Archive for the ‘Assange’ Category
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)
[title updated] Let’s Talk About Right-Wing Populism and Nazi Pages (directly connected to Wikileaks)
[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.
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”).
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:
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:
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:
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”?)