wikinews030.

please note our disclaimer page – we have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation

Archive for the ‘about WikiLeaks’ Category

(Yawn…) London seems to wake up. (TTIP) (Updated)

with one comment

(somesone mumbling in the background… “So alright. One such stupid story like the last one and the following link will maybe indeed vanish this time.“)(“Which actually means this post should be sent to “trash” right after the full stop of this sentence.” – “?” – “Well, because a next such stupid story like the last one will happen again. Guy seems to have trouble to find … acceptable… people to talk with, you know. I’ll keep an eye on their links. Have not much time for such bullshit actually, but … for nonazis I always manage to get a second free or even two. I’ll keep an eye on the links of those certain supporters.” – “Ferner liefen.” – “Selbe Ausrede wie auf manchen Demos. Selbstverständlich lässt sich ein Flügel umleiten, der mit der Demo nichts zu tun hat. Die versuchen sich an alles gerne dranzukleben, wo sie meinen was mit zu tun zu haben. Problematischer wird’s, wenn die Orga oder ein Teil davon auf der Leitung steht.”)

Anyway, London seems to wake up. I mean: on 29 July 2015 “Wikiliiks” finally heard about TTIP. Now What you say now. (What I say now? Wanna really hear what I say now? I say… “At least something.”)

Update: …OK, so on Aug 11th. Maybe finally “wikiliiks” will (this time seriously and really) hear about TTIP. Thumbs up, good luck. Let’s see. There should be a translator here or there who might want a reward. Or a text editor. Or a personal assistant. Or, or, or. These should be voters, too. And surprised, too, why the document on their desk was explained to them as a document being under some obscure non-disclosure-agreement while they actually should know better.

.

.

.

.

.

alright

.

and

.

now

.

let’s

.

talk

.

about

.

this

.

unnecessary

.

ad

.

space

.

down

.

there.

.

I

.

don’t

.

want

.

our

.

readers

.

to

.

get

.

spamed.

Advertisements

Written by wn030

August 5, 2015 at 1:37 pm

(updated) Ein unganehmenes Thema, das zur Sprache kommen muss: Wikileaks und Rechtsextremismus – 10 Tweets nach Fria Tider und der Repost einer Naziseite

with 17 comments

[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:

rixsteps-repost

oben: besagter Nazitext-Repost auf Rixstep

unten: Verlinkung zu diesem Nazitext auf justice4:

screenshotJustce4

.

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)

Written by wn030

January 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm

[title updated] Let’s Talk About Right-Wing Populism and Nazi Pages (directly connected to Wikileaks)

with 32 comments

[wn030-7, wn030-5, wn030-21, apk] [15.12. updating – the discussion below this text is going on, please click to the comments for details about reactions to this topic. we demand – in light of this issue – especially in light of the starting political candidacy campaign – a clear and clearly worded dissociation from nazis, a dissociation that can not be “read wrong” or “being interpreted wrong” or being “said differently” afterwards.] – UPDATED: well – this turns out, a couple of days later, to be more a kind of a research documenting page than a text you still really can read like you’re used to, meaning there are parts of the original text, then some updates in the middle of the original paragraph since the written sentences needed correction where they were written – it’s a total chaos now, but if you’re used to chaos, maybe you still will be able to deal with it. if not, please scroll directly to the discussion below this page. it’s a bit more sorted.  — update January 5, 2013 – so far, the issues we’ve been hinted at have proven to be correct. we are talking about now in total 10 tweets sent by the official wikileaks account with links to a right wing populistic newspaper (Fria Tider) plus the repost of a nazi text by rixstep (being a supporter officially pushed via tweets by the official wikileaks account) plus a link placed to the nazi repost on the support page justice4 (no less official since also regularly linked via tweets by the official wl twitter account and being a support page linked directly via wikileaks.org) – (in addition to rixstep tweets with direct links to the nazi page info 14 dot com)   – please scroll down to the screenshots.

..

.

.

The content updated end of December starts when you scroll down – with the sentence “The mentioned page reports: a) …” – as for the informations available the issue is serious, we are working on getting more details, for now however we can refer to the paragraph starting with “The mentioned page reports: a) …” (scroll down for that please.)

.

We have thought about many ways how to start this article. One of the ideas we had was to name it an “official dissociation” (from wikileaks, so that our readers can still read older contents on our page that deal with wl material or wl as topics). But then we were thinking – how to do that? How can you officially dissociate from a platform that is named as source of some articles on this page. How to do that?

We came to the conclusion this will be not possible.

An official dissociation from Wikileaks, whose twitter account happened to tweet tweets by a supporter reposting nazi contents  – in addition to tweeting direct links to a right wing extremist paper to more than 1,6 followers – this official dissociation – our official dissociation from wikileaks – would be possible only with deleting all and every single content on this page that deals with them. Down to every single letter of every single word.

Surely – technically, everything is possible. Let’s not talk about the number of pages, words, characters that would have to vanish again – if this would be our course of way, there would be no way out. Unfortunately, our texts are shouting at us that they do not feel like ready to die right tonight. They are not in the mood for Kamikaze or any other kind of funeral.

So – what to do now?

Read on. Maybe togther, while we write and you read, we will find a way out.

.

What happened.

A page that you can google using the title as the search phrase (“Rixstep And The Nazi Website”) has published a post about tweets sent by user Rixstep with the link to a Nazi webpage (info 14 dot com). The page informs that the official Wikileaks account has regularly retweeted Rixstep tweets and has even followed them for a period of time. In addition, Rixstep hosts the repost of a Nazi text that is furthermore used as a “resource” by another official supporter (justice4assange). In addition, the official Wikileaks account has repeatedly tweeted links to articles useful for Assange – links in a right wing extremist newspaper (“Fria Tider”).  

Bang.

This is the moment when you say “I don’t f*cking care for anything any more. Wikileaks wants to commit social and intellectual suicide – their fault, their case, we will not help them to find a way out, all we can do is to think about our own page – how to try to explain and to ask our own readers to chill out (which will be not an easy thing to do).

.

We also were discussing how to describe followers who think they can spam our account with trolling while we were working on this topic. Wake up reader – we are talking about tweets by an account who introduced himself as a person associating with nazis (see the discussion below this text for reasons, why exactly we say that) – to one dot six mio follower accounts – there are points when you expect even the dumbest monkey on a palm who just got hit by a coconut to finally shut the f*ck up and come to grips.  Obviously however, there -are- twitter users (not masses, but some obviously) who do not even get this barrier. If a supporter seriously thinks the person with access to the official account with the responsibility of 1,6 mio is not even able to check such absolute basics before tweeting or retweeting then applause – must be an extremely capale type of person with access.

.

The story however does not end with the moment of the retweeted tweets. The story would be not even here, there would be no text you read right now if the issue would have been corrected in time. A rixstep tweet with the direct link to the nazi site info 14 dot com was reported on said page – and the tweet was simply left there. Just like the official WL tweets to “Fria Tider”.

Now let’s think a moment what that actually means.

Will WL try to explain us that they have not a single person with a head on their shoulders among their followers? 1,6 mio monkeys? C’mon, what kind of followers are these then? Out of 1,6 mio no one shouted out? To be onest – we don’t only not believe that, we cared to clarify that. Our first attempt was to tweet supporters directly. Out of around 5 supporters asked today, one was able to reply immediately and clarified their position. So – we have one proven follower who immediately responded and clarified their dissociation from neonazis – one out of 5. Maybe we just had luck but among 1,6 mio not a single person shouting out, throwing a shoe or giving a hint in what ever way the person choses best – we do not buy that. Our second attempt was to look at the “Fria Tider”-Tweets sent by the official Wikileaks account and critical  voices are visible. 

.

The report about the Rixstep tweet to info 14 dot com that was not deleted – and whose retweet was not undone – was posted on a page that is, since being the public enemy of many supporters, spotted without any smallest doubt very soon after being posted in October 2012 – not only that, we even got the confirmation that there were discussions about said topic already.

.

Ah? Interesting. There were “discussions” about said topic.

Listen, we here, we can tell you one thing. We are not interested in “discussions” about tweets with links to neonazi pages – all we do care for is to stop the time how long they need to be deleted. All we want to report about is that they were deleted within 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes  (poor but still acceptable).

.

This is all we want to know. Instead we are told about “discussions” about tweets that obviously still were discussed while said tweet was still in the tweetfeed and in the timelines of one dot six mio people.

.

No way man, we are not dumbheaded enough to shut up about this. It’s not on us to post a public dissociation regarding this tweet, the page that was linked, to finally stand up and clarify what part of the political landscape you do not collaborate with. London – is just one of many capitals here with a long serious history. And we personally have absolutely clear reasons why are sure. We are simply sure that other capitals will not shut up about that, too. These capitals still remember the sounds of the sirenes. And they are still missing people. More, a couple of times more than the number of followers in that account. The people who miss them don’t look away, play dumb or forget history when they hear the word “gas chamber”.

.

But there are no quick final words on such an incredible fail. This next paragraph, we thought, should finally contain the hint at a noticeable farce, revealed by this issue. While the person in charge with the review of Cypherpunks is in the middle of talks about facebook and its function in the modern surveilled word – exact same company whose role in importing american “values” into european heads were revealed when German journalists took Gawker’s hint at the odesk/facebook manual – the company with the “values” of American “civilization” trying to make people believe that neonazi contents are something the people “have to live with and get used to because being normal…” – same exact “value” found its way into the twitterfeed of the co-author who was just taking part in a theoretical debate about facebook’s role as the “voluntary Stasi”.

If you do not call that a farce,

we have no idea wha a farce then is for you.

(There are some supporters who seem not to have understood how this relates to “Cypherpunks” – we have explained in in a comment.)

.

And just in case you’re wondering: No. Even if this w.o.u.l.d. have been “critical” tweets – for a case like this – a simple tweet without a dissociation to 1,6 mio would not be tolerable. However: This was not the case. These were  pro-Assange texts, useful for him. WL however seems to think this is something you can do with what they call in German “aussitzen”. – Well, we assume this will be not that easy.

And then, there is a 2nd issue: How do you want to collect donations then, from whom? Without a public dissotiation? You think the people will want to donate to an organization that did not post a clarification what part of the political landscape they do not collaborate with, that they neither endorse or wish to be endorsed by them? Since WL seems to welcome right wing extemists among their supporters, all we have to reply to this is: without a public dissociation these could be one day, the last “supporterts” then. Good luck with that.

.

The mentioned page reports: a) an official support site (justice4assange) links to a nazi page, describing it as criminal, but not naming them as nazis. b) rixstep tweeted said link to the nazi page (info14 dot com) – c) wikileaks allegedly retweeted rixstep tweets a couple of times, even followed rixstep for a time (we cannot confirm that, we did not see that live: in warlogs time and beginning of cablegate, they were following no one, now they follow two. We cannot exclude that the claim they followed rixstep for a period of time is true. However, as for us, we did not see that live, so we also cannot confirm that. But this is what the page says. Then:  d) rixstep confirmed that he tweeted a link to a nazi page that attacked a person being critical regarding Assange – a content interesting, obviously, for rixstep and wikileaks regardless of where that kind of “support” comes from. e) rixstep confirmed also that he tweeted the link without checking the site and without knowing what kind of page this is (to be honest, this is… he tweets in english, he should know the typical nazi codes in the hemisphere of his language – not to mention that … if you do not know the page, then – I mean this is what we can confirm for sure – it is not actually rocket science to use a search machine and get that infomation quickly). Anyway – he said he did not know, confirmed that he did not check – and – said in exactly same sentence that he does not care. f) wikileaks – if they followed rixstep fo a while, at least unfollowed him in the meantime, but g) the link to a nazi page is still there on the page, rixstep did not delete his tweet, h) assange wants to run for the senate -and- they want to be successful with the next donation campaign now after the new channel for this is there – and g) there is no dissociation from nazis – in spite of all the mentioned facts: this clearly looks like a collaboration. you do not post an official disclaimer only if you expect something from them (dollars, supporters) – the only way to clarify that this is not the case is a public official dissociation and correction of said contents on that justice4assange page. as long as the dissociation is not there, we see a person who is accepting nazi support and nazi money – and – so – this is also a person who you cannot know whom he will collaborate with politically when elected. so, asking again: on what place on earth do you think you can start a political campaign without a public official dissociation from nazis? on what place on earth do you think a donation campaign without a dissociation from nazis has chances to be successful? for how long?

there is enough shit out there. enough. the time it took until they finally published the dissociation from that holocaust denier. there is a very strange quote quoted in a newspaper, being another one of quoted that were “not said”. “not this way”. well… —- well… — then we have an account tweeting links to nazi sites that wl – according to the page – even followed for a while and retweeted. well…….

and we have after all that no public official dissociation from a person who is preparing to run for the senate. plus wants to collect money without that dissociation.

enough. kein fußbreit, before the public dissociation is there.

.

regarding WL following rixstep – well, we have to do a broader research here. we’ll search for people who saw that, WL must have followed 29 accounts for a period of time. which would be definitely at least a tiny bit surprising. what was that, a meeting? 29 people, according to the screenshot. at least, according to the part of it. for now, what we have is this – this is a cut out from a page with screenshots. linked by the page that reports about that exact case. aside of the screenshot being there to prove that wl followed rixstep there are screenshots of rixstep texts (it is not even only a nazi, it is clearly an absolutely brainless sexist… no, sexist is not enough. sexists typically post jokes about women driving a car and causing crashes while parking in – this is …. a bit more than just a sexist. the page shows a quote – from rixstep: “and the acknowledged best way to keep women oppressed is to rape the shit out of them“. (yes, this is an original rixstep quote – according to the screenshot we see. they must have totally lost their minds there). [update: a commentator links to a page that links to a larger screenshot of said text. the screenshot on the watch-page is long enough to see a distinct hate against feminism, now there is a larger screenshot – take a look, reader, make up your mind. we call that larger text part a text part that can be used for a debate in opposite to the screenshot visible on the watch-page] – and rixstep definitely should hurry up and do some work on his education fails. you really have neither history of feminist movements in school or uni? no gender studies in the library where rixstep lives? poor guy – well, this quote part is so far halfway solved for now, now let’s come to the repeating of the question what these links were doing in the tweets, what the reposted story was supposed to be about, the linnk to it on justice4 and why exactly you thought you can “explain” a link to a nazi page as a link that just can stay there, stay, kept online – tweet not deleted just because a text seems useful. [IDIOT!!!] [SORRY RIXSTEP I CANNOT HOLD IT FULL TOTAL IDIOT DO YOU REALLY STILL THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! SINCE IF NOT YOU BETTER SPEAK THAT OUT LOUDLY TO THE WORLD!!] (just like WL, btw.) – so – where is the dissociation, finally?

.

this is quite an issue. assanganista, rixstep and actually every single retweet of that tweet. however – diverse people are interested in the topic, see the issues, want to help… people are people – for someone who does not expect that and does not know that it -is- necessary to check a tweet throughly before retweeting, for this person it’s a hint how necessary it is to learn that this is part of every single account’s responsibility. However, the cases that cause and will further cause issues, are the accounts rixstep and WL – these are not just supporter accounts with own responsibility for own tweets, retweets and correction of them – WL is WL, according to the news, and rixstep tweeted the link, WL is pushing rixstep further until today – that’s just simply it. In front of the eyes of the public. Including the public that is supposed to vote. These 2 accounts have to post their dissociation. Since the issue simply will not vanish. Like written in one of the paragraphs below – life’s life. Things happen, incidents happen, mistakes are made. Insidents need to be dealt with and a “mistake” (it’s a bit more than just a small error) needs a correction.  and this is just one of the issues – then the question can pop up what the story with reposting articles, “where ever they come from”, actually was about. something happened there, something went totally wrong. public needs to know what. why. and how and when WL plans to finally correct that.

.

this IS and STAYS an issue simply because of 2 simple facts: firstly, there is a page (assanganista’s blogpage – it’s linked on that page that fusako lniked in the comments – the person with the serious eye problem there, the one who needs glasses, you’ll find it – from there, assanganista’s page is linked) so, on this page, assanganista is claiming that actually ‘no one is surprised about a right wing person attacking a  leftists’. is that so. according to the information available, rixstep confirmed that he did not know what kind of page this was when confronted with the fact after tweeting. secondly, if he -now- wants to claim that, then simply rixstep: MAKE YOUR ACCOUNT PRIVATE. you want to “just discuss”, “just hint at” nazi pages without even knowing what kind of pages these are? “just hint at” when this seems – according to the given information – be an article critical about an assange-critic? this is “just discussing” it, yes? then even reposting that stuff, still – so far, only according to the information given, but so far, we are waiting for the proof that this was not the case. that there was no repost. that there was no link to it on justice4. all while withholding the actual information what political part of the landscape the article was from. you want to “just discuss” that? then make your acc private and be responsible for the people you accept there. otherwise learn that you are not alone there on twitter and if you want to hint at a fact like this then write that Nazi so-and-so complains about leftist so-and-so at a Nazi page. So far about rixstep “news”. if somebody mentions you and seriously asks for those news details it’s enough to give either the googlesearch link or a quote of the sentence to let the people google. if that material is seriously so interesting. and don’t be surprised when the people then ask why exactly.

since you retweeted it in public, you are responsible for the missing dissociation from your part. just as WL was and is reponsible for the missing dissociation on their part, necessary due to pushing rixsteplinks until today.

REPOSTING stuff from their side, however. LINKING to it from “support” pages. USING that stuff without even NAMING what bullshit you link to is just – another part of an obviously quite miserable story. and sorry, you there JA, hints at plans of the US gov to find exactly such issues is just siply USELESS. since exactly then you should know how urgently such cases should be addressed when spotted and how urgently a correction of what happened should be done. of course – the other way is to hope that no one cares. this could be an empty hope, however. and this here – berlin – might be just simply not the only city with a house where they definitely take that seriously. just like people who vote.

what stuff this exactly was – how deep down that went this time – will have to be worked on in the coming days.

.

.

.

honestly. heavens. if they still claim they have or had anything to do with #jan25 in egypt, they have no idea how this claim can turn against them. remember egypt and the rape cases there. egypt started with a case of self-immolation. sadly, this case was what started the protest movement. and there were people tweeting in realtime, from there – from cairo – people saying that they did not need a wikileaks to tell them what to think of mubarak, there were people protesting against this claim. surely they were involved in that time also: appelbaum was seen helping via twitter with informations in the blackout phase, but claiming they -started- it might be simply too much. people tweeted in realtime from egypt that they did not need them to tell them what to think and what to do. anyway – if they still claim that – in order to really simply install a wikileaks mythos regarding starting it – or for what ever other reason – this could, in light of the rixstep quote above turn against them more havily than they probably think now. (disclaimer – have not seen how many protesters from egypt clicked cables regarding mubarak/egypt/cairo – in exactly that time, or, to be more clear – in the time applicable for a possible higher impact, so: before #jan25 – not informed about the click rates from egypt locations to exactly these documents in the applicable time frame before the protests started also in egypt, so can neither confirm nor deny a higher influence – however, these voices were visible on twitter in that time.)

.

.

.

update. our twitter account was just attacked by a person who claims to be a journalist and used a “#88″*** hashtag in one of her/his tweets. we have no idea for what kind of provocation of stupidity this hashtag code was written – we just note that. the person was asked, clearly, twice. to explain what this was doing in the tweet. no answer. the attack however was a complaint about the missing source. the person claimed that “they” spent “8 hours” on research. (who ever “they” are, she did not reply to that) – we have explained that we do not agree with said page’s relativation of the legal case. we disagree with other contents there and this is why we did not want to post a direct link. however – a person is right now complaining that the link is missing. so here it is. (update: was. currently, there are very strange comments on that page with many accusations, claiming that assange is a  “criminal” (see our reply to that), claiming details about the youth phase that seem not really fit to the facts known to the public so far and lots of other stuff.  so – the link will now vanish as long as replies are not getting visible there. for now, you can find that post when searching with the search phrase mentioned in our reply comment entry.) however – our topic here are the tweeted links – see screenshot below – and the mising dissociation from nazis written by WL which is absolutely necessary full stop. people want to know what is going on and a fear of a dissociation, avoiding it, makes them wonder – and – people who want to vote want to know that too.  (repeating: re legal case, we still recommend to check out this video. a european warrant regarding a case like this – in this exact circumstance, in light of cablegate rolling… sorry, no. in light of the fact that a questioning in UK is not that complicated for Sweden to accept – … and in light of the fact that we first want to see a set. a set of europeanwide warrants for comparable cases. a set of them and they have to be older than the assange warrant before we believe that. so: for all those reasons, we repeat we do not endorse many contents there, we do not agree with many of the contents there and regarding the legal case we recommend this video instead. but there was a complaint about the link, that it was missing – so you have it.) – The person claimed that without the link to the page that mentioned this issue the text – our page here – would be “fascist” on our side. Which would be interesting since this would mean any book or newspaper in printed form – without links – would be “fascist”. Go think what you think of such people. For us, this is just incredible. Just simply incredible.

.

.*** about the hashtag – well we are quite sure we don’t have to widely explain that this is a well known nazi hashtag. as mentioned – said account got the question – twice – what this hashtag was doing in the tweet sent to out by that twitter account. everybody gets a chance to explain a typo or what ever kind of error and apologize. this account – the account has a female avatar, the male or female account user claims to be a journalist – this account got the chance to explain twice and did not answer. we just want to note – silently but getting more and more to the point here – we want to note that we have a witness here who saw nazi “greeting formulas”  (in that time back then in written form, as those two words, not as numbers) used in the wl chat channel. wl “supporters” trying to call that – as they usually do – “smearing” will have to be careful since it looks it is not only one witness of that incident here around any more. (our first witness says he/she can not say whether this is typical there – the witness says he/she did not go back there after seeing this. ONE visit and the greeting formulas were there. what a coincident. sure – guests in a channel are just guests, however when a person also in the channel, observing this, is telling the admin to do something about the issue and the stuff just goes on, then the problem gets larger and larger. and now, right now, we are working on the verification whether the 2nd witness of this exact incident is our contact. first proofs are there since the contact started to talk about this exact talk that happened years ago – started to talk about it without being asked about that by our side. we actually did not expect that. but incidents happen, we are working on the final verification right exactly now whether our contact is the written voice that our first witness rememebers, the voice addressing the admin. seriously, maniacs calling themselves “supporters” can at this point try to claim what they claim – things happen – they cause issues – issues have to be addressed, that’s life. in this case, actually, adressing it is not really a complicated thing to do.  writing a public dissociation from nazis is not a master theisis. this can usually be done without waiting for godot. —- now switching back to the current issue: a twitter account first sends a strange nazicode hashtag first, in a tweet, (it is a dead hashtag gladly on twitter since it’s a number code, however… it is just getting more and more serious, fact after fact) – so: this account sends this hashtag first, in the tweet about the missing link, gets twice the question to explain what this hashtag was doing in the tweet, does not answer that question. and today, assanganista, peterkofod and this third account after assanganistas troll stunt use the popping up of an IP phisher in a tweet discussion thread as an easy excuse to start to call -our- account an account of an IP phisher (wow we really must have excellent connections here – we are actually sure that assanganista knows her/himself quite well that her/his reactions to this phishing account popping up in the discussion thread leading her/him to begin now an incredibly super quickly starting own private campaign naming -us- -us, wn030- phishers will look a liiiiiil bit poor to the public – but let them try, it seems to be a typical way of some accounts to deal with issues. assanganista her/himself was told several times to type his/her comment if he/she has someting to add or to note about the issue mentioned here – he/she was told to address what is here on the page – he/she prefers instead to troll twitter accounts and to start a private “wikinews030 IS AN IP PHISHER!” twitter campaign – well let her/him do it. Expecting that the public will believe it might. be. however. a.little.bit.harder. 

.

.

these are just more and more reasons to take that more and more seriously, more and more reasons to do what has to be done and to publish a dissociation that has to be published anyway due to the reasons mentioned in the discussion you see below. a dissociation from nazis, btw, that is – usually – and typically – as long as there are no reasons to hold such a dissociation back – usually a quite uncomplicated thing to do. 

paragraph addressed to assanganista: you were trolling our account with a set of tweets that were nothing but provocations. you were told from the beginning to use the discussion funktion in case you have anything to add to the topic here. you were then, later, demanding that I post a tweet by you, a tweet that, as you said, was revealing the “truth”. actually, we do not believe that. during the entire trolling phase you were not addressing the actual topic a single time. shortly after your set of provocations you immediately used the showing up of an account that sent an IP phishing to the tweet discussion thread – you immediately used that in order to start your private “wikinews030 is an IP Phisher!!” campaign. and you are still asking why your tweets – your links were not posted by us? if you would have done that yourself, there would be replies questioning why your links are supposed to be in anyway related with the issue here. you are quick with accusing other people and take everything you get into your hands to make it useful for your current aim. we were -expecting- you to claim that the fact, the rixstep issue is a fake or a set of accusations about the people or person responsible for the linked page, if necessary also about every person in the reply/discussions there and then of course also about us, – we were expecting it. since you did not show you care for the topic at all, all you want is to find a useful measure to attack what is there, to attack the fact that issues are there – to attack instead of working on it. your links were not even clicked, assanganista, there were too many reasons to expect a set of stuff having nothing to do with the problem described and reported here. you want to prove that expecting unrelated links was wrong? you want to prove that your links were related to the reported problem at all? then you should learn to type in a comment field and to explain thoroughly why you think that.

Now let’s switch to the actual point. Assanganista: You know or should know that your tweet – you were tweeting the exact same link to exact same nazi site – that your tweet is visible on the linked page. So what exactly actually are you trying to explain us.

what. this is another “just a claim”, yes? you think no one will click the link above because you told people stories about it?

no problem, then, here is your tweet, assanganista:

the screenshot of a screenshot. rixstep and assanganista tweet said link to a nazipage.

the screenshot of a screenshot. rixstep and assanganista tweet said link to a nazipage.

.

our source – the page where we copied these tweets from – is a page that published these tweets. it is, as you know, assanganista, linked just a couple of paraphraphs above. the actual sources for these tweets however, assanganista, are -you- and -rixstep-

.

.

update 29.12. – the other text parts on the pages linked via the link provided ba fusaiko (the one who needs glasses, scroll down to the comments below) – other answers from them are answered in text parts above.  now to the next one. One of the blogs says assanganista’s tweet could not be found when the issue was checked. now you have to know and understand that twitter is not made for good detailed research – they are preparing a way for users to download their tweets, but a real twitter search is not possible, not even with topsy and similar ones. so – if this tweet was deleted by assanganista, this – exactly this information – is what interests pages like ours and our typical readers. so could you, assanganista, kindly add this information there – was it deleted. if yes: WHEN. how quickly after getting the information about the page you linked. (in case you deleted it at all.) 

.

28.12. one of the reactions from their side was hinting at the fact that there are documents proving that the US gov was making up plans involving exactly such campaigns in order to damage the network and assange thinks this will still work?

without knowing about the US gov searching for exactly such issues – without knowing that, such a fail would be a fail anyway.

but if you KNOW this is the case – then, instead of addressing it even faster –  you just go on don’t care a damn and afterwards shout that there is a plan? I mean this guy is 5 years old, what kind of behaviour is that.

.

that there are certain parties extermely interested in causing damage to WL,  however possible – well “news”! – but this is visible in the comments section there plus in  the fact that the page does prefer comments that shout out claims with no proof or source, comments obviously having the aim to hound emotionally. however, this does not change the facts mentioned in the page’s contents there – in case further research proofs that the other ones are also true, not just the tweets (and the tweets would be reasons enough to finally write a clear dissociation).

.

so – to the repost. this is what we found when checking the informations provided by the watch-page:

.

.

.

rixsteps-repost

.

Here is an article by the Süddeutsche mentioning this Nazi, 17. Mai 2010

.

Reminder: Rixstep is regularly pushed by WL. Tweets to this page are regular in the WL tweetfeed. Until today (Dec 30th – 2012). The Watch-page further claims that the official supporter page (Rixstep is as a supporter no less official since being linked by WL in tweets regularly, actually, and these are anything else but critical tweets… ) – the Watchpage says that this article is linked by the official supportpage justice4assange – also there, no hint that they are actually linking to Nazi material that is then further linking to the Nazis blogpage… – checking this this information reveals: 

.

screenshotJustce4

Date of the screenshot above: Dec 30th, 2012. 
.
.

On March 7th, 2012, WL tweets a link to Fria Tider, a pendant of the Junge Freiheit (re JF, see bottom of this page) (even the svedish wiki page – although “friends” of them try hard to avoid being named what they are – gives enough hints, – just take a look at the article discussion part Kategorin Högerextremism i Sverige ) – (for now, the wiki page about them landed in the category right wing populism –  is there any “supporter” around who would like to call that tweet below – on top of the issues above a “smaller issue” or “non-existent”?)

.
wl-tweets-to-fra-tider
.
there were 9 tweets with links to fria tider sent between March 7th and November 28th, 2012. plus a 10th on January 5th, 2013. Note this is actually done deliberately, JA knows perfectly well what he is tweeting and where he is linking. JA also knows perfectly well how much he is damaging support for bradley manning with it. Why we say that? Aside of the fact that lack of verification on such a level would be very surprising for any account claiming to be the official account of a “journalistic” or “media organisation”, aside of the fact that they are busy with Swedish law and media long enough to have an orientation what they are tweeting when they tweet to Fria Tider, he received hints and replies to these tweets early enough to be informed about it for months now. He cares a damn how much damage he is doing for the #freebrad support with this. He gave the final proof of this with the 10th tweet on January 5, 2013. (Actually, to be honest, he gave that proof much earlier. The issues with the financial help delay a couple of years back left aside, the final proof was given with the very first tweet to Fria Tider that was left there, unwithdrawn, open for retweets, after it was tweeted. But this tenth tweet just simply tops it all – it was tweeted while some groupies were freaking out in the #assange hashtag over a hoax article on indymedia that claimed JA was arrested (it was confirmed as a hoax early, the very same day, by a guardian journo) – so: while some groupies were still falling for the “arrest” hoax in the #assange hashtag, he conveniently used the time for the _tenth_ tweet to a right wing extremist paper, seeing absolutely no issue with it – why should they, relativating it is soo easy anyway, isn’t it? – Tweeting it in the middle of the arrest hoax panic is especially disgusting since the people used it for massive retweeting – after all, the official WL account showed this way that everything is allright, isn’t it?  Note that this tweet received, using this tactic, more than 70 retweets on January 5. Well, however – for supporters it’s all no issue, no problem. Life can be great when you live it like an ostrich.)
.
.
.
Update 2.1.2013 – Btw it’s not as it can be currently expected that many supporters writing about WL related topics in English are able to address the issue seriously. Actually, not at all, so far. Let’s take a look at what x70 thinks about it (you for sure remember this nick name, apk mentioned x7o back in January 2011) – so, let’s present you how x7o thinks about reposting nazi content by an official support page, promoting  a nazi blog with a direct link (while not even warning page visitors that this is an article by a notorious nazi and that it’s a nazi blog they in addition promote by direct linking, altough the promoted person is widely kown as a nazi to the media. All that rixstep – and WL, since WL is regularly tweeting links to rixstep – all they had to do is to do at least some basic research on him, and since WL surely does not want us to claim they do not even know how to do basic research, we must assume this was done deliberately) plus linking to that content via the official support page justice4, also regularly pushed via tweets by the official WL account – so: here is what x7o thinks about it. (Let us sum up it for you in a few words: the reaction is basically – “where is the problem…”)
.
..

Written by wn030

December 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Speech spoken at the Ecuador Embassy London ——————– December 20, 2012

with 5 comments

[wn030]

Julian Assange (currently officially mainly the chief editor of the journalistic platform Wikileaks – while Kristinn Hrafnsson [in case this was spelled correctly] is currently fulfilling the role of the official spokeperson) – gave the speech today which was announced a couple of days ago. While people in front of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – the place where Assange is staying since he applied for political asylum, a place he cannot leave as long as the UK government does not grant him safe conduct in order to leave the country  – while the people in front of the embassy are having a party tonight, people who attended the event only digitally have some time to recall what actually was spoken there tonight.

.

Speech from the Ecuador embassy in London, evening of December 20, 2012

Speech from the Ecuador embassy in London, evening of December 20, 2012 – screenshot:wn030

.

So, in order to give you the chance to re-read the speech again in some contemplation away from the party location, you will need a link to the text. While you might also enjoy to spend some reading time in the Wikileaks Forum, the actual speech text was published here. It’s not signed yet by the people who contributed to this text, but it should be no problem to read it as a speech by wikileaks for now. For readers in German language, Annika Kremer translated relevant parts of the speech here.

Links to the -recorded- speech exist, we will place one in a couple of minutes. It’s worth to click and check in case you missed this speech and let us know via twitter what you think of it, since if you ask us, the coughs really did not sound that good.

.

.

atmosphere5

In the meantime, while you’re waiting for the link to the recorded speech stream of OccupyLSX, we recommend to check out this video that explains in a nice way the ambience in the b/w screenshot above.

In case you’re reading this text via our start page link and don’t see the video – there are some updates with a replacement video while we’re waiting for OccupyLSX to get ready with that library upload.

.

.

… (text in progress…)

Written by wn030

December 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Assange leidet an schwerer Lungenkrankheit – Equadorianische Botschaft trägt Kosten für medizinische Versorgung [UPDATED.]

with 34 comments

Laut Medienberichten u.a. von AFP, N24 und SPIEGEL leidet Julian Assange an einer ernsthaften chronischen Lungenentzündung. In einem gestrigen Interview mit dem Sender CNN wollte Assange dazu keine Angaben machen. Nach Angaben der equadorianischen Botschafterin Ana Alban übernimmt die equadorianische Botschaft die Kosten für Assanges medizinische Versorgung. Kristin Hrafnsson, der derzeit die Funktion des Pressesprechers der journalistischen Plattform Wikileaks innehat, kommentierte den Gesundheitszustand Assanges nicht.

[eventuelle Updates nicht auszuschließen.]

[zum Beispiel:]

2.12.2012 – weitere Updates zur Erkrankung sind hier

sowie zu den angeschossenen Themenkomplexen wie folgt:

1) unser Feuilleton kann aktuell noch nicht mitteilen, wann wir unsere Buchbesprechung von “Cypherpunks” soweit haben, denn bisher reißt sich der Verlag OR Books offenbar nicht unbedingt um Käufer – das scheint also Zeit zu haben —- update… WAIT… – and update: err… WAIT…

2) Zum Thema Wikileaks/Banking-Blockade gibt es seit Mitte Dezember Neues zu berichten (Freedom of the Press Foundation)

und es gibt noch ein weiteres Update, und zwar zu

3) Bradley Manning:

am 2.12.2012 haben Unterstützer von Bradley Manning eine “Infozelle” am Brandenburger Tor errichtet.

Hier ein kleiner Eindruck davon:

Das Unterstützernetzwerk von Bradley Manning hat am Sonntag, dem 2. Dezember 2012, eine Info-Kunstinstallation am Brandenburger Tor in Berlin  aufgebaut. Das Werk trägt den Namen Infozelle. Per Klick auf das Bild gelangen Sie zu weiteren Ansichten dieser Open-Air-Ausstellung. (Weitere Informationen sind auf der deutschsprachigen Seite des Unterstützernetzwerks zu finden und ein Video davon haben wir hier verlinkt.)

.

Weitere Updates zum Fall Manning sind im Kommentarbereich dieser Seite zu finden.

.

.

.

.

Written by wn030

November 29, 2012 at 11:39 am

Bradley Manning: erwartet den britischen Staatsbürger die Todesstrafe in den USA? (Updated)

with 32 comments

[wn030] Bradley Manning, dem jungen Soldaten, dem unter Rückgriff auf die Aufzeichnung eines privaten Chat-Gesprächs die Weitergabe von Dokumenten an die Plattform Wikileaks vorgeworfen wird, droht mit den am 2.3. mitgeteilten und am Folgetag durch Nachrichtenagenturen wie AFP und dpa auch hierzulande einer breiteren Leserschaft bekannt gewordenen 22 neuen Anklagepunkten durch den sich darunter befindlichen Vorwurf einer Hilfeleistung für “den Feind” (zum Beispiel den durchschnittlichen Netzbesucher, der über Kriegsverbrechen anders denkt als das US-Militär) nunmehr offiziell die Todesstrafe.

Bislang kaum beachtet in den deutschsprachigen Medien ist ein auch in den jüngsten Agenturmeldungen vergessenes Detail, das der doppelten Staatsbürgerschaft Mannings. Neben der US-amerikanischen Staatsbürgerschaft verfügt Manning durch Geburt auch über eine weitere – er ist britischer Staatsbürger (siehe hierzu u.a.: Guardian vom 1. Februar 2011, NewsFeed Time, Guardian, 2. März 2011). Auch wenn zunächst der Anwalt Mannings – nachvollziehbar in einem Land, dessen Atmosphäre der Sozialisierung  beispielsweise in Bildungsanstalten stellenweise durchaus nationalistische Züge trägt – diese Tatsache noch abwehrend behandelt hatte, mit Hinweis auf das “Amerikatum” seines Mandanten – so ist zu erwarten, dass England sich spätestens seit der offiziellen Erklärung der drohenden Todesstrafe einer Positionierung nicht mehr entziehen kann.  Einwohner werden derzeit im Netz aufgefordert, Parlamentsmitglieder direkt zu kontaktieren.

Unterdessen mehren sich alarmierende Berichte über die Behandlung Mannings im Militärgefängnis Quantico. Zusätzlich zur verschärften Einzelhaft – eine Form der Haft, die unter kritischen Psychologen als eine Form der Folter betrachtet wird – wurde kürzlich über weitere Massnahmen berichtet, die als  psychologische Folter bezeichnet nicht nur können, sondern müssen, wollen sich Medien nicht einer Hilfeleistung zur Folter auf dem Umwege über fragwürdige Euphemismen schuldig machen.  Das Militär erklärte sein Vorgehen mit einer – ärztlich unbestätigt gebliebenen – Selbstmordgefahr. Weithin bekannt wurde die jüngste Verschärfung, nachdem das Militär im Januar 2011 den anstehenden Besuch bei Bradley durch den Unterstützer David House verhindert hatte (siehe hierzu auch ein Interview mit Jane Hamsher von firedoglake auf msnbc).

Nur einen Tag nach Bekanntgabe der neuen Anklagepunkte wurde nun aktuell bekannt, dass an Manning weitere, erniedrigende Methoden psychologischer Folter praktiziert werden. So sei ihm kürzlich seine Kleidung vollständig weggenommen worden, er sei gezwungen gewesen, nach einer ganzen Nacht  ohne Kleidung am Morgen gänzlich nackt vor dem Inspekteur der Zelle zu stehen (siehe hierzu New York Times vom 3.3.Jeff Kaye auf firedoglake vom selbigen Tag, Guardian vom 4.3. Huffington Post 4.3.) Dies wurde in der Nacht auf den 4.3.2011 wiederholt. Die New York Times teilt am 4.3. mit, dass das Militär vorhabe, Manning von nun an jede Nacht ohne Kleider schlafen zu lassen. (Siehe hierzu auch Glenn Greenwald am 5.5.). Jane Hamsher beschreibt am 5.3. die Hintergründe.

Wer sich noch an die Folterbilder aus Abu Ghreib erinnert, sich der kürzlich revidierten Schließung Guantanamos entsinnt – oder wer sich zusätzlich dazu an die zur geschichtlichen Grundbildung des Kulturkreises gehörenden Bilder erinnert, dessen Sprache eben dieser Text verwendet, dem dürfte bewusst sein, wie begründet die Sorgen um die weitere Entwicklung sein dürften. Entgrenztes, dem Blick und der Kontrolle der Öffentlichkeit entzogenes Wachpersonal ist zu erschreckend Vielem fähig.

Um jedoch aktuell zu bleiben und zu diesem neu angebrochenen Jahrhundert zurückzukehren, gilt diese begründete Sorge erst recht vor dem Hintergrund der Tatsache, dass der der Hang zur Entgrenzung auch innerhalb des US-amerikanischen Militärs ein nicht auf Einzelfällen beruhendes Phänomen darstellt.

Zu den Dokumenten, deren Weitergabe Manning vorgeworfen wird, soll die Aufnahme des Apache-Kampfhuberschrauberangriffs gehören, deren Veröffentlichung unter dem Namen “Collateral Murder” sich Anfang April jähren wird.

Update Nacht vom 12. auf den 13.1.2012: Zur drohenden Todesstrafe gibt es eine Aktualisierung (Reuters US).

.

-text in progress-

http://wp.me/psdI6-16q

Written by wn030

March 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm

Article orchids on bullshit ground. Some say, BS always was a good fertilizer. Others answer: cowshit always worked, too. About Wikileaks bitching around recently on twitter and about Guardian entering the bestseller fight arena.

with 16 comments

[apk for wn030 – January 31, 2011, with updades.]

.

Let’s make it short. When in between of the fight for freedom in Egypt, in between news about Egypt’s unwanted “President” building a not-imagined before information wall against the rest of the world – about news able to let you lose your breath everyday (from closing of pages  like facebook and twitter, pages being used by journalists, too – to an entire internet shutdown, to SMS shutdown (SMS being sent by journalists, too), to foreign journalists reportedly being held in hotels, to arriving AlJazeera journalists being sent to the airport, to reports of violence against journalists [reporters injured by police], to a shutdown of a station [AlJazeera] to arrests of reporters and seizure of equipment]... when in the middle of indeed important news and calls of AlJazeera to bloggers for help – a spokesperson somewhere in a warm and cosy bulding*** is starting to bitch  about a sentence not being entirely read by himself, you may well have reasons to be a bit more than just halfway to exploding.

Yesterday night in Europe experienced such a moment. Lots of followers of the official wikileaks account were – in the middle of their own work – suddenly interrupted by a 2-tweet-nagging that we can call a Julian nagging, accoding to the attacked Guardian journalist who replied and noted that exactly this official account was hardly used by anybody else that night.

So, what exactly happened? Julian hinted at an article published on the Telegraph webpage on 30 Jan 2011 at 5:59PM GMT. The wikileaks spokesperson wrote his concerns regarding “Guardian names Manning as source” linking to the mentioned Telegraph article. Due to the 140 chars frame of twitter, we can only hope that the telegram style with a misquote was just a result of the twitter structure. If at all, we have to speak about 2  Guardian journalists naming Manning as what? According to the Telegraph newspaper, as the “alleged” source. Here’s the article quote, 2nd paragraph:

“The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, of The Guardian, name Specialist Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a US military jail, as the alleged source of the information which was passed on to The Guardian by WikiLeaks.”

So, what’s the problem, you might ask, so far this is nothing new to anybody following the case. Two Guardian journalists are not the “Guardian”, we might reply to Julian and alleged is an important word not forgotten by the telegraph. The article, describing the book of David Leigh and Luke Harding (thus, helping them a bit to reach the next bestseller list, something Julian of course right now is a bit touchy about, while his own book is as much in development as Daniel’s debut work as an author**), lists facts that are indeed no news to people following the Bradley Manning story since it started (re start: see the very last lines of this complement entry and re development of the case see Manning updates here). Still, what to think about Julians distracting two nighttweets? Tweets wanting to raise some attention at the book, before his own one hits the tables? (regardless of rumours about Julian’s book being written by ghostwriters – let’s still call it his own one, as long as we don’t have  real proofs about an author work misuse by WL in our hands than just some rumours spread by the other leak gang after the clash – a strategy that both gangs in quarrel widely use these days. Update: no, there are reasons to assume this is not just a rumour…). So again: what is this about, pure raising of awareness, attention gaining, some showfight-rant-advertising help for a book before  his own one – [or if written by other writers, then hopefully not naming JA as the “author” <- update regarding this question) – before his “own” one arrives in the shops? You shouldn’t exclude this sideway-consequences, of course readers will expect a reply when the expected next bestseller is there. They will pay for the reply if curious enough, so of course some ranting here and there will finally work fine as an upfront extra ad for the awaited bestseller candidate book title.

Just all this, awareness raising before the book-run Julian-Daniel-Guardian,  the bestseller-chase really starts, sure? Becalmed, we could impassively come back to other, more important topics if there wouldn’t have been some unexpected replies from one of the attacked authors, David Leigh, himself. In order to let you take a look at them yourself, please feel free to click at  this storify sample where wn030 collected some important reply quotes of David Leigh.

On Jan 31st, at 0:23, David Leigh surprised with the following charming reply content and tone: @wikileaks absolute pack of lies against the Guardian. Manning not our source. Who says “free Bradley” on their logo?# Wikileaks does”. From the “pack of lies”, we can easily conclude the Guardian journalist is heating up a bit. From the 2nd sentence, however, it gets visible that the book will hardly be worth a deeper looking review. If the entire book follows the same thorough arguing as this 2nd sentence, we can perfectly cancel “Wikileaks: Inside / Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy” from our watchlist of possible bestseller top hits.  Some former incredible crazy claims spread on the twittersphere  by diverse people – claims that money help might be regarded as an “admitting” of Bradley as source – were hard enough to watch and to stay patient. Although these claims may not have been the only reason for the awkward delay of Wikileaks’ legal help donation to the Manning support network (see more about the delay in the middle part of this complement entry),  everybody who took part in these flat,  stupid and greedy looking self-justifications should simply learn to think before logging in into his/her twitter account. But David’s second sentence here is just too much for being called a gaffe. When a Guardian journalist regards support – in this case, via a small graphical addon, an account avatar sticky, needed and as for the support itself, long awaited given that it took the Wikileaks spokesperson himself quite a long while to accept his  co-responsibility for Manning, a responsibility existing absolutely regardless of the fact whether Bradley was the person who submitted the material or not and absolutely regardless of the fact that an upfront link between them can be perfectly excluded (update regarding this, july 13th/14th 2011) –  so, if this Guardian journalist regards an avatar sticky as an “evidence” for a “source” – then let’s forget about the book, we can perfectly expect the same journalistic “thoroughness” from this author part.

Article orchids on bullshit ground (and cowshit, of course, in order to stay politically correct and to emancipatedly “genderize” where appropriate). The first orchid got visible just a few hours later, an article reply by x7o. The original form of this orchid was ready at an unknown hour and previously posted on wl-central, a wikileaks supporters platform, copied to freshhorse due to a short wl-central overload after the wikileaks account spread the link to this orchid reply via twitter. Let’s assume some other word plants will follow earlier than expected.

But in the meanwhile, let’s return to the small “showfight theory”. Of course, there are no reasons at all for anybody, neither any spokesperson on earth nor for any Guardian reader, to expect or fear so-called “loyality” from a newspaper. “Loyality” is simply not what newspapers are for, originally, neither regarding governments, nor regarding companies, nor regarding networks like Wikileaks or their spokespeople. The argument that the same newspapers are publishing material they got from Wikileaks is no argument at all. Newspapers – like any other older or newer media as long as they feel committed to journalism – have other duties, being contrary to any “loyality” expectation. Thinking about it in a less emotional moment, Julian would have to admit to it either, given that his approaches to achieve official status as a Journalist are for real. Will realizing this fact – the fact that no contract on earth will turn a medium to a “loyal” one – be able to make him rethink his decision to turn to “exclusive” contracts,  a decision that made Wikileaks less and less recognizable as the platform it originally was? We think: hardly, at least not yet.

But what does it tell us about where the Guardian is aiming at (aside of aiming the bestseller list)? A newspaper like the Guardian might – in their coverage of the Wikileaks saga – have other reasons for a careful positioning than “loyality”.

Let’s remember for a moment what the platform originally was. It made access to journalistic raw material accessible. While being published and available (before Wikileaks turned to “exclusive”), it made something quite interesting possible. Suddenly, for a short moment (until “exclusivity” showed up), the accessible material made a fair competition between workers in the media universe possible. Suddenly, it was not the question how large your network is, how much your network can afford – but the quality of your own work – both regarding research as well as text style quality – your work as a journalist decided over the quality of your result, the material coverage. In the very same moment, allowing for a quality comparison not only between journalists themselves but between the media, a quality based competition between old, new, established and free media platforms and networks. An extremely interesting moment in the Wikileaks history, now gone (although, at least in Germany, we should keep our ears open as for  how long this will be the case, we expect a media debate about this exclusivity problem in March).

So while other media have acually indeed no reason at all to bother what will happen to the platform or its spokesperson since it lost its status as a potential raw material provider for them – what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling its readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff nowadays?

You as a reader might in this moment have the wish to interrupt: positioning about Wikileaks? What has Wikileaks to do with it, we are talking about Guardian showing unprofessionalism re the Bradley Manning topic, why Wikileaks? My answer would be: simply because this is not the first showfight between Guardian and Wikileaks, it’s just another fraction of an ongoing battle, at least from the readers’ point of view. Many Wikileaks followers are debating these two nighttweets even days later with referring to the Guardian publishing police reports of the Swedish case. At which point returning to a sentence above might get replicable: what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling their readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff there? While other media have hardly any reason to bother, for Guardian this is attacking one of their valuable raw material providers with a bending down to the level of the Expressen or the German BILD.

While respecting their duty to stay illoyal (to any official body, network, government, company, lobby) is in general an extremely valuable turn – this bending down here, a handshake with Expressen, is indeed proving that some journalists there forget about a simple and tiny but maby worth reminding problem behind: as soon as the media [Guardian included] lose platforms like Wikileaks, after these platforms have shown and proven their relevance for the media landscape, their importance for a return to work that can call itself journalistic again – especially in times when pure cheap PR work is more and more jeopardizing this profession – as soon as this happens, they [Guardian included] will be simply redundant. Careless cooperating for the aims of  cenzoring bodies, i.e. raw  material destroyers while cooperating on a bottom-feeding yellowpress level is working on their [Guardian included] self-destruction as a whole.

.

.

** Daniel – as a puterexpert – is the story teller in this book. The text was written by a Zeit author. For a computer expert, acually a perfect decision. (There is an update regarding this.) But for someone who wants to be described as a “journalist”, as observed in the case of JA in the last weeks, this will be quite something else. Not few working on the network prefer and propose to stick to “spokesperson and editor” and in fact this is exactly our proposal, too. We just want to hint at the fact that the book of JA – in progress – a book that will quite for sure be also a book written by a ghostwriter (see comments below for the 3rd confirmation, 1st ones reached the public by reports of former WL network coworkers [not Daniel] – that in this case the public may react to the ghostwriting a bit differently. See the GuttiGate for just an idea of the wind that may reach WL in case the book does not name the real author of it and for the case JA still asks for being named as a Journalist.

Workers in the network explain this is needed in order to help the USA gov to realize they are messing around with an online publication platform. This is no explanation  at all. The fact that it’s hardly possible to describe WL as something else is simply too obvious for anyone who managed to read a newspaper with WL topic in the last months and it will be hard to find a web user who didn’t. Editor (and spokesperson) is absolutely enough as a help for the US gov to finally realize what exactly they are actually trying. There is no reason at all to call sb. a Journalist without enough work in the public in order to judge it and say thumb up or down. We have not seen an article list of articles written by Julian. We also have not read other publications by JA. And a “Journalist” who needs a writer in order to write “his” book is like a GP who needs his secretary to dictate him the diagnose. Talking about “Underground” : he knows fairly well that he was described as the researcher for this book (regardless of the question whether being involved as one of the protagonists or not – we are talking about the writing work). Researcher: this is an assistant job. You just don’t jump up from an assistant to a journalist without a single own text online. And in case of the Wikileaks page: we see what we see as WL work, the work of – the network. That’s one of the reasons why we – so far – would not question the function of WL as a journalistic platform, publishing raw material for journalists plus the interested public – and some work done by the network in order to present them. (We – btw – have no idea whether the network as a whole is happy with the danger of WL turning from this function to the function of pure infodealers [via exclusive contracts]). But back to the journo role: show us the article list and we’ll talk on about it. With the background of the role as a spokespip at WL, this might even have been possible: it was and is a spokespip role, but it was and is a spokespip neither for a gov nor a comp nor a lobby circle but for a journalism related platform, so the rule PR=/=Journalism [which usually forbids a switching between them, regardless of how long ago someone worked in the other lake and is a rule for the mentioned cases] does not apply here. But: without an article list with articles written by your own there’s no chance. Since you decided not to prove your journalistic writing skills in the book but preferred to work with a person having the skills for that, we understand that you understand that this is the proof that your roles as editor and spokespip are absolutely enough.  Anyway there’s enough to do with these two responsibilities, isn’t it?

.

.

.

… interesting. regarding the “auhorship” question, now suddenly there is an

UPDATE 2012.

regarding this book, we’re actually talking about a CO-AUTHORSHIP, in opposite to the assumption of a firedoglake author, but – we’d say, so far, this is at least something. let’s see.

..

.

..

… and guess what, regarding the topic “arena showfights between Guardian journo twitter accounts and the WL acc”, there is an update, too:  Dec, 2012

Link 1 (Malala vs Manning, about the twitter showfight on Dec 12, 2012)

.

and don’t miss

Link 2, too  (discussion)

.

(regarding the topic “Malala vs Manning”, tweets from December 10th, 2012 – the incredibly poor Guardian article re Manning winning the Guardian Person of the Year poll and the even more poor reaction to this by the person tweeting from wikileaks’ main twitter account)

.

.

And now hold your breath: there is even another UPDATE, also December 2012, regarding those missing own articles mentioned in the text above and further discussed in the comments section of this page:

Articles with an author finally show up online (link to the text “Two Years of Cablegate as Bradley Manning Testifies for the First Time” by J. Assange, posted on Huffington Post, according to the page on Nov 29, 2012, and sent out via email on Dec 12th) – Comment to this text: it looks fine and it definitely looks like an acceptable article. Research help done by the network as well as other text editing steps like proofreading (checking for typos) are typical parts of the workflow – however, in case facts ever shop up proving that parts of this article were -written- by other people than the signing author, there might be rasons for a real shitstorm on the websphere. Let’s hope this will never be necessary.

.

*** re the “warm and cosy building” – note the date when this text was written. This was written when Mr. Exclusive was dining in a luxurious chateau. The expression in this sentence does not refer to the current situation (2012) in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

.

.

wn030: sadly, however there is another update necessary.

January 3rd, 2013.

x7o, the account mentioned in the text above, has proven to be what the person probably calls erm… “logical”. namely, while defending the repost of nazi content and links to a right wing populistic paper, x7o calls us – the account hinting at this issue – what? well, “extremist”. yes, you actually heard that right. we really loved that. it would have caused an overwhelmed, bright laughter if the issue itself was not as serious as it sadly is.

.

 

Written by wn030

January 31, 2011 at 7:01 pm