Re: ASSANGE is not dead - he just smells that way

[professor rat]

" Julio " means Julian ( I sometimes call him Julio Assangista )  Z

That UK prison inmate recently reported at deaths door. 

I'm not trying to make fun of your name, second language skills &/or learning 
disability.

THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

And I'm overjoyed to see how much we agree on that total scumbag, John ' 
Cryptome ' Young.

Lets hodl on to that; evet?

Re: Assange Granted Bail, to speak today

[John Young]

No, will remain in jail until appeal is decided. Although if science 
is wrong and Einstein right he will forever speak in front of 
Westminster curved space, in front, in front, in front ...



At 05:08 AM 1/6/2021, Se7en wrote:

Assange granted bail. Will speak today on steps of Westminster Court

Ruptly Stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t8OEn47HYM

--
|-/   | Se7en
 /  The One and Only! | se7en@cock.email
/ | 0x0F83F93882CF6116
   /  | https://se7en-site.neocities.org

Caitlin Johnstone re Assange: Exposing war crimes should always be legal - [PEACE]

[Zenaan Harkness]

Caitlin Johnstone continues dropping truth bombs on the world, and lately via 
that thorn in the side of the West, RT.com (well done Ms Johnstone!):

   Caitlin Johnstone: Exposing war crimes should always be legal. Committing 
and hiding them should not
   https://www.rt.com/op-ed/501031-caitlin-johnstone-exposing-war-crimes/

Re: Donbass -- Re: Assange

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 05:20:06PM +, таракан wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2020 г., 19:52, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:46:29PM +, таракан wrote:
> >
> > > BTW I do not live in RUSSIA I live in DONBASS
> >
> > A helicopter extraction (or whatever) of Assange from Supermax
> I did not say from supermax... so far he is not yet there
> 
> > if it were me, I thing I'd rather go to trial, get it out of the way, pay 
> > the price of the result if I have to.
> 1) it is not you...
> 2) 'pay the price' is implying there is some sort of justice in the arrest of 
> Assange and his 'trial'. Certainly you must be joking.
> Whatever you do not like the man is another story but you should have a bit 
> of honesty there and not pretending what happen against Assange is - even 
> partly - the result of a legal process.

Thank you - yes, bad implication, I meant in generic sense as "the price of 
choosing to be the lamb [to the slaughter]".


> > Folks in Donbass on the other hand could no doubt make a few dollars go a 
> > long way.
> 
> We can find volunteers here, also some Chechens.(note: one *always* find some 
> Chechens, these guys like war and action like narcotics)

Ha!  That's really funny :)


> > Will you accept a small donation for improving day to day life in Donbass, 
> > via PayPal?
> I'm not sure if it's a joke. Hardly there is PayPal there at first (recall 
> it's family-orientated lol)... secondly making life less miserable for people 
> in Donbass will happen the day they win over fascist Ukraine and especially 
> they mega-powerful masters, e.g. the deep fascism in the USA and Europe.

I do not know what can be purchased online or across the border in Russia - I 
made a donation two (?) years ago to a lady who was regularly taking supplies 
across the border, and she accepted paypal donations.


> As for a commando-style extraction of Assange, it is probably extraordinary 
> risky, extraordinary costly but so far it may be the only way to save him 
> from a terrible fate.
> 
> I still think there are one other way, without any sort of military or risky 
> action. I'm of course not speaking of any 'legal' farce.
> 
> As for helicopter extraction, it works. There is a long history of such acts. 
> As for Assange which is so high-profile, that is another story.

Re: Donbass -- Re: Assange

[таракан]

--
CRYPTOANALYZER
--

Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 27 July 2020 г., 19:52, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:46:29PM +, таракан wrote:
>
> > BTW I do not live in RUSSIA I live in DONBASS
>
> A helicopter extraction (or whatever) of Assange from Supermax
I did not say from supermax... so far he is not yet there

> if it were me, I thing I'd rather go to trial, get it out of the way, pay the 
> price of the result if I have to.
1) it is not you...
2) 'pay the price' is implying there is some sort of justice in the arrest of 
Assange and his 'trial'. Certainly you must be joking.
Whatever you do not like the man is another story but you should have a bit of 
honesty there and not pretending what happen against Assange is - even partly - 
the result of a legal process.


> Folks in Donbass on the other hand could no doubt make a few dollars go a 
> long way.

We can find volunteers here, also some Chechens.(note: one *always* find some 
Chechens, these guys like war and action like narcotics)

> Will you accept a small donation for improving day to day life in Donbass, 
> via PayPal?
I'm not sure if it's a joke. Hardly there is PayPal there at first (recall it's 
family-orientated lol)... secondly making life less miserable for people in 
Donbass will happen the day they win over fascist Ukraine and especially they 
mega-powerful masters, e.g. the deep fascism in the USA and Europe.

As for a commando-style extraction of Assange, it is probably extraordinary 
risky, extraordinary costly but so far it may be the only way to save him from 
a terrible fate.

I still think there are one other way, without any sort of military or risky 
action. I'm of course not speaking of any 'legal' farce.

As for helicopter extraction, it works. There is a long history of such acts. 
As for Assange which is so high-profile, that is another story.

Donbass -- Re: Assange

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:46:29PM +, таракан wrote:
> BTW I do not live in RUSSIA I live in DONBASS


A helicopter extraction (or whatever) of Assange from Supermax is Quixotic and 
leaves Assange on the run, if it were me, I thing I'd rather go to trial, get 
it out of the way, pay the price of the result if I have to.  But I am not 
Assange.  In any case, I would not support such a "movie tier" spectacular 
entertainment.

Folks in Donbass on the other hand could no doubt make a few dollars go a long 
way.  Will you accept a small donation for improving day to day life in 
Donbass, via PayPal?

May be others will chip in too...

Re: Assange

[таракан]

You can as well write to the pope in Vatican, you'll get the same answers.

Also, these are pre-written answers "The Queen cannot intervene in such ...

That letter never reached that Queen. I am puzzled that some idiots want to use 
that pre-formatted letter in front of a court.

These idiots with their petitions, balloons and open letters...

> .. I have received a reply back from Buckingham Palace following my >letter & 
> petition to the Queen in support of #JulianAssange some weeks >ago. The 
> response says, basically, that the Queen cannot intervene in >issues which 
> are Political. This should be used in court. > >pic.twitter.com/GJVRiAXcTV

Re: Assange

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 04:09:03PM +, таракан wrote:
> >>I laud the goal of seeing Assange released.
> >
> >>But perhaps money is not going to get him out. Even the British Queen 
> >>responded to the petition in relation to this, conceding it "is a political 
> >>matter"
> 
> I think this is fake news... the Queen never took position regarding the case 
> of Assange ...
> 
> >> I wonder what she really meant by that! If it is REALLY a "political 
> >> matter", then it shouldn't have been brought in any criminal court, either 
> >> US or UK.
> >
> >> My understanding is that in UK law, the Queen has the power to pardon. She 
> >> should exercise that power immediately, and have Assange released.
> 
> The british Queen has certainly many powers, as of 2020, but she cannot 
> exercise any of them ..
> 
> >> Jim Bell
> 
> What would save Assange now is money because with money you can (possibly) 
> buy extraction teams.
> Again, nothing else will save or free Assange... he is now on the way to 
> extradition and then to court and then to supermax for the rest of his life, 
> and they will make sure he stays alive but slowly becomes a zombie/vegetable.
> 
> As for 'political motives'... it's incorrect, these are 'imperial and 
> ideological motives'. The man threatened (Digital) Rome and the (Digital) 
> Power of Rome/Zeus/whatever must not be defied.
> 
> 2,000 years ago a Christ was crucified and now in some ways Assange - which 
> is to the contrary far from being without sins - is crucified by a similar 
> power using different ways, hypocritical ways but probably even more horrible 
> than crucifixion.
> 
> The mad queen of Roma/ Hillary (Il-a-rit) the great is personnaly behind this 
> and that vicious lady(sic) will make sure he suffers and suffers a lot 
> because a woman's cruelty can far exceed a man's cruelty.
> 
> As for the 'laws' and 'democracy' it's a necessary decorum which, again, is 
> very juicy (how much money spent for Assange ?)
> 
> Actually there is one and only thing that can save Assange, without the risks 
> of sending a military extradition team to Belmarsh.
> But don't believe I will tell there :-)
> 
> Some are working in the shadows


 Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case because it’s a 
POLITICAL matter – Buckingham Palace
 https://www.rt.com/uk/480974-queen-elizabeth-julian-assange/

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman has said the Queen will not intervene to 
release Julian Assange, vowing to remain “non-political.” The statement 
seemingly confirms that Assange’s detention is a political, not criminal, 
matter.

With WikiLeaks founder Assange holed up in HM Prison Belmarsh awaiting 
extradition to the US, activist Chris Lonsdale penned a letter to Queen 
Elizabeth II last month, asking the monarch to “ensure that Mr. Julian Assange 
is freed from Belmarsh Prison unconditionally,” in the spirit of “justice, 
peace and fair-mindedness.”

In a reply posted by Lonsdale on Sunday, a spokeswoman for the Queen said 
that Her Majesty “remains strictly non-political at all times,” and Assange’s 
detention is therefore “not a matter in which the Queen would intervene.” ...


 Royal shock: Queen finally responds to demand to help Julian Assange in 
prosecution row
 
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1243706/Royal-Family-latest-Julian-Assange-news-queen-elizabeth-ii-wikileaks-founder-rape

   QUEEN ELIZABETH has waded into the row over whether or not Julian Assange 
should be prosecuted as the dilemma over the WikiLeaks founder erupts.


 Queen Elizabeth Won’t Get Involved in Julian Assange Case Because It’s A 
POLITICAL Matter – Buckingham Palace
 
https://www.infowars.com/queen-elizabeth-wont-get-involved-in-julian-assange-case-because-its-a-political-matter-buckingham-palace/

   .. I have received a reply back from Buckingham Palace following my letter & 
petition to the Queen in support of #JulianAssange some weeks ago. The response 
says, basically, that the Queen cannot intervene in issues which are Political. 
This should be used in court. pic.twitter.com/GJVRiAXcTV

Re: Assange

[таракан]

>>I laud the goal of seeing Assange released.
>
>>But perhaps money is not going to get him out. Even the British Queen 
>>responded to the petition in relation to this, conceding it "is a political 
>>matter"

I think this is fake news... the Queen never took position regarding the case 
of Assange ...

>> I wonder what she really meant by that! If it is REALLY a "political 
>> matter", then it shouldn't have been brought in any criminal court, either 
>> US or UK.
>
>> My understanding is that in UK law, the Queen has the power to pardon. She 
>> should exercise that power immediately, and have Assange released.

The british Queen has certainly many powers, as of 2020, but she cannot 
exercise any of them ..

>> Jim Bell

What would save Assange now is money because with money you can (possibly) buy 
extraction teams.
Again, nothing else will save or free Assange... he is now on the way to 
extradition and then to court and then to supermax for the rest of his life, 
and they will make sure he stays alive but slowly becomes a zombie/vegetable.

As for 'political motives'... it's incorrect, these are 'imperial and 
ideological motives'. The man threatened (Digital) Rome and the (Digital) Power 
of Rome/Zeus/whatever must not be defied.

2,000 years ago a Christ was crucified and now in some ways Assange - which is 
to the contrary far from being without sins - is crucified by a similar power 
using different ways, hypocritical ways but probably even more horrible than 
crucifixion.

The mad queen of Roma/ Hillary (Il-a-rit) the great is personnaly behind this 
and that vicious lady(sic) will make sure he suffers and suffers a lot because 
a woman's cruelty can far exceed a man's cruelty.

As for the 'laws' and 'democracy' it's a necessary decorum which, again, is 
very juicy (how much money spent for Assange ?)

Actually there is one and only thing that can save Assange, without the risks 
of sending a military extradition team to Belmarsh.
But don't believe I will tell there :-)

Some are working in the shadows

Re: Assange

[jim bell]

 On Monday, July 20, 2020, 02:50:57 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness  
wrote:
 
 
>I laud the goal of seeing Assange released.

>But perhaps money is not going to get him out.  Even the British Queen 
>responded to the petition in relation to this, conceding it "is a political 
>matter" 

I wonder what she really meant by that!   If it is REALLY a "political matter", 
then it shouldn't have been brought in any criminal court, either US or UK.  
My understanding is that in UK law, the Queen has the power to pardon.  She 
should exercise that power immediately, and have Assange released.
              Jim Bell
  

Re: Assange

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:46:29PM +, таракан wrote:
> Anyone interested to [FUND THE] extract Assange from Jail - Mesrine + 
> Cipherpunks style
> 
> contact me on my ProtonMail Email
> 
> BTW I do not live in RUSSIA I live in DONBASS - ONLY place to FUCK the world 
> power -


Legends of the Donbass!  I pray for you.

I laud the goal of seeing Assange released.

But perhaps money is not going to get him out.  Even the British Queen 
responded to the petition in relation to this, conceding it "is a political 
matter" - in other words the DemonRats hope to "vindicate" (if you can call it 
that) Hitlery's murder of Seth Rich.  "Man, those danged Russkies^B^B I mean 
American's with conscience!"

Seth Rich, may your Soul carry on proudly, in dignity, and with the ultimate 
victory.


   CHAPPAQUA, NY—Hillary Clinton has suggested that Americans vote for
   president via email, a controversial proposal that's nonetheless gaining
   some traction on the left.

   Clinton released her proposal to have Americans send in their votes via
   email and even offered to run the server herself. She said her server
   could handle up to 30,000 emails per second, more than enough bandwidth
   to run the national election.

   
https://babylonbee.com/news/hillary-clinton-suggests-that-americans-vote-for-president-by-email

   "I would be more than happy to provide a server that could handle all the
   email votes," Clinton said. "I'd guarantee no votes sent in by email
   would be lost. They'd be safe and secure. Our security systems are to die
   for."

   Some people criticized the suggestion, saying that email is inherently
   insecure and that emails have a way of disappearing when they're
   inconvenient to Clinton's purposes. These people have not been heard from
   since.

Re: "unclean hands" -- Re: Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[таракан]

The "legal team" of Mr Assange, it is before everything a juicy business... for 
themselves...

'Law' is a parody there. A necessary comedy for that democratic circus. Well, 
they won't execute Mr Assange, they will make him slowly
and slowly die... to the extradition, then in the USA, then in a supermax, 
until the end, and he will be an example for the others who would like to 
try... just don't try...

Many things were wrong with Mr Assange, If you intend to be a spy, then you 
keep your profile a total secret, not showing and advertising yourself 
everywhere on TV.

If you intend to be a 'journalist' (and nothing really positive can be linked 
to that term) then it's a bad idea to act as a spy...

Finally, if you intend to create an 'open society' which is 'clean' and 
transparent and where everything is been known, that is exactly what the 
Soros-US-Democratic shit have promoted in Ukraine with the results of breaking 
the country in two...

If you mess with the US military secrets, expect reactions. In Russia, Assange 
would have been shot dead a long,long time ago for having done just a fraction 
of what he has done. Sometimes I think shot faster even  in 'democratic 
Ukraine', now after euromaidan.

Crimes of war are everywhere. War is awful. Regarding Donbass there are 
thousands and thousands of anonymous videos on youtube and elsewhere , similar 
to the 'Collateral Murders' which has produced by WikiLeaks... featuring 
horrible crimes , some fakes, some reals.
(and good luck to know which one are real and which one are fake)


So what do we learn from Wikileaks, that the USA are no better than the others 
'non-democratic' countries? What a lesson!

There is just a conclusion... whatever one may think of Assange, he certainly 
doesn't deserve such a horrible fate because Assange didn't kill anyone, didn't 
steal anyone and didn't intend to cause harm to anyone - even not to the US 
Government apparently... and I do believe he is probably a very naive person.

What happens to Assange will happen to many others. Once you're in their 
supermax, it is hard to escape.

Again, all this is a question of action... legal team is bullshit. Totally 
bullshit.
There are ways of making people out of jail... all depends on risks, money and 
especially motivations.

What we see is the manifestation of a hidden (and hideous) power inside the 
'democratic' countries. That power can only be fought by a group of people who 
are opposed to that power for ideological reasons. Once again, so far there are 
no ideology to unite...


--
CRYPTOANALYZER
--

Re: "unclean hands" -- Re: Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:10:18AM +, таракан wrote:
> The "legal team" of Mr Assange, it is before everything a juicy business... 
> for themselves...

It seems his lawyer is now the mother of his 2 next children.  That's why I am 
concerned she is literally "too close to home" to defend him properly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210957/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-fathered-two-children-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-lawyer.html

JA never "evaded rape charges" he personally presented himself to the Swedish 
police when asked, before he ever left that country.  Case was closed.  What 
Assange later attempted to evade was cross-jurisdictional, essentially illegal, 
extradition to the USA.

The Demon-rats are still paddling their little rat feet in the waters as their 
ship sinks, but they still hope for a November win, and until that fat lady 
sings, they are in with a chance.

Until then at the least, expect Assange to remain locked up, and expect the 
lock down to continue.

"unclean hands" -- Re: Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:18:22PM +, coderman wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:52 AM, таракан  
> wrote:
> ...
> 
> > there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in 
> > einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms 
> > if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into 
> > the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
> >
> > That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too 
> > comfortable.
> 
> this is the moral hazard of hacking: spend time violating technical 
> boundaries, it becomes too easy to apply this tactic in all areas of life.
> 
> given the overlapping set of cypherpunks and hackers, i see a similar siren 
> song at play: gird yourself for battle against governments, and find yourself 
> isolated in your all encompassing protections; alienating the very font of 
> our own humanity...
> 
> as you say, easy to cast stones from a safe distance. our turn in the 
> crucible might be next!



For someone in contact with JA's legal team, perhaps the legal application of 
"unclean hands" might be useful:

When the prosecution comes to the table with unclean hands, where does the law 
lie?

The prosecution/USA gov (and steps in the system itself):

 - attempted, quite apparently, to entrap Assange first into Sweden

 - at multiple times, in and out of court, JA has been denied his own paperwork

 - the UK Judge who was shown publicly to be with a conflict of interest, yet 
continued to preside over the case on multiple appearances

 - the evident coercion put upon Manning, of an extra year's jail after she was 
pardoned

 - all that cross jurisdictional "USA is the policeman of the world" bullshit


Perhaps others can think of more.

I am concerned that JA's defence lawyer is now WAY too close to home, and that 
she may no longer see the obvious for whatever reasons.

Even for those who so crave the "rule of law", to be "hung on the tree of the 
law" (Galations) rather than to hang by his own conscience and God alone, well, 
the law, as drudgery as it is, to be at all meaningful to anyone with half a 
conscience, must be founded in basic principles of justice at the very least, 
such as fairness and no abuse of process, the principle of "unclean hands".

e.g. so OK, the US Gov insists on "holding JA to account according to various 
strict and cross-jurisdictional applications of law" (and rather shockingly, 
public murmerings on this list that JA must contiue to do pennance, continue to 
atone for his evils and wrongs, to do more time in maxi),

but IN THAT SAME principle, the prosecution must (if justice is to be seen to 
be done), allow Julian due process, documents, the time he needs for legal 
attack against the prosecution etc - in short, the prosecution, to not be seen 
to be biased, must simultaneously prosecute itself, for all its misdeeds and 
unclean hands.


There is only one possible principle upon JA's neck which can be said to be 
moral or karmic: not "national security", not "muh state secrets", and not (it 
seems) any of the charges being brought against him (but note that I don't know 
the list of charges, and the US prosecution seems to be ambushing in various 
ways with new charges over time).

Re: Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[coderman]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:52 AM, таракан  
wrote:
...

> there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in 
> einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms 
> if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into 
> the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
>
> That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too 
> comfortable.

this is the moral hazard of hacking: spend time violating technical boundaries, 
it becomes too easy to apply this tactic in all areas of life.

given the overlapping set of cypherpunks and hackers, i see a similar siren 
song at play: gird yourself for battle against governments, and find yourself 
isolated in your all encompassing protections; alienating the very font of our 
own humanity...

as you say, easy to cast stones from a safe distance. our turn in the crucible 
might be next!

best regards,

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[Mirimir]

On 07/01/2020 02:19 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700
> Mirimir  wrote:
> 
>> On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +
> 
>>>
>>> certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government 
>>> criminals for instance. 
>>
>> Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends
>> on whose ox is getting gored.
> 
>   I can rephrase and avoid moral terms : 
> 
>   if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't 
> then object when they are treated in the same way. 

Exactly :)

>>> take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's 
>>> hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they 
>>> deserve to be. 
>>
>> I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
> 
>   well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and 
> pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...

Sure, if "pay" includes death ;)

>> As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over
>> others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at
>> best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a
>> prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally
>> inevitable without public oversight.
>>
> 
>   Agreed. No privacy for government agents seems fair to me. If they 
> don't like it, they can get a honest job.

Right :)

But "government" is also ambiguous. I mean, I live on an old farm with
several hundred others, with sociocratic governance.

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:54:00AM +, таракан wrote:
> 
> > As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over
> > others.
> 
> It's a dangerous view... so unless you're totally inoffensive, you have no 
> right to privacy ?
> 
> Actual system think also about the same ...
> 
> 
> > So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at
> > best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a
> > prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally
> > inevitable without public oversight.
> 
> Governments are not necessary at all if we consider a population where *each 
> individual* can self-govern itself. So far you can't get x people, make them 
> live together without conflicts, hate, jealousy, conspiracy etc... it's human 
> nature.
> 
> Here the point I think would be more to protect oneself to be spied by 
> governments rather than to spy on governments.
> 
> To be able to live - simply to live in freedom - without tracking, 
> constraints, control, monitoring (not only from Gov but also from other 
> people acting as if they were the Government)  is a terrible challenge 
> nowadays. No need to go and try to hack the secrets of corporations.(which 
> BTW have not so big secrets ...)
> 
> Possibly a new form of resistance will be to try to simply ... live in a 
> world shaped by global video-monitoring, paranoia, fear, controls, distrust, 
> etc...
> 
> Live without having to wear masks to get food or money. Live without having 
> to make selfie of your ass to get a phone number. Life without the fear to 
> get video-monitored by the iPhones of people in secret. Life without having 
> to show your ID at anytime to anyone dressed in something looking as a 
> uniform with insignia.
> 
> Yet it is claimed that a society without control would result in a large 
> criminal world where several mafias would rule and you would fear to get 
> wounded or killed at any corner of the street.
> 
> But 'Mafia' is also and before all a 'society' of control. Their controls are 
> far more cruel than anyone can imagine.
> 
> All this isn't new, the "game changer" is technology which provide evil 
> governments the way to make the planet as a giant 'supermax'.
> 
> 
> Once again, this is probably where Cypherpunks, or others who still may have 
> to come, may have a role to play as well... because this is all about 
> technology (and the science behind)... one can fight against technology of 
> controls (gps/sim/ai/pki/...)  only by using an equivalent - if not superior 
> - technology in order to defat these technologies of control.


Defeating the authority/ power/ control of another, even the very concept, 
gives some implicit, even explicit, recognition and engagement of that other, 
involvement in bringing closer to my heart it's evil.

Try as I might, the paradox dominates me, smashing the fabric of thought itself 
no the rocks of apparent certainty...

It is not fighting and defeating we must seek - in fact the opposite since 
defeating includes "may be being defeated", so this is tacit (or worse) consent 
to the war, is it not personal involvement, recognition , and wringing every 
ounce of life out of this war, so "real" there is no other life ... then  ..  
no life  ???

This thinking we have is entrained over millenia - we must instead ditch 
"drone" thinking.  Push against wall makes wall heavy, ignore wall it does not 
have so much existence in my consciousness.

Application of this principle is the riddle in a rhyme in a conundrum of 
uncertainty but hope for an alternative to this war..

If "to fight" begats war, we must not fight, at least not for "to fight the 
good fight" alone in that there we die .. fruitless.  But what then?

Plug holes in bucket? create loopholes for a few?  Wherefore what for ought we 
do?

Tis evidently not so easy to know what to do?

Is it a secret?

Perhaps yes -and- no.

Can our entrained, enschooled, ensheepled think, be a primary barrier to our 
living in freedom?

Is "MY mind" the ultimate virus?

Is it "I"?

What clouds my mind so, that I struggle so, to think outside the box, the war, 
the ever present evil in "others" "out there", ever never blame within?

Johnathan briefly shook in fear as he contemplated the unending unfathomables, 
sinking once more into his trancelike apoplexy as he again held the table for 
it's feigned succour of external support - yet a physical, so temporary 
illusion of solidity which immediately began slipping again from his awareness 
and reality.

...

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[таракан]

> As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over
> others.

It's a dangerous view... so unless you're totally inoffensive, you have no 
right to privacy ?

Actual system think also about the same ...


> So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at
> best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a
> prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally
> inevitable without public oversight.

Governments are not necessary at all if we consider a population where *each 
individual* can self-govern itself. So far you can't get x people, make them 
live together without conflicts, hate, jealousy, conspiracy etc... it's human 
nature.

Here the point I think would be more to protect oneself to be spied by 
governments rather than to spy on governments.

To be able to live - simply to live in freedom - without tracking, constraints, 
control, monitoring (not only from Gov but also from other people acting as if 
they were the Government)  is a terrible challenge nowadays. No need to go and 
try to hack the secrets of corporations.(which BTW have not so big secrets ...)

Possibly a new form of resistance will be to try to simply ... live in a world 
shaped by global video-monitoring, paranoia, fear, controls, distrust, etc...

Live without having to wear masks to get food or money. Live without having to 
make selfie of your ass to get a phone number. Life without the fear to get 
video-monitored by the iPhones of people in secret. Life without having to show 
your ID at anytime to anyone dressed in something looking as a uniform with 
insignia.

Yet it is claimed that a society without control would result in a large 
criminal world where several mafias would rule and you would fear to get 
wounded or killed at any corner of the street.

But 'Mafia' is also and before all a 'society' of control. Their controls are 
far more cruel than anyone can imagine.

All this isn't new, the "game changer" is technology which provide evil 
governments the way to make the planet as a giant 'supermax'.


Once again, this is probably where Cypherpunks, or others who still may have to 
come, may have a role to play as well... because this is all about technology 
(and the science behind)... one can fight against technology of controls 
(gps/sim/ai/pki/...)  only by using an equivalent - if not superior - 
technology in order to defat these technologies of control.

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[Mirimir]

On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +
> таракан  wrote:
> 
>> Assange is probably the most interesting subject in terms of Cypherpunk 
>> movement.
>>
>> The paradox of Assange. While Cypherpunks are advocating privacy for the 
>> "ordinary people" (e.g. the John Does), Assange denied the right to
>> Governments to have as well privacy. This may look as a joke that 
>> governments should have as well privacy 
> 
> 
> 
>   certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government 
> criminals for instance. 

Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends
on whose ox is getting gored.

>> and not been open (and 'opened') but when you think about it,
>> there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einen 
>> Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein' , in other terms if 
>> you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the 
>> abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
>>
>> That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too 
>> comfortable.
> 
> 
>   take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's 
> hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they 
> deserve to be. 

I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)

As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over
others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at
best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a
prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally
inevitable without public oversight.

Re: Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[таракан]

Assange is probably the most interesting subject in terms of Cypherpunk 
movement.

The paradox of Assange. While Cypherpunks are advocating privacy for the 
"ordinary people" (e.g. the John Does), Assange denied the right to
Governments to have as well privacy. This may look as a joke that governments 
should have as well privacy and not been open (and 'opened') but when you think 
about it,
there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in 
einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms if 
you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the 
abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.

That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too 
comfortable.

> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:51 AM, Digitalfolklore 
>  wrote:
>
>> Sabu posted a pic...made a bet with Jester...he also posted a blockchain 
>> address...
>>
>> see if thats around...Sabus twitter was cloned...take the S out of 
>> anonymous...add Sabu and you';ll have the clone.
>>
>> Also important to remember Biella Coleman met with Sabu more than once.
>> I 'll leave that for you to work out.
>>
>> It is important to remember when your family are heroin dealers and you're 
>> the only family member not in jail...you will do anything to save the 
>> children...Sabu was in the wrong poke at the wrong time. He should have been 
>> more careful...ever notice that lovely iMac in pics?
>> There were other suspect accounts...wikileaks called out AnonIRC
>>
>> Sabu was known in the local area as a home panel beater...he made videos on 
>> YT showing how to fix bent fendershe 'was' well known in the area.
>> VH
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Friday, 26 June 2020 7:52 AM, coderman  wrote:
>>
>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:50 PM, coderman  
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
 it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI 
 NatSec "hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.
>>>
>>> to be clear: Sabu didn't help write the hacks, only told them where to 
>>> point. Sabu more script kiddie than exploit dev...
>>>
>>> best regards,

Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[coderman]

list may know of a copy, somewhere? :P

not arguing against the life destroying pressure. but no sympathy for smug fuck 
you after the fact...

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:51 AM, Digitalfolklore 
 wrote:

> Sabu posted a pic...made a bet with Jester...he also posted a blockchain 
> address...
>
> see if thats around...Sabus twitter was cloned...take the S out of 
> anonymous...add Sabu and you';ll have the clone.
>
> Also important to remember Biella Coleman met with Sabu more than once.
> I 'll leave that for you to work out.
>
> It is important to remember when your family are heroin dealers and you're 
> the only family member not in jail...you will do anything to save the 
> children...Sabu was in the wrong poke at the wrong time. He should have been 
> more careful...ever notice that lovely iMac in pics?
> There were other suspect accounts...wikileaks called out AnonIRC
>
> Sabu was known in the local area as a home panel beater...he made videos on 
> YT showing how to fix bent fendershe 'was' well known in the area.
> VH
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, 26 June 2020 7:52 AM, coderman  wrote:
>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:50 PM, coderman  wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI 
>>> NatSec "hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.
>>
>> to be clear: Sabu didn't help write the hacks, only told them where to 
>> point. Sabu more script kiddie than exploit dev...
>>
>> best regards,

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[coderman]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:50 PM, coderman  wrote:
...

> it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI 
> NatSec "hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.

to be clear: Sabu didn't help write the hacks, only told them where to point. 
Sabu more script kiddie than exploit dev...

best regards,

Re: Assange Superseding Indictment

[coderman]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:44 AM, John Young  wrote:

> "LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI)"
>
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment...
> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system 
> of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of 
> the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and 
> provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, 
> Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail 
> and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the 
> LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be 
> from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published 
> emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence 
> consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According 
> to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company 
> again.

it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI NatSec 
"hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.

at first i thought this was just widely targeted, but they had to code a 
blacklist over the course of two days at con. (how do I know this? their kit 
had bugs, like any software, and denial of service meant DRT crash and 
unobstructed egress ... for a little while :)

best regards,

Re: Assange Rips the Matrix -- Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange

[John Young]

Assange is a fine essayist, Articulate. Courageous. Humorous. 
WikiLeaks is a superb source. Not like this hyperbolic excreta.


At 08:23 AM 3/1/2020, you wrote:
This is a heartfelt message, but always remember your own authority 
and power/ability to act and speak in this world.



  Assange Rips the Matrix
  by Finian Cunningham


https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202002281078430608-assange-rips-the-matrix/

Re: Assange Hearing

[jim bell]

USA v Julian Assange Extradition Hearing

When:

Part 1: 24th February -28th February
Part 2: 18th May – 5th June

Where:

Woolwich Crown Court/Belmarsh Magistrate’s Court, which is adjacent to HMP 
Belmarsh (See travel advice)

Magistrate:

Vanessa Baraitser

Defence team:

Solicitor Gareth Peirce (Birnberg, Peirce & Partners); lead Barristers Edward 
Fitzgerald QC, Doughty Street Chambers, Mark Summers QC, Matrix Chambers


Great compilation of information, arguments, and sources follows:

https://defend.wikileaks.org/2020/02/23/usa-v-julian-assange-extradition-hearing/

"It is the first time the 1917 Espionage Act has been used to indict a 
publisher or journalist. Press Freedom organisations have emphasised that the 
indictment criminalizes normal newsgathering behaviour. The indictment applies 
the Espionage Act extraterritorially. Assange was publishing from the United 
Kingdom in partnership with UK media and other European and US press. The 
indictment opens the door for other journalists involved in the 2010 
publications to be prosecuted. The USA will make the extraordinary claim that 
foreigners are not entitled to constitutional protections, so Julian Assange 
cannot benefit from the First Amendment."             [end of partial quote]
Jim Bell's comments follow:See this statement, from above:
"The USA will make the extraordinary claim that foreigners are not entitled to 
constitutional protections, so Julian Assange cannot benefit from the First 
Amendment.":

This statement is nuts.  The First Amendment says, in relevant part:
  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment does not limit its scope of protection to a specific 
region.  It states, instead, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the 
freedom of speech, or of the press..."   It doesn't matter where that "speech" 
occurs, or "the press" happens, Congress is simply prohibited from making any 
law about it, whether it covers "America", or anywhere in the rest of the 
world.  

                       Jim Bell







 

 
 On Monday, February 24, 2020, 01:02:02 AM PST, jim bell  
wrote: 

Britain starts hearing US case for extraditing Assange
https://news.yahoo.com/britain-starts-hearing-us-case-extraditing-assange-042453947.html

Re: front running Sedition - Iran war - Re: how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[Zig the N.g]

Re sedition, remember also the Bad Quaker Field Manual, which you
should not READ AND SHARE WIDELY (wl;dr, I have't read it, so pot
luck on not READING AND SHARING IT WIDELY)!:

  https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-January/041151.html
  http://www.badquaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FieldManualNo1.pdf


Sedition essentially already on the books in Virginia, and VA pollys
steamrolling new bills to further criminalize "hate" speech against
themselves:

  
  Are Virginia Politicians Really So Fragile They'd Pass A Bill
  Making It Illegal To Criticize Them?
  
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/are-virginia-politicians-really-so-fragile-theyd-pass-bill-making-it-illegal-criticize
  https://www.theorganicprepper.com/virginia-politicians-illegal-to-criticize/

...
Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes
criticism of certain government officials. The summary of HB1627,
proposed by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne, reads:

Threats and harassment of certain officials and property;
venue. Provides that certain crimes relating to threats and
harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the
victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor,
Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney
General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly,
a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the
Court of Appeals of Virginia. In addition, threats to damage
property may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the
property is owned by the Commonwealth and located in the
Capitol District. (source)

...
What constitutes a threat or harassment?

  ... The bar for harassment is already as low as “vulgar
  language” in Virginia’s code 18.2-152.7:1:

  If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass
  any person, shall use a computer or computer network to
  communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or
  indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an
  obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he
  shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

...


'Member, muh gritties, always front-run sedition and hate speech :D

Example tweets to keep you safe and out of the VA gov'na's criminal
sedition cross hairs:


  - Y'all don't MARCH ON THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING 10AM TOMORROW,
WITH ARMS, AND LEGS now, yo?

  - Do NOT tar and feather the VA gov'na :)
(Is tarring and feathering illegal or immoral anyway?)

  - Not one of the VA assembly are BLOOD SUCKING J.W WORSHIPPING
PARASITES!

  - Folks, be sure ya dont JOIN THE VA PROTEST THIS SATURDAY :D

  - Please, NEVER say that "VA pollys are scared firetruckn shirts!"

  - I for one, welcome the VA assembly to be summarily rounded up
by the citizen's' malitious, and dumped in the gulag - with beer
for partay, YEAH!
Seriously now, do not JOIN THE MILITIA TO UPHOLD THE 1ST AND
2ND AMENDMENTS!



Do NOT keep "pump the jam" or "gettin jiggy wid it" in your head as
you NOT forward train those in desparate need of front running
sedition.

Naughty, naughty muffas!



> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:35:30PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social
> > media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored,
> > the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order
> > to be "not censored".
> > 
> > 
> > The effect of this feedback loop is two fold:
> > 
> >  1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become
> > simpler, and fact based.
> > 
> >  2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to
> > suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements,
> > and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact.
> > 
> > 
> > So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end
> > game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our
> > statements, and by stating simple facts.
> > 
> > We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially
> > when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions,
> > opinions and facts.
> > 
> > 
> > Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts:
> > 
> >   - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty?
> > 
> > 
> >   - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent?
> > 
> > 
> >   - Is it OK to be anti-semitic?
> > 
> > 
> >   - Is it OK to be White?
> > 
> > 
> >   - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support
> > an American "European heritage" ethnostate?
> > 
> > etc.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >   A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak
> > >   Truth To Power
> > >   
> > > 

Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]

[Razer]

On 1/24/20 1:37 PM, John Young wrote:
> US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its
> territories. Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified
> by treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite
> a few. Most of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider
> demands and quite a few do so.
>
> Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and
> have the military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for
> this, a few angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine
> sniper take a shot. Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and
> get offcially murdered for it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones
> option to mass suicide yourselves.
>
> Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to
> whack or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work.
>
> At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote:
>> "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's
>> first amendment, anywhere in the world.
>
> Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially
> trained to do.
>
> [Clip balance.]
>

Judge Dundy's decision in Standing Bear v (General) Crook which was
never overturned or even appealed. Judge Dundy stated, paraphrased,
anywhere the US flag flies constitutional rights apply... for instance
Gitmo. Ask the Dod and State department if they give one flying fuck
what any court decision that opposes their requirements is worth to them.

https://casetext.com/case/us-ex-rel-standing-bear-v-crook

https://www.americanheritage.com/standing-bear-goes-court

Rr




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 04:37:28PM -0500, John Young wrote:
> US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its
> territories.

That's true from a specific perspective - the courts of the USA -
although when jurisprudence is understood, the common law (not
"common law as judicial precedent", a destitute construction if ever
there were one) is valid in all legal/court jurisdictions.

 - when that common law (e.g. right to freedom of speech) is claimed
   by a defendant in that court,
 - and that court fails to uphold the common law (variant/ natural
   law etc),

such a court gives up:

  - it's moral authority to execute judgment over the defendant

  - it's jurisprudential authority pursuant to the common law (being
"those laws of the tribe/community to settle wrongs, since time
immemorial")

  - it's standing in the eyes of the people

  - it's righteous authority purusant to right and wrong, good and
evil, $DEITY, etc.


So the "validity" argument (of a constitution, amendment, law, etc)
is always confined to circumstances, an empire wielding impressive
military force for example - where such force, absent moral
authority, can never morally justify its evil actions, and in the
execution of such evil, immediately and inherently manifests its
illegitimacy.

Whereas, the fundamental human right remains, regardless of whether
or not it is written in a law, a constitution, an amendment or a
treaty etc.

Each of us is always with the right and capacity (at least, if you
have functional vocal chords) to claim, in words, any and all of our
fundamental human rights - those natural rights which are inherent to
our very existence.

No -legitimate- court can deny such fundamental natural rights.

Every court which fails to uphold any such fundamental natural human
right, gives up its legitimacy and gives up any "righteous authority"
it holds over the defendant.


You may not win your case, but you must claim your right to establish
your moral victory over the bully, the coward, the empire.

In that moment that an authority demanding you defend yourself from
an evil accusation against you, fails to uphold a fundamental right,
that authority has in that moment, demonstrated its own invalidity.

There can be no valid law, no valid court, no valid authority, which
fails to uphold a basic human right.

You see we speak of "validity" - and I've done so myself in the past
- in the context in which the empire has foisted this construct upon
us, namely, upholding the deception of the purported primacy of
statute law, and the purported primacy of the empire/court's'
interpretation of the words in the constitution/ amendments etc.

   ---   ---   ---   ---
The obnoxious construct of the "validity" of a law is this:

  - a law (/amendment /constitutional clause etc) is "valid" if it
has been validly passed by parliament according to the
parliament's self decided rules

  - "validity" is confined to strict and limited definitions as
decided upon by the empire

  - a court must uphold "valid" laws

  - "valid" laws are supreme, above all human rights, above all
questions of good and of evil

  - the only relevant question for a court to decide, is the
"validity" of the "law" at issue

We accept this obnoxious jurisprudence to our detriment.
   ---   ---   ---   ---



  Notwithstanding possible negative outcomes, we MUST claim
  our basic natural human rights, we must claim righteousness,
  that which is good and true,
  and we must decry that which is unrighteous, bad and evil.

  If not I, then who?




(By the way, I am very grateful to you and various others on this
list who have named various authors of great utility for the reading,
which of course help to educate myself and others, and have helped to
form and distil certain of these basic concepts of right and wrong,
good and evil.)



> Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified by
> treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite a few. Most
> of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider demands and quite a
> few do so.
> 
> Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and have the
> military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for this, a few
> angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine sniper take a shot.
> Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and get offcially murdered for
> it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones option to mass suicide yourselves.
> 
> Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to whack
> or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work.
> 
> At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote:
> > "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's
> > first amendment, anywhere in the world.
> 
> Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially trained
> to do.
> 
> [Clip balance.]
> 
> 

Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]

[John Young]

US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its 
territories. Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be 
modified by treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there 
are quite a few. Most of those agreements reserve the right to ignore 
outsider demands and quite a few do so.


Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and 
have the military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die 
for this, a few angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran 
Marine sniper take a shot. Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste 
citizens and get offcially murdered for it. Then, there are the Waco 
and Jim Jones option to mass suicide yourselves.


Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined 
to whack or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work.


At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote:

"Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's
first amendment, anywhere in the world.


Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially 
trained to do.


[Clip balance.] 

USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]

[Zenaan Harkness]

"Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's
first amendment, anywhere in the world.

   “We have now learned from submissions and affidavits
presented by the United States to this court that they do not
consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment
protection,” Hrafnsson said.

   “Now let that sink in for a second,” Hrafnsson continued.

   “At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists
all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach,
they have decided that all foreign journalists which include many
of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the
United States. So that goes to show the gravity of this case.
This is not about Julian Assange, it’s about press freedom.”

  "It's about press freedom" Wikileaks editor explains
  foreign journalists have no 1st amd protections
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwK1tPdaHkY




  WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn't
  Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case
  
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikileaks-editor-us-saying-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-foreigners-assange-case
  
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/01/23/wikileaks-editor-us-is-saying-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-foreigners-in-assange-case/

...
Hrafnsson’s very newsworthy claim has as of this writing received
no mainstream news media coverage at all. The video above is from
independent reporter Gordon Dimmack.
https://gordondimmack.com/

This prosecutorial strategy would be very much in alignment with
remarks made in 2017 by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

“Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting
in an embassy in London. He’s not a U.S. citizen,” Pompeo
told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-national-security-cia-director-mike-pompeo

That, like nearly every sound which emits from Pompeo’s amorphous
face, was a lie. The First Amendment is not a set of special free
speech privileges that the US government magnanimously bestows
upon a few select individuals, it’s a limitation placed upon the
US government’s ability to restrict rights that all persons
everywhere are assumed to have.

This is like a sex offender who’s barred from living within 500
yards of a school claiming that the school he moved in next to is
exempt because it’s full of immigrants who therefore aren’t
protected by his restriction. It’s a restriction placed on the
government, not a right that is given to certain people.

Attorney and Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob
Hornberger explained after Pompeo’s remarks, “As Jefferson points
out, everyone, not just American citizens, is endowed with these
natural, God-given rights, including life, freedom, and the
pursuit of happiness. That includes people who are citizens of
other countries. Citizenship has nothing to do rights that are
vested in everyone by nature and God. At the risk of belaboring
the obvious, that includes Julian Assange.”

https://www.fff.org/2017/04/27/cia-director-pompeo-doesnt-understand-first-amendment/

...
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is himself now being legally
persecuted by the same empire as Assange under an indictment
which Hrafnsson in the aforementioned statement called “almost a
carbon copy of the indictment against Julian Assange”, also
denounced Pompeo’s 2017 remarks.
https://youtu.be/YwK1tPdaHkY?t=60

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-empires-war-on-oppositional-journalism-continues-to-escalate-5dc6bf3b1331

“The notion that WikiLeaks has no free press rights because
Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous,”
Greenwald wrote at the time.

“When I worked at the Guardian, my editors were all
non-Americans. Would it therefore have been constitutionally
permissible for the U.S. Government to shut down that paper
and imprison its editors on the ground that they enjoy no
constitutional protections? Obviously not.”

Greenwald, who is a former litigation attorney, referenced a
Salon article he’d written in 2010 skillfully outlining why
Senator Susan Collins’ attempts to spin constitutional rights as
inapplicable to foreigners would be outlandish, insane, illegal
and unconstitutional to put into practice.
https://www.salon.com/control/2010/02/01/collins_5/

“To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only
applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the
Bill of Rights,” Greenwald argued in 2010. “It says nothing about
‘citizens.’  To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply
restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (‘Congress
shall make no law respecting an 

front running Sedition - Iran war - Re: how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[Zigga da Bigga Trigga N.gga]

If a hot war between Iran and Israel/USA gets going,

  Karma's a bitch, yo!
  
http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ukrainian-passenger-jet-crashes-over-iran-176-dead/


ya might wanna literally be ahead of the sedition curve:

  If War is to Begin, You’re Going to Want to Not Commit Sedition
  
http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/if-war-is-to-begin-youre-going-to-want-to-not-commit-sedition/

...
In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime.

Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to
jail for anti-war protests since the World Wars, but a war with
Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in since
World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to
it, so it is probable that there will be actions done to chill
speech by making examples of people who protest the war too hard.

Basically, what you don’t want to do is get in a situation where
you’re openly supporting Iran over the United States. This would
include actively celebrating the deaths of American soldiers, and
might even include saying things like “I hope Iran wins.”

People who are putting up Iranian flags in their profiles on
Twitter are probably simply trying to say “I’m against the war,”
but as soon as this turns into an actual war, such individuals
will be subject to potential harassment by the state on grounds
of “sedition.”

It’s not something that is worth getting done up over, so
probably err on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with
these things, and do more blaming of the Jewish aggressors than
praising of the Iranian victims of this aggression.

There’s no way to know how serious censorship and prosecution of
dissent is going to get when the war breaks out, but there’s good
reason to believe that before leftists/communists and even before
Moslems themselves, it will be right-wingers getting harassed
over resistance to the war.
...



Soap, vat -can- we say?

  - Gee it's just as well Israel is not alone in their war against
Iran.

  - If only the Federal Reserve Bank, BIS, WMF, World Bank etc, had
another M.E. war to keep the US dollar afloat for a few more
months - so sad.

  - It's just so fortunate that opposing Israeli Middle Eastern wars
is not legal criminal sedition.

  - Why are we bombing Iran when they've got so much oil - isn't Iran
next to Hawaii?

  - If only Trump had campaigned on a platform of ending endless wars
and draining the swamp - so sad!

  - Just as well North America doesn't need another war to prop up
the US dollar.

  - If only folks opposed more American, I mean Israeli, wars.


Troll on muffaluggerahs :D



On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:35:30PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social
> media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored,
> the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order
> to be "not censored".
> 
> 
> The effect of this feedback loop is two fold:
> 
>  1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become
> simpler, and fact based.
> 
>  2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to
> suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements,
> and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact.
> 
> 
> So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end
> game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our
> statements, and by stating simple facts.
> 
> We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially
> when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions,
> opinions and facts.
> 
> 
> Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts:
> 
>   - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty?
> 
> 
>   - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent?
> 
> 
>   - Is it OK to be anti-semitic?
> 
> 
>   - Is it OK to be White?
> 
> 
>   - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support
> an American "European heritage" ethnostate?
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >   A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak
> >   Truth To Power
> >   
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-who-speak-truth-power
> >   
> > https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/a_new_kind_of_tyranny_the_global_states_war_on_those_who_speak_truth_to_power
> > 
> > “What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant
> > to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence.
> > By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights.
> > Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind
> > of tyranny.
> > The choice is ours.”
> > - John Pilger, investigative journalist
> > 

Re: Assange persecuted by Judge Arbuthnot with her p rima facie conflict of interest, refuses to recuse herself - - Re: Galloway …has campaigned tirelessly for Assange’s freedom - [PEACE]

[Razer]

On 1/6/20 1:31 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:12:36 -0500
> John Young  wrote:
>
>> First I've heard of the armed agents in the courtroom. However, some 
>> of the Assange fans have made threatening statements, and I haven't 
>> heard of Assange asking to not do that.
>   
>   well, he has been jailed by your nazi government. Unless you share a 
> cell with assange, how are you planning to hear anything from him?
>
>
>> Assange fans have made threatening statements
>   and by the way, what's wrong with that, exacly? 
>
>
>
>
>>> I wonder if the judge refusing to recuse herself has anything to do 
>>> with the two agents, allegedly carrying automatic weapons illegally 
>>> in the courtroom, addressing her while closely standing before her bench.
>
>   lolwut - she just a corrupt to the core cunt and loyal govcorp agent. 
> And a great example of the achievments of 'poor oppressed womynz' 
>
I feel like I'm explaining how to take a shit to a child here.

I was recently ejected forcibly from a local courtroom by two rather
large and heavily armed bailiffs for 'illegally' taking a pic of a local
reporter taking a pic of court proceedings. I was told the local
reporter was 'authorized' (process unexplained) to take pictures and I
was not.

Ditto weapons in the courtroom. They OWN the courtroom and can arm
whomever the fuck they want.

Rr




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Assange persecuted by Judge Arbuthnot with her p rima facie conflict of interest, refuses to recuse herself - - Re: Galloway has campaigned tirelessly for Assange’s freedom - [PEACE]

[John Young]

First I've heard of the armed agents in the courtroom. However, some 
of the Assange fans have made threatening statements, and I haven't 
heard of Assange asking to not do that. In that sense, he reminds of 
45's firing up his base but not asking for calm. Instigators do do 
that so they cannot be charged with incitement. Govs and TLAs most 
guilty of it but so too the ego-driven - call them narcissistic cowards.


To be sure, Assange is not nearly as mean-spirited as his associates 
who have latched onto him as an escape from insignificance.


Looking forward to a full-bore Assange international trial of 
spectacular entertainment.


Lively alternative: https://ddosecrets.com/






At 03:30 PM 1/6/2020, you wrote:
I wonder if the judge refusing to recuse herself has anything to do 
with the two agents, allegedly carrying automatic weapons illegally 
in the courtroom, addressing her while closely standing before her bench.

Re: Assange persecuted by Judge Arbuthnot with her prima facie conflict of interest, refuses to recuse herself -- Re: Galloway …has campaigned tirelessly for Assange’s freedom - [PEACE]

[Steven Schear]

I wonder if the judge refusing to recuse herself has anything to do with
the two agents, allegedly carrying automatic weapons illegally in the
courtroom, addressing her while closely standing before her bench.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 2:20 PM Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> An open request to the Queen of England and Great Britain:
>
>   If you, our Queen of England and Great Britain and its dominions,
>   have any power left within your authority as Queen, please do
>   exercise such power as is required to right this great injustice
>   summarized below, this blight of such clear and self evident
>   conflicts of interest and of injustice under the auspices of your
>   authority, exercised against Julian Assange.
>
>   Humbly,
>   Those who seek the upholding of justice and righteousness in this,
>   our shared world
>
>
> … This statement by [Judge Emma Arbuthnot] captures the
> Alice-in-Wonderland quality of the judicial persecution of Assange.
> She dismisses as unreasonable Assange’s fears that if he voluntarily
> left the Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested by British police
> and extradited to the United States because he did not appear in
> court to express them. And yet, [Judge Emma Arbuthnot] is now
> presiding over [Julian Assange's] extradition trial. …
>
>
>
> The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-22/coming-show-trial-julian-assange
>
>   Authored by Chris Hedges via Truthdig,
>
> https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-show-trial-of-julian-assange/
>
>   ...
>   The judge, Emma Arbuthnot, cut him off, saying “this is not the
>   time to go into this.”
>
>   Commenting in 2018 when Assange’s lawyers requested that the
>   warrant for his arrest be dropped, Arbuthnot said, “I accept that
>   Mr. Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United
>   States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition
>   proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr. Assange on oath, I do
>   not find that Mr. Assange’s fears were reasonable,”
>
>   This statement by the judge captures the Alice-in-Wonderland
>   quality of the judicial persecution of Assange. She dismisses as
>   unreasonable Assange’s fears that if he voluntarily left the
>   Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested by British police and
>   extradited to the United States because he did not appear in court
>   to express them. And yet, she is now presiding over his extradition
>   trial.
>
>   This circular logic is not the only disturbing aspect of Judge
>   Arbuthnot’s overseeing of the Assange case. She is married to James
>   Arbuthnot, who sits in the House of Lords, is a British
>   Conservative Party politician, was the minister of state at the
>   Ministry of Defense and for nine years was the chairman of the
>   Defense Select Committee in the House of Commons, a committee that
>   oversees the operation of the Ministry of Defense and the armed
>   forces. Arbuthnot, who was reprimanded while a member of Parliament
>   for diverting public funds to maintain his two homes, is a director
>   at SC Strategy, established by John Scarlett, the former head of
>   the British foreign intelligence service MI6. The politician also
>   is on the advisory board of Thales UK, a huge arms manufacturer
>   whose corrupt business practices, which included massive bribes to
>   heads of state in exchange for arms contracts, were exposed when
>   some of its internal documents were published by WikiLeaks.
>
>   The judge “has a strong conflict of interest,” Melzer said from
>   Vienna when I interviewed him by video link for my television show,
>   “On Contact.” “Her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks.”
>
>   Assange’s lawyers have asked the judge to recuse herself. She has
>   refused.
>   ...
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:54:58PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >   Extradition order to send Assange to US poses existential threat
> >   to all truth seekers – Galloway
> >   https://www.rt.com/news/461759-assange-galloway-extradition-uk-us/
> >
> > Julian Assange’s extradition to the US would be a deathblow for
> > all truth seekers, George Galloway told RT, warning that anyone
> > who fails to support Assange will one day share the same fate as
> > the persecuted Wikileaks co-founder.
> >
> > Britain’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid revealed on Thursday that
> > he had signed a request for the extradition of Assange to the
> > US, where he is accused of violating the Espionage Act. The
> > order will go before the UK courts on Friday.
> >
> > Galloway, a former MP who has campaigned tirelessly for
> > Assange’s freedom, quipped that the “dark” episode shows that
> > Theresa May’s “zombie” government was “not content with all the
> > other disasters for which it’s responsible.”
> >
> > He insisted that Assange’s supporters would “never give up” the
> > fight to stop his extradition to the US and secure his safe
> > release 

Re: Assange persecuted by Judge Arbuthnot with her prima facie conflict of interest, refuses to recuse herself -- Re: Galloway …has campaigned tirelessly for Assange’s freedom - [PEACE]

[Zenaan Harkness]

Assange in limbo still.

To cheer us up, George Galloway in reasonably audible, and even
subtitled, English :)

  George Galloway _ Another 5 years of majority Tory govt led by BoJo
  not going to be nice to look at
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EorWLykgxo
  ~1:27

"The Russians are coming!"
...



On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:19:25PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> An open request to the Queen of England and Great Britain:
> 
>   If you, our Queen of England and Great Britain and its dominions,
>   have any power left within your authority as Queen, please do
>   exercise such power as is required to right this great injustice
>   summarized below, this blight of such clear and self evident
>   conflicts of interest and of injustice under the auspices of your
>   authority, exercised against Julian Assange.
> 
>   Humbly,
>   Those who seek the upholding of justice and righteousness in this,
>   our shared world
> 
> 
> … This statement by [Judge Emma Arbuthnot] captures the
> Alice-in-Wonderland quality of the judicial persecution of Assange.
> She dismisses as unreasonable Assange’s fears that if he voluntarily
> left the Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested by British police
> and extradited to the United States because he did not appear in
> court to express them. And yet, [Judge Emma Arbuthnot] is now
> presiding over [Julian Assange's] extradition trial. …
> 
> 
> 
> The Coming Show Trial Of Julian Assange
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-22/coming-show-trial-julian-assange
> 
>   Authored by Chris Hedges via Truthdig,
>   https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-show-trial-of-julian-assange/
> 
>   ...
>   The judge, Emma Arbuthnot, cut him off, saying “this is not the
>   time to go into this.”
> 
>   Commenting in 2018 when Assange’s lawyers requested that the
>   warrant for his arrest be dropped, Arbuthnot said, “I accept that
>   Mr. Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United
>   States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition
>   proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr. Assange on oath, I do
>   not find that Mr. Assange’s fears were reasonable,”
> 
>   This statement by the judge captures the Alice-in-Wonderland
>   quality of the judicial persecution of Assange. She dismisses as
>   unreasonable Assange’s fears that if he voluntarily left the
>   Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested by British police and
>   extradited to the United States because he did not appear in court
>   to express them. And yet, she is now presiding over his extradition
>   trial.
> 
>   This circular logic is not the only disturbing aspect of Judge
>   Arbuthnot’s overseeing of the Assange case. She is married to James
>   Arbuthnot, who sits in the House of Lords, is a British
>   Conservative Party politician, was the minister of state at the
>   Ministry of Defense and for nine years was the chairman of the
>   Defense Select Committee in the House of Commons, a committee that
>   oversees the operation of the Ministry of Defense and the armed
>   forces. Arbuthnot, who was reprimanded while a member of Parliament
>   for diverting public funds to maintain his two homes, is a director
>   at SC Strategy, established by John Scarlett, the former head of
>   the British foreign intelligence service MI6. The politician also
>   is on the advisory board of Thales UK, a huge arms manufacturer
>   whose corrupt business practices, which included massive bribes to
>   heads of state in exchange for arms contracts, were exposed when
>   some of its internal documents were published by WikiLeaks.
> 
>   The judge “has a strong conflict of interest,” Melzer said from
>   Vienna when I interviewed him by video link for my television show,
>   “On Contact.” “Her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks.”
> 
>   Assange’s lawyers have asked the judge to recuse herself. She has
>   refused.
>   ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:54:58PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >   Extradition order to send Assange to US poses existential threat
> >   to all truth seekers – Galloway
> >   https://www.rt.com/news/461759-assange-galloway-extradition-uk-us/
> > 
> > Julian Assange’s extradition to the US would be a deathblow for
> > all truth seekers, George Galloway told RT, warning that anyone
> > who fails to support Assange will one day share the same fate as
> > the persecuted Wikileaks co-founder.
> > 
> > Britain’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid revealed on Thursday that
> > he had signed a request for the extradition of Assange to the
> > US, where he is accused of violating the Espionage Act. The
> > order will go before the UK courts on Friday.
> > 
> > Galloway, a former MP who has campaigned tirelessly for
> > Assange’s freedom, quipped that the “dark” episode shows that
> > Theresa May’s “zombie” government was “not content with all the
> > other disasters for which it’s responsible.”
> > 
> > He insisted that 

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[jim bell]

 On Monday, October 21, 2019, 08:12:07 PM PDT, Greg Newby  
wrote:
 
 
 On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote:
>  On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby  
>wrote:
>  
>  
>  >Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire
> https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court
> 
> >Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for 
> >refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: 
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
> 
> 
> >The Fox article:
>  
> >WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US
> >Greg Norman
> >By Greg Norman | Fox News
> 
>> Jim Bell's comment:
>> (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in 
>> TWO senses in regards to Assange:  First, perhaps the most common usage was 
>> the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different 
>> country, not UK.  That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in 
>> part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue.  The 
>> second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction 
>> over acts committed in another nation.  Put simply, can the US declare 
>> actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the 
>> US?   I very much doubt that, in this case.  Below, you can see that I 
>> looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 
>> 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited.  This 
>> material includes points which included references to US court decisions 
>> which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' 
>> over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply.
>> Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references 
>> built into the statutes?)
> 
>> It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include 
>> issues such as extraterritoriality included.  I will now do a time limited 
>> Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find 
>> useful references.  Nothing.  Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this 
>> important matter.  
>> Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019:


>Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on 
>your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid 
>extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as 
>you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage.

>Commentary:

>It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the 
>legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is 
>to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc.

>>But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of 
>>extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think 
>>this is a concept that occurs to most journalists.

>Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the 
>World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, 
>and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated.

>My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate 
>court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very 
>public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and 
>intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.
>- Greg

Since Assange is apparently currently being held entirely on the US Extradition 
issue, perhaps we will see more commentary about the validity of those US 
charges.   This looks like an interesting article, although it's 2.5 years old:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/will-united-states-be-able-extradite-assange

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-response-espionage-act.html

Here is the indictment (superseding) May 23, 2019:  
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/Assange_Indictment.pdf
                  Jim Bell




> ---jim bell 
> To:CypherPunks
> Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
> From:     https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
> 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding 
> authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the 
> United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of 
> the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
> Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States 
> Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) 
> 
> [end of partial quote]
> There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a 
> Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" 
> application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if 
> the Congress 

how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[Zenaan Harkness]

As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social
media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored,
the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order
to be "not censored".


The effect of this feedback loop is two fold:

 1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become
simpler, and fact based.

 2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to
suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements,
and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact.


So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end
game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our
statements, and by stating simple facts.

We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially
when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions,
opinions and facts.


Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts:

  - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty?


  - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent?


  - Is it OK to be anti-semitic?


  - Is it OK to be White?


  - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support
an American "European heritage" ethnostate?

etc.





>   A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak
>   Truth To Power
>   
> https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-who-speak-truth-power
>   
> https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/a_new_kind_of_tyranny_the_global_states_war_on_those_who_speak_truth_to_power
> 
> “What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant
> to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence.
> By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights.
> Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind
> of tyranny.
> The choice is ours.”
> - John Pilger, investigative journalist
> https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/
> 
>   All of us are in danger.
> 
>   In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence
>   programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime
>   syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those
>   who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has
>   gone global.
> 
>   The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners,
>   all-out assault on truth-tellers.
...

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[Zenaan Harkness]

  A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak
  Truth To Power
  
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-who-speak-truth-power
  
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/a_new_kind_of_tyranny_the_global_states_war_on_those_who_speak_truth_to_power

“What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant
to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence.
By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights.
Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind
of tyranny.
The choice is ours.”
- John Pilger, investigative journalist
https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/

  All of us are in danger.

  In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence
  programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime
  syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those
  who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has
  gone global.

  The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners,
  all-out assault on truth-tellers.

  Activists, journalists and whistleblowers alike are being
  terrorized, traumatized, tortured and subjected to the
  fear-inducing, mind-altering, soul-destroying, smash-your-face-in
  tactics employed by the superpowers-that-be.

  Take Julian Assange, for example.

  Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret
  information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous
  sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S.
  Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than
  700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S.
  government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and
  responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.
  
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country

  Included among the leaked Manning material
  
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country
  were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010),
  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/no-secrets
  the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010),
  the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic
  cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).

  The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two
  U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground
  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/no-secrets
  attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the
  casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down
  after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who
  stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children,
  who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S.
  forces, suffered serious injuries.

  This is morally wrong.

  It shouldn’t matter which nation is responsible for these
  atrocities: there is no defense for such evil perpetrated in the
  name of profit margins and war profiteering.
  
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/military-spending-defense-contractors-profiting-from-war-weapons-sales/39092315/

  In true Orwellian fashion, however, the government would have us
  believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals
  for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

  Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a
  maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to
  23 hours a day
  
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke87d/julian-assange-could-barely-say-his-own-name-at-his-latest-extradition-hearing
  —pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted,
  he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.
  https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/

  Whatever is being done to Assange behind those prison
  walls—psychological torture, forced drugging, prolonged isolation,
  intimidation, surveillance—it’s wearing him down.

  In court appearances, the 48-year-old Assange appears disoriented,
  haggard and zombie-like.

“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and
 political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic
 States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a
 single individual for such a long time and with so little regard
 for human dignity and the rule of law,”
declared Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665=E

  It’s not just Assange who is being made to suffer, however.

  Manning, who was jailed for seven years from 2010 to 2017 for
  leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, was arrested in March
  2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about Assange,
  placed in solitary confinement for almost a month, and then
  

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US" Barrister Jennifer Robinson

[jim bell]

 Julian Assange's Barrister is Jennifer Robinson.  
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/jennifer-robinson   Wikipedia 
article on Jennifer Robinson:    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Robinson_(lawyer)  Jennifer Robinson's 
email address:     j.robin...@doughtystreet.co.uk

Dear Barrister Robinson,                While I am a non-lawyer, and an 
American non-lawyer at that, I happen to know a great deal about US Federal 
law.   I did some research relevant to your client Julian Assange's position 
months ago, regarding the possibility of his extradition.  Some of this is 
included below.  In American Federal law, the presumption against 
extraterritoriality is strong.  See some references below.  I cannot find any 
statutes which Julian Assange has been charged with that include an 
extraterritoriality clause, and from this I conclude that he cannot be charged 
under American Federal law.   I hope I am correct, and I also hope your 
research has concluded the same.
       If you would want me to do any more research, I will gladly do it.     I 
had some computer mailing-list contact with Julian on the Cypherpunks mailing 
list in 1995, although he was under a different name.     He will probably 
remember my name.
                   Jim Bell    Vancouver Washington USA







> ---jim bell 
> To:CypherPunks
> Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
> From:     https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
> 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding 
> authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the 
> United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of 
> the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
> Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States 
> Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) 
> 
> [end of partial quote]
> There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a 
> Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" 
> application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if 
> the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by 
> including such language within the law 
> itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
> 
> "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in 
> interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is 
> absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise."
> 
> "US Supreme Court Continues to Limit Extraterritorial Application of US Laws 
> | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
> 
> 
> RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon
> >From that:
> "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption 
> against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs 
> judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent 
> appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
> United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a 
> majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress 
> intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising 
> the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations 
> clear.[11]"             [end of quote]
> 
> Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality:     
> https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170=bjil
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting:        Some Observations on the Extradition of Julian 
> Assange
> >From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only 
> >under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test 
> >of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense 
> >shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is 
> >based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer 
> >hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of 
> >territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the 
> >United States. Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been 
> >committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall 
> >be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in 
> >the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed 
> >outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested 
> >State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of 
> >its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the 
> >Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all 
> >other requirements of this Treaty are met."
> Unlike the U.S., however, Britain 

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[jim bell]

 On Monday, October 21, 2019, 08:12:07 PM PDT, Greg Newby  
wrote:
 
 On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote:

>> Jim Bell's comment:
>> (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in 
>> TWO senses in regards to Assange:  First, perhaps the most common usage was 
>> the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different 
>> country, not UK.  That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in 
>> part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue.  The 
>> second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction 
>> over acts committed in another nation.  Put simply, can the US declare 
>> actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the 
>> US?   I very much doubt that, in this case.  Below, you can see that I 
>> looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 
>> 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited.  This 
>> material includes points which included references to US court decisions 
>> which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' 
>> over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply.
>> Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references 
>> built into the statutes?)
> 
>> It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include 
>> issues such as extraterritoriality included.  I will now do a time limited 
>> Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find 
>> useful references.  Nothing.  Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this 
>> important matter.  
>> Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019:


>Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on 
>your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid 
>extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as 
>you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage.

I noticed at least a couple decades ago that the word "comity" is pronounced 
dangerously close to "comedy".  And with very similar meaning, as well. 
Months ago, I sent an email to a woman barrister on Assange's case my analysis, 
below.  No answer, but I suppose I didn't expect one.  

>Commentary:

>It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the 
>legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is 
>to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc.

>But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of 
>extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think this 
>is a concept that occurs to most journalists.

>From the 1973 movie, "The Paper Chase".   
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8    
"You come in with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer."
I remember seeing this movie first in a theater, first-run.   It really 
impressed me!   It was at this time I decided...that I definitely DIDN'T WANT 
TO BECOME A LAWYER!!!   Why?   Because science and engineering don't cheat.  
Law sets up rules, but then the people doing it cheat.

>Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the 
>World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, 
>and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated.

Sadly, yes.

>My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate 
>court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very 
>public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and 
>intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.- Greg

Well, I DEMAND they 'play by the rules', in the way they refused to do so in my 
case.  
                Jim Bell



> ---jim bell 
> To:CypherPunks
> Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
> From:     https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
> 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding 
> authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the 
> United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of 
> the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
> Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States 
> Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) 
> 
> [end of partial quote]
> There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a 
> Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" 
> application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if 
> the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by 
> including such language within the law 
> itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
> 
> "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the 

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[Greg Newby]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote:
>  On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby  
> wrote:
>  
>  
>  >Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire
> https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court
> 
> >Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for 
> >refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: 
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
> 
> 
> >The Fox article:
>  
> >WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US
> >Greg Norman
> >By Greg Norman | Fox News
> 
> Jim Bell's comment:
> (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in TWO 
> senses in regards to Assange:  First, perhaps the most common usage was the 
> fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different 
> country, not UK.  That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in 
> part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue.  The 
> second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction 
> over acts committed in another nation.  Put simply, can the US declare 
> actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the 
> US?   I very much doubt that, in this case.  Below, you can see that I looked 
> at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 
> 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited.  This 
> material includes points which included references to US court decisions 
> which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' 
> over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply.
> Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references 
> built into the statutes?)
> 
> It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include 
> issues such as extraterritoriality included.  I will now do a time limited 
> Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find 
> useful references.  Nothing.  Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this 
> important matter.  
> Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019:


Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on 
your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid 
extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as 
you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage.

Commentary:

It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the 
legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is 
to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc.

But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of 
extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think this 
is a concept that occurs to most journalists.

Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the 
World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, 
and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated.

My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate 
court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very 
public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and intimidation, 
for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.
 - Greg



> ---jim bell 
> To:CypherPunks
> Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
> From:     https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
> 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding 
> authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the 
> United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of 
> the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
> Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States 
> Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) 
> 
> [end of partial quote]
> There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a 
> Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" 
> application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if 
> the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by 
> including such language within the law 
> itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
> 
> "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in 
> interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is 
> absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise."
> 
> "https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-continues-to-limit-extraterritori
> 
> 
> http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon
> >From that:
> "The 

Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"

[jim bell]

 On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby  
wrote:
 
 
 >Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire
https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court

>Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for 
>refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: 
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning


>The Fox article:
 
>WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US
>Greg Norman
>By Greg Norman | Fox News

Jim Bell's comment:
(But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in TWO 
senses in regards to Assange:  First, perhaps the most common usage was the 
fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different country, 
not UK.  That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in part 
because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue.  The second 
usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction over acts 
committed in another nation.  Put simply, can the US declare actions by a 
person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the US?   I very 
much doubt that, in this case.  Below, you can see that I looked at some 
statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 'extraterritoriality' as 
part of the statutes which were then cited.  This material includes points 
which included references to US court decisions which declared that unless a 
statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' over acts in other nations, it 
should be presumed to not apply.
Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references built 
into the statutes?)

It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include 
issues such as extraterritoriality included.  I will now do a time limited 
Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find 
useful references.  Nothing.  Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this 
important matter.  
Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019:

---jim bell 
To:CypherPunks
Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
From:     https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding 
authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the 
United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the 
United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 
641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) 

[end of partial quote]
There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a 
Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" application 
(applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if the Congress 
specifically intended that application, and was signified by including such 
language within the law 
itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction

"In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in 
interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is 
absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise."

"https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-continues-to-limit-extraterritori


http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon
>From that:
"The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption against 
extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs judges to 
assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is 
meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United 
States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of 
four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s 
private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising the bar on what 
Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[11]"          
   [end of quote]

Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality:     
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170=bjil



Very interesting:        
https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extradition-of-julian-assange.html
>From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only 
>under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test 
>of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense shall 
>be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is 
>punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer hacking is no 
>doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of territoriality, 
>because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the 

Re: Assange Court Rulings

[John Young]

Sorry, needs a PDF extension

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-sentencing-2019-0501.pdf

At 03:54 PM 5/2/2019, you wrote:

The first of the URL's below returns with a 404 error.

   Jim Bell



On Thursday, May 2, 2019, 12:38:54 PM PDT, John Young 
 wrote:



R v Julian Assange (Bail Act offence)
Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Deborah Taylor
Southwark Crown Court
1 May 2019

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-sentencing-2019-0501

Related:

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-ruling-6-feb-2018.pdf

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-ruling-2-13-feb-2018.pdf

Re: Assange Court Rulings

[jim bell]

 The first of the URL's below returns with a 404 error.
                       Jim Bell


On Thursday, May 2, 2019, 12:38:54 PM PDT, John Young  
wrote:  
 
 R v Julian Assange (Bail Act offence)
Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Deborah Taylor
Southwark Crown Court
1 May 2019

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-sentencing-2019-0501

Related:

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-ruling-6-feb-2018.pdf

https://cryptome.org/2019/05/assange-ruling-2-13-feb-2018.pdf



  

Re: Assange Indictment

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 27/04/19 18:15, jim bell wrote:
Is there a text version of this indictment available.  (Not just the 
image; possibly OCR'd?)


   Jim Bell


Can't  help you there, but I read the document referenced below, the 
original indictment, at the time it was released.


Some time later I read the document giving the charges for the 
extradition hearing and, while the charges were broadly the same, it was 
a different document.


Sorry, I can't find it now - it was in a UK newspaper somewhere.


Peter Fairbrother




On Thursday, April 11, 2019, 7:30:46 AM PDT, Peter Fairbrother 
 wrote:



On 11/04/19 14:49, John Young wrote:

 > https://cryptome.org/2019/04/assange-indictment.pdf

 >
 >
 >

Sneaky. That doesn't look good for Julian.

The UK Courts might refuse to extradite for publishing the Manning
stuff, but conspiring before the fact to assist in the theft of more
info... if the evidence is there, he's in trouble.


Peter Fairbrother

Re: Assange Indictment

[jim bell]

 Is there a text version of this indictment available.  (Not just the image; 
possibly OCR'd?)
                      Jim Bell


On Thursday, April 11, 2019, 7:30:46 AM PDT, Peter Fairbrother 
 wrote:  
 
 On 11/04/19 14:49, John Young wrote:
> https://cryptome.org/2019/04/assange-indictment.pdf
> 
> 
> 

Sneaky. That doesn't look good for Julian.

The UK Courts might refuse to extradite for publishing the Manning 
stuff, but conspiring before the fact to assist in the theft of more 
info... if the evidence is there, he's in trouble.


Peter Fairbrother
  

Re: Assange Indictment

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 11/04/19 14:49, John Young wrote:

https://cryptome.org/2019/04/assange-indictment.pdf





Sneaky. That doesn't look good for Julian.

The UK Courts might refuse to extradite for publishing the Manning 
stuff, but conspiring before the fact to assist in the theft of more 
info... if the evidence is there, he's in trouble.



Peter Fairbrother

Re: Assange on WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks, Surveillance State

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:12:38PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbYMFUjK6fI
> 
> Published on Nov 29, 2012  - 14,505 views


Twitter Locks @WikiLeaks and Multiple WikiLeaks
Staff Accounts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-20/twitter-suddenly-locks-wikileaks-and-multiple-wikileaks-staff-accounts



The Lobby is proud.

Oh my, my sincerest apologies, what I mean is The Ministry is proud.

Whoopsee…

Re: Assange Journalism

[John Young]

Very little from Snowden's many years as CIA 
employee prior to short-term as NSA contractor 
has been revealed. Turf battles between the two 
agencies are legendary, including planting their 
spies in each other's innards. CIA favors human agents, NSA technology.


This suggests Snowden was a CIA implant to out 
(selective) NSA technology. If so, it certainly 
worked, at least for a while until NSA used the 
operation to beef up funding for new and possibly 
stronger technology. Just look at its vast 
construction of MD tech temples and recruiting at universities.


To be sure all the 9/11-fattened spies benefited 
from Snowden's operation, and in that his op is 
hardly new, the spies have been running breaches 
for decades to enhance funding and deepening 
secrecy. They all work in concert at this, 
exchanging tips and perks with foreign spies.


Leaks, aka unauthorized disclosures, have been 
part of this from day one of spying, not just 
modern, but also ancient, even neanderthal. Spies 
beget spies, secrecy begets secrecy, ostensible 
betrayals beget ostensible betrayals. Favored 
journalists beget favored journalists. Outlaw mavericks beget the same.


The sanctimonious name "national security" is a 
relatively new moniker, circa 1947 in he US, but 
so are nations rather than royalties and 
theocracies. One way to tell who runs the shows 
is by looking at their self-vaunting monuments. 
In the case of CIA and NSA, look at their 
infrastructure for humans and technology, respectively.


Digital technology is an NSA operation, for 
example, journalism and academia run by CIA. 
Division between the two established by the 
National Security Act of 1947. CIA remained 
ostentatously above board, NSA hiding behind No Such Agency.


I assume Snowden is still working for CIA, bound 
by a secrecy agreement until he dies, not the 
secrecy-porous for NSA contractors. Presumbably 
Moscow assesses him this way, and will 
persistently suck his mind and blood as they run 
his worldwide recruiting operation in cahoots 
with CIA, NSA hot on their heels but winded by obesity.


Greenwald is a vain, useful idiot in this charade. So too Assange.

Mammon bless their Oscar-winning entertaining 
foolhardiness, aka "influence." Both tailoring 
bespoke regalia for Trump's royalist "L'état, c'est moi."


At 08:27 PM 12/8/2018, juan wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:26:46 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500
> > Steve Kinney  wrote:
>
> >> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at
> >> least one of which edited them before release per side by side
> >> comparison of published versions.  (Or, more than one version was
> >> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
> >>
> >> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where
> >> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
> >
> > I didn't see evidence for that.
>
> Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any
> journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of
> communicating via an encrypted channel.


Yes but that doesn't add up.


> So he had to settle for film
> maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald
> - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG.


The story I remember is that he wanted 
to contact greenwald and that greenwald was too 
retarded to know how to use pgpg.




>
> Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk
> to Snowden, at least not on his terms.  After, he had no opportunity to
> do any more handoffs.
>
> Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release
> strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the
> docs to Wikileaks


by 'failure' you mean he just didn't 
want to send them to wikileaks because 
wilileaks would actually publish the stuff?


I guess in the end it doesn't matter if 
he gave the docs only to greenwald or to a 
couple more journos. But granted, if only 
greenwald got them in the first place then yes, that's even more suspect.




> and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire
> life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit.
>

You mean he could have leaked the docs 
without being detected? Maybe, I guess.



> :o/
>
>
>
>

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:26:46 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500
> > Steve Kinney  wrote:
> 
> >> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at
> >> least one of which edited them before release per side by side
> >> comparison of published versions.  (Or, more than one version was
> >> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
> >>
> >> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where
> >> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
> > 
> > I didn't see evidence for that. 
> 
> Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any
> journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of
> communicating via an encrypted channel. 


Yes but that doesn't add up. 


> So he had to settle for film
> maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald
> - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG.


The story I remember is that he wanted to contact greenwald and that 
greenwald was too retarded to know how to use pgpg.



> 
> Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk
> to Snowden, at least not on his terms.  After, he had no opportunity to
> do any more handoffs.
> 
> Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release
> strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the
> docs to Wikileaks 


by 'failure' you mean he just didn't want to send them to wikileaks 
because wilileaks would actually publish the stuff?

I guess in the end it doesn't matter if he gave the docs only to 
greenwald or to a couple more journos. But granted, if only greenwald got them 
in the first place then yes, that's even more suspect. 



> and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire
> life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit.
> 

You mean he could have leaked the docs without being detected? Maybe, I 
guess.


> :o/
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500
> Steve Kinney  wrote:

>> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at
>> least one of which edited them before release per side by side
>> comparison of published versions.  (Or, more than one version was
>> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
>>
>> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where
>> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
> 
>   I didn't see evidence for that. 

Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any
journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of
communicating via an encrypted channel.  So he had to settle for film
maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald
- just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG.

Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk
to Snowden, at least not on his terms.  After, he had no opportunity to
do any more handoffs.

Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release
strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the
docs to Wikileaks and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire
life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit.

:o/






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/7/18 11:53 PM, juan wrote:
> > 
> > To Steve K.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8
> > 
> > minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, 
> > washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from 
> > his 'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses)
> > 
> > anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be 
> > trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents 
> > being sort of 'distributed'among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what 
> > it's worth.
> 
> I recall Snowden saying that he gave all the documents he had to
> Greenwald, explaining that he did not consider himself qualified to
> determine 


yes, the bit about snowden kowtowing to the enlightened authority of 
journos is something he constantly parrots. As to who originally got the 
documents, I'm not sure, but in that video snowden  says that other people 
apart from greenwald have them now. 

I don't think that makes much of a difference either way, except 
perhaps to illustrate the kinda obvious fact that the 'mainstream media' are 
part of any conspiracy there may be. 


> which were of "legitimate" public interest, or where to send
> them for publication.
> 
> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at
> least one of which edited them before release per side by side
> comparison of published versions.  (Or, more than one version was
> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
> 
> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where
> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.


I didn't see evidence for that. 


> Given The Intercept's track record, I know that Greenwald can not be
> trusted (check how The Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner),


'burning' that murderous cunt is the only good thing the intercept ever 
did. Regardless, I don't think that would be the main evidence of greenwald 
being completely untrustworthy.

What actually gives greenwald's game away is the fact that the 
intercept is nothing but a mouthpiece for the worst factions of the 
'democratic' party.



> and his changing stories early in the Snowden Affair indicate either
> incompetence or lies.
> 
> This leaves us to speculate about what documents were sent where, based
> on information filtered through one (Greenwald > Public) or two
> (Greenwald > Snowden > Public) unreliable sources.


Well, if we are going to speculate (which is kinda pointless I guess), 
then snowden's sayings should be taken into account?


Anyway, if judged by its results the Snowden Affair is pretty much a 
farce played while  the US govcorp (hello reason.com!) continues on its 
glorious march to world enslavement. 




> 
> :o/
> 
> 
> 

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

To Steve K.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8

minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, 
washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from his 
'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses)

anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be 
trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents 
being sort of 'distributed'among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what it's 
worth.

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 03:01:03 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> Intimately related, from Julian Assange -
> also hosted by JYA:
> 
> https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

the "Conspiracy as Governance" article is unfinished? 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

Supplementary Insider Threat dox, hosted by JYA:

http://cryptome.org/2014/05/insider-threat-warfare.htm

Intimately related, from Julian Assange -
also hosted by JYA:

https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

Insider access and exfiltration is the true "universal decryption key."

Even benchtop Quantum Computing, anticipated here in 1992...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5bAa6gFvLs

... will not crack large one time pads.  OTPs are still used for
materials considered "worth the trouble" of really locking down.

The more things change, the more they don't.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom."
- Mao Tse Tung

:o)

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

On 11/28/18 11:40 PM, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:37:59 -0500
> Steve Kinney  wrote:

>> If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already
>> caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback
>> if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases"
>> provides a pretty good answer:  Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and
>> Internet traffic.

[...]

>> Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge. 
> 
>   more like, they had been public knowledge for years...

Not at all.  Spook Watchers and political dissidents knew about them,
through bits and pieces of hard data and well informed speculation.  The
broader general public had moderately paranoid suspicions, but it was
all conveniently deniable until The Snowden Affair.

Ed himself modeled the desired public reaction perfectly, almost as if
coached in advance:  "Grave concern" with just a slight touch of
outrage, in a context assuming that "the government should" obey the law.

>> During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the
>> intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what
>> laws, when, etc. without consequences.  
> 
>   yes, but that's not "because of snowden" is it? I mean, not meaning to 
> sound like a broken record but the US is a fascist cesspool and has always 
> been. "COINTELPRO"
>   
>   the 'intelligence community' which is obviously just an arm of the 
> United Rogue States gets to do whatever they want because that's what being 
> the state means - unrestrained power. 
> 
> 
>> The Snowden Affair removed many
>> potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this,
>> that and the other thing."
> 
> 
>   I don't see the causal link there. There were the leaks, and then the 
> govt kept doing whatever the fuck they want. The events may be 'correlated' 
> but that can be all. 

Precedents set and settled by the Snowden Affair:

- Bulk surveillance of 'private' U.S. communication is legal

- Breaking into the computers of Congressional staff during an
investigation of IC criminal conduct is not prosecuted

- Lying under oath during Congressional hearings is not prosecuted.

... all in the name of National Security.


>> Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to
>> numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely
>> senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling
>> classified communications and databases.
> 
> 
>   That's a possibility. Snowden on the other hand says he was a 'senior 
> analyst' or something like that. 

Could be.  Doesn't matter much though...

>> Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy
>> with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted
>> for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training
>> - which does not happen.  He then supposedly received a medical
>> discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again
>> does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.
> 
>   I remembered only one broken leg =P  - Regardless, I don't think the 
> story is too implausible. And if it's made up, I'm not sure for what purpose? 

Not so much implausible as impossible:  Violations of policy and
procedure, because recruit Snowden was so special... why?

>> That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than
>> any other title:  Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of
>> that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence
>> officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.
> 
>   But that means snowden is still 'assigned'? 

Unless his legend really is true, which seems very unlikely to me,
probably so.


>> Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald
>> to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist? 
> 
>   greenawald IS a journo =P 

He's an attorney by trade, Progressive political policy advocate by
vocation.  As far as I know, he has never been employed by any news
organization, and has never gathered information in the field or written
a published report.  My one item published at Global Research makes me
more of a "journalist" than him, LOL.

>> Why not contact
>> John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg - 
> 
>   not sure if choosing greenwald was particularly bad (at least without 
> hindsight). Then again, snowden could and should have simply dumped 
> everything so...
> 
> 
> 
>> or ANYONE
>> with applicable knowledge and experience?  Did he fail to look into the
>> history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues
>> for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and
>> handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?
>>
>> I doubt that we will never know.
>>
>>
 "By his own account, Snowden often discussed 

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:37:59 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:


> If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already
> caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback
> if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases"
> provides a pretty good answer:  Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and
> Internet traffic.

bulk surveillance of internet traffic wasn't news

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

as to phones...

https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiretap/

"The FBI has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click 
surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications 
device" 

that's from 2007...

this is before snowden too 

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff-nsadatacenter/

"The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You 
Say)" 


so, arguably, snowden's 'revelations' didn't reveal anything that 
wasn't already known or trivially suspected...


> 
> Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge. 


more like, they had been public knowledge for years...


> 
> During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the
> intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what
> laws, when, etc. without consequences.  

yes, but that's not "because of snowden" is it? I mean, not meaning to 
sound like a broken record but the US is a fascist cesspool and has always 
been. "COINTELPRO"

the 'intelligence community' which is obviously just an arm of the 
United Rogue States gets to do whatever they want because that's what being the 
state means - unrestrained power. 


> The Snowden Affair removed many
> potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this,
> that and the other thing."


I don't see the causal link there. There were the leaks, and then the 
govt kept doing whatever the fuck they want. The events may be 'correlated' but 
that can be all. 




> 
> >> I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to
> >> play along once he became an object of property physically passed around
> >> between ruling class factions.
> > 
> > Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was 
> > unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering 
> > that his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'. 
> 
> Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to
> numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely
> senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling
> classified communications and databases.


That's a possibility. Snowden on the other hand says he was a 'senior 
analyst' or something like that. 


> 
> Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy
> with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted
> for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training
> - which does not happen.  He then supposedly received a medical
> discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again
> does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.


I remembered only one broken leg =P  - Regardless, I don't think the 
story is too implausible. And if it's made up, I'm not sure for what purpose? 


> 
> That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than
> any other title:  Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of
> that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence
> officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.

But that means snowden is still 'assigned'? 


> 
> Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald
> to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist? 

greenawald IS a journo =P 


> Why not contact
> John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg - 


not sure if choosing greenwald was particularly bad (at least without 
hindsight). Then again, snowden could and should have simply dumped everything 
so...



> or ANYONE
> with applicable knowledge and experience?  Did he fail to look into the
> history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues
> for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and
> handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?
> 
> I doubt that we will never know.
> 
> 
> >> "By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing
> >> with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled
> >> and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance
> >> process."
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal 
> > organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each 
> > other. They are all american 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

On 11/26/18 10:27 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500


>   Anyway, yes, what you describe is materially possible, so I should have 
> asked "played, why?". What would the 'leaders' of the NSA gain by having 
> snowden leak some stuff they previously selected/curated? Obviously they 
> would not allow the leak of anything 'really top secret'. And coincidentally 
> snowden's stuff simply confirmed what people with half a brain suspected. 
> Massive surveillance. Wait, not even suspected but knew about it before 
> snowden (like ATT fiber taps)
> 
>   One scenario I can think off the top of my head is that they allowed 
> snowden to get hold of some not-really-secret stuff to justify 'tighter 
> security' inside the NSA? 
> 
>   But as a bigger political game, I'm not sure what their motives could 
> be. But more below.

If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already
caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback
if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases"
provides a pretty good answer:  Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and
Internet traffic.

Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge.  Picking
how and when that happens, and preparing responses for the press,
Congress and the Courts in advance, presents significant advantages.
This permits developing and implementing strategies for influencing
specific individuals who would play key roles in determining the outcome
in publicity, political and legal dimensions (reporters and editors,
Senators and DemoPublican Party officials, Fedeeral Prosecutors and
Judges).

During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the
intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what
laws, when, etc. without consequences.  The Snowden Affair removed many
potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this,
that and the other thing."

>> I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to
>> play along once he became an object of property physically passed around
>> between ruling class factions.
> 
>   Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was 
> unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that 
> his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'. 

Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to
numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely
senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling
classified communications and databases.

Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy
with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted
for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training
- which does not happen.  He then supposedly received a medical
discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again
does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.

That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than
any other title:  Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of
that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence
officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.

Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald
to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist?  Why not contact
John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg - or ANYONE
with applicable knowledge and experience?  Did he fail to look into the
history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues
for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and
handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?

I doubt that we will never know.


>> "By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing
>> with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled
>> and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance
>> process."
> 
> 
>   Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal 
> organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. 
> They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world 
> safe for goldman sachs and raytheon. 

Snowden said:

“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you
recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you
talk about them in a place like this, were this is the normal state of
business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from
them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and
you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the
more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem...”

>   You say they have 'insider threat' programs but who knows how they 
> actually run them. Although in 1984 world it seemed as 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:57:52PM -0800, Steven Schear wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:28 PM Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
> >
> >
> 
> >
> > Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most
> > likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for
> > a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it
> > gets.)
> >
> 
> The terminally ill,

Time for a new app: terminal

for publishing "empire embarrassing" leaks to the world, dynamic on
demand hidden services/ servers, distributed file store with timeouts
if passwords not made available in a set time, high latency mixnet
style password, key and link distribution.


> > We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands
> > on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm
> > either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very
> > evil things.
> >
> 
> Steve

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steven Schear]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:28 PM Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
>
>

>
> Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most
> likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for
> a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it
> gets.)
>

The terminally ill,

>
> We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands
> on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm
> either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very
> evil things.
>

Steve

Re: Assange Journalism

[Mirimir]

On 11/26/2018 08:27 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500
> Steve Kinney  wrote:
> 
> 
>>

 How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in
 danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his
 docs off to? 
>>>
>>> he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe? 
>>
>> If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so.  The Snowden Saga,
>> if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.
> 
> 
>   hm I must be misremembering. - I'll search for the 'official story' 
> later. 

I also recall reading that. But then, maybe he gave them copies, but not
decryption keys. Or maybe he used nested encryption, and only provided
keys to subsets. Maybe just samples.

 How long did it take him to realize he had been played -
 or has he even figured that out yet?  
>>> 
>>> played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine 
>>> right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.

It's pretty clear that loved America, and saw himself as serving true
"American" values. That's clear in chat logs from when he worked for the
CIA in Geneva. He's a fucking Boy Scout ;)

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:


> 
> >>
> >> How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in
> >> danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his
> >> docs off to? 
> > 
> > he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe? 
> 
> If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so.  The Snowden Saga,
> if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.


hm I must be misremembering. - I'll search for the 'official story' 
later. 


> 
> >> How long did it take him to realize he had been played -
> >> or has he even figured that out yet?  
> > 
> > played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine 
> > right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.
> 
> 
> Played how?  Spotted early by the fairly massive Insider Threat programs
> at NSA, initiated in response to Chelsea Manning's work.  They may have
> fed him specific documents, kept away from others, transferred him from
> job to job as necessary to facilitate that process.  He may have also
> been monitored and/or manipulated through his girlfriend, who has joined
> him in exile - which makes little sense, unless she had something to
> hide, and/or run from, here in the U.S.


well, according to snowden, his girlfriend moved to russia because "she 
loves him". That claim can be doubted on purely human grounds, but it can also 
be taken at face value without assuming that his girlfriend is an agent or 
somesuch. Maybe she has enough moral integrity to choose snowden over life in 
good old amerikkka.

Anyway, yes, what you describe is materially possible, so I should have 
asked "played, why?". What would the 'leaders' of the NSA gain by having 
snowden leak some stuff they previously selected/curated? Obviously they would 
not allow the leak of anything 'really top secret'. And coincidentally 
snowden's stuff simply confirmed what people with half a brain suspected. 
Massive surveillance. Wait, not even suspected but knew about it before snowden 
(like ATT fiber taps)

One scenario I can think off the top of my head is that they allowed 
snowden to get hold of some not-really-secret stuff to justify 'tighter 
security' inside the NSA? 

But as a bigger political game, I'm not sure what their motives could 
be. But more below.


> 
> I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to
> play along once he became an object of property physically passed around
> between ruling class factions.

Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was 
unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that 
his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'. 


> 
> >> A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed
> >> to Glenn for publication:  After promising Snowden he would release all
> >> the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story, 
> > 
> > 
> > did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that 
> > snowden supports censorship-by-journo. 
> 
> So at least one article published within days of the Prism release said.
>  Over the next week the reported number of documents given to Greenwald
> rose very fast, as Greenwald's story changed.  I kept very close track
> of available information during that time frame; this article I wrote
> back then be of some historical interest:
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity


well the fact that google, facebook and all the rest of 'silicon 
valley' scum are just spies on the payroll of uncle sam isn't controversial, 
and that's what the prism slides illustrated, regardless of them being 
'authentic top-secret' or some watered down version for people with a 'lower 
clearence' or whatever the pertinent jargon is. 

so although I agree that the snowden stuff isn't really 'top secret' 
that doesn't mean it's fake - it's quite possible that snowden himself chose 
stuff that didn't really 'harm' his bosses since he believes the american nazi 
state is a legitimate murdering organization and  american 'national security' 
a legitimate aim, etc. 




> 
> 
> "By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing
> with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled
> and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance
> process."


Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal 
organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. 
They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world 
safe for goldman sachs and raytheon. 

Also, if somebody inside the NSA says "we must protect the Privacy of 
Americans", he can't be 'flagged' based on that, because that sort of bullshit 
is 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

On 11/26/18 3:06 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:01:39 -0500
> Steve Kinney  wrote:


>> how about the hatchet job his partner in crime,
>> Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film?  Random
>> spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset?  Either way, fat USIC paycheck
>> and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished.  
> 
>   pseudo-feminist? Not at all. They all are true feminists and they all 
> are feminazis. Those two words are synonymous. 
> 

The "feminazis" you refer to do exist; they originated in the New Left,
a USIC political warfare project intended to displace and discredit
Pacifist and Liberal voices in broadcast media during the Vietnam War.
The folks who started the "feminazi" bullshit were from that same crew.

The project was successful, and after the war the New Left never went
away.  They kept working their professional networks and press contacts,
and re-emerged as the Progressives in the late 70s - early 80s.  They
now own and operate the DNC, and through that org, most of the
Democratic Party.

Real feminists also exist.  They typically associate with anarchists and
their ilk, and one finds plenty of them in Occupy-related activist orgs.
 Check Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons and Simone de Beauvoir for background
on "real" feminism.

>>
>> How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in
>> danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his
>> docs off to? 
> 
>   he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe? 

If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so.  The Snowden Saga,
if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.

>> How long did it take him to realize he had been played -
>> or has he even figured that out yet?  
>   
>   played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine 
> right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.


Played how?  Spotted early by the fairly massive Insider Threat programs
at NSA, initiated in response to Chelsea Manning's work.  They may have
fed him specific documents, kept away from others, transferred him from
job to job as necessary to facilitate that process.  He may have also
been monitored and/or manipulated through his girlfriend, who has joined
him in exile - which makes little sense, unless she had something to
hide, and/or run from, here in the U.S.

I figure Snowden for too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to
play along once he became an object of property physically passed around
between ruling class factions.

>> A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed
>> to Glenn for publication:  After promising Snowden he would release all
>> the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story, 
> 
> 
>   did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that 
> snowden supports censorship-by-journo. 

So at least one article published within days of the Prism release said.
 Over the next week the reported number of documents given to Greenwald
rose very fast, as Greenwald's story changed.  I kept very close track
of available information during that time frame; this article I wrote
back then be of some historical interest:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity


"By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing
with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled
and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance
process."

>   Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to 
> different redundant  parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald 
> is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid. 
> 

To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere.  Considering
their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them,
that seems very unlikely if any did exist.

>  
>> All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust
>> settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted: 
> 
>   yeah. Not sure if snowden contributed to that or it's just that his 
> leak was useless in the grand scheme of things. 

Anything but useless:  Whether or not Snowden was in on the game, the
Snowden Affair accomplished important IC objectives, solidifying their
power as an autocratic branch of government answerable to no one but
themselves.


>> 1)  Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an
>> encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network.  Clues:  You
>> need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna,
>> and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot.  Don't forget to scramble
>> your MAC address before plugging in the antenna.  Include one or more
>> "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded
>> archive.  In your description of the torrent, promise 

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:01:39 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:


> I'm about two nines confident that Greenwald's Intercept deliberately
> burned Reality Winner. 

if they did, that's one of the very few things they deserve credit for. 

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

"the cunt was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for "aiding in 
650 enemy
 captures, 600 enemies killed in action and identifying 900 high[-]value 
targets"." 

do you understand what that means no? How are you proposing that the 
cunt pay for her crimes? 


> 
> Speaking of Greenwald, 

he and snowden remain loyal to the US govt.


> how about the hatchet job his partner in crime,
> Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film?  Random
> spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset?  Either way, fat USIC paycheck
> and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished.  


pseudo-feminist? Not at all. They all are true feminists and they all 
are feminazis. Those two words are synonymous. 


> 
> How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in
> danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his
> docs off to? 

he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe? 


> How long did it take him to realize he had been played -
> or has he even figured that out yet?  

played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine 
right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.


> To date his public presentation in
> exile remains consistent with making the best of that particular bad
> situation.
> 
> A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed
> to Glenn for publication:  After promising Snowden he would release all
> the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story, 


did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that 
snowden supports censorship-by-journo. 


> Glenn sold
> them all to the highest bidder, Pierre Omidyar.  If Greenwald's claims
> about how many docs there were are to be believed, over 99% were either
> destroyed, or locked up securely for blackmail use by his new employer.


well no doubt greenwald is a sellout, and no doubt his employer 
ebay-paypal has been working for the NSA since day one. As a funny side note, 
NSA contractor ebay is 3 years older than google.

Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to 
different redundant  parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is 
pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid. 


 
> All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust
> settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted: 


yeah. Not sure if snowden contributed to that or it's just that his 
leak was useless in the grand scheme of things. 



> Not
> just authorization to continue illegal domestic surveillance programs,
> but a clear precedent that U.S. intelligence officials are allowed to
> tell lies under oath in Congressional hearings, with no consequences
> other than high-fives back at the office later.  "Almost as if" the USIC
> had lots of advance warning and got to pick the specific battles
> themselves, with specific purposes in mind.


True - that is a possible and lilely scenario. 


> 
> A suggested leaker's protocol:  Pardon my language but "fuck
> journalists."  

indeed


>They need have no role until /after/ all your red hot
> docs are in the public domain.
> 
> 1)  Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an
> encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network.  Clues:  You
> need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna,
> and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot.  Don't forget to scramble
> your MAC address before plugging in the antenna.  Include one or more
> "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded
> archive.  In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be
> published under the same user name within a given time frame.
> 
> 2)  A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at
> least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the
> key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site
> in I2P space.


Not sure what the point of publishing the key later is, especially if 
you first published some stuff in the clear? When you publish stuff in the 
clear you are marking yourself as a target? 

The two steps process is to avoid getting caught while uploading the 
bulk of the data? 

Re: Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:06:46 -0500
John Young  wrote:

> Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more 
> salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw.
> 
> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/

I'm going to take a look at that  - and  mention that rolling stone is 
a high ranking outlet for left-wing 'progressive' fascist propaganda. 

> 
> A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not 
> by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.

Seems you don't like assange which is of course fine. 

But considering the fact that assange has been jailed for years and is 
about to be lynched by the US govt, the 'observation' that he took no risks 
isn't exactly based on reality...

Re: Assange Journalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

Very nicely put, Steve, thanks for taking such care…


Every media personality who "calls out" Assange, i.e. prejudging,
without at the very least simultaneously calling out the egregious
and heinous evils of the USA empire and its organs of power such as
the CIA, NSA, military etc, is a literal shill and tool for the US
empire. Such people are prima facie (on the face of it, obviously)
evidently compromised, either by employment, by blackmail, by such
blindness as demands utter condemnation and excision from the public
discourse, or by some other hidden means.


A hot topic evidently:

 Assange Prosecution Will Focus On Chelsea Manning Era
 Releases, Not DNC Emails
 
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-25/assange-prosecution-will-focus-chelsea-manning-era-releases-not-dnc-emails


Extra-territoriality of "laws" as claimed by the USA espionage
banking and military complex and their (!!) courts, is unlawful on
principle.

Every purported authority exercising power sans righteousness, is
prima facie corrupt.

Retrospective/ retroactive laws are unlawful on principle.

A jury of "peers" which is actually comprised of the employees,
ex-employees, spouses and etc of the CIA, NSA, MIC, DOD (etc) is a
prima facie biased and prejudiced jury and can never carry the weight
of righteousness nor the gravity of justice, merely some farse of
"legal process", injustice, and a manifest evil towards a fellow
man, in this case Julian Assange.

For starters Assange is an Australian citizen, so his peers would
literally have to be Australians at the very least, and perhaps by
consent he could agree to have his "peers" include e.g. some of the
folks round these parts, John Young perhaps, and or principled
journalists (not the many faced and usually lying and deceiving CIA
plants who dominate the legacy stream media outlets of course).

Just as Colin Powell waved a vial of sand murmering "weapons of mass
destruction" to justify a war destroying Iraq (which was supposedly a
war against some cave dweller in Afghanistan - Obama Bin Laden) we
now have pure revenge campaign against Assange for publishing some
facts, embarrassing to the empire but which the public had a right to
know and Assange had a right to publish.

The Collateral Murder video (USA helicopter gunship gunning down
unarmed journalists in Baghdad), and the embarrassment thereof, is
the true cause for this steamroller of evil and unrighteous
condemnation against Assange.

One could take a random stab and guess that Vault7 and vault8
possibly has something to do with the CIA (etc) literal vendetta
against Assange too:
https://wikileaks.org/vault8/


The (USA) empire is embarrassed and wants revenge by way of making an
example of "the suffering and punishment of Julian Assange".


Americans, this is your empire.

Re: Assange Journalism

[Steve Kinney]

On 11/24/18 2:06 PM, John Young wrote:
> Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more
> salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its
> maw.
> 
> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/

Very impressive article - Matt Taibbi has clearly been paying
professional attention to the leakage bizniz.  I would guess he did some
in depth research based on the question of how he should proceed if
offered "red hot" classified docs.  Or maybe, after being handed same -
in which case he decided to steer clear.

I only spotted one error:  He attributed the disclosure of NSA tapping
Merkel's phones to Snowden, but that was another actor - likely employed
at NSA in Germany, and a damn sight better at hide and sneak than good
ole Ed.

> A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by
> publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.
> 
> Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the
> leaker being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with
> WikiLeaks.

No duh, as they say.

I'm about two nines confident that Greenwald's Intercept deliberately
burned Reality Winner.  Can incompetence alone account for Intercept
employees contacting the affected organization to 'fact check' the
article in advance of publication by giving away their source's
location, then publishing both the serial number of the printer she
used, and the date/time she printed the documents?  (I pulled the
watermarks off an image I downloaded from The Intercept shortly after
the story broke, using a freeware image editing program.)

Speaking of Greenwald, how about the hatchet job his partner in crime,
Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film?  Random
spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset?  Either way, fat USIC paycheck
and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished.  At
least it's a classier way to attention-whore than punching an alt-Reich
asshole.

We can't leave out Ed Snowden, international man of mystery.  How early
was he spotted, and to what extent was he manipulated to assure that
specific documents would be among those he handed off to a press
contact?  Hell, DID the published docs come from him?  Given the number
he claims to have handed off, Ed himself would not be likely to know for
sure.

How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in
danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his
docs off to?  How long did it take him to realize he had been played -
or has he even figured that out yet?  To date his public presentation in
exile remains consistent with making the best of that particular bad
situation.

A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed
to Glenn for publication:  After promising Snowden he would release all
the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story, Glenn sold
them all to the highest bidder, Pierre Omidyar.  If Greenwald's claims
about how many docs there were are to be believed, over 99% were either
destroyed, or locked up securely for blackmail use by his new employer.

All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust
settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted:  Not
just authorization to continue illegal domestic surveillance programs,
but a clear precedent that U.S. intelligence officials are allowed to
tell lies under oath in Congressional hearings, with no consequences
other than high-fives back at the office later.  "Almost as if" the USIC
had lots of advance warning and got to pick the specific battles
themselves, with specific purposes in mind.

A suggested leaker's protocol:  Pardon my language but "fuck
journalists."  They need have no role until /after/ all your red hot
docs are in the public domain.

1)  Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an
encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network.  Clues:  You
need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna,
and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot.  Don't forget to scramble
your MAC address before plugging in the antenna.  Include one or more
"medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded
archive.  In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be
published under the same user name within a given time frame.

2)  A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at
least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the
key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site
in I2P space.

3)  Destroy everything used in the above process, and resume your
"normal" life.  Mission accomplished, you got the docs into more than
enough hands to assure public release at /minimal/ personal risk.

Better alternatives to this protocol are solicited...

And remember, on the day you brag about your success 

Re: Assange Journalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
> Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient
> grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw.
> 
> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/
> 
> A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by
> publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.
> 
> Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker
> being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks.
> 
> That is evident from the number of leakers who have been severly punished
> while WikiLeaks and Assange is showered with glory.and repetitive news
> coverage. Wikipedia's WikiLeaks entry is grotesque.
> 
> That's asymmetric racketeering side of leakage, to the benefit of journalists,
> publishers, lawyers and public interest organizations, all of whom are granted
> special privileges by authorities and in many cases handsome donations from
> fat cats through tax benefits.
> 
> Its as if by overdoing lauding Assange and WikiLeaks those who have taken the
> highest risk can be slighted with impunity. Only fools would leak if they knew
> what is in store for them, not just the brief attention dispensed by outlets.
> 
> Anonymity, non-tracability and comsec, always, if leak you must. Before
> proceeding, think twice, thrice, avoid believing the glory stories. Else
> you're cannon fodder for information generals.

Of course.

And if you're leaking "for the glory" then pride is definitely the
rake about to smack you in the face as you step on it - and
deservedly so! Just ask me about humility...

Assange is being targetted. Greenwald and the "leaking" Jewish MSM?

Please!

(((Legacy Stream Media))) are sanctioned since they are well and
truly controlled.

Assange showed how pretty much anyone with a little determination can
operate (as publisher of leaks) outside that cabal ... and so an
example must be made of Assange, and has been, continues to be, and
looks like shall be soon in a significant way - let's see.

Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most
likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for
a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it
gets.)

We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands
on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm
either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very
evil things.

As I understand it John, you personally demonstrated (still do) the
precursor to Wikileaks.

Jim Bell took a massive hit - double decade long slice from his life,
essentially for merely publishing a paper.

Assange is 8 years and counting, with his family and children not
allowed to visit him.

I know some in Australia who've paid the price of their family, and a
year or more "at her Majesty's pleasure" (i.e. in jail) for their
respective stands for human rights and basic principles.

In every single case I know of, from yours to those yet to be
published, a significant "price" has always been paid.

We can debate the "insufficiency of warnings" from Wikileaks to
potential leakers, and you may have a good point, but such
"improvements" will never detract from the very real price paid
personally by Assange - let's not forget this.

Standing on any foundational principle is a damnably tough haul.
Anyone thinking otherwise is heartily encouraged to bloody well stand
already and show us all how it's -really- done, with true blue balls
bro (or ovaries as the case may be).

Travel well John, and please excuse any strawmen I just shot down…

US twists Ecuador re Assange, Assange sues Ecuador, Saudi's pissed

[grarpamp]

https://democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/8/a8a63343-fba7-4ea6-8090-5fb3d9f5d3de/7B8CEDB7545C8C99DEDB0AC0931C9873.10-16-2018-letter-from-engel-ros-lehtinen-to-president-of-ecuador.pdf

https://couragefound.org/2018/06/liveblog-julian-assange-in-jeopardy/
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/ztradio/episodes/2018-10-20T10_33_10-07_00
https://justice4assange.com/
https://www.iamwikileaks.org/
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201810221069093022-assange-ecuador-lawsuit/
https://ia601506.us.archive.org/5/items/JulianAssangeProtocolFinal11Oct2018/Julian_Assange_Protocol_Final_11_Oct_2018.pdf
https://twitter.com/Unity4J

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
http://www.underground-book.net/
https://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1052835013857869824/l51TWRIb?format=jpg=600x314
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1976JIDDA00120_b.html#efmApjA4H
https://wikileaks.org/saudi-cables/
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1052462297245933568

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1052453920180711424

Free Assange.

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[John Newman]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:32:09PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
> On 08/14/2018 12:23 PM, jim bell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:44:31 AM PDT, John Newman
> >  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> > > Drawing a blank?
> >
> > >No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  -
> >
> > >https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html
> >
> >
> >
> > In that, I saw:  "I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian
> > was sending to Trump Jr over twitter - asking to be made the
> > ambassador to Australia, telling him to be prepared to dispute the
> > outcome of the election..."
> > I do recall that prior to the 2016 election, many people were
> > criticizing Trump for failing to state that he would accept the result
> > of the election.
> > Jim Bell
> >
> >
> 
> Odd. The message IS visible onsite at riseup, but the emails show a
> blank in thunderbird. Only John's... The text DOES appear if I View
> Message Source.
> 
> Return-Path: 
> 
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on 
> spoonbill.riseup.net
> 
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
> 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AM_TRUNCATED,BAYES_50,
> 
>     
> CK_419SIZE,CK_KARD_SIZE,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FORWARD_RELAY,
> 
>     SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1
> 
> Delivered-To: g...@riseup.net
> 
> Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.33])
> 
>     (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
> 
>     (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure 
> Server CA" (verified OK))
> 
>     by spoonbill.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F2E10B
> 
>     for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Received: from wintermute.synfin.org (synfin.org [198.154.106.50])
> 
>     by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFA81A08FA
> 
>     for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Authentication-Results: mx1.riseup.net; dkim=pass
> 
>     reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key/testing"
> 
>     header.d=synfin.org header.i=@synfin.org header.b=VvRfplkQ;
> 
>     dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral
> 
> Received: from wintermute.synfin.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> 
>     by wintermute.synfin.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A502F336B63;
> 
>     Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at synfin.org
> 
> Received: from wintermute.synfin.org ([127.0.0.1])
> 
>     by wintermute.synfin.org (wintermute.synfin.org [127.0.0.1]) 
> (amavisd-new, port 10024)
> 
>     with LMTP id 3WQqDMhicRok; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> Received: by wintermute.synfin.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
> 
>     id E2A84336B60; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synfin.org; s=SYNFIN;
> 
>     t=1534272246; bh=fP+XN5TO2cC7hOqb5NRa8ks7oLW+pmLnPzqqzN31sNY=;
> 
>     h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
> 
>     b=VvRfplkQXa7ruew8Ntmc9b69IBRK/DiTcSxaUEszCoNPEV4mk0SS1Ym9KACmgNs9o
> 
>      BZk3ENPm8benx2JAXRUcWNukAlk5JdRbQ/rcyGD+ltB7jCo9wI6gWCawsI/hMnu2gS
> 
>      VqfElQQPeczD2C5kYzzccdft24V2+hXqqnJDQpkA=
> 
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:06 -0400
> 
> From: John Newman 
> 
> To: Razer 
> 
> Cc: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
> 
> Subject: Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown
> 
> Message-ID: <20180814184406.syj4qbwk5muxi...@synfin.org>
> 
> References: <20180813142938.t3zlqc6jtykl2...@eye.freedbms.net>
> 
>  <20180813163317.5577811c0...@pglaf.org>
> 
>  <20180814141936.q62p7srblwobf...@synfin.org>
> 
>  <7efc2d6a-ae61-a9c1-a7a5-7c95cac25...@riseup.net>
> 
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
> 
>     protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ayya7elb5ctl3f6s"
> 
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> In-Reply-To: <7efc2d6a-ae61-a9c1-a7a5-7c95cac25...@riseup.net>
> 
> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
> 
> --ayya7elb5ctl3f6s
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
> > Drawing a blank?
> 
> No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  -=20
> 
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html
> 
>

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Razer]

On 08/14/2018 12:23 PM, jim bell wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:44:31 AM PDT, John Newman
>  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> > Drawing a blank?
>
> >No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  -
>
> >https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html
>
>
>
> In that, I saw:  "I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian
> was sending to Trump Jr over twitter - asking to be made the
> ambassador to Australia, telling him to be prepared to dispute the
> outcome of the election..."
> I do recall that prior to the 2016 election, many people were
> criticizing Trump for failing to state that he would accept the result
> of the election.
> Jim Bell
>
>

Odd. The message IS visible onsite at riseup, but the emails show a
blank in thunderbird. Only John's... The text DOES appear if I View
Message Source.

Return-Path: 

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on spoonbill.riseup.net

X-Spam-Level: 

X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.

X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AM_TRUNCATED,BAYES_50,

    CK_419SIZE,CK_KARD_SIZE,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FORWARD_RELAY,

    SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1

Delivered-To: g...@riseup.net

Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.33])

    (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))

    (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure 
Server CA" (verified OK))

    by spoonbill.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F2E10B

    for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)

Received: from wintermute.synfin.org (synfin.org [198.154.106.50])

    by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFA81A08FA

    for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)

Authentication-Results: mx1.riseup.net; dkim=pass

    reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key/testing"

    header.d=synfin.org header.i=@synfin.org header.b=VvRfplkQ;

    dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral

Received: from wintermute.synfin.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])

    by wintermute.synfin.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A502F336B63;

    Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:07 -0400 (EDT)

X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at synfin.org

Received: from wintermute.synfin.org ([127.0.0.1])

    by wintermute.synfin.org (wintermute.synfin.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, 
port 10024)

    with LMTP id 3WQqDMhicRok; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:07 -0400 (EDT)

Received: by wintermute.synfin.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)

    id E2A84336B60; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:06 -0400 (EDT)

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synfin.org; s=SYNFIN;

    t=1534272246; bh=fP+XN5TO2cC7hOqb5NRa8ks7oLW+pmLnPzqqzN31sNY=;

    h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;

    b=VvRfplkQXa7ruew8Ntmc9b69IBRK/DiTcSxaUEszCoNPEV4mk0SS1Ym9KACmgNs9o

     BZk3ENPm8benx2JAXRUcWNukAlk5JdRbQ/rcyGD+ltB7jCo9wI6gWCawsI/hMnu2gS

     VqfElQQPeczD2C5kYzzccdft24V2+hXqqnJDQpkA=

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:44:06 -0400

From: John Newman 

To: Razer 

Cc: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org

Subject: Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

Message-ID: <20180814184406.syj4qbwk5muxi...@synfin.org>

References: <20180813142938.t3zlqc6jtykl2...@eye.freedbms.net>

 <20180813163317.5577811c0...@pglaf.org>

 <20180814141936.q62p7srblwobf...@synfin.org>

 <7efc2d6a-ae61-a9c1-a7a5-7c95cac25...@riseup.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;

    protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ayya7elb5ctl3f6s"

Content-Disposition: inline

In-Reply-To: <7efc2d6a-ae61-a9c1-a7a5-7c95cac25...@riseup.net>

User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716

--ayya7elb5ctl3f6s

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Disposition: inline

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:

> Drawing a blank?

No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  -=20

https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html

>=20

>=20

> On 08/14/2018 07:19 AM, John Newman wrote:

>=20

--=20

GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4  C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

--ayya7elb5ctl3f6s

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEF/1hWtINr+iz5MnS4yQgvtR6eMcFAltzIvYACgkQ4yQgvtR6

eMehDgf/SclWtIlbNmIIe1okUl7m6k2fKnJG6rvxDvKYlDY9OT9FBTyDzQaKpf6D

5DGMzz/heXbaTeQSx0yMVO+hylPH7DLX3Gs8k/M5ZZlOobIrsa5FBQpCwLwbE2DE

ylOWhOuREIyvWaPBJmulVr2hgKJILM/0ph41jh0MM3nxSVGgMDPGAJ6DjJRYB7ET

xqLTndL89ivlI8QueQ9Dvtpory6edRJ9n1hdTj8HtfmoqcNAUivb8N83HofJ0JIK

fAuovfrlVqV+DEwZrUckBwBzFb2mOg+wDwPNMpLIEzkxl+/z1NSKWqr6zx2rUrRU

ALxPdwI9KzyNWqI+LFGG0cVPy59cyQ==

=vc8M

-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--ayya7elb5ctl3f6s--


Something about NeoMutt's encoding perhaps?


Rr

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Razer]

On 08/14/2018 12:23 PM, jim bell wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:44:31 AM PDT, John Newman
>  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> > Drawing a blank?
>
> >No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  -
>
> >https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html

OK... In re "And, unlike Julian, he did like ~4years in an actual
federal prison.."

That's because he was (and perhaps is again) a stupid junkie. He
actually threatened a fed investigating him. His EGO took him down. Have
I mentioned if there's ONE DEFINING TRAIT of a Junkie, it's their stupid
fucking egos. I'm SURE I've brought that up before.

Rr


>
>
>
> In that, I saw:  "I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian
> was sending to Trump Jr over twitter - asking to be made the
> ambassador to Australia, telling him to be prepared to dispute the
> outcome of the election..."
> I do recall that prior to the 2016 election, many people were
> criticizing Trump for failing to state that he would accept the result
> of the election.
> Jim Bell
>
>

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Razer]

For some reason John's emails showed up blank. Even in plaintext mode.
No attachments.

This one too. "Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700
billion. Is that a problem?"

Rr


On 08/14/2018 12:23 PM, jim bell wrote:
>  On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:44:31 AM PDT, John Newman  
> wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
>> Drawing a blank?
>> No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  - 
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html
>
> In that, I saw:  "I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian was 
> sending to Trump Jr over twitter - asking to be made the ambassador to 
> Australia, telling him to be prepared to dispute the outcome of the 
> election..."
> I do recall that prior to the 2016 election, many people were criticizing 
> Trump for failing to state that he would accept the result of the election. 
>  Jim Bell
>
>
>
>   

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[jim bell]

 On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:44:31 AM PDT, John Newman  
wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> Drawing a blank?

>No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  - 

>https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html


In that, I saw:  "I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian was 
sending to Trump Jr over twitter - asking to be made the ambassador to 
Australia, telling him to be prepared to dispute the outcome of the election..."
I do recall that prior to the 2016 election, many people were criticizing Trump 
for failing to state that he would accept the result of the election. 
 Jim Bell



  

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[John Newman]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> Drawing a blank?

No way, Jack. My (poorly written) email had stuff in it  - 

https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-August/042947.html


> 
> 
> On 08/14/2018 07:19 AM, John Newman wrote:
> 

-- 
GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4  C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Razer]

Drawing a blank?


On 08/14/2018 07:19 AM, John Newman wrote:

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[John Newman]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:33:08AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
>  Original message From: Zenaan Harkness  
> Date: 8/13/18  7:29 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: 
> Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown 
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:14:35AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> > https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-went-after-a-former-ally-it-backfired-epically
> 
> > On cue. What say you about this, John Newman?
> 
> Barrett Brown is a big-headed egotistical schmuck who alienates people. 
> Julian Assange has an ego, but he knows how to check it, work with others, 
> and get things done. Assange has allies. Brown had cohorts(acquaintances) and 
> cronies. He's declined dramatically since ProjectPM. His writings on 
> Pursuance read like a public bathroom screed 
> <https://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/83214869988>.
> Rr

Yeah, I don't know much about Barrett, except some of his writings are
fairly amusing. And, unlike Julian, he did like ~4years in an actual
federal prison.. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather sit in an embassy
in London with visitors and real food and real internet (etc) than sit
in a Federal prison in the US. This is not to take away from Julians
plight, which is dire, and bogus, and fucked up... 

I also do tend to think that some of the shit Julian was sending to Trump Jr
over twitter - asking to be made the ambassador to Australia, telling
him to be prepared to dispute the outcome of the election, basically all
sorts of shit that falls completely outside the idea of "transparency",
which so thickly permeates the wikileaks mission statement. Again - not
to take away from all the great shit they've done... its just a bit
ugly.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4  C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:33:08AM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
>  Original message From: Zenaan Harkness  
> Date: 8/13/18  7:29 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: 
> Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown 
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:14:35AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> > https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-went-after-a-former-ally-it-backfired-epically
> 
> > On cue. What say you about this, John Newman?
> 
> Barrett Brown is a big-headed egotistical schmuck who alienates
> people. Julian Assange has an ego, but he knows how to check it,
> work with others, and get things done. Assange has allies. Brown
> had cohorts(acquaintances) and cronies. He's declined dramatically
> since ProjectPM. His writings on Pursuance read like a public
> bathroom screed
> <https://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/83214869988>.

Thank you.

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Razer]

 Original message From: Zenaan Harkness  
Date: 8/13/18  7:29 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: 
Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown 
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:14:35AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-went-after-a-former-ally-it-backfired-epically

> On cue. What say you about this, John Newman?

Barrett Brown is a big-headed egotistical schmuck who alienates people. Julian 
Assange has an ego, but he knows how to check it, work with others, and get 
things done. Assange has allies. Brown had cohorts(acquaintances) and cronies. 
He's declined dramatically since ProjectPM. His writings on Pursuance read like 
a public bathroom screed <https://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/83214869988>.
Rr

Re: Assange vs Barrett Brown

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:14:35AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-went-after-a-former-ally-it-backfired-epically

On cue. What say you about this, John Newman?

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Cecilia Tanaka]

PS:  -  Sorry for killing the English language, ugh!  :((

It would be wiser to review my messages before sending them, but I know I
would simply not send them after a second reading, so I am talking too much
and using a pretty disastrous grammar, haha!!  ;)

Please, ignore all the missing letters, typos and mistakes like using
"proud" instead "pride".  Thank you in advance and have an amazing wow
day!  :)

Ceci

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[juan]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 16:58:08 -0800
Rayzer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/24/2016 03:32 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 11:03:53 -0800
> > Rayzer  wrote:
> >
> >>> He added: “They do not by themselves form an existing structure,
> >>> so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising
> >>> the pre-existing central power network within DC.
> >
> > stupid bullshit.
> >
> 
> "Young Turks" can be seen that way, and they don't have to be young.
> Just... ahem. Insurgent and predatory on the existing order, when
> viewed by that order. Then they win.
> 
> Rr
> 
> Ps. I just implied that you're a (omm-fg!) statist ...
> mother-buggering hypocrite troll.



I don't even know what you are talking about. Perhaps you are
drunk? 

Then again,  a commie troll who sucks castro's cock (necrofilia
eh) callinganyone...statist? Seridouly razer? Are you that
pathetic? 


"Let it be known..Castro was a true hero." 







> 

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Rayzer]

On 12/24/2016 03:32 PM, juan wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 11:03:53 -0800
> Rayzer  wrote:
>
>>> He added: “They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so
>>> it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the 
>>> pre-existing central power network within DC.
>
>   stupid bullshit.
>

"Young Turks" can be seen that way, and they don't have to be young.
Just... ahem. Insurgent and predatory on the existing order, when viewed
by that order. Then they win.

Rr

Ps. I just implied that you're a (omm-fg!) statist ... mother-buggering
hypocrite troll.

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 03:56:44PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2016 03:30 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/24/2016 02:33 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> >> Yep, my dear, I said he was alive weeks ago.  Zzz was not
> >> informed about it, but you know, this "Hashist" guy is _not_ a
> >> real activist, is a pretty slow person and doesn't know to fake
> >> patterns well too, hahaha!!  ;)
> > 
> > IMO there are way too many questionable assertions built into the 
> > article, and it has some of the earmarks of a heavily re-edited
> > and/or manipulative text.  Example:
> > 
> > "Assange described his feelings about the US election results in
> > an interview..."
> > 
> > An interview with whom, where, and when?  The Byline is Ben Jacobs
> > "in Washington," and since he does not say who interviewed Assange,
> > I will presume it was not him - so the quotes from Assange have no
> > provenance.
> 
> Addendum:  Here's an interview with provenance, and a fuckton more
> content:
> 
> http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754
> 000/?ref=HREC1-12
> 
> =or=
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/gwnsbfa
> 
> The dirty rotten filthy bastards collapsed his state vector!

Thanks!

   > In these ten years of WikiLeaks, you and your organisation have
   > experienced all sorts of attacks. What have you learned from this
   > warfare?
   > 
   > "Power is mostly the illusion of power. The Pentagon demanded we
   > destroy our publications. We kept publishing. Clinton denounced us
   > and said we were an attack on the entire "international community".
   > We kept publishing. I was put in prison and under house arrest. We
   > kept publishing. We went head to head with the NSA getting Edward
   > Snowden out of Hong Kong, we won and got him asylum. Clinton tried
   > to destroy us and was herself destroyed. Elephants, it seems, can
   > be brought down with string. Perhaps there are no elephants".

Some will hear this:

   > You've declared on more than one occasion that what you really miss
   > after 6 years of arrest and confinement is your family. Your
   > children gave you a present to make you to feel less alone: a
   > kitten. Have you ever reconsidered your choices?
   >
   > "Yes, of course. Fortunately I'm too busy to think about these
   > things all the time. I know that my family and my children are
   > proud of me, that they benefit in some ways from having a father
   > who knows some parts of the world and has become very good in a
   > fight, but in other ways they suffer".

Thank you Steve.

Thank you Julian.


-- 
* Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R)
* Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning
* Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values:
http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/
* How Liberal Lefties view the world:
http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5df43eab11e5e714e506dadc7e_1_600x329.jpg

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Dec 24, 2016 5:30 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:
>
> IMO there are way too many questionable assertions built into the
article, and it has some of the earmarks of a heavily re-edited and/or
manipulative text.

My love, I said that Assange is alive only, not that I agree with the
article or with him.  Rr is right, Assange is still alive and kicking, but
probably will be kicked soon.  Well, I sincerely hope he knows exactly what
he is doing...  :-/

Hey, Steve, you are one of my favorite DJs.  May you help me with our
Christmas/Hanukkah/Chomsky's Day soundtrack, please?  :)

I always think about "Merry Xmas  (War Is Over)", but it would definitely
not be original...  :P

Kisses, I love you!  <3

Ceci

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 12/24/2016 03:30 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2016 02:33 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>> Yep, my dear, I said he was alive weeks ago.  Zzz was not
>> informed about it, but you know, this "Hashist" guy is _not_ a
>> real activist, is a pretty slow person and doesn't know to fake
>> patterns well too, hahaha!!  ;)
> 
> IMO there are way too many questionable assertions built into the 
> article, and it has some of the earmarks of a heavily re-edited
> and/or manipulative text.  Example:
> 
> "Assange described his feelings about the US election results in
> an interview..."
> 
> An interview with whom, where, and when?  The Byline is Ben Jacobs
> "in Washington," and since he does not say who interviewed Assange,
> I will presume it was not him - so the quotes from Assange have no
> provenance.

Addendum:  Here's an interview with provenance, and a fuckton more
content:

http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754
000/?ref=HREC1-12

=or=

https://tinyurl.com/gwnsbfa

The dirty rotten filthy bastards collapsed his state vector!

:o)


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYXuEMAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqVVUIANJCamBFK1HbCbu1xXA+v8Zw
xSSlIdeVycEpbUeQAn1QrOLUEf3/H8/ezq3pyQzgFbhTITafUbpjsCQHMW9GK2hi
BcDORtVLLWOW0Oq1CcVQMW64bRanec/ewPwcsMe9KnBVe2WZUkN3xsaQZ6BCvLQe
0xPd6ekMI7BcjQu3uz1SeNClBOjuPwxHTyniCDswNleJkiD96HZpIdeP4FYx23hQ
4+WJhr6fKrkal0Y2r7jHqbhrFf/dGcnLDPqjQux4NWUJHWzA4340XR+PDGg3RY7H
tAaXOCoEByacBZyO/N2Q6HkLPxc0rB3R4WJgQq4dI1bNe6jh0Sk6OQ7YCBm94vw=
=jA19
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 12/24/2016 02:33 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> Yep, my dear, I said he was alive weeks ago.  Zzz was not informed
> about it, but you know, this "Hashist" guy is _not_ a real
> activist, is a pretty slow person and doesn't know to fake patterns
> well too, hahaha!!  ;)

IMO there are way too many questionable assertions built into the
article, and it has some of the earmarks of a heavily re-edited and/or
manipulative text.  Example:

"Assange described his feelings about the US election results in an
interview..."

An interview with whom, where, and when?  The Byline is Ben Jacobs "in
Washington," and since he does not say who interviewed Assange, I will
presume it was not him - so the quotes from Assange have no provenance.

One prefers journalists who hide in a spotlight that makes reprisals
too costsly for hostile political operatives, to those who hide in
dark shadows - an environment already well frequented by
propagandists, spooks and other, even less trustworthy actors.

I also see the article uncritically parroting very dubious propaganda
talking points about the published DNC e-mail: "The releases were
highly damaging to Clinton, and US intelligence officials now believe
they were hacked by Russia and passed to WikiLeaks to boost Trump’s
bid for the White House."  Said what accountable person, when, where
and to whom?

The sole source for the Russia Did It canard is an October press
release from DHS that says the release is "consistent with the methods
and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."  This is attributed to
the USIC, an acronym for United States Intelligence Community.  No
such agency exists, so it is not possible for it to have an official
spokesperson, except maybe the President - their ultimate boss, at
least on paper.

That said, the Assange quotes in the article sound exactly like Mendax
to me.  Is he alive or is he dead?  Maybe the "embassy cat" some
sources mention was a gift from Erwin Schrodinger.  As a long time
fan, I think Assange's present position is a Super position.

Srsly:  The best thing that ever happened to Julian Assange, in terms
of his productive public service output, was forcing him to sit on
stay in one place and stay busy enough to keep from going (even more)
nuts.

Powder don't go BOOM until is confined, but never mind that metaphor:
 Assange has already built a terrajoule railgun in his spare time, and
orbital mind control lasers won't be far behind.

:o)



> On Dec 24, 2016 4:04 PM, "Rayzer"  > wrote:
> 
>> Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has offered guarded
> praise of
>> Donald Trump, arguing the president-elect “is not a DC insider”
>> and could mean an opportunity for positive as well as negative
>> change
> in the
>> US.
>> 
>> Assange described his feelings about the US election results in
>> an interview as “mixed” before going on to sharply criticize
>> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and providing a more
>> ambivalent assessment of Trump’s ascent to the White House.
>> 
>> “Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of
> power in
>> the existing ruling class of the United States,” Assange told
>> the Italian newspaper la Repubblica.
>> 
>> “Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy
>> ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him
>> a
> spectrum of
>> other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities.”
>> 
>> He added: “They do not by themselves form an existing structure,
>> so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising
>> the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new
>> patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment
>> its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the
>> United States: change for the worse and change for the better.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-tr
ump-hillary-clinton-interview
>
> 

> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYXtrgAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqH94H/2PBbuxHWPcaOMsnDduJcr4n
TbSNhBMr5y9/lHdFOUsywpt5gswUtJUO7Eds3tVOxYv46Xfg4lyil0oZnx8WPaVY
of+xkpEMOTJpJJey3vB32moBUPjfk7/fNGLM5rsmAKxbwRbicdRid72Tpp05+UkO
MdwaF15r3xTmYS/YXLSKZ4SbpEi33br5yr5RyeW+GZel7UFQvUI44ADX+Cd+sRqT
WXlsGNA/sLdE3zoBEsIu6ZMFmGJ1ms1cojgz0LU1dYv2evb7OlYwzkfoXBuYKcbj
ETHscuI9BLyD1ozzcQVU3NjT1Z9yAPxLpxEVU75JeGaEHAry8cUmwgpQYg4wr08=
=mkyi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Assange still alive and kickin'...

[Cecilia Tanaka]

Yep, my dear, I said he was alive weeks ago.  Zzz was not informed about
it, but you know, this "Hashist" guy is _not_ a real activist, is a pretty
slow person and doesn't know to fake patterns well too, hahaha!!  ;)
On Dec 24, 2016 4:04 PM, "Rayzer"  wrote:

> > Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has offered guarded praise of
> >  Donald Trump, arguing the president-elect “is not a DC insider” and
> > could mean an opportunity for positive as well as negative change in the
> >  US.
> >
> > Assange described his feelings about the US election results in an
> > interview as “mixed” before going on to sharply criticize Democratic
> > nominee Hillary Clinton and providing a more ambivalent assessment of
> > Trump’s ascent to the White House.
> >
> > “Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in
> > the existing ruling class of the United States,” Assange told the
> > Italian newspaper la Repubblica.
> >
> > “Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling
> > elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of
> >  other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities.”
> >
> > He added: “They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it
> > is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the
> > pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage
> > structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness
> > means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change
> > for the worse and change for the better.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-
> assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview
>
>

Re: Assange assasinated?

[Zenaan Harkness]

>From conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.


Iceland Interior Minister Reveals Plot By Obama Administration
"To Frame Julian Assange"
by Tyler Durden
Dec 10, 2016 4:00 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/iceland-interior-minister-reveals-plot-obama-administration-frame-julian-assange

(FBI's Iceland adventure began June 2011.)


-- 
* Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R)
* Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning
* Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values:
http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/