interviewed him previously. In Assange’s case, he already had his initial interview on 30 August 2010 before he left Sweden. So to compare his case with that of the 21 year old interviewed in Serbia is simply not comparing like with like.”
Qualification for this reply: Anya Palmer is a barrister specialising in employment law.
Assange supporters: If Julian Assange is innocent, why doesn’t he just go to Sweden?
If extradited to Sweden, Julian Assange will be immediately placed in solitary confinement, incommunicado, despite the fact that he has yet to be charged with a crime. This treatment can be seen in the recent case of Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm. Mr Assange would not have had the ability to seek asylum were he to be extradited, therefore being unable to protect himself from U.S. persecution.
Regarding the sentence: “If extradited to Sweden, Julian Assange will be immediately placed in solitary confinement, incommunicado, despite the fact that he has yet to be charged with a crime.” – Slowly.
a) First, re “despite the fact that he has yet to be charged with a crime.” – please see regarding this claim:
see furthermore Anya Palmer: “Assange has not been charged with any offence.” Correct – if by charge you mean formally indicted. In the Swedish system formal indictment takes place at a very late stage in proceedings, following a second and final interview with the suspect, and in the case of a person in pre-trial detention, trial must follow within two weeks. (As Assange is very unlikely to get bail again, for obvious reasons, it must be assumed that this would apply in his case). However, the High Court has held that Assange does stand accused of the four offences (including rape) for which his extradition is sought. It is a requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 that the warrant contains a statement that the person in respect of whom extradition is sought stand “accused” of the offence(s) set out in the warrant. There is no doubt that the European Arrest Warrant issued in Sweden did contain such a statement. Assange sought to argue, first in the Magistrates Court, then in the High Court, that it is not enough that the statement is made, but the statement must also be true; and that he has not in fact been accused of any offence in Sweden because he had not been formally charged and so criminal proceedings had not yet commenced. He lost that argument. For full details, see the judgment in the High Court, especially paragraphs 128-154 which deal with Issue 3, Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?” […]
Assange has not been formally charged with any offence but he does stand accused of the four offences, including rape, outlined in the European Arrest Warrant and criminal proceedings are already underway. The European Arrest Warrant has been held to be valid by the highest court in the land. Assange and his supporters are now raising arguments which he either lost or conceded in the lengthy UK proceedings on the application for extradition.
b) re “If extradited to Sweden, Julian Assange will be immediately placed in solitary confinement, incommunicado”
Step by step. The issue began with Assange leaving a country that does not extradite to US for political crimes/espionage (Sweden) for a country where the risk is according to some commentators on the case higher (see for example “In general, I might expect that the U.S. government would try to have him extradited from the UK rather than from Sweden, and the UK does have some discretion to extradite him to the United States rather than to Sweden.”– Bellinger, quoted by Wrange:
Assange, while being in a country where this risk seems to be higher, fighting from court to court against the extradition to a country that does not extradite to US for political crimes/espionage, claiming that this risk is the reason why he filed appeal after appeal.
[Re Swe/US extradition ecluding political crimes, see for example “Section 6 of the Swedish Extradition Act provides that “[e]xtradition may not be granted for a political offence.” http://klamberg.blogspot.de/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html ]
The domestic warrant as well as the EAW following it were caused by Assange being first not available for his own lawyer who could not reach him to inform him that there is a questioning set for end sept and leaves Sweden, while his lawyer informs the prosecutor that he will be back in Oct. Assange then does not turn up in Sweden in Oct, so finally the EAW is filed. (As mentioned, with a number of appeals, all lost.) [Re the “return in Oct”, see for example http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/#returning ]
And now we hear from Assange supporters that they know upfront about the exact conditions of the arrest that he would find himself in after the return to Sweden? Could the Assange fanclub provide us with some details about the glass bowl they found this information in?
Assange supporters say: “This treatment can be seen in the recent case of Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm.”
Protest supporters reply to that: It is very interesting that Assange supporters mention this case of all things. Readers may please check out this article published in the newspaper “Jungle World” http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2012/41/46381.html – they mention rumours spread on diverse blogs online claiming a double-class-law system in Sweden.
One thing that not many people seem to know about this case however is the information about who was financially funding Pirate Pay, according to Jungle World, this detail has been kept secret for a long while (the article mentions for example Pirate Bay support t-shirts that show only two faces, denying a 3rd person involved) – the 3rd person involved is actually Carl Lundström, a right wing extremist.
We find it interesting that Assange supporters chose to mention the pirate bay case, of all things, given that the official Wikileaks account was seen tweeting links to the right wing extremist newspaper “Fria Tider” – it’s 10 tweets with a direct link to this newspaper until today (see
– above the link to proof of 9 tweets and here is the 10th:
[note that this link is favorited also by an assange supporter account that is currently as often retweeted as rixstep was not long ago: http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/11986607/640/11986607.jpg ]
please note there are some more worrying details regarding tendency to right wing extremism, deliberate or a tendency to tolerate it – this cannot be further clarified, since statements are missing, a withdrawal of those tweets that were sent by the official Wikileaks twitter account is not there [tweets linking to the right wing extremist “Fria Tider” are still up], no official apologize for these tweets, and there is simply no dissociation,nothing that would clarify the worrying tendency observed (and this from a person who wants to start a political campaign….) – so, you can take a look at a collection of those worrying details on the following page:
(it’s a post on the facebook event page. there is a documentation of the recent anon attacks in the first third of the comments thread (attacks by some facebook accounts, probably the people who spammed there perceive themselves as belonging to anons (the attacking people seemed to belong to the 4chan fraction among them…) – according to the jpgs they used – anons who thought they are coming for “help” – there were requests for help by anons observed, on twitter (one screenshot of such an anon help request sent by an assange supporter exists, you can find it in the thread below claudias post on the event page, you’ll find claudia’s post when you search on the event page) – anyway: the attacks began shortly after the call for help) – a documentation of these attacks is on top and a collection of hints at observed right wing tendencys when you scroll down. the link to that was (repeating) this here
and there is a text explaining in German, why these cases [tweets to “Fria Tider”, nazi text repost used as “reference” by justice4] cannot count as “oops”-errors, overlooked coincidents or similar https://wikinews030.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/ein-unganehmenes-thema-das-zur-sprache-kommen-muss-wikileaks-und-rechtsextremismus-10-tweets-nach-fria-tider-und-der-repost-einer-naziseite/
Assange supporters say: “Mr Assange would not have had the ability to seek asylum were he to be extradited, therefore being unable to protect himself from U.S. persecution.”
Protest supporters reply: Which US persecution do the Assange supporters mean here, the US persecution following the extradition to the US for espionage that the Swedes/US extradition treaty excludes?
Assange supporters often, when being reminded of this fact, reply with mentioning the rendition of two egyptians in 2001 and the case with 1 british and 2 swedish citizen reported in Dec 2012/Jan 2013
Regarding the relevance of the rendition case for this argumentation, please check:
2. green notes regarding the frequent usage of this case to back the claim up that the actual reason is the risk of extradition to the US: “First, Assange’s supporters often refer to the dreadful 2001 case of Agiza and Al-Zery. Here, in an extra-judicial move, two men were renditioned by Sweden to Egypt at the request of the CIA. Is this case analogous to the Assange extradition? The first answer is that there is a distinction between judicial and extra-judicial activities – and Assange is wanted for a judicial process. Second, rendition is not extradition. Third, the Agiza and Al-Zery case caused scandal in Sweden leading, among other things, to payments of substantial compensation once the judicial system was engaged. It was an awful incident but it is not one which carries over easily to the Assange situation.”
– note that this is greens 2nd article on this particular part of the topic, he received a reply from greenwald in the guardian, greenwald claimed that the Swedish government does have a possibility to issue a guarantee as required by Assange (the conditional “offer” for the “chat” which is not supposed to be a chat as shown above). link to greenwald’s reply to green’s previous article is:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt – note one quotation that we regard as crucial in this article: “I have spoken to countless Assange defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved. Typifying this view is Milne’s column last night, which in the midst of scorning the attacks on Assange, embraced “the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial.” That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates saying anything;
(greenwald on Aug 22 in the guardian, linked above). Greenwald said in this article that a guarantee as required is possible from his point of view and received.replies to that from wrange and klamberg, among others:
Klamberg details the legal process and shows why Greenwald was wrong in his assumption that the request for a guarantee is a practicable one.
The 2nd case mentioned by Assange defenders is a case of 1 british and 2 swedish citizen, reported in Dec 2012 and an 2013 (it’s regularly used by Assange defenders on the facebook event page to back their statements up that they believe in the risk of an extradition to the US for espionage from a country that excludes that in their extradition tready with the US) – this 2nd case is mentioned regularly when confronted with replies to case 1 – the rendition of 2 egyptians in 2001- respectively when confronted with the evidences for the irrelevance of this case for the evading of due process in Sweden,
[link to 2 articles in a minute – it was the washpo, i think, and the nytimes][will be entered here]
This case is also interesting to observe as used for defense, since when you read the articles, you will notice one pecularity: while the two swedish citizen received consulary help, it was the British citizen that was stripped of his citizenship by the British authorities – you would assume that no Assange defender would use such a case for the defense since it backs up the statements of law and political science specialists who say that actually the level of cooperation between US/UK [missing balance of the extradition treaty…] is actually higher and the risk of an extradition there larger [see quotation of Bellinger/quoted by Wrange ablve]. So – using this for a case of a person who prefers to stay in UK while filing appeal after appeal for over 2 years now in order not to return to the country that does not extradite for espionage… might be tricky, you might think. There are however some Assange defenders reularly pointing this case out as a last resort – obviously themselves somehow – not confused by this pecularity. (Which we find interesting.)
According to Jen R., Assange seems to even prefer a return to Australia – a country that actually does extradite for espionage:
Regarding known cases of extradition requests for espionage (US-Swe):
What else should I know?
The Swedish investigation against Julian Assange has been very unusual. The case was initially closed, then reopened by another prosecutor. The interview of one complainant was not recorded, despite the fact that interviews with all other persons were recorded. A condom submitted as evidence by the other complainant contained no DNA from Mr Assange. These are just a few examples of the peculiar conduct of the investigation.
Protest supporters: ... (reply in progress)…
regarding the sentence “The Swedish investigation against Julian Assange has been very unusual. The case was initially closed, then reopened by another prosecutor.” – well actually, a number of people point out that the appeal against the closure of a case can hardly be called “unusual”
the watch page links to the swedish page that details this process and adds: “From that government page, we can see that in 2010, 12% of all appeals were successful.” – it refers to the sentence “Under 2010 var antalet ändringar 282 (tolv procent)” (confirmed, 12 percent, tvolf/”zwölf” in German] http://www.aklagare.se/Aklagarens-roll/Atalsbeslutet/Overprovning/
The Swedish term is “Överprövning”, the nearest term in German is “Überprüfung”, verbatim it’s a review of a case/back-checking.
Claes Borgström regarding the reopening: “Two days later a second prosecutor, who conducted a preliminary investigation, came to a different conclusion, judging that the evidence did not meet the criterion of a rape or sexual molestation charge. “She made another judgment, saying: ‘No it’s not. It’s very close, but not quite,'” he claimed. “So she cancelled the arrest order and he was still suspected of molestation without sexual motives.
“When I read that decision, my own conclusion was and still is that it was a rape, so I asked for a reopening of the case, and then the investigation was reopened.” There was nothing suspicious about this closing and reopening of the case, he said. “The law is not an exact science. You can always make different judgments. Different courts and different prosecutors make different decisions. I think that the prosecutor who cancelled the arrest warrant did not study the case well enough.”
Assange supporters: “All sources are hyperlinked within the article.”
Protest supporters: “Ah? links would be here, no one cut them out deliberately. we check that again, but the fact sheet that we have seen sent via twitter did not have links to references. (Btw how do you want to hand out those links to the protest participants? wasn’t it designed for printing?)” – what ever happened, we’ll search the currently tweeted “Fact Sheet” links, if we find one that indeed contains a reference for their statements above as links in the “Fact”-Paragraphs, we’ll add them. [doubt that, i think they linked probably only the support pages in general, in this bottom part of the document, but we’ll check that.)
For more information please see the following websites:
U.S. v WikiLeaks – A website dedicated to detailing the ongoing U.S. investigation into WikiLeaks and the case against Pfc. Bradley Manning.
Justice for Assange – A website dedicated to detailing the Swedish investigation against Mr Assange.
Protest supporters. well… justice4 is that well-known website with the link to a nazi text repost (reposted by rixstep, justice4 links there directly, neither they nor rixstep warn readers that this is a nazi text repost and the promotion link that rixstep placed below the text is a direct link to the Nazi’s blog. (T. Olsson, the guy is in prison but can write, has even an own blog… linked by rixstep.) – see screenshots about this:
screenshot of the repost:
and the screenshot of the link on justice4:
As a silent side note, we therefore mention, mumbling uner our nose, that we found it interesting what Wrange writes about justice4: “On the same site is also stated that there is no such procedure in the US agreement with the UK (see here). Both of these claims are completely wrong. (The other arguments are hardly worthy of comment.)”
“The Wikileaks, Julian Assange Diplomatic Standoff” – An animated infographic, offering a quick and easy way to understand the Swedish investigation against Mr Assange.
Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues – Court document showing facts of Mr Assange’s case that are agreed on by both the defense and prosecution.
Jennifer Robinson: Brief to Canberra – A briefing by Mr Assange’s lawyer giving a timeline of events and overview of concerns regarding the Swedish investigation.
Protest supporters: wait, Jen? The one that mentioned that JA will not be able to return to Australia due to this Swed case? To the country that -does- extradite for espionage?
Quotation: “Jen Robinson says that the Assange legal team fear that the US will apply for extradition from Sweden. Presumably for espionage – which, as we have seen, Sweden does not extradite for. She fears that Assange may not be able to return to Australia …”source: http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/#espionage
Assange supporters: “WL Facts – Assange FAQ – A list of frequently asked questions surrounding Mr Assange.”
Protest supporters: (mumbling under their nose) “FAQ FACts”. Hm-hm.
Now let’s see – a nice list of stuff from the protesting side also:
– “Common misconceptions”
– “Claims and counter-claims”
– Green’s list of legal mythology “zombie facts”
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/assange-and-legal-myths (greenwald’s reply to green, published in the guardian, is linked in the text above in one of our replies) – we know that Assange fans hate Green (which hardly anyone will miss as soon as they take a look under the comments below his text), however it’s not enough to hate an author to discredit him, you indeed have to be able to prove him wrong. With evidences.
our own take on this (on the question whether it can be quoted) is a bit different. apart of the content itself, there is an other thing that matters to us. according to
[one never knows, but sometimes it’s worth a click] according to that, the newspaper had a tough time following the year 1996. Labour-MP Geoffrey Robinson bought it and fired a number of “leftish” journos and followed the blair line. however, this changed again in 1998ff, under the new chief editor Peter Wilby. according to the wikipedia page, this corrected orientation was kept under the new editor for politics, John Kampfner. [not absolutely detailed how the current atmosphere there is (2012/2013), but – a story like that makes a newspaper worth taking a closer look at
And there is a remark about the Watch page linked by the protest supporters on this pad here, as well as on the fb event page:a page that of course was repeatedly attacked by Assange supporters on the facebook event page (not the page as such there, but repeatedly attacked verbally as being a kind of devilish govCIAshillUFO (as usual) – we have a reply to those attacks, particularly to the rumours used to discredit the watch page. The reply to these rumous is: “And repeating the reply to Jacky and others who claimed that the watch page is “not reliable”. As pointed to Jacky also on the FB page in several threads, the watch page’s content is what Assange supporters are expected to concentrate on in case they want to discredit it. So far, still not a single Assange supporter was able to point us a factual error on the page wikiwatch. Claims and conspiracy theories – unfounded, i.e. presented as hearsay without any evidence, as usual – are not interesting for the assessment whether a page can be described as “reliable”. – Assange supporters claim that a person who is regularly critisising the Assange cult on twitter is the registering person for the watch page. alright – so what? – the watch page even mentions that openly on one of their pages, as far as I remember. a) the contents seem to be written by diverse people, the registering person is probably not much involved in the content writing [seems to be busy on twitter instead] b) any claimed connections with lamo (as claimed by jacky in threads on the fb event page) are a serious accusation and need therefore to be backed up with foolproof evidences, otherwise it stays just another smear from people who automatically shout “smear” when pointed at issues (issues pointed at with evidences) – assange supporters seem not to realise the irony here. I personally cannot imagine myself tweeting with lamo, however I have seen various people from the assange fanclub doing that so I do not believe a tweet proves something, however what is in such a case necessary is at least the weblink or screenshot of the tweet. there was nothing of that sort here, no link, nothing. all that we got from jacky is the hearsay of a tweet. rumours. that’s quite all so far. rumours useful for assange supporters and used for that – without being able to show us a single factual mistake, fake or error on that page. it stays so far a page that was still not proven as “unreliable” by a single assange supporter – not a single factual error pointed out, they would need to prove that it uses faked references which will be hardly possible to do since they refer to court judgements and court hearing transcripts that are online for back-checking.“
to which not much later a discussion participant who according to the post seems to be either involved or infomed about the watch page, added on the event page: re “the contents seem to be written by diverse people, the registering person is probably not much involved in the content writing” – Alan Young aka PGPBOARD is not involved in the content at all.
re “any claimed connections with lamo” – I don’t know if Adrian Lamo even knows wikiwatch. What I do know is that he hasn’t contributed anything to its content, just like Taylor.(source: discussion thread under simone’s pinned post http://www.facebook.com/events/552981961396958/permalink/553638297997991/ )
similar rumours regarding the “reliability” are said to be spread about the wikinews030 page linked above. quotation from the same thread (discussion under simone’s linked post) “— btw the page linked once in one of the threads here, this wikinews030 page mentions that the twitter account associated with them witnessed the same crazy behaviour. —-some— fowl-accounts were concerned about the tweets to fria tider and the nazi repost link on justice4, but these were exceptions, the big mass of fanatic “supporters” preferred to attack them as their method to deal with the issue. the page mentions that they were within a couple of hours, told to be “IP phishers”, “paid by CIA” (who else), double accounts of those fowl-accounts who showed concern (in order to mute them, too) and a a full set of further stories. can you imagine that? running amok with virtually every conpiracy theory and phantasy available – instead of realising the issue of tweet-links to the right wing extremist “Fria Tider” sent by the official wikileaks account? they have some serious issues inside their “supporters” group, honestly. and the issue is, if you ask me, exactly the critisism-free, indeed cult-like parroting. you cannot parrot verbally in a totalitarian gang for long without losing the rest of your intellect.”
this is indeed what the page itself reports also – in German language: “Die Reaktionen einiger fanatischer Assange-Unterstützer auf unsere Seite, auf der wir unsere ersten Recherchen zu dieser Problematik dokumentiet haben, waren hierbei besonders ernüchternd. “Supporter”, die sonst den Tag lang damit beschäftigt sind, Slogans wie “don’t kill the messenger” zu verbreiten, stürzten sich auf unseren Twitter-Account als wären wir der Beelzebub persönlich – keiner der Unterstützer-Accounts, die uns mit einer ganzen Reihe von Beleidigungen und Angriffen überschütteten, interessierte sich dabei für das Problem – wichtig war es ihnen, möglichst rasch möglichst viele Gerüchte über uns in die Welt zu setzen. Innerhalb weniger Stunden wurden wir zu Teilnehmern einer “social media smear campaign” erklärt (also eine Schmutzkampagne unter Zuhilfenahme sozialer Netzwerke), wir mussten hören, dass wir angeblich vom CIA bezahlt werden, wir waren gleichzeitig auch noch “IP Phisher” und selbstverständlich darüber hinaus Doppel-Accounts von FOWL-Konten (“Friends Of WikiLeaks”-Konten), da Wikileaks-Unterstützer, die das Problem ähnlich ernsthaft sehen, irgendwie mundtot gemacht werden mussten.” (sourcehttps://wikinews030.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/ein-unganehmenes-thema-das-zur-sprache-kommen-muss-wikileaks-und-rechtsextremismus-10-tweets-nach-fria-tider-und-der-repost-einer-naziseite/ )
Media reports regarding the protest:
(btw it should be mentioned that this article is mentioning a retweeter of
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/11986753/640/11986753.jpg (well, no – no one of the protest supporters would blame a worried mother for having not much clue about political tendencies of media in countries far away from Australia – definitely not. She probably really did not know what she retweeted. But Assange, the chief editor of a media organisation [own PR] who is busy with media and law in that particular part of the landscape for quite a while now, simply can hardly claim that he had “no clue” what he tweeted in case he does not want to risk surprised replies, since claiming that he had no clue would be really accusing someone of highly unprofessional behaviour, isnt it? And since he has announced to prepare for a political campaign not long ago, these tweets to the right wing extremist newspaper “Fria tider” are even more crucial than they would be anyway.)
contact to the protest organizer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/webb-simone (we received no reply yet when guardian is planning an update)
contact to protest supporters:
– via this page (use the chat function)
– via the facebook event page (linked on top of this pad)
(updated) Ein unganehmenes Thema, das zur Sprache kommen muss: Wikileaks und Rechtsextremismus – 10 Tweets nach Fria Tider und der Repost einer Naziseite
[wn030] Hierzu gibt es (endlich) ein update. Klick.
Wie Englisch sprechende Leser unserer Seite seit einigen Tagen verfolgen konnten, existiert aktuell ein ernstzunehmendes Problem bei Wikileaks – die Gruppe muss sich der Frage stellen, wie indifferent und sogar tolerant gegenüber Rechtsextremismus sie ist.
Dieser Frage müsste sich unserer Meinung nach – neben der Gruppe in ihrer aktuellen Zusammensetzung – ihr aktueller “chief editor” ganz besonders stellen, da er erst kürzlich den Wahlkampf zum australischen Senatssitz eingeläutet hatte. – Doch wie auch immer man genau diese Frage gewichten will (wir finden sie nicht gerade irrelevant für eine politische Kampagne), eines sollte der Gruppe deutlich sein: ihre aktuelle Haltung gegenüber rechtsextremen Seiten und Inhalten ist mehr als nur fragwürdig und in der Lage, Unterstützung nicht nur für sich selbst als Wikileaks weiter zerbröseln zu lassen, sondern darüber hinaus auch den für Bradley Manning ernsthaft zu gefährden.
Wir hatten selbst bei dem Vorfall mit Israel Shamir schließlich die Augen zugedrückt, da wir der Meinung waren, dass eine offizielle Distanzierung akzeptiert werden muss und weil wir gehofft hatten, dass der Vorfall der Gruppe deutlich vor Augen geführt hatte, wie wichtig eine Nivellierung ihrer internen Machthierarchiestruktur ist, um Vorfälle dieser Art in Zukunft zu vermeiden. Wie wir aktuell erkennen müssen, hat Wikileaks diesen Schritt nicht geschafft.
Worin genau liegt das Problem?
Erstens: 10 Tweets mit Links zu “Fria Tider”
Wikileaks hatte 2012, bis zum 4. Januar 2013, insgesamt 9 Tweets mit Direktinks zum schwedischen rechtsextremen Blatt “Fria Tider” getweetet. Wir reden hier von einem Account mit (Stand 5. Januar 2013) fast 1,7 Mio Account-Abonnenten (“followern”). Am 5. Januar 2013 folgte schließlich der 10. Tweet. Diesen 10. Tweet betrachten wir als besonders widerwärtig, da er mitten in einer Twitterpanik getweetet wurde, die von einer Falschmeldung zu einer angeblichen Verhaftung Assanges verursacht worden war (1). Der Tweet wurde von vielen Abonnenten in der Folge als “Lebenszeichen” angesehen und um so kräftiger weiterverbreitet (“retweetet”). Bis zum Abend des 5. Januar konnte WL so über 70 Retweets für den Link zu einem rechtsextremen Blatt gewinnen (darunter ein paar besonders fanatische “Supporter” und selbst die Mutter von Assange) – mit deren Hilfe zählte der Tweetlink zum rechtsextremen Blatt insgesamt 90 Retweets am 7. Januar.
Es handelt sich, wohlgemerkt, um den nunmehr 10. Tweet mit Direktlink zu dieser Zeitung. Wie bereits auf Englisch ausgeführt, verbietet sich selbst beim ersten Tweet die Vermutung eines “Versehens” oder “Fehlers”, da die Organisation Wikileaks sich als eine journalistische Organisation bzw. als Plattform für Medien darstellt und ihr schwerlich jemand derart horrende Ahnungslosigkeit und Unprofessionalität vorwerfen wollen und unterstellen wird, sie hätten keinen Schimmer, welchen Link genau sie da tweeten. Hätte es sich bei dem ersten Tweet um einen “Fehler” gehandelt (ein ziemlich gravierender, aber nicht irreparabler, wenn zeitnah behoben), wäre die Korrektur denkbar unproblematisch gewesen: durch die Löschung des Tweets mit nachgesendeter kurzer Entschuldigung für das Versehen. Natürlich hätte dies einiges Kopfschütteln in der Twitternutzer-Schar verursacht und die Frage aufkommen lassen, was für Personal derzeit Zugang zum offiziellen Account hat – aber das Problem wäre wenigstens halbwegs behoben und erledigt. Nicht so Wikileaks: der Tweet blieb nicht nur stehen (und es handelt sich bei allen 10 Tweets um Links zu in einem rechtsextremen Blatt veröffentlichte, für Assange “nützliche” Artikel – für jede um ihre Reputation bedachte Medienorganisation ein Grund mehr, sich möglichst rasch von einem solchen Freundeskreis zu distanzieren…) – sie tweeteten darüber hinaus weitere Linktweets, als hätte es keine frühzeitigen Warnungen ernstzunehmender Stimmen gegeben, dass sie damit selbst die geduligsten Unterstützer entfremden.
Die Reaktionen einiger fanatischer Assange-Unterstützer auf unsere Seite, auf der wir unsere ersten Recherchen zu dieser Problematik dokumentiet haben, waren hierbei besonders ernüchternd. “Supporter”, die sonst den Tag lang damit beschäftigt sind, Slogans wie “don’t kill the messenger” zu verbreiten, stürzten sich auf unseren Twitter-Account als wären wir der Beelzebub persönlich – keiner der Unterstützer-Accounts, die uns mit einer ganzen Reihe von Beleidigungen und Angriffen überschütteten, interessierte sich dabei für das Problem – wichtig war es ihnen, möglichst rasch möglichst viele Gerüchte über uns in die Welt zu setzen. Innerhalb weniger Stunden wurden wir zu Teilnehmern einer “social media smear campaign” erklärt (also eine Schmutzkampagne unter Zuhilfenahme sozialer Netzwerke), wir mussten hören, dass wir angeblich vom CIA bezahlt werden, wir waren gleichzeitig auch noch “IP Phisher” und selbstverständlich darüber hinaus Doppel-Accounts von FOWL-Konten (“Friends Of WikiLeaks”-Konten), da Wikileaks-Unterstützer, die das Problem ähnlich ernsthaft sehen, irgendwie mundtot gemacht werden mussten.
Wohlgemerkt: So verhalten sich Unterstützer-Konten, die diversen Medien und investigativen Journalisten “Schmutzkampagnen” vorwerfen.
Ein insgesamt doch etwas üppiger Phantasiereichtum – hervorgezaubert, um Links zu einer rechtsextremen Zeitung zu verteidigen.
Bei diesem 10. Tweet mit Link nach “Fria Tider” haben wir schließlich einige Retweeter kontaktiert und sie um Bestätigung gebeten, dass sie über die Tendenz des von ihnen via Retweet mitverlinkten Blattes informiert wurden. Eine Handvoll machten ihren Retweet rückgängig, eine weitere Handvoll tweetete unseren Hinweis mit einem Aufklärungslink. Wie angemerkt, sind trotzdem mit Stand vom 7. Januar aktuell 90 Retweeter dieses Links sichtbar.
Wikileaks sendete einen mehr als peinlichen Folgetweet noch am selben 5. Januar ab, der ihren Fria-Tider-Link oberflächlich “erklären” sollte. Ihr Erklärungsversuch, dass ihre Tweets nicht gleichbedeutend mit Unterstützung oder Empfehlung einer Zeitung sind, greift hier leider keinen Millimeter – würde man diesen Erklärungsversuch ernstnehmen, würde die Frage im Raum stehen, ob auch der Tweet zu einer “Blood and Honour”-Seite mit Assange-Bezug für sie unter demselben Vorzeichen ebenso unproblematisch wäre. Doch diese Frage stellt sich hier nicht – der Artikel ist ein für JA eindeutig nützlicher – ebenso wie es sich, wie angemerkt, bei den 9 weiteren “Fria-Tider”-Tweets nicht um kritsche oder distanzierende Tweets gehandelt hatte.
Dass es WikiLeaks ernsthaft erstaunt oder erstaunen kann, dass ihre Nutzung Assange-freundlicher Texte in einem rechtsextremen Blatt und die dadurch sichtbar werdende Begrüßung rechtsextremer Klientel unter ihren “Supportern” auch die zuvor geduldigsten Unterstützer entfremden muss, kaufen wir nicht ab – vielleicht deswegen, da wir davon ausgehen, dass die aktuelle Crew sich aus volljährigem Personal zusammensetzt.
Zweitens: Der Repost eines Nazitextes und seine Verwendung
Als wäre das Problem mit den Fria-Tider-Links nicht schon groß genug, gibt es jedoch eine weitere Problematik in direkter Verbindung mit Wikileaks – hier handelt es sich um die Verlinkung eines Nazi-Textes über den Umweg zweier Supporter. Es handelt sich um den Repost des Textes eines medienweit bekannten Neonazis, Tony Olsson (hier der Link zu einem Beitrag in der Süddeutschen über diesen Nazi). Es handelt sich bei dem Repost des Nazi-Textes nicht um einen Fehler, ein Versehen oder eine Namensverwechslung, sein Text wurde von einem Assange-Unterstützer (Rixstep) repostet, und zwar a) ohne jeglichen Warnhinweis für Leser, dass es sich um den Text eines Nazis handelt und b) gleich mit einem Werbelink zu desseen Blog (Olsson sitzt ein, hat aber die Möglichkeit, zu schreiben und durch Hilfe von Unterstürtzern auch einen Blog zu betreiben). Auf unserer Seite mit der englischsprachigen Recherche-Dokumentation haben wir bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass Rixstep selbst nicht selten Tweets mit Links zu Nazi-Seiten tweetet (siehe Screenshot mit Rixstep-Link zu info 14 dot com). Von der Seite, die über das Problem zuerst berichtet hatte (zu finden via google oder duckduckgo mit Eingabe des Seitentitels “Rixstep And The Nazi Website”) wurden wir darauf hingewiesen, dass das offizielle Wikileaks-Twitterkonto dem Konto Rixstep eine zeitlang sogar gefolgt sein soll (eine Aussage, die wir nicht bestätigen können, da wir diese Phase nicht live miterlebt haben, die Watch-Seite bietet jedoch einen Screenshot dazu als Nachweis). Der offizielle Twitter-Account hat zusätzlich dazu eine zeitlang regelmäßig Links von Rixstep retweetet. (Dieselbe Schwäche für Retweets fanatischer Supporter selbst bei offensichtlich mehr als nur fragwürdigen Links konnten wir am 5. Januar beobachten.)
Der Nazi-Repost auf Rixstep wird zusätzlich zu alldem, und hier wird es überdeutlich problematisch, von der offiziellen Unterstützerseite justice4assange als “Resource” verlinkt – auch hier nicht einmal eine Warnung, dass auf einen Nazitext zur Verteidigung zurückgegriffen wird. Auch Justice4 ist als Unterstützerseite offiziell wie es offizieller nicht geht – mit regelmäßigen Tweet-Links zur Seite und Direktverlinkung auf wikileaks.org.
Hier die bereits auf der englischsprachigen Seite vorgestellten, von uns kommentierten Screenshots. Die entsprechenden Webadressen zur Überprüfung sind im Kommentar angegeben:
oben: besagter Nazitext-Repost auf Rixstep
unten: Verlinkung zu diesem Nazitext auf justice4:
Bei diesem Repost und seiner Verlinkung stellen sich mehrere Fragen gleichzeitig: glaubt tatsächlich die gesamte aktuelle Crew, dass die Öffentlichkeit sich nicht die Frage stellt, weshalb JA angeblich keine Möglichkeit gesehen hat, Rixstep als überzeugten eigenen Supporter darauf hinzuweisen, dass seine Seite weder in Tweets noch per Links weiter von WL gepusht werden kann, solange der Nazi-Text dort sichtbar ist – zudem in dieser Form, ohne Warnung, mit Werbelink?
Das kaufen wir mit gutem Grund nicht ab.
Weiter: möchte wikileaks.org der Öffentlichkeit verkaufen, dass die von ihnen direktverlinkte Seite justice4 nicht zeitnah nach den ersten Hinweisen auf das Problem den Link zum Nazitext-Repost entfernen konnte?
Auch das dürfte mit gutem Grund kaum jemand abnehmen.
Umso ernüchternder dürfte für unsere Leser sein zu hören, dass der erste Hinweis darauf von der Watch-Seite bereits Ende Oktober 2012 veröffentlicht wurde. Die Screenshots haben wir im Zuge unserer Recherche erst vor wenigen Tagen, Ende Dezember aufgenommen. Der zehnte Tweet zu Fria Tider erfolgte, wie angemerkt, am 5. Januar. Hier ist kein Umdenken in Sicht.
(1) Die Twitterpanik wurde am 5. Januar durch eine Falschmeldung verursacht, die über die englische indymedia-Seite, trotz früher Moderation der Falschmeldung, verbreitet worden war. Der Text wurde selbentags von einem Guardian-Journalisten zeitnah ausdrücklich als Falschmeldung bestätigt (bei dem Indymedia-Text wurde der Name eines weiteren Guardian-Journalisten verwendet, auch dies eine Falschangabe). Die Zeit, in der sich einige Assange-Fans immer noch Sorgen um seinen Verbleib machten, nutzte der offizielle WL-Account für das Tweeten des besagten 10. Tweets mit dem Link zum für Assange nützlichen Artikel im rechtsextremen Blatt “Fria Tider”.
(text in progress, feel free to revisit)
Streetart-Versteigerung – Benefiz-Veranstaltung zugunsten der Oury-Jalloh-Kampagne, 19. Januar 2013 Berlin (Nähe U Samariterstraße)
Eines der am 19. Januar 2013 zur Versteigerung stehenden Werke – ein Werk von Bernd Langer. Auch wenn das Werk auf den ersten Blick wie eine Gouache-Mischtechnik wirkt, handelt es sich hier um ein Ölgemälde auf Leinwand. Maße: 40 x 50 cm.
Zur Galerie gelangen Sie per Klick auf das oben sichtbare Bild. Blättern Sie nach dem Klick gerne zurück, denn es ist nicht das erste Werk der online als Vorschau präsentierten Bilder.
Den Veranstaltungshinweis mit Adressdetails finden Sie hier (fragen Sie dort gerne nach weiteren Details zur Adresse, sie ist bisher nur als “Schreina47” angegeben, es dürfte sich um die Schreinerstraße 47 handeln). Als Anfahrt wird die U-Bahn empfohlen, die nächstliegende Haltestelle ist die Haltestelle Samariterstraße (eine Haltestelle der Linie U5).
Veranstaltungsbeginn ist 21 uhr (9 p.m.)