WikiLeaks is a disgusting, bigoted right-wing organization that no progressive can justify backing

[ButterflyBlood]

I don't know how this is even debatable at this point. All the excuse making I've seen here about how they don't obtain the info themselves and just leak it can not justify things like openly siding with Milo Yiannopoulos after Twitter gave him his long overdue ban: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756206619860561920

And is followed by a crowd who are 59% supporters of Trump, which might explain why there hasn't been a peep against him: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/766352516548362246

But for fuck's sake, this site has been doxxing people just for shits and giggles lately, first they did all the donors to OUR OWN PARTY and then gave a mocking and sarcastic Martin Shkreli-esque response after some theorized that they simply forgot to redact their SSNs, engaged in a doxxing of just about every female voter in Turkey, and now just recently OUTED MANY GAYS AND LESBIANS IN SAUDI ARABIA, a potential death sentence, and also openly listed women who were raped and sexually abused by their employers: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/23/wikileaks-outs-gay-people-in-saudi-arabia-in-reckless-mass-data-dump HOW THE FUCK IS THIS ANYTHING BUT ONE OF THE MOST VILE AND DISGUSTING SITES ON THE INTERNET?

That's not even getting into the fact that the leader of it all basically takes his marching orders from Putin and is a rapist. But fuck it, I'm just going to be blunt and say it: If you support Wikileaks, you support shilling for Putin, shilling for Trump, opening Democratic donors to identity theft, violating the privacy of rape victims, outing GLBT people to what could easily be a death sentence and a rapist. And some here have the gall to say that said rapist leading all this deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!

Fuck that organization and fuck anyone who backs them in any way.

[KMOD]

1. K&R

[stopbush]

2. ^^THIS^^

[mwrguy]

3. Assange should be buried under the jail

[Thinkingabout]

4. Just anything to get noticed, he needs to take care of his business.

[UtahLib]

5. He's an egomaniacal revenge driven PoS.

[mountain grammy]

6. Completely agree. Never have liked or trusted Assange.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. He seemed like an egotistical asshole from the beginning

But I didn't expect him to be THIS vile.

[SusanCalvin]

9. I once thought he was sort of OK.

Those days are gone.

He gives whistleblowers a bad name.

[davidn3600]

8. Yeah but is the US government any more trustworthy?

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has declared war on whistleblowers and he made his administration perhaps even less transparent than Bush/Cheney.

And since you can't trust our news media either, where is a whistleblower supposed to go when politicians or a government agency is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/18182823551/obama-administration-has-declared-war-leakers-claims-any-leak-is-aiding-enemy.shtml

[SusanCalvin]

10. Oh, you're right.

That doesn't make this jerk OK.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Julian is an anti-Semite

I wouldn't trust his ass further than I could throw him.

[Tortmaster]

16. Sorry, but that is bogus false equivalency.

Moreover, it is a giant lie.

There were 3,620 whistleblowers under Dodd-Frank in 2014.

The Office of Special Counsel handled 5,237 new matters in fiscal year 2014.

In just one six month period in 2014, the Inspector General for the Department of Transportation made 297 recommendations.

And every Department has their own Inspectors General.

If a Libertarian weirdo like Snowden is all you care about, and not the health of the American whistleblower system, then you have cause for concern. Your other concerns are unwarranted.

[msanthrope]

26. Welcome to DU. Post more. nt

[Hekate]

36. Welcome to DU, and I mean that sincerely. Hope to see you around.

[uponit7771]

42. +1

[treestar]

48. Thank you

It is just ridiculous to claim the government is so terrible it cannot be trusted to deal with national security.

[reACTIONary]

67. Welcome to DU !!!

[Historic NY]

69. Welcome great re-tort.

[ecodeathmarch]

18. Solution: a wikileaks competitor/alternative

Whistleblowers who are nauseated by wikileaks will find alternative venues, and WL will be left to leaking the speeding tickets of teen celebs

[msanthrope]

28. Already done. Cryptome is the real deal...always has been.

I knew Assange was a fake given his history with that organization.

[reorg]

73. the alternatives are either obscure or fakes

Last edited Sat Aug 27, 2016, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

as another poster mentioned, the platform 'Cryptome' already existed and was known by people who would search for it. The owner was invited by Assange to cooperate with Wikileaks but quickly became paranoid and opted out following a discussion over who Wikileaks should accept as donors. When Wikileaks had its great success and became world famous, he acted like a major asshole as soon as Assange came under full assault by the media and others.

The other "alternative", loudly promoted by a former ally, the German guy who defected, never materialized. It should have been successful since the German had stolen vast amounts of leaks from Wikileaks. And said German had the full support of everybody including politicians and the media because he had publicly distanced himself from Assange's "recklessness". According to his own testimony, he had been (the) one who had developed the technical side of Wikileaks. So, with the money he got from his revelations and books, it should have been a huge success, his alternative site. But nobody has ever heard of it since.

The point is, if you really want to maintain a real whistleblower portal, one that is widely known and can hurt important people, you will inevitably come under heavy assault and will have to stomach the most unsavory slanders and lies and distortions. If you can't live with that, you need to remain under the radar or let go.

[ecodeathmarch]

107. Ya, whistleblower portals live under heavy abuse but

There's also fame involved, not a small incentive for those who truly seek it

[Mojorabbit]

81. Yes! It needs doing but wikileaks seems to not be vetting what they put out. nt

[uponit7771]

41. fuckin wow... so the US gov outs gay folk in SA?!?!

[MADem]

62. No...Assange does. nt

[Bradical79]

50. It's not a binary choice.

Wikileaks has stopped being a trustworthy organization (if it ever was). Rather than being about open access to important information, they now seem to pursue a specific political agenda using information as a weapon.

[stupidicus]

72. sure, when we have a dem admin

lol

[Volaris]

74. Is it possible to somehow support wikileaks

As an institution and an idea, and NOT support the human who created it?

[MadDAsHell]

11. Wow, times have changed on DU.

Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as all previous Presidents combined.

But I guess, go Dems and all that good stuff.

[PoutrageFatigue]

13. Yup. They have indeed. The space under the bus gets bigger and bigger.

...

[Tortmaster]

17. Thieves.

I think you meant to write "thieves."

[ButterflyBlood]

19. How is outing gays and lesbians in a hostile country amd doxxing rape victims whistleblowing?

Please explain.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. You clearly haven't read the OP because you haven't responded to its points. . . . nt

[msanthrope]

24. Kindly explain how outing gays is whistleblowing? nt

[reorg]

40. nobody 'outed gays'

but you knew that, didn't you.

[uponit7771]

43. ... and no SSNs were reveled, they didn't defend Lessdogs attacker, they've doxxed tRump?

... no... defend loudly though.

[msanthrope]

57. Many on this board learned a mighty lesson thanks to Scott Ritter.

1) The messenger matters.

2) The messenger is not always the hero you think they are.

3) When messenger's flaws threaten to overshadow the message, it is not unreasonable to speculate that that is precisely why the messenger was chosen.

4) Continued support of the flawed messenger requires a suspension of disbelief that makes one rather vulnerable to suggestion---or, the "24 business rule."

I find your defense of Assange quixotic.

[reorg]

58. Sure, Assange is CIA, got it.

That's why he is able to stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy without paying a cent for rent, I guess.

[msanthrope]

60. Well...as Stephen Colbert mused when he interviewed Assange, who else would

benefit from setting up such an easily-disproven stooge?

[reorg]

65. do you have a crush on Stephen Colbert?

I noticed you mention him frequently these days.

[msanthrope]

66. Yes. As a woman, when I refer to a man, it must be because a certain part of my

anatomy, not my brain, is piqued.

I must "have a crush."

Next, will you be inquiring as to my menstrual cycle?

[reorg]

70. do only females 'have a crush'?

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I was unaware, if that is a fact. Having had quite a few crushes, even on celebrities occasionally, it must be that a certain part of my anatomy, which happens to be male in my case, not my brain .. uh, wait, since when is the brain not involved if you have a crush on somebody?

No, you have mentioned Mr Colbert in several posts recently, stating this or that regarding Wikileaks, which left me wondering who or what made Mr Colbert, of all people, an authority on whistleblower platforms.

[msanthrope]

76. My username indicates my gender. Your defense of Assange is revealing. nt

[reorg]

79. It does?

I thought your username was some kind of wordplay on 'misanthrope', but I never really had a clue what it actually meant.

You never answered my question though, why you think this entertainer celebrity you mentioned is an authority on whistleblower platforms.

[msanthrope]

86. Yes. It does. If your primary language does not have an equivalent to "Ms.," I can

see how you would be confused.


This "celebrity entertainer" managed to dissect and disarm Julian Assange in a single interview. Managed to make Putin look like a fool for persecuting Pussy Riot. And certainly managed to get you het up.

[reorg]

93. I don't think so, actually

'indicating' is probably the wrong word. Many people suggest something with their online names that isn't exactly true.

I seem to recall that the whistleblower you previously mentioned, one Scott Ritter, was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for having some kind of sexual conversation online, with somebody pretending to be a young girl - although in reality his counterparts were middle aged policemen.

Not sure what you mean by "managed to get you het up"? What is the meaning of the word 'het', if it exists? I have no negative feelings towards this entertainer, he is probably funnier than most, I suppose. I watched the Assange interview, or some part of it which you were referring to, and I don't see that he 'dissected' and/or 'disarmed' Assange. Assange was sitting there and gave reasonable answers to the questions, just as he recently did with another comic who makes loads of money on TV. These 'interviews' are always a little superficial, of course, given that these people are not given all that money for being serious and, god forbid, relevant.

[msanthrope]

94. Scott Ritter has four separate incidents/convictions, and is an admitted sex offender.

As for "het up," I understand if there is not an equivalent in your native language.

[reorg]

98. So?

As for 'het up', thanks, for the first time in a dozen or so years I have learned a new word here! Thanks.

These petty exchanges can be good for something, at last.

[msanthrope]

99. So? What I find revealing about you, reorg, is that if any poster on DU cares to look at the

rest of this thread, is that your attitude towards men accused of sex crimes is quite uniform and interesting.

[reorg]

103. Not sure what you found was revealing

but I mentioned Scott Ritter in a certain context to which your reply had no relevance whatsoever.

That's why I asked 'So?' and you reply with something that is probably meant as some kind of underhanded insult?

When people make spurious allegations I point that out, is all.

[dlwickham]

78. You're so much better than me

I would have told the asshole to fuck off

[msanthrope]

80. I was tempted. nt

[reorg]

85. I guess that would have been against the rules

just as your post actually is, but I don't really give a damn, buddy.

[treestar]

49. You're simply assuming every person deserves that description

and that the government should never prosecute anyone ever for leaking.

[LanternWaste]

117. You believe identifying thousands of rape victims and outing gay men is whistleblowing...?

You believe identifying thousands of rape victims and outing gay men living in hostile regimes is whistleblowing...? Or is your "label" of whistleblower simply a little too intentionally broad and vague?

(BTW: 'Whistleblower" is a label-- and you've recently stated your opposition to using labels, so I'm curious as to how long you can dig in on it...)

[MadDAsHell]

118. Go ahead, get it off your chest, call me a ni**er. I suspect you'll feel much better.

Geez, I thought this stalking crap had been outlawed with the latest TOS update.

[former9thward]

14. Funny, they were backed when Bush was President.

What changed? Oh ok ....

[sweetloukillbot]

15. They started doxxing persecuted minorities in despotic countries?

They attempted to ratfuck the Democratic party's nomination process, doxxing Democratic donors.
Or maybe it was the anti-Semitic screeds on Twitter.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. They didn't actively interfere in elections then. Read the OP to see what else changed. . . nt

[msanthrope]

30. I never backed Wikileaks. Ever. Some of us on DU weren't fooled from the start.

Some of us, perhaps those of us with a bit of knowledge in how actual whistle blowing works, looked at Assange when he was repudiated by Cryptome, way back when, and passed.

We've just been waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

[Hekate]

35. I'm going with this

[greatauntoftriplets]

56. I always found it suspect.

Held my counsel on on Wikileaks for years here and only recently felt able to express my misgivings.

It feels good.

[ColesCountyDem]

68. This! ^^^^^

[Maru Kitteh]

75. <---- same

[Quayblue]

112. + infinity

[uponit7771]

44. Broke clock

[Rex]

63. Also, how were we to know it was a front for Russian hackers & trolls?

That one caught me off guard, however it does seem that Wikileaks is just an extension of the KGB.

[uponit7771]

109. +1

[treestar]

52. What did they release then?

What cases of releases were done then?

[former9thward]

111. These were all celebrated and praised here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks

[treestar]

114. so more or less

[hide]
1 2006–2008
1.1 Apparent Somali assassination order
1.2 Daniel arap Moi family corruption
1.3 Bank Julius Baer lawsuit
1.4 Guantanamo Bay procedures
1.5 Tibetan Dissent in China
1.6 Scientology
1.7 Sarah Palin's Yahoo! email account contents
1.8 Killings by the Kenyan police
1.9 BNP membership list

I don't want to make a snap judgment on whether all of that was worthwhile whistleblowing. The celebration here is usually anything that makes the US government look bad - Guantanamo and Sarah Palin maybe.

[mountain grammy]

22. I'm giving this another kick..

because it's such an important OP. Assange has sucker punched a lot of believers. He's in it for himself and the glory of mother Russia...

[smirkymonkey]

23. K&R

[FLPanhandle]

25. I'm proud to say that I called Assange a traitorous, lying, little shit from day one.

Back when it was unpopular around here to say that. Took a lot of shit from some DU'ers back then.

[mcar]

27. K&R

[ileus]

29. He'll be in our favor again once he starts attacking repukes. Until then F Wikileaks.

[msanthrope]

31. No......he's never been in my favor, and that rapist never will be. nt

[MadDAsHell]

32. Funny how some DUers pick and choose which rape/assault/sexual harassment accusations matter...

...and which don't.

[msanthrope]

55. What rape accusations are you referring to? Nt

[davidn3600]

34. Careful.... You are on the verge of sounding hypocritical...

If you call Assange a rapist because of an allegation......

......Well, let's just say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I guess only certain rape allegations matter to you.

[msanthrope]

54. Assange admitted to the acts. His defense against extradition was that the acts were not crimes. Nt

[reorg]

84. False

he never admitted 'to the acts' (which acts, anyway?) It was one argument among many that losing a condom during consensual sex could not be construed, and never has, as an act of rape in Britain.

I know that you stick to the belief that it could, and the English court kind of left the question open by stating that in theory, well, somehow you probably can construe such a case. Only in reality, such a case never existed and you always were at a loss when I asked, despite being a lawyer and all, to cite a real life case where somebody was actually convicted as 'rapist' in such a case.

[msanthrope]

88. Yes....and here are the transcripts where he did so.

I am sure you can show us where Mr. Assange claimed he lost a condom during consensual sex.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

In fact, Mr. Assange held one victim down with violence and penetrated her.

He penetrated the other woman whilst sleeping.

Neither act was consensual.

But you go ahead.

[reorg]

95. Thank you very much, I already read these transcripts, years ago.

He didn't sleep while he penetrated someone, nor did he penetrate somebody who was sleeping at the time. It happens, though, even during consensual sexual intercourse, that one partner dozes off for a minute, and that's what ALLEGEDLY happened here. The woman in question said she was "HALF ASLEEP" when the condom went missing. She said this to justify her lack of resistance, to justify that she CONTINUED with the consensual sexual act DESPITE noticing that the condom was no longer there.

The other case is a joke, anyway, and no longer relevant, the statute of limitations ran out. It was never alleged that this was a case of "rape". But that won't stop you to claim otherwise, I know.

[msanthrope]

97. The rape case has not run out. Nor, have the other charges, necessarily.

I suspect that should Assange ever walk out of the embassy, the charges will be refiled. Assange can fight it out in a jail cell, arguing that toll does not apply.

You are conflating two different women, fyi, as anyone who reads the charge sheet can figure out. Nor did any woman "doze off" in the middle of sex.

I get it.....it's tough defending a man who has admitted doing these acts.

[reorg]

100. Wrong

it's you who is conflating the allegations.

The 'rape' theory was constructed on the basis of the consent going lacking when the condom slipped. The second woman. The one who threw herself aggressively at Assange on the very first day they met.

The first woman tried to make it sound like there was some aggressive behaviour on the part of Assange, but that was never considered - by anyone - anything else than 'molestation'. My gut feeling in this case is that the woman made it all up, entirely. Bragging about how great everything and everybody was afterwards. (She is the one with the good contacts to the exterritorial Cuban opposition in Miami, as you may recall.)

[ButterflyBlood]

105. Oh yeah she probably enjoyed it

Maybe we can find someone who'll tell us what she was wearing that night, that'll help us find out if she asked for it or actually enjoyed the whole thing...

[reorg]

106. You are probably too young to have read all about it

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

but the statements were all made public a number of years ago.

It is an undisputed fact that both women initiated their contact with Assange, that they aggressively pursued him until they got him into their beds. Yes, in both cases, it was the women's bed they had invited Assange to share with them, in order to have sex.

The only dispute that ensued, days after the incidents, and only after both women learned that Assange had had sex with the both of them, was over the question how they could be sure that they weren't infected with AIDS.

[ButterflyBlood]

37. What makes you think he ever will?

Assange is basically an FSB asset now and it's clear which party Putin supports.

[treestar]

51. He won't attack Repubs

Then why hasn't he found anything they've done wrong?

[Jim Dandy]

33. Thank you

Great post. Wikileaks supporters are useful idiots.

[dilby]

38. Liberals loved them and Conservatives hated them when Bush was President.

Now Conservatives love them and Liberals hate them with Obama as President. Sounds like they have no political loyalty in the U.S. which I am fine with. I can make my own decisions on stuff and don't mind them digging up information, I have not seen any false information supplied by them.

[uponit7771]

45. Broke clock

[lupinella]

39. K&R

Cannot allow people who are willing to risk vulnerable people's lives for their own glory to be cheered.

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[treestar]

47. Did they expose anything that happened

during Dummy's administration? If not, that's a tell. Most of what they complained about and released during Obama's was happening and likely worse then, yet there were not any big leaks then that I recall.

[davidn3600]

53. Assange started WikiLeaks in 2006

So they were only in operation for the very back-end of Bush's presidency. Practically all the info WikiLeaks had was not in their possession until after Bush left office.

When WikiLeaks released the State Department cables, it did reveal things from the Bush years as well. For example, there is evidence the US was trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela by aiding his opposition.

WikiLeaks also released a cache of Iraq war logs which showed there appears to have never been any evidence of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam's regime. But this information came to light in 2010, and the Democrats already decided they were not going to investigate any of this.

[msanthrope]

61. Right--like Assange hadn't been involved before that. Come on.....some of actually

know what Julian and his Cypherpunks were up to in the decade before 2006---assholes, looking for someone to fund them. Guess we now know who the highest bidder was.

[Oneironaut]

83. They did, but they used to be credible.

Now they're a far right attack dog. The current WikiLeaks would have suppressed those documents and smeared everyone who was against Bush.

[MadDAsHell]

101. Would it matter?

Aren't all leaks of government wrongdoing a good thing? Regardless of who is in power?

Or do we only want them when they are politically advantageous to our preferred political party?

[Elmergantry]

102. Of course!

This is the DEMOCRATIC underground, not the AMERICAN underground. Party first and forever!

[ButterflyBlood]

110. Outing gays and violating the privacy of rape victims are not "leaks of government wrongdoing"

For fucks sake.

[MadDAsHell]

113. "Outing gays and violating the privacy of rape victims are not "leaks of government wrongdoing""

And I didn't argue they were. In fact, I didn't state any general, broad-brush conclusions at all.

Your OP did though, when you stated that "WikiLeaks is a disgusting, bigoted right-wing organization that no progressive can justify backing" simply because you don't like some of their most recent leaks.

Nice attempt at deflection, though; it almost worked for you.

[treestar]

116. I would hope nobody likes those leaks

"outing gays and violating the privacy of rape victims."

[treestar]

115. It's not automatically evidence of "wrongdoing"

which some people want to assume. Why so much emphasis on the US? And now why one sided on the election? No interest is exposing the RNC or other Republicans as much as possible?

[reorg]

59. a good summary of all those talking points

and false accusations being hurled at Wikileaks recently.

'Openly siding' with some right-wing asshole? Wrong, the cited comment was about censorship.

Private data of female voters in Turkey? Wrong, these were not published by Wikileaks.

MANY gays ...`? Someone claims to have found ONE email that contained personal information of ONE person who had been ARRESTED because of what they deem deviant behaviour in Saudi Arabia. Sexual orientation wasn't even explicitly mentioned in that email. The personal information was not disclosed TO the state of Saudi Arabia, the state already had this information and what someone found in the data dump was simply a record of that fact. How this is supposed to be 'a potential death sentence' remains a mystery.

So much for the information presented as 'facts'.

The rest of the allegations are, of course, based on ... uh, let's call it 'assumptions', by people who felt they'd been hurt or may at some point get hurt by Wikileaks revelations ... understandable, but still pathetic.

[Festivito]

108. Yes. Fearing government will discover what is in a leaked government report. Ahem!

Someone was recently caught scaling the embassy in what looks like an attempt to murder Assange. Whoever wants him dead needs to have a lot of people becoming ambivalent towards him so outrage over his death would be muted.

The posts attacking him amount to name calling or giving slight truth with fabrications such as many gays outed when it is one and that was a report of the government. Such as calling him a rapist rather than alleged rapist and not including that the two women involved say it is not rape.

Now, the idea that no one can differ and be retain identity of progressive. I don't buy it.

[Rex]

64. I never figured Wikileaks to be a front for Russian spying.

Now however it all makes sense.

[stupidicus]

71. yep, I feel the same way about unindicted war criminals like Kissinger

and Bill Clinton's brother by another mother, GWB.

How do you feel about people who hold them in high regard?

Meanwhile, I see no evidence that WL is rightwing, controlled by Putin, or that Assange has been convicted of rape. Do you find it necessary to just make shit up in the course of pleading a case, or is it intentional like not redacting info in files as WL is charged with?

[ismnotwasm]

77. K&R

[Oneironaut]

82. It didn't used to be like that. It started when Assange became famous.

He made WikiLeaks about him and his personal agenda. It's no longer about transparency - they're openly shilling for both Putin and the far right now. They've shown they'll even post fake documents that they probably knew where dubious at best (if not totally fake) to push their own agenda.

It's about Assange's ego now and nothing more. He loves Trump and thinks every world leader should be like Putin.

[JonLP24]

87. Where can I find the Saudi cables

And other noteworthy leaks without them.

[msanthrope]

89. Cryptome. nt

[Zambero]

90. Lock him up!

Almost forgot, he's already effectively locked up and for good reason.

[msanthrope]

91. Dumbass locked himself up. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

92. But someone must be providing him with cocaine there

If the rarely coherent nonsense on the Wikileak Twitter feed is any indication.

[Go Vols]

96. I miss "The Memory Hole"

The website is the 2005 winner of the Project on Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award.

just found out that a Memory Hole 2 site started in June.Looking it over now.

[wolfie001]

104. He and his organization have clearly jumped the shark! nt