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.'"
Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:1, Insightful)
...make him a nice guy.
Now hes saying the claims are personal vendettas not CIA plots.
If Assange is no longer claiming "cia!" why are people still claiming diversion and conspiracy.
Even if he did nothing he may have just ticked off the wrong woman!
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Insightful)
When a low-profile person gets assassinated, it's not called assassination. It's called a "random act of violence".
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that there's a significant chance that this whole thing is a CIA smear campaign. But there's also a significant chance that he's actually guilty. Or that it's a smear campaign unrelated to the CIA. You know what they say about assumptions.
Too late (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:4, Insightful)
You CANNOT be serious.
He's never claimed it was the CIA in much the same way that Fox News "never claims" stuff - you say it in every way you can except the one you want to be able to deny, and then you try to shift the argument so it's about your "word choice" rather than the intent of your statements.
"We were warned on the 11th by Australian intelligence that we should expect this sort of thing. We were warned about dirty tricks and specifically that they would be of a type like this.”
"Assange, who is Australian by birth, told WikiLeaks' Twitter page the charges were 'without basis' and that their timing was 'deeply disturbing.'"
"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one."
What conclusion does he expect everybody to draw with these statements, issued in the context of the news coverage over wikileaks' publication of the Afghan War Diaries? Obviously, that these charges are part of a smear campaign against him, orchestrated by the US government, and that these allegations were the first "dirty trick" to be used as part of that campaign.
To now backpedal and shift the focus onto a question of word choice is disingenuous at best, and absolutely intellectually dishonest. He never specifically uttered the word "CIA," no. But every single statement he's issued since the charges came up has screamed "It's a smear campaign by the US government."
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
A guy goes 39 years without a criminal record with anything more significant than a hacking charge on it. 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? Are you kidding me?
Do you REALLY think that's just a coincidence? Come on. Even I knew [slashdot.org] this was coming. Or maybe you think I'm just psychic.
Deeper Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
How far does this conspiracy go?! They've even gotten to Assange! Surely at this point nobody can deny the plain evidence of duplicity.
How telling is that? I've heard this exact language before.
That's right. Rumsfeld. What more proof is required? Assange is now just another puppet on the long strings of the CIA; determined to undermine the fine work of Wikileaks and Assange himself.
Re:Just because hes pro-freedom doesnt (Score:5, Insightful)
If Assange is no longer claiming "cia!" why are people still claiming diversion and conspiracy.
Even if he did nothing he may have just ticked off the wrong woman!
Because it made the news too fast.
Because Assange never "claimed CIA" but you say that he did (I claimed CIA, but he just said he was 'warned of dirty tricks').
Because if I google...
Wikileaks rape
About 2,730,000 results (0.41 seconds)
Search Results
1.
News for wikileaks rape
2. Icelandic WikiLeaks associate says founder should step aside - 17 hours ago
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:2, Insightful)
He's already caused the death of many Afghan informants who were working with American troops (at least, according to 4 different NGOs, including Amnesty International).
Sources??? I can't find any references to support your claim. Amnesty International criticized wikileaks ~ 10th/11th August but there don't appear to have been any statements since then. This smells like bullshit.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it could be a CIA plot, but he's specifically disavowing making that allegation, so clearly he has no evidence that it is.
Lacking evidence that it's a CIA plot, it's just as likely the story plays out like this:
A guy goes 39 years without amounting to much more than a hacking charge. And then suddenly he gets his 15 minutes of fame by embarrassing the world's most powerful government, and has his face plastered all over newspapers around the world. Suddenly he starts feeling pretty powerful - people say he's a hero, people want to hear him talk, people care about what he has to say - hell, some girls are even throwing themselves at him! So maybe he gets a little overzealous, or starts feeling overly entitled, because after all, he's *important* - and behaves like a jerk and pressures a girl into doing something she didn't really want to do. Or maybe he just pisses off the wrong girl by not calling her, and she decides to start a little smear campaign of her own.
I mean, since we're speculating without evidence, that story reads as far more likely to me than it being a CIA smear campaign, since the smear campaign would require:
-- the 2 girls to be in the service of the CIA;
-- Most of the world media to be dupes of the CIA;
-- The entire criminal justice system of Sweden to be easily manipulated by the US;
-- an Icelandic MP (and ardent supporter of Wikileaks) to suddenly be in the employ of the CIA;
AND, the kicker:
-- That the bumbling organization that can't keep PFC Manning from stealing all its data is simultaneously capable of pulling off a black op of this scope just to discredit the guy, rather than simply making him have an accident, and eliminating the problem.
Re:Conspiracy nut (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Distractions distractions (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, relax. ALL militaries EVERYWHERE constantly have readiness plans constantly updated. You know, preparing for "what if" scenarios.
When the military leadership lists "states of interest" which it needs to form plan for military intervention/assistance, you don't start shouting "oh no, facism!" you go "thank goodness someone is doing their job."
What good is a military that isn't prepared for when it's needed?
Re:Distractions distractions (Score:4, Insightful)
In the 1920s, we created a serious and well designed strategy to invade Canada as part of an assault on Great Britain [wikipedia.org]. It seems pretty wild that we'd do that, but it's important to be prepared. It increases our level of understanding of other nations, and allows people pursuing studies at the Naval War College a means of flexing strategic muscles without killing people en masse.
I can say with absolute certainty that today we have very similar strategies for every country on the planet. Very few have probably made it nearly as far as War Plan Red, but that's one of my favorite examples, and it's fairly well known.
Planning to attack one of our closest allies might seem dishonest to people outside of the military sector, but not planning to is simply irresponsible. Don't expect any of that to pan out, though. Especially if the Marines are talking about it. I remember hearing serious talk about an atmosphere skimming system to deploy Marines from space anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes. Where's that?
Re:Deeper Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a totally bogus argument. Nobody decides to become a rapist, or murderer, etc. Not in the sense of having made some rational, well-thought out decision. If that were the case, there would hardly be any murders or rapes to begin with. But if you want to play that game, you can equally well make the opposite argument: Since he was in the media recently over the leaks, he saw his chance to rape someone and get away with it, because people like you would surely believe he must be innocent. (And no, I don't believe that, because I'm not a moron who thinks rapists are acting rationally)
If he's guilty, then the timing means nothing. In fact, the better timing would be before the documents had been leaked. Afterwards, what is the point of discrediting him?
The leaks do not depend on his crediblity, he's not the source. (which is the big hole in this conspiracy theory) Everyone knows smearing him won't stop Wikileaks, including the CIA. So what would the point even be? They can apparently manipulate foreign prosecutors and citizens, but are also too dumb to realize that it wouldn't achieve their goal?
No it's not a coincidence, in the sense that he was in the media, and was being asked around to give talks and whatnot and meet with possible allies (i.e. the Pirate Party in Sweden) and during that, he met these women. One of whom is (allegedly) a member of the Swedish Social Democratic party. So what's her motive then? We're talking about the party of Olof Palme [wikipedia.org], here, the party who spent most of the last 50 years being a giant pain in the USA's ass over foreign policy. Hell, when Assange was born in 1971, the US had broken off diplomatic relations with Sweden over their harsh criticism of the Vietnam War.
Out of all the countries he's going around visiting, you think Sweden is the one most likely to collaborate with the CIA? And their 'socialist' party, at that? This is typical conspiracy theory thinking. You have zero evidence that the CIA or whoever did this. All you have is a coincidence. And coincidences do happen. Just because a set of events may or may not benefit someone, doesn't mean the were behind it. Shit happens.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Insightful)
-- That the bumbling organization that can't keep PFC Manning from stealing all its data is simultaneously capable of pulling off a black op of this scope just to discredit the guy, rather than simply making him have an accident, and eliminating the problem.
Because clearly PFC Manning was the subect of the entire agency's scutiny, and "preventing" him would not have meant spreading resources to prevent all of the other PFCs that were doing similar work. A regular Joe off the street can pay a woman to sleep with a guy and cry rape. It doesn't require a conspiracy, but that doesn't mean that a conspiracy couldn't have ordered the regular Joe to pay her.
Re:Distractions distractions (Score:3, Insightful)
You should study history a bit more. Isolationism is not new in concept or practice.
Re:Leif Silbersky (Score:4, Insightful)
Damage to US and allies (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been claimed that the leaked documents will harm US and allied troops as well as the named informants (never mind that only a few were apparently left uncensored), which has some clamoring for the US soldier who leaked to be executed for treason.
I put it to you the ultra-right wing fundamentalist pastor who plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of 9-11 will do a thousand times more actual harm, and destroy everything allied troops have fought and died for in the so-called War on Terror. Protesters have already pelted a US convoy with rocks, and this "church" hasn't even *done* anything yet except state their intentions.
Never mind it's a small, formerly-insignificant group of nobodies--they're white, they're "Christian", they're American. Never mind that every other religious group immediately denounced them on national TV--that won't get any airtime in Muslim countries because it gets in the way of an emotionally-charged issue.
If there's any traitor endangering US and allied troops now, it's this so-called church and its sociopathic leaders.
To be fair (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not unreasonable to think in the light of such statements that warnings of "dirty tricks" implies the "orchestrated by the US government" bit on the end. No, Assange didn't say it but it's fair to assume it. And now he's Clintoned the whole thing so we're arguing semantics instead of paying attention to issues of substance.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Insightful)
-- the 2 girls to be in the service of the CIA;
Trivial. They don't even have to be employed in the traditional sense. They could just be paid really well.
-- Most of the world media to be dupes of the CIA;
You don't need the majority, you only need the biggest and the loudest. In the US, for example, you only need one station to spout idiotic nonsense loud enough and long enough to convince a non-insignificant percentage that their own president is a Kenyan Muslim.
-- The entire criminal justice system of Sweden to be easily manipulated by the US;
Again, you don't need all of it. You just need the most powerful and influential. It's also quite impressive what a little green grease will do for the wheels of justice.
-- an Icelandic MP (and ardent supporter of Wikileaks) to suddenly be in the employ of the CIA;
Not really. Someone with designs or ambitions for themselves may be willing to cooperate with the CIA in order to further their own agenda. You're assuming all players in this saga are on the CIA doll. That is a possibility, but it would be more probable that people involved may just be making mutually beneficial arrangements.
AND, the kicker:
-- That the bumbling organization that can't keep PFC Manning from stealing all its data is simultaneously capable of pulling off a black op of this scope just to discredit the guy, rather than simply making him have an accident, and eliminating the problem.
I would think it would take a "bumbling" organizations to have screwed up a public character assassination as bad as this one, wouldn't you agree? Assuming this is some sort of plot, it certainly being run by a bunch of ass-clowns.
You're also forgetting that Manning had access to the systems legitimately. It's hard to protect your systems from a user you "trust" and have granted access to.
At any rate, it's all just conspiracy hypotheses an blather at this point. While it is plausible that there are some shady dealings going on (and the coincidences and screw ups along the way certainly suggest that it could be), we don't have any solid evidence.
Perhaps someone will post something on Wikileaks about it.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say they were impossible, I said the existence of all of these elements, in concert with one another, is a lot less likely to be the case than "guy acts like jerk, girl gets pissed and goes to police."
The person citing Occam's razor as support for the conspiracy theory below is amazing to me, when a simple "guy pisses off girl" scenario is much more likely (and doesn't require the presence, cooperation, and silence of quite a few other people to work).
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is no longer a US centric news site, but hijacked by anti-american individuals in communistic states (or states of mind).
What you call anti-american, I call pro-american. We need our great nation to be what it is supposed to be. This requires action on our part.
Re:Deeper Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was really mature he'd step aside and keep wikileaks out of this whole thing. What is more important to Julian Assange? Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying Assange posted this *because* he felt he had nothing to fear from the CIA? Who did he know he was marked by then? What exactly DID he have to fear, if not the CIA?
You are arguing that it was CIA involvement, after Assange himself has said "I've never said it was the CIA after me." He didn't need to, the brainless Assange supporters will do it for him.
And frankly, I find your use of Occam's Razor to be incredibly humorous, given that you're using it to assert that a worldwide conspiracy to smear one man is "far more likely" than a simple "dude pissed off a girl who called the police."
My money's on the simpler explanation - that is, the one that doesn't involve a network of spies, payoffs, bribes, and international pressure & manipulation, and instead, involves a single guy and a single girl, where either: 1) the guy is a creep; or 2) there's a misunderstanding and the girl goes to the police in anger.
Re:Might as well get used to it (Score:4, Insightful)