Assange Asks For New Lawyer, Denies Blaming CIA 274
Tootech writes "Julian Assange has requested a new lawyer to represent him during a rape investigation in Sweden because his previous brief, Leif Silbersky, was not engaged enough with the case. Assange wants Bjorn Hurtig to represent him as authorities continue to investigate the allegations, according to AP.
Assange told Sweden's TV4 that he had never blamed the CIA for the 'smears.'"
The Register???? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: "Assange wants Bjorn Hurtig to represent him as authorities continue to investigate the allegations, according to AP"
Why not link the AP's FA? [google.com]
Leif Silbersky (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:0, Informative)
Now hes saying the claims are personal vendettas not CIA plots.
NO. He is saying he never claimed that it was the CIA - which is true. You really need to read sources and citations, rather than follow propaganda talking points.
Re:Distractions distractions (Score:4, Informative)
Is this [twitter.com] the link you wanted?
I wish Slashdot would fix clipboard paste not working in Chrome, this is getting really annoying...
Re:Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, that these charges are part of a smear campaign against him, orchestrated by the US government,
intellectually dishonest, indeed. You just tacked on the "orchestrated by the US government" part yourself there, didn't you?! If your so convinced that he directly implied it was the CIA/US government and not just you following propaganda talking points - then [CITATION NEEDED]. I'll make it easy: Wikileaks twitter feed [twitter.com] links all Assange interviews for you to find a reference. From the interviews I have watched at no place did he imply directly or indirectly that it was the CIA/US Gov. He did say that the Aussie government warned him of dirty tricks - whether you believe that or not, or that they meant "The CIA is going to use dirty tricks" is upto your imagination, and little else.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Informative)
Taking into account that USA was actively supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, that fact would be a major blow to the relations and would end up the billion dollars worth arms deals USA had to sell arms to Iraq.
Those arms where passing in the port in Lisbon and it came to the attention of the defense minister.
The source indicates that CIA assassinated the defense minister, together with the prime minister (that one by accident, since he was not supposed to go on that plane), carried out the arms deal with Iran and in exchange, just 1 month after the plane crash, the USA hostages where liberated by Iran.
No, there are no proofs that this was indeed a CIA black op. But you asked for cases where "people have pissed off the CIA and had tragic airplane accidents shortly thereafter", and I'm giving a very big one to you. And I'm sure there should be more, I just used this one because it happen right in my country.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:3, Informative)
Here, I'll quote back the relevant part of my post you're ignoring:
Are we supposed to believe that the Australian intelligence service was warning him that Nigeria was plotting dirty tricks against him, for not helping them smuggle $10 million USD out of the country by providing a bank account number to the son of their former finance minister?
Or that they had reason to believe 2 girls in Sweden who he had not met yet were plotting his eventual downfall?
Yes, it's intellectual dishonesty to pretend that "The CIA / US Government" is not *exactly* what he meant when he claimed it was a smear campaign. Look at the posts here in support of him - the overwhelming majority of his supporters have CLEARLY drawn that same conclusion.
So, as I said, he didn't specifically utter the words "CIA" - but in the context in which these statements & implications were made, there is no escaping the conclusion that that is exactly what he *meant*. Of course he can distract us now by saying "I NEVER SAID THAT! PROVE THAT I SAID THE WORDS CIA!" Which is, frankly, a geek's argument of last resort, and you see it here all the time on Slashdot - derail the discussion by arguing about the literal content of the message, while ignoring the context & implications that were most certainly intended.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, 24 hacking charges.
And then he suddenly decides to become a rapist 2 weeks after releasing a cache of documents that embarrasses the world's most powerful government and threatening to release more?
Occam's razor. You're arguing that it's almost a certainty that instead he is the subject of an international conspiracy? That wouldn't prevent the release of further documents by wikileaks?
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:2, Informative)
"Brief"? (Score:3, Informative)
Julian Assange has requested a new lawyer to represent him during a rape investigation in Sweden because his previous brief, Leif Silbersky, was not engaged enough with the case
If you didn't want to repeat the word, you might have tried 'attorney'. The closest matching definition of "brief" is ...
An attorney's legal argument in written form for submission to a court;
Unless, of course, OP meant for it to be "briefs" and intended to say...
short snug pants or underpants
In which case it would have been more amusing, but still no more correct.
* disclaimer: this is in the context of American English, but I'm pretty sure that "brief" doesn't mean "lawyer" in any of the others...
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled commenting.
Re:How come no one is so brave against Islamic... (Score:3, Informative)
Assange is too pussy to ever take on someone like an Iranian mullah, because these guys would simply send someone to slit his throat and not worry about it.
And yet, Wikileaks has already leaked (supposed) secret recordings of Iranian security force discussions [wikileaks.org] and documents from the Iranian Ammunition Industries group [wikileaks.org]. Having said that, there may well be fewer leaks from Iran for several reasons: lower levels of PC ownership, no personal laptops or PCs in the military, increased monitoring of personal internet connections etc.