Leslie Cannold quits as WikiLeaks party candidate

[Robb]

Source: Guardian (UK)

The WikiLeaks party's number two Victoria Senate candidate, Leslie Cannold, has resigned amid a storm over the party's preferences, which favoured rightwing extremists ahead of the Greens.

(snip)

"This is the final straw," Cannold said.

"As long as I believed there was a chance that democracy, transparency and accountability could prevail in the party I was willing to stay on and fight for it.

"But where a party member makes a bid to subvert the party's own processes, asking others to join in a secret, alternative power centre that subverts the properly constituted one, nothing makes sense any more. This is an unacceptable mode of operation for any organisation but even more so for an organisation explicitly committed to democracy, transparency and accountability.

"Even if I stop campaigning this minute, remaining in my role implicitly invites voters to trust the WikiLeaks party. By staying in this role I am implicitly vouching for the worthiness of this party to receive the votes of the Australian people. I can no longer do this because I no longer believe it is true, and so I must resign."

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/wikileaks-party-override-preference-deal

[bemildred]

1. Ouch! nt

[Ken Burch]

2. Why would the Wikileaks party EVER make a preference deal with far-right parties?

The far-right doesn't agree with Wikileaks on anything....and, if it ever got into power, it goes without saying that the Australian far-right, like far-right types everywhere, would set up a far more invasive national security state than parties from anywhere else on the contemporary spectrum(and, no, before anybody says they are, the old Stalinists were never "far left"...they were always nationalist right-wing extremists with no sincere socialist convictions whatsoever.)

[msanthrope]

3. Lemme 'splain something to you about Julian Assange. He doesn't really give a fuck about

anyone else but himself.

Start applying that truism, and you get a lot of answers in a very short time about Wikileaks.

[cprise]

6. Your screen name is apt. n/t

[msanthrope]

8. Indeed. nt

[joshcryer]

15. They agree on government secrecy and transparency.

Both the far left and far right want a fully transparent government with no secrets. That's a no-brainer.

The main difference is the far left does not believe in corporate secrets while the far right believes corporations should be allowed to be even more secretive than government currently is.

This is why Wikileaks, as a non-profit corporation, has no problem keeping the Bank of America files and the Russia Government files secret. They consider this data their own private property. And therefore they have more in common with the far right than the far left.

The far left would demand all Wikileaks disclosures be released immediately (some might believe in radacating some parts of it while others would want pure and absolute transparency).

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. Ssshhh! Many folks haven't figured out that Wikileaks is as Republican as Ron & Rand Paul.

[Ken Burch]

10. No they aren't. They've released far more secrets about what Bush and Cheney got up to

than about Obama. Wikileaks was never about sticking it to the Dems...it was about ending unjustified secrecy.

Are you seriously going to argue that it helps the GOP to have less government secrecy? How on earth COULD it?

[joshcryer]

16. Why don't they release the BoA files?

Maybe because there's evidence in there that would allow the Obama administration to prosecute (either through public outcry making a big noise about it, or true evidence of collusion)? That would be a win for the Obama administration. So that's why the files are probably not released.

How about the Russian files? Well, Russia has been good friends with Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden, Greenwald, etc, so keeping those files secret have resulted in, effectively, some political capital. There are plenty of Russian oligarchs who are exploiting Russia to this day. It'd be interesting to see what Wikileaks has on them.

[Ken Burch]

18. Why doesn't Obama just release those files HIMSELF?

I doubt Manning took all the copies...and it's not as if Assange could release them but the admin. can't.

It's not like Wikileaks is holding them back just to hurt the president.

[joshcryer]

19. The BoA files came from a separate leak to Wikileaks.

Manning has nothing to do with those files. Obama or the DoJ may not actually have the data in those files (corporate secrets and all).

In fact, according to a Wikileaks insider some of the BoA files were destroyed.

It's been two years since Wikileaks announced what they had.

I think the BoA files should be released immediately. Only a right winger would say those files deserve to be kept secretive.

[Ken Burch]

22. agreed, but this still doesn't justify demonizing Wikileaks as a right-wing plot.

Even without the BoA files being released yet, plenty that has been released has embarrassed the Republicans...much more, in fact, than could possibly have embarrassed Obama.

[joshcryer]

24. I didn't say it was, I was explaining their inclinations.

I think that Wikileaks is more socially left wing but economically right wing. That's why, for instance, they initially wanted to sell the cables to interested newspapers around the world. Most leftists would see that as a sign of profiteering off of Mannings good deeds. Eventually they scrapped that idea due to pressure, of course, but we can't forget that's what they initially wanted to do.

And I wouldn't believe the comments about BoA here without citations. I see no evidence the BoA files were "stolen" from Wikileaks, and I see no evidence that the Russian files are no longer in Wikileaks' possession. Wikileaks still has those files and I would bet that they're in the insurance file.

[sabrina 1]

23. Ben, the BOA documents were stolen. BOA and the FBI colluded to go after Wikileaks

immediately after Assange announced they had material on a 'Big US Bank'. One month later the so called, phony 'sex scandal' starting in Sweden's Right Wing rag, began. As promised in a CIA memo obtained by Wikileaks.

One of Wikileaks members, who claimed to be more than he was, colluded with the FBI and stole the Documents. Wikileaks sued him I believe, he claimed he was 'just holding them'. He has become one of the most despised people on the planet. He tried to start his own 'wikileaks' but having betrayed the leaker who gave those docs to Wikileaks, you can imagine, no one in their right mind would trust him. He is generally viewed as a Government 'snitch' and has pretty much faded into oblivion. He never admitted to handing over the documents.

BOA went into action directly after Assange's statement about having those docs, hiring Security Contractors to smear anyone who supported Wikileaks, eg, and the try to discredit them. It has not worked, (although here on DU you might think so which only goes to show how little people know about the outside world.

You are wasting time in this thread, sad to say. People have stopped posting about certain issues here, such as Wikileaks, a very complex story due to the attempts to try to distort information. Same thing with OWS. There is a whole big internet out there for serious discussion free of the distractions.

But just wanted to let you know that the docs were stolen and that is why they were not released as promised.

Wikileaks is multi award winning news organization and has some incredible journalists working for it. It set the standard for the 'new media' and continues to work to expose corruption and crimes in governments and businesses around the world.

No matter how hard they try, they cannot silence all of the new Independent media around the world. And it's always instructive to see who supports freedom of the press and who doesn't.

[Wilms]

12. What some haven't realized is this is a Constitutional issue, not a political one...

...and certainly not a Prom Queen election.

[cprise]

5. Seems like subterfuge to me

I can't think of any other explanation because otherwise the alignment makes no sense.

I have to wonder if Assange will comment on this mishap, though being isolated in the UK means his interactions with party members is limited.

[msanthrope]

7. James Blond can't pick up the phone or use the Internet? nt

[Wilms]

13. But you can.

And it's being recorded.

[Dawson Leery]

9. Assange is anti-government, including any social welfare.

[HumansAndResources]

14. We would not Need Social Welfare if we Owned OUR Own Planet

I prefer Norway to Indonesia - don't get me wrong on that.

But I think we need to move the center of the discussion to, "Why are we letting some tiny faction steal our planet from us and then "sell temporary access back" to us on an "installment plan" of their choosing ?? Fact is, if the corporations had to lease their land and buy the mineral resources they consume from us, poverty would be history - and so would they, unless they worked for us for a change.

[Alamuti Lotus]

11. Confusing story

Some rogue individual in a local faction of the party acts in his own interests, so Cannold makes a nice (not-nice) and very public airing of dirty laundry and blames the entire party. All the while, Assange himself states disagreement with the preference document and tries to have it changed--prevented by timing dictated by election laws, which is probably not a coincidence. I call shenanigans on this one; everybody grab a broom!

[joshcryer]

17. Sure, having right wing nationalist Australia First on the ticket was an oversight.

Pure administrative error.

That would only happen if enough Australia First members applied to the Wikileaks Party and then asked for the preference change, and then got it.

This isn't some "rouge individual." It takes the effort of dozens of individuals to do this because the party was set up so that candidates democratically define the preferences in their party. If Australia First becomes the majority, then they get top preference, simple as that.

Five more members have resigned because of this.

Dr Mathews is particularly outraged by Wikileaks preferencing of Australia First over Greens senator Scott Ludlam in WA.

He said Mr Assange should have known that "the perceived betrayal of Scott is precisely one of the factors causing members, volunteers, coordinators and now National Council members to desert the party."

He said a statement from Mr Assange stating that preferencing decisions had been left to candidates in each state was "in flagrant contradiction of everything that had been happening within the party."

It's a nice sort of reality check when leftists realize that the right wing will subvert their political aspirations under the auspices of "democracy."

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. Still trying to make sense of the story

Is this occurring in WA, NSW, or both? In the OP, it seemed like Cannold was attacking the Party for the actions of what she consistently described in terms of being a rogue member acting against the party's wishes:

"But where a party member makes a bid to subvert the party's own processes, asking others to join in a secret, alternative power centre that subverts the properly constituted one, nothing makes sense any more. This is an unacceptable mode of operation for any organisation but even more so for an organisation explicitly committed to democracy, transparency and accountability.

The following passage from the article you are citing states the same from her:

Dr Cannold claimed she had learnt that a party member was allegedly subverting the decision of the council about the review, and she no longer had faith in the organisation’s ability to operate according to principles of "democracy, transparency and accountability".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/wikileaks-campaign-for-senate-implodes-20130821-2sbqc.html#ixzz2cfwRZYtz

This whole "implosion" seems somewhat coordinated and motivated by ambiguously presented arguments. Again, I call shenanigans.

[joshcryer]

21. Someone called for a preference change.

Because the way the "party's own processes" worked, that required a democratic process whereby members voted for their preference. Australia First became top preference because they were a majority in the WikiLeaks Party.

Now, Assange or anyone in the Council should've seen the potential for this to happen, and at least some did:

"At one point, there was a direct challenge to the Council's democratic right to decide and implement decisions about preference and instead proposed that it become a rubber stamp. This was rejected by Council."

The rejected the idea that preference become a "rubber stamp" kind of thing, rendering preference up to the Council itself. They should've still paid attention to the damn preference list and made sure that it didn't happen the way it did (edit: because their common ground made them think it could never happen to them, the AU First people being aligned on enough issues for it to not matter).

Note: I'm not disagreeing that there were shenanigans. I think the right wing subverted the WikiLeaks party because of their common ground and WikiLeaks not being prepared for it to happen. It is actually a sad irony.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I thought it was only NSW, but it appears to be WA as well...

That article says that in WA the preferences were going to the National Party over the Greens...

I reckon the shenanigans boils down to the council making democratic decisions and someone within the organisation doing something the complete opposite to try to sabotage the party. I don't think Julian Assange helped matters much, as some of what he said about preferences was kind of unclear and didn't express the support of preferences going to the Greens that I would have liked to see. I don't believe for a minute that the party or Julian Assange are RW types in disguise, and prefer to think that some nasty Young Liberals infiltrated and sabotaged, coz Young Liberals are probably the ickiest Young anythings that exist...

It's kind of a shame. I would have liked to have seen Julian Assange win a seat in the Senate, even if just for the entertainment value of seeing if it changed anything with the situation in the UK with him being stuck in the Ecuadorian Embassy and having a Senate seat here that he needed to get to..

[leftynyc]

26. Good for her quitting

Assange alligning himself with neo-nazis instead of the green party? Are we really going to have people here trying to defend that? Is that what this board has come to?

[blackspade]

27. Not a good sign.

It looks like Assange has lost control of his own party.