Google Cointellpro if you need an explanation for what's happening here.

there seems to have been a police razzia in sweden? a few hours ago?

Julian is "out there" in more ways than one. That's why I like him. So what if he's living an "unorthodox" life ? He won't ever fall into someone else's idea of who he "should be." Tensions are running high at the moment. He's taken a lot of heat and no matter what happens with his situation at hand, his positive influences will be around a lot longer than the criticism from his detractors.

The Australian crocodile of Assange – the hero or the criminal?

As the person, he has thrown down a challenge to hypocrisy of all governments, the state structures, certainly he is a Hero. As the leader among the network resources which have given the compromising evidence on the state organizations – the outstanding showman
It is the conflict of interests of the state, the rights of the person and a small group of old vegetables which have forgotten that they a microscopic part of this mad world.

The full text of article - the hero or the criminal?
http://newshe.msk.ru/?p=430

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ElC8H5jRBU&feature=player_embedded

The only fact in this report is that Birgitta J seems to have said the things Philip Shenon quoted.

The claim that the engineers were sending Assange a message by doing scheduled updates is risible. Get a reliable source for that, or stop spreading the gossip.

Birgitta J will have to answer for herself and her appalling behaviour towards a colleague under pressure. Her and your description of the structure of WL are amazingly naive, and that she is promoting such a view makes one wonder about her own motives and ambitions. There's simply no way that 15,000 people are ever going to be making communal decisions about WL, however much our support is needed and valued.

Stop the smear, eh?

@GrammarN... (choose better names in future, there are terms not meant to play with them, too serious story behind, people worldwide - people who cared to read a history book at least once in their life thoroughly - know about the risk and danger for this thinking to rise up again. no play with this.)

for this time I answer, next time there will be a lot of mails needed to finally get a comment like yours moderated via name editing, stuff like this cannot be ignored.

you write:

"I understand if English is your second language but that entire paragraph is nigh illegible."

plz understand that someone who cares to take the time to write a few words about this whole farce doesn't necesarily have to bother about a person not being able to read, i ask for simple understanding this, thanks a lot.

you write:

"I found myself completely unable to follow your thought process"

yes, no problem is this worth taking other readers time with news you were not able to follow a thought?

you write:

"until the end where you seem to be arguing that this rape case was consensual sex."

please excuse me (dear brotherhood member), but in fact neither the interest of a lawyer nor the interest of the brotherhood will chance the fact that

a) the 1st report was clear enough and read by enough people

b) that the trial to to forbid usual sex between a mature male and femail - while child pornography in pentagon - is ridiculous enough and will for quite quite quite sure be at least able to attract more people to the sedish pirates party with every single day.

it was ridiculous from the beginning on, proceeding with the case just simply makes it more ridiculous and the political interest of the female person who wants to be elected soon more and more visible - with every single day, too.

simply try to realise that there are things too clear and too obvious to still hope this is a case havin a tiny chance.

we are simply interested how the rest of the social democrats can bare such a behaviour of a person able to ruin their next election chances, that's all.

but: no prob with them sleeping on, simply wait and see the results

wave you flag, pirates. pirates in other countried didn't even have such a starter but with yours now... you just have to catch the topic and do the right thing with it, this female person simply seems to want it.

"From what report did you gather this information from and what does that have to do with child porn in the pentagon?"

the report was and is public, we're not responsible for your research lack, sry.

"At least post links to support your vague and poorly expressed information."

as mentioned above, we're not responsible for other people's research lacks. yes, the links are there. whatever you need, propose to follow the link given above and take some time for it, there is lots of linked material, you will find the informations you were missing until now there. and - for any further questions - media can contact the platform in question itself, isn't it.

regards.

"I have beliefs that border on conspiracy theory at times"

I have beliefs that you should leave the believes as well as the religion creating it in the church, plz. this here is a newspaper, not a bible, thank you.

"... but living in a country as powerful and influential as America,"

(and as poor as them? also no tuition free studies there? which one?)

"...it's hard not to believe there will be corruption at the top, especially with reports such as those that come from Wikileaks."

sry, care to explain this part of the sentence?

"..."

and then

"To summarize, don't bother posting comments so poorly thought/written out."

to summarize please learn to behave before posting on newspapers. conversation style is in fact something valuable. we propose: before switching on the computer:

a) first: dress, plz

b) drink a coffe. we read someone, the best coffe helping in cases like this here is a real one, "where the spoon keeps standing".

so simply plz start thinking and take your time for reading next time before posting.
txs a lot.

A few years ago, I was accused of some terrible things by a person who was trying to destroy me. I was shocked by how little help and support I had when I needed it. Not one of the people that I always thought would be there for me showed any anger, let alone outrage at the ridiculous allegations and their potentially devastating consequences. Only my lawyer advocated for me and only because he was paid to do so.

I was not a famous person, but I did work in a field that is licensed by the state and in which you can't have any kind of record if you want to be employed. So for a variety of reasond, I was terrified that I could become a felon based on a lot of lies.

Eventually, I was found to be innocent and no legal charges were filed although the investigation took several harrowing months.

My accuser attempted to frame me for a multitude of crimes - car theft, burglary, arson, assault, harassing communication. He sent sick letters to his own wife and convinced her they were from me. She filed around sixty police complaints against me. He cut himself up and claimed I attacked him with a screwdriver and my fingernails (I've never had any!). And even though I proved I was somewhere else with witnesses, I still got hauled into court for a restraining order hearing. One was not issued.

I did none of the stuff he said I did. NONE OF IT. Incidentally, he did some of the things to me that he claimed that I had done to him (i.e. he tried to break into my house and I believe he was the one who burned down my brother's business in an attempt to kill me - which he had threatened to do).

Because my accuser was my ex-husband, he had many of the police officers convinced that this was a domestic, love triangle kind of thing and that I was a woman scorned. But it was all him- he was a raving, vindictive sociopath. He attempted to manipulate the system against me. Had he been just a little
smarter, had I not worked so hard to catch him in his lies, he could have easily succeeded.

So Julian Assange has my sympathy. I found that many people do not stand by you when you need them. I also found that it is very, very easy to frame someone particularly if you can find a second person to back up your claims in any way. I found investigators can be very lazy. I had to hire a private investigator and then I had to do a lot of leg work myself. I found that people are often lazy and apathetic in seeking the truth about a matter and will accept the easiest version regardless of the facts.

yes and then there are some strange things happening. 1st: the medium which published an article about some pip "wanting assange to step down from something" is not actually known for real thorough research. i remember not long ago having seen an article of them retweeted like some extremely interesting superufo. but the text inside sounded like a typical article of the german BILD [a springer medium, yellowpress]. not s single quote. not a single source mentioned. not a single proof given. this time - they back up on a quote of someone who i recently saw described as a former supporter of the network, now in parliament.

so wtf, what's the retweets about?

the other medium interested is a medium which was really really annoying with serious spaming the #wikileaks topicfeed on twitter. newsweek. you cannot normally comment there, because in order to do so, you have to sign up with a network account - hello? someone awake here?

then when you try out how they did it - if you e.g. take a fb account, you get another window where you have to g.i.v.e. newsweek the right to post in your own accounts - spam messages of newsweek. wtf??!! - so sry hardly a person having a rest of brain still working will take such a "chance" to comment. the topicfeed was (about a week ago) really hardly spamming the feed with their links to their spam catching site.

looks like a pr gag (to be honest, yes, newsweek makes the impression of a pr gag. not gawker, as taz recently tought. gawker seems definitely a more serious prob. but that's just one view out of many. - wha? gawker is officially asking for concrete information about the german spokesperson. exactly the same person who in an interview not long ago mentioned - so far the situation is 'easy', not that stressed, no or not many pips hanging on his traces. this gawker's questoin point looks definitely like a call to change exactly this. the other questions reveal themselves, too, on your eyes. as mentioned, just one view out of many, but it can be called naive to close one's eyes when you see such clear hints at.)

but back to the newsweek tweets: really really annoying stuff.

anyway, a week later they're back and cooking their "stepping down" mythos although when you follow the pips comments about this [not the robot ones, the real ones, typed in originally] - they're all like "wtf..."

so where is the big big story "stepping down" mythos, what's the fuzz about. there is lot's of work to do, for wl pips in the network as much as in media working on stuff sticking to the topic - working on articles about documents published there... sticking to the bradley manning case (oh, btw there was an interesting radio interview with ellsberg about the manning case, did anyone catch this MP3 link?)

however - big large fat "civil war" inside of wl - I'd say: not really. doesn't make this impression at all. wrong info.

You are not old, just ill-informed (2% is a good estimate!). Anybody on top of WL and JA coverage can follow the contributions of wikinews030. Ever took part in RL twitter organised protests? Go figure ...

I wonder if Obama was behind this?

?

sry, plz excuse us, we're still inviting readers, not 'chat maestros'. 2% is perfect, absolutely enough, it was actually wrotten to be understood by people with your horizon and communication style with up to 1%, not more, so: not bad! - you actually don't have to follow up a dicussion, but plz why then not simply turn away to some other playground. (how about a playboy link? would this help you?)

but turning back to the topic... it definitely might be interesting to read more entries of people with a debate culture backround, ability to read, to do web research and interest in more than a haircut.

(at demona: you have a question? didn't get a sentence? 1) ask -or- 2) do some own research -or- sh.up seriously...)

last comment: thank you for mentioning a search entry we did not know yet, but right now - after your entry, dear demona - we hurry up to find more out about this interesting search entry. via google.

This is a test of the anonymous broadcasting system. Is this thing on?

aside of this nice comment troll (sry but demona simply seems not to be capable of more than chat style trolling around, sorry to write such a sentence but it's simply visible and readable...) anyway - aside of those few people thinking world is interested in debate participations a la "uuuuuuum" - let's return to some voices for quite sure more capable to contribute something valuable to the discussion.

just read an interesting voice online. asking - "media jealous"?

to be honest, this question could turn to an interesting discussion about exactly this question, giving a possible reply the chance to present reasons why usualy exactly this could be excluded. and why for this reasons the behaviour of media like newsweek - hanging on a personalized topic about private stuff (actually a topic no serious reader would be interested in normally) - why they hang on it for pure pr reasons, taking part in their own self-destruction.

would be interesting. let's see if this voice show up, had a direct invitation. so maybe demona: hm? some playboy in the meantime :] thanks, would be good to read someone here with a bit of brain, logics, interest and less boring, senseless chat habits.

thxalot!!

As I have posted elsewhere, just because we like wikileaks, it doesn't follow that Assange is innocent.
Please, can we allow the Swedish Police to fully investigate this business first?
Remember the hideous Gerry Healy, and the lives he ruined before screaming dirty tricks.
He is innocent until proven guilty, but I think a little caution would not go amiss.

..as a comments reader, i also was interested in the comment about "media jealous"? a pity that it did not show up yet, maybe later.

anyway @clem. since you prefer to stick to the personalized debate about the spokesperson.

ususally, this in fact is a typical reaction - a job itself may have been done as well and fine as anything one should never exclude a surprise and - of course - usually wait.

here we have something different. the first report is there and read. stick to it, re-read it if necessary and then decide for yourself what to think of this "case".

we know about the interest of the lawyer of the female person.

we know about the political interest of the female person.

this is a brotherhood vs pirates fight beginning, let's see if it develops to an interesting one.