21-11-2016, 07:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2016, 08:04 PM by Peter Lemkin.)
Tobias Zackrisson Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:This is a false scanario, I think.
Check out the Wikileaks Twitter post HERE 2 days ago. They say that:
"Black PR campaign posts going round recently trying to suppress submissions to Wikileaks. False but who benefits?"
I can provide you with some nore substantial evidence showing that Riseup.net and wikileaks might well be compromised. Riseup.net haven't yet updated their canary which they are supposed to do every 3 month, the due date was 16 of November. There is a peaceful protest outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak. People trying to get some life sign from Assange.
Unfortunately I am unable to access this site from my PC since my last post, not sure if my router is at fault.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say or propose Tobias, Even IF Assange has not been much seen or heard from publicly lately, he was obviously in the Embassy on and around Oct. 10 when the Embassy of Ecuador confirmed they shut off HIS internet access, and he was interviewed by a Swedish Prosecutor on Nov. 15. I can't at the moment find it, but I'm sure I watched an interview with him on the internet regarding the DNC Emails during the time period you seem to refer to.
On another matter, I do NOT see Trump pardoning Assange. Yes, he appreciated what he perceived as Wikileaks leaks of DNC emails as helping him [Trump], his team he is assembling now are ULTRA-right-wing militarists and intelligence types who would want Assange [and Snowden and all like them] dead [without trial].
I used to live in Stockholm and know Sverige well, what surprises me during all of this over Assange is the very 'loud' silence of Swedes on the matter. Do they care and if they do, how do they generally feel about what Assange and the Prosecutors did in Stockholm all those many years ago?! There was some very dirty dealing on the part of the Prosecutors, very likely on behalf of their USA string-pullers.
Interestingly, a few days ago it was announced that there would be a re-opening of the Palme assassination [on which I have done work and worked with others who have done much more than I]. I wonder about the timing of this announcement [though I hold ZERO belief it will any different than the non-investigation charades of before] vis-a-vis the questioning of Assange. I can't see the connection, but don't rule one out.
In the end, I feel Assange is correct in his analysis that leaving the Embassy and/or going to Sweden [where he'd be found innocent of any charges, IMO], he'd be extradited or rendered to a black site in the USA or elsewhere, interrogated, tortured, maybe tried for espionage - maybe worse. He'd never see the light of day ever again. Don't most good people in Sweden care about that likely scenario?!...but then again, they have remained rather silent over demanding who REALLY assassinated Palme, Lindh and events surrounding those two CONNECTED events....but I digress.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Peter Lemkin Wrote:On another matter, I do NOT see Trump pardoning Assange. Yes, he appreciated what he perceived as Wikileaks leaks of DNC emails as helping him [Trump], his team he is assembling now are ULTRA-right-wing militarists and intelligence types who would want Assange [and Snowden and all like them] dead [without trial].
I fear you may well be right Peter.
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Interestingly, a few days ago it was announced that there would be a re-opening of the Palme assassination ....
Yes, most interesting!
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
I Tried to make a post yesterday but was for some reason blocked after 5min.
I found a very interesting post on reddit about this hole assange story that breaks it down pretty good i think.
I truly hope he is okey but i am pretty sure Riseup.net has received a gag order preventing them to update the "canary" or PGP key
Quote:Hello friends.The following is a basic guide to who Julian Assange is and why so many are concerned about his current status that being whether he is alive or whether he has been captured or killed. I was trying to find a summary that I could use to share with friends who were not versed in what was going on with Mr. Assange or even why they should care. So I decided to make this myself. I am focusing here on the basic facts of this situation. Looking at this information should raise serious doubts about the official story. The official story is that Julian Assange is currently alive and safely residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If you find this post helpful please share it with anyone you can think of that might have an open ear. This is ALL ABOUT RAISING AWARENESS. Simply raising the profile of this issue just might be enough to force it to break because the official story is so thin. The only thing we are asking for is PROOF OF LIFE for Mr. Assange. That should be very easy to gain if Julian is at the embassy and willing to give it. This primer will be broken up into the following sections. If you are already somewhat familiar with the situation please go ahead and jump to whatever section interests you. 1) A Brief History of Wikileaks 2) Why is Julian Assange trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? 3) What are the Insurance Files? What is a Dead Man's Switch? 4) DNC and Podesta Email Leaks 5) What Happened on October 16th? 6) PROOF OF LIFE 7) Why is Wikileaks no longer using PGP signatures? 8) What can we do? I have left out A LOT of information. Please supplement anything you can think of in the comments. I have tried to stay away from most of the more speculative information and theories, many of which I find persuasive, because I believe there is enough information right on the surface to raise the need for a PROOF OF LIFE. But once again, I encourage you to share all relevant information in the comments. 1. A Brief History of Wikileaks Wikileaks is an international non-profit organization, founded and directed by Julian Assange, which publishes leaked information, including the private communications and classified documents of governments and corporations. Here's the Wikipedia link. Many believe the work of Wikileaks to be a public service because it exposes the inner workings of powerful groups that would otherwise be inaccessible to the public. Predictably the powerful entities that suffer these leaks do not tend to hold such a high opinion of Wikileaks. Either way it is indisputable that the organization has broken many major news stories. As of today (November 22nd, 2016) not a single document published by Wikileaks has ever been proven to be fake. Wikileaks states its purpose as follows: "Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public." It does so by using "original source material." Personally, regarding the goal of the organization, I found this Wired article interesting. Here's a list of some of Wikileaks most important leaks with links to their corresponding Wikipedia articles. This list is not nearly exhaustive.
A large amount of the most important leaks ever published by Wikileaks have focused on the United States government. Recently the DNC emails and the Podesta emails were a source of considerable difficulty for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton's Campaign for the US presidency. It is worth noting that the enemies Julian Assange has made this way are very powerful people and organizations. 2. Why is Julian Assange Trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? From the Wikipedia article:
"Following the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and asked allied nations for assistance.[4] In November 2010, a request was made for Assange's extradition to Sweden, where he had been questioned months earlier over allegations of sexual assault and rape.[5] Assange continued to deny the allegations after the case was re-opened, and expressed concern that he would be extradited from Sweden to the United States due to his perceived role in publishing secret American documents.[6][7] Assange surrendered himself to UK police on 7 December 2010 and was held for ten days in solitary confinement before being released on bail. After exhausting his legal options in the United Kingdom, Assange sought and was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012. Assange has since remained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, and is unable to leave without being arrested for breaching his bail conditions.[8] The United Nations' Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found, by a majority, that he has been "arbitrarily detained" and that his detention should be brought to an end;[9] UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond rejected the working group's opinion and called Assange a fugitive from justice."
It is believed by supporters of Assange that the Swedish investigation was a ploy to get Assange out into the open and make him vulnerable to extradition by the US. The US has maintained an openly adversarial relationship with him. 3. What are the Insurance Files? What is a Dead Man's Switch? Starting in 2010 Wikileaks began releasing so-called "Insurance" files. These encrypted files presumably these are files that contain such damning/embarrassing information for those who are interested in stopping wikileaks that it prevents them from taking action. The encryption makes it impossible for anyone to access the information within the links without the correct key. The following links will take you to the respective insurance files.
PLEASE NOTE: There is, due to recent events, some concern about the legitimacy of these files. But there is no proof that they have been compromised or altered. There is however some discussion that I do not fully understand about something called "pre-commitment hashes." Look at this reddit thread for more information. Anyhow, now that these files have been widely distributed (thousands of people have downloaded these files all over the world) the stage is set for Julian's "Dead Man's Switch." The idea is that if somehow Assange or Wikileaks becomes compromised the Dead Man's Switch will automatically be triggered releasing the key so the files can become public. Clearly, any enemy of Mr. Assange would be highly motivated to figuring out a way to deactivate or otherwise mitigate the triggering of the DMS. 4. DNC & Podesta Email Leaks Even if you've been living under a rock you've no doubt heard about the release of these emails by Wikileaks and the effect they have had on the 2016 US elections. The release of the DNC emails showed undeniable favoritism played by the DNC for Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders during the primary elections. The Podesta emails (John Podesta was the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and an extremely influential political operative.) revealed a wide range of unsavory behaviors about the Hillary Clinton, not least of which was her apparent use of her position as Secretary of State to facilitate a pay-to-play and quid-pro-quo system of peddling political influence for donations to the Clinton Foundation. There is FAR too much in those leaks to bother trying to summarize them here. It is not easy to say how much damage these leaks did to Hillary's campaign for presidency overall but the wreckage that they created within the DNC and to Hillary's reputation are fairly obvious. But whatever had been revealed already, the real threat to Hillary (and anyone potentially on the business end of these leaks) was not what had already been leaked but what seemed to be coming. Wikileaks appeared to be ramping up towards even larger revelations. This takes us to the EVENTS SURROUNDING OCTOBER 16th, 2016. 5. What happened on October 16th, 2016?
The next day On October 16th, Wikileaks released three cryptic tweets that read as follows:
"pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809" link
"pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72" link
"pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74" link
It is not clear what the intention was behind these tweets but speculation was immediately rampant. At first people wondered if these were keys to insurance files. They were not. It was also wondered if this was Wikileaks method of somehow flipping the dead man's switch. While that remains unclear there is nothing available to confirm that the switch has been flipped. What does seem clear is that these pre-commitment hashes were meant as some sort of reaction (or apparent reaction) to the revelation that was about to follow.
Wikileaks then tweeted this:
"Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans." Link
This came as a huge shock to those following Wikileaks. It is not at all clear at this point what their contingency plan is. Perhaps their contingency plan is in effect and everything is going swimmingly. We have no apparent way of knowing. But as we shall see there are reasons to be concerned that not all is within the organization and perhaps with Julian Assange himself.
On October 17th Wikileaks tweets a link that the FBI file on Hillary has been updated with 100 pages of previously unreleased information. I'm not going to speculate, but it's curious and not often mentioned in these threads so I thought I'd mention it. Link
On October 17th Wikileaks tweets the following:
"We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs." Link
On October 17th Wikileaks retweets Fox & Friends coverage that of Wikileaks' claim that someone is trying to silence Julian Assange. Link
On October 18th Ecuador acknowledged that it had intentionally severed Mr. Assange's internet connection stating that it "respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states." This was confirmed by many news agencies. Here is NPR's article. This is generally understood to mean that Ecuador wanted to avoid any responsibility for abetting Mr. Assange's possible effect on the US presidential election.
On October 18th Wikileaks claims that John Kerry was involved in pressuring Ecuador to cut off Mr. Assange's internet access saying:
"BREAKING: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations." Link
This tweet was immediately followed by another with the claim that Kerry held this private meeting with Ecuador on September 26th in Colombia. Suggesting that, if Wikileaks is correct, the plan to cut off Assange's internet had been in the works for some time.
"The John Kerry private meeting with Ecuador was made on the sidelines of the negotiations which took place pricipally on Sep 26 in Colombia." Link
On October 18th in a bizarre and largely forgotten twist Wikileaks suddenly starts to defend Mr. Assange from what was apparently (allegedly?) an attempt to frame him as a pedophile and receiving one million $$ from Russia for being a spy. Here is the text from one of these tweets and links to the rest:
There's a bunch of this stuff. I don't know what to make of it so that's all I'm going to post. Maybe someone here can dive deeper into it.
On October 20th wikileaks posts an inflammatory tweet claiming that the US presidential elections are a sham. What is possibly most noteworthy about this tweet is how uncharacteristic it is in tone compared to most Wikileaks tweets:
"There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged 'pied piper' candidate drive consolidation." Link
On October 21st the largest scale DDOS attacks in history wipe out large sections of the US internet. See the Guardian article here.
On October 21st Wikileaks claims that their supporters are responsible for the attack. It is a claim with nothing to back it up which is once again out of character for Wikileaks. Even if the DDOS attack was conducted by their supporters (which we have no reason to believe) it is unclear what those supporters would have been thinking or what Wikileaks would have to gain by associating with them.
"Mr. Assange is still alive and WikiLeaks is still publishing. We ask supporters to stop taking down the US internet. You proved your point." Link
Perhaps even more curious is Wikileaks stating that Mr. Assange is still alive. What provoked that response? Perhaps people had already started hounding them for a proof of life.
On October 21st Wikileaks tweeted the following:
"The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate." Link
This tweet is likely referring to John Kerry's alleged involvement in pressuring Ecuador to cut off Mr. Assange's internet access, then again it could refer to any number of things. While Wikileaks displeasure with the Obama administration is quite possibly justified this tweet is another example of a statement that is out of sync with the tone and methods that we have come to expect from Wikileaks. Typically Wikileaks speaks from a place of proof not mere accusations.
On October 21st Wikileaks tweeted a very ominous, paranoia inducing tweet:
"PHOTO: Heavily armed 'police' appear outside Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian Assange has political asylum (photo, Tuesday morning)" Link
This tweet is accompanied by a photo of what appears to be a man in a car clutching a serious-looking firearm, possibly military. At this point those of us following this situation were generally just freaking out. Certainly once I saw the picture of that gun I began wondering, naturally, if Mr. Assange was safe.
On October 21st Wikileaks tweeted the following:
"A bloody year for WikiLeaks.
John Jones QC, Wikileaks U.N lawyer, died April 16th, 2016
Michael Ratner, Wikileaks chief counsel, died May 11th, 2016
Prof. Gavin Mcfadyen, Wikileaks director, died October 23rd 20" Link
I'm just noticing now that their tweet states that Mcfadyen died on Oct. 23 when the tweet came out on Oct. 22…. Weird. Maybe it's a time zone thing? At any rate the implications of this tweet and the word "bloody" are obvious. They are suggesting that people in their organization are being murdered. I'm not going to spend any time on that possibility right now. My point is that any rational person after these tumultuous events and alarming tweets would want to be sure that Mr. Assange was alive and well and still in control of the organization. Which brings us to PROOF OF LIFE. 6. PROOF OF LIFE This is the simplest and most important part of the entire situation. Ever since Mr. Assange's internet was cut off we have seen ABSOLUTELY NO DEFINITIVE PROOF OF LIFE. What is particularly glaring is how simple it could be. Mr. Assange could appear at the window of his room in the embassy as he has many times before. And despite the fact that his internet has been cut off there is no reason someone could not take photos and/or video of Mr. Assange that prove that he is alive and well in the embassy and deliver those to the public. This issue is already doing a lot to undermine the credibility of Wikileaks which one would assume Mr. Assange would be interested in preserving. Why then would he not make the effort to assure the world of his safety?
On October 23rd Wikileaks acknowledged the widespread demand for a proof of life by offering a poll to determine what would be people's preferred method:
"Thousands keep demanding Assange proof of life. Not unreasonable. He's in a tough spot and is WikiLeaks best known validator. Preference?" Link
As you can see by checking the link, the results of the poll were as follows:
Picture - %8
Video - %51
Statement by his lawyers - %6
Appearance at window - %35
So why, then, having acknowledged the need for a proof of life, have they failed to provide one?
On October 26th it was claimed that Mr. Assange was conducting a teleconference with "Conferencia Internacional de Software Libre Umet." I have no idea what that is, but I listened to some of it and it was difficult to hear and not at all convincing. Check out this thread on r/wikileaks and decide for yourself. Certainly there would be far more practical ways of providing proof of life that are convincing and definitive.
On November 5th RT published a video interview of Assange from within his room at the embassy. The interview was conducted by John Pilger. You can find it here.
I was thoroughly relieved to see this footage, although still thoroughly confused about why it had taken so long and why Wikileaks was behaving so irregularly. However my fears quickly returned. It soon became evident that the video was edited in such a way that raised legitimate questions. To be fair, they are somewhat paranoid questions, but if you are not paranoid in this situation, when should you be? We cannot, for example, be sure when it was filmed. Furthermore, neither men appear in the same shot together. The questions and responses are edited together in such a way that there leaves room for doubt about the continuity of the question and the answer. And they never talk about anything Mr. Assange wouldn't have known before the internet was cut. As seen in this tweet here, John Pilger certainly attests that he was interviewing Assange in the embassy on October 30th. However this video shows what I believe to be damning evidence that the footage of the interview was manipulated. The most convincing evidence is around fifty seconds in. (Unless this video is itself a hoax.) As unlikely as it seems that John Pilger would participate in a hoax this elaborate we must continuously ask ourselves why they do not simply provide a simple PROOF OF LIFE. Which, really, is more unreasonable?
Finally on this point (although there are plenty of other valid reasons to believe Mr. Assange is likely not alive and well in the embassy) consider this tweet from the Wikileaks Task Force just yesterday:
"Many ask for #ProofOfLife for #Assange. Thank you--but it is not possible to give strong meaningful proof (live internet video) presently." Link
Well okay then Wikileaks Task Force. First of all, I notice that you are not even mentioning the Pilger interview. But okay, that aside, maybe a live video stream from within the embassy would be great. But can you at least TRY to get us something in the meantime? A wave from the window? A picture of him? How about a two minute video of him discussing everyone's desire to see proof of life and his opinion on that subject? At what point does the refusal to provide such a basic (if imperfect) gesture begin to look more like proof that he is not actually in that embassy or, if he is, in any condition to speak? 7. Why is Wikileaks no longer using PGP signatures? What is PGP encryption? Why does it matter? PGP stands for Pretty-Good-Privacy and it is a method for encrypting information and receiving encrypted information. Wikileaks used (until very recently) this method to receive leaks from sources in a way that was anonymous, secure, and assured the leaker that the information was ending up in the right hands. Please check here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy and herehttps://ssd.eff.org/en/module/introducti...hy-and-pgp for information on how PGP encryption works. (PLEASE NOTE THAT SECOND LINK POPPED A WARNING ON MY COMPUTER, I THINK IT'S FINE BUT SKIP IF YOU'RE CONCERNED). Basically it works as follows. The person receiving the secret information generates a private encryption key that only they know. They only generate one of these. Then they are at liberty to create any number of public keys that will encrypt information that can only be decrypted by the private key. So people use the public key, which is constantly being regenerated and posted on a regular basis, to send encrypted information to Wikileaks, which alone holds the private key to decrypt. The truth is that I don't really understand how all of this works, that's the best I can understand it so far. Please feel free to improve upon my description in the comments. The point is that shortly after Julian Assange's internet was cut off on October 16th Wikileaks stopped providing public PGP signatures with their press releases. This is more than a little odd. After all, if Wikileaks was compromised, and the currently running it did not possess the private PGP key, they would have no use for people sending in documents encrypted with a public PGP key. In fact Wikileaks is now requesting that people do not send leaks encrypted with PGP although they offer no alternative. They only state the following (go see for yourself):
"Do not use PGP to contact us. We have found that people use it in a dangerous manner. Further one of the Wikileaks key on several key servers is FAKE."
Perhaps they are acting out of good faith, but this is very vague and very little information to go on without providing even a hint of how to contact them otherwise. Amidst the rest of the concerns currently surrounding Assange and Wikileaks this change in policy is unsettling to say the least. 8. What can we do? I have heard plenty of good ideas on this subject and the simplest and most important thing we can do is shout it from the roof tops. Tell everyone and let's do our best to present our research in a way that is useful and accessible. Raise your concerns on Facebook. Talk to journalists on twitter, by email, and over the phone. I know this subreddit has recently tried to organize gatherings outside the embassy. I think this is a FANTASTIC IDEA. If we can get pictures of people standing right outside of Mr. Assange's window holding signs that say "WHERE IS JULIAN?" I think the optics of that will make the absurdity of the situation undeniable. Let me know what you think. If I've made mistakes, missed anything important, anything. Most importantly, KEEP FIGHTING FRIENDS!!!
I sure hope we will receive any proof of life from Julian soon.
I won't be able to post any more since I am denied to access this forum from my pc for another 24hrs. not sure what's going on.
Tobias Zackrisson Wrote:I sure hope we will receive any proof of life from Julian soon.
I won't be able to post any more since I am denied to access this forum from my pc for another 24hrs. not sure what's going on.
Not sure what is going on either Tobias. There is nothing in the forum software that would stop any one from accessing the forum. Our server is reliable too. I hope you can get it sorted.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
23-11-2016, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2016, 10:02 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Tobias Zackrisson Wrote:I sure hope we will receive any proof of life from Julian soon.
I won't be able to post any more since I am denied to access this forum from my pc for another 24hrs. not sure what's going on.
Not sure what is going on either Tobias. There is nothing in the forum software that would stop any one from accessing the forum. Our server is reliable too. I hope you can get it sorted.
As far as I'm aware, and I believe Magda can confirm this, no one else has ever pointed out a similar problem - so it is most likely on your end. Do you ever post to any other forum using vBulletin software? It is popular software for forums and perhaps you should try on another forum just to see if your system has problems with it. The 24 hr. wait makes NO sense at all. Talk to your internet provider and check your firewall settings. If you are trying to access the Forum from a smartphone, try a computer instead.
I still see NO reason to believe anything has happened to Assange, and he has been reliably reported to be there and OK by the Embassy and the visit by the Swedish prosecutor. This 'worry' about Assange on the surface looks to me as a planted false story for reasons unknown - but obviously to the detriment of Wikileaks and Assange. To my knowledge, none close to him or Wikileaks has expressed any worry or alarm - so again, why are you concerned?
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Tobias Zackrisson Wrote:I sure hope we will receive any proof of life from Julian soon.
I won't be able to post any more since I am denied to access this forum from my pc for another 24hrs. not sure what's going on.
Tobias, you might consider using a VPN to access this forum henceforward. As Maggie says there is nothing here to stop you so it would appear to be your end. A VPN would, at least, narrow down where and what the problem might be.
As Pete said above, the Swedish prosecutor visited Assange on 14th Nov.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Quote:Why the World Needs WikiLeaks
By SARAH HARRISONNOV. 17, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
247
Photo
Journalists on Monday outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has been in exile. Credit Rex Features, via Associated Press
Berlin My organization, WikiLeaks, took a lot of heat during the run-up to the recent presidential election. We have been accused of abetting the candidacy of Donald J. Trump by publishing cryptographically authenticated information about Hillary Clinton's campaign and its influence over the Democratic National Committee, the implication being that a news organization should have withheld accurate, newsworthy information from the public.
The Obama Justice Department continues to pursue its six-year criminal investigation of WikiLeaks, the largest known of its kind, into the publishing of classified documents and articles about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and Mrs. Clinton's first year as secretary of state. According to the trial testimony of one F.B.I. agent, the investigation includes several of WikiLeaks founders, owners and managers. And last month our editor, Julian Assange, who has asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, had his internet connection severed.
I can understand the frustration, however misplaced, from Clinton supporters. But the WikiLeaks staff is committed to the mandate set by Mr. Assange, and we are not going to go away, no matter how much he is abused. That's something that Democrats, along with everyone who believes in the accountability of governments, should be happy about.
Despite the mounting legal and political pressure coming from Washington, we continue to publish valuable material, and submissions keep pouring in. There is a desperate need for our work: The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these by revealing not just individual incidents, but information about entire structures of power.
While a single document might give a picture of a particular event, the best way to shed light on a whole system is to fully uncover the mechanisms around it the hierarchy, ideology, habits and economic forces that sustain it. It is the trends and details visible in the large archives we are committed to publishing that reveal the details that tell us about the nature of these structures. It is the constellations, not stars alone, that allow us to read the night sky.
There are two contradictory myths about how we operate: on one hand, that we simply dump whatever comes to us into the public's arms; and on the other, that we pick and choose material to harm our alleged political enemies.
We do neither. Yes, we believe in the integrity of source material, in the value of conserving pristine collections of documents, and we strive to make this historical record accessible to the public. We publish in full, in an uncensored and uncensorable fashion. But we also research, validate and contextualize the submissions we receive. While it can be difficult to balance the needs of the public to have timely access to large archives with individual privacy, such concerns have mostly been disingenuous.
At times we receive individual documents, but we have come to specialize in large collections. Over the last decade we have vetted, indexed and published an average of 3,000 documents per day, including over 300,000 reports covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures and over 120,000 documents from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also curate the Public Library of United States Diplomacy, the world's largest collection of diplomatic cables (nearly three million).
WikiLeaks has transformed more than 10 million documents into a unique searchable archive, not only making our website the world's largest online library for suppressed information, but also enabling greater contextualization through relationships across publications.
Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. WikiLeaks relies on our editor's invention of a secure anonymous online submission system to protect sources' identities. This technology has become a standard for many media outlets around the world. We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to, and usually do not need to. What matters to us is the authenticity of the documents.
This has always been our position and approach, whether we were publishing material about the George W. Bush administration's wars or corruption within the Democratic Party. The establishment media was happy to work with us on the former, but turned against us when it came to the latter, calling into question our intentions and those of Mr. Assange. CNN has even suggested, wrongly, that readers may have legal troubles if they download documents from our site.
While we have no institutional bias and can publish only what we receive, we are happy to publish documents about any presidential candidate, at any time, anywhere for a globally significant election.
We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth. We believe in the democratization of information and the power that knowledge gives to people to further peace, accountability and self-determination.
WikiLeaks will continue publishing, enforcing transparency where secrecy is the norm. While threats against our editor are mounting, Mr. Assange is not alone, and his ideas continue to inspire us and people around the world.
Sarah Harrison is a journalist and editor for WikiLeaks.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Craig Murray has seen JA and posted such on 26th November
Quote:Just got back after a long chat with Julian Assange. We were joined for a light supper by the ever interesting and ebullient Yanis Varoufakis. Another of those brilliant evenings that will live in the mind.
Julian is very aware of the persistent rumours about his position or health. He is fine apart from a cold, and buoyed by recent events.
Would be good next time to take a snap of every one together with a dated newspaper.
