Jim Hopkins on Assange

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Fri, 2012-08-24 09:44

Somehow, I thought old Jim was a wanker. I take it back.

Soldiers serve countries, Assange only himself

Obama = Scum

Marcus's picture


'Owen' also writes disparagingly that none of the SEALs were fans of President Barack Obama and knew that his administration would take credit for ordering the May 2011 raid. One of the SEALs said after the mission that they had just gotten Obama re-elected by carrying out the raid.

Officials from the Pentagon and the CIA, which commanded the mission, are examining the manuscript for possible disclosure of classified information and could take legal action against the author.

In a statement , the author says he did “not disclose confidential or sensitive information that would compromise national security in any way”.

Owen’s real name was first revealed by Fox News and already Jihadists on al-Qaeda websites have posted purported photos of the author, calling for his murder.

Scum defends scum

Richard Goode's picture

Scum belongs to scum!

The "damage to national security" is beyond question.

Can you give me a specific example of that?

Here is Senator Diane Feinstein...

Michael Moeller's picture

Making the case for prosecution under the Espionage Act, and she sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that 'it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.'

Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a damning picture.

In June, the New Yorker reported that Mr. Assange has asserted that a 'social movement' set on revealing secrets could 'bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the U.S. administration.' The same piece revealed Mr. Assange's stunning disregard for the grave harm his actions could bring to innocent people, which he dismisses as 'collateral damage.'

Of course Thief-in-Chief Richard Goode would come to his defense, like attracts like -- scum defends scum.

Case closed.



Marcus's picture

...thanks for answering the question.

Obviously he thinks that the US will charge him at some stage, either that or he is a lying toad of a rapist who will hide behind any excuse to face prosecution.

I'm pissed at the Justice Department too though. Either charge him now or don't. If they had staked a claim earlier we wouldn't have this slime bag hiding at the embassy now. If charged with a serious breach of US security he wouldn't have been out on bail during the extradition case.

If the US doesn't charge him then you deserve Wikileaks and everything that comes with it.


Michael Moeller's picture

Can go read my links for themselves and find out what was released, and also find out that Richard Goode is once again lying. No surprise there.

People can also Google a zillion other stories on the topic saying the same thing.

Or they can Google senators on the topic, like Joseph Lieberman, who are in a position to know the type of information released, and who have concluded that Assange is in violation of the Espionage Act.

Or you can listen to Richard Goode, himself a thief of other people's writings. I have no desire to respond to him, so he shouldn't expect answers from me.



Richard Goode's picture

Are they being cowardly, evil, weak or complicit in the crime? What?

I think you already answered that question. I followed your link and read the following byline.

Investigators in the United States are believed to have failed to find evidence to support a prosecution of Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, for encouraging the leak of secret government documents.

As for Saint Michael the Holy Moeller, I've asked him repeatedly, (specifically) what sensitive national security information did Wikileaks (or Assange) release? He hasn't answered, because he has no answer. The facts of reality are of no concern to him, however, and he'll go on lamely repeating

It empowers the enemy and exposes our military to needless danger. It is our military that is paying the price for what that evil little weasel did.

regardless of the fact that one of his own sources tells us

that “most of the material, though classified ‘secret’ at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive.”


Michael Moeller's picture

I do. But Eric Holder is running the show.

The Espionage Act is not a leap for Assange, but Holder is dragging his feet.

No surprise there, as he ran a law firm dedicated to defending jihadis at Gitmo.



Marcus's picture

...why do you and Linz have no anger for the US justice department which fails to lay any charges against Assange.

Are they being cowardly, evil, weak or complicit in the crime? What?

No It Does Not Help America

Michael Moeller's picture

Assange's release of sensitive and secret national security information flows right into the hands of Iran, Al-Qaeda, North Korea, et al. It empowers the enemy and exposes our military to needless danger. It is our military that is paying the price for what that evil little weasel did.

People like Ron Paul know that it undermines our military, so they applaud it.

And it's sickening.


Julius, Ethel, George, and Barack

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Michael -- Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were enemies of America and promoters of tyranny. So too Bush and Obama. Uncovering the hidden truths about the immoral and destructive beliefs and acts of Bush and Obama helps America and freedom. Wikileaks does this.


Richard Goode's picture

What sensitive national security information did Wikileaks release?

I'm not saying he is innocent...

Marcus's picture

...but charge the fucker or get out of the kitchen!

He's the founder ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... of the Wikileaks site, FFS. Nothing to do with whether he got information from Bradley Manning or not. He's filth.


Marcus's picture

...have you forgotten this?


I'm not talking ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... about the rape charge, I'm talking about the Wikileaks.

He's lower than the lowest of the low.


Marcus's picture

...he claims he is innocent of the rape charges.

That's what the extradition is about.

The other charges have not been made yet. Time the US pulled their finger out and charged him. Their investigations are still ongoing. Don't blame me for their incompetence.

What doubt?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

He's not claiming to be innocent. He's proud of what he did!

Some folk here, on the grounds that Britain was flawed and Chamberlain and Churchill weren't perfect Objectivists, would have applauded as a "truth-teller" any maggot who supplied top secret intelligence to Hitler. Uneffingbelievable.

Even if I were to give Assange...

Marcus's picture

...the benefit of the doubt, he is still a spineless dickhead.

If he were innocent he should face his accusers in the bright white light of the publicity he now gets world wide. Not crawl like a worm to the nearest tin-pot dictator for refuge.

Quite so

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ron Paul is also an evil little prick and a national disgrace for singing the praises of two people that stole and broadcasted military secrets to the enemy.

I'd go further. So too are the creatures who, knowing what he and they stand for, support him and them.

Immoral AND Illegal

Michael Moeller's picture

Spying is most certainly illegal, and goes all the way to the Founding Fathers. George Washington, for instance, convened a military tribunal and had John Andre (Benedict Arnold's co-conspirator) hung for spying.

What is NOT immoral about handing over military secrets to the enemy? You don't consider the Rosenbergs immoral for handing over nuclear secrets to the Soviets? They, too, were executed for espionage.

Assange took military secrets stolen by Manning and broadcasted them to our enemies, thus exposing our military men and women. Both are evil little pricks and should face charges of espionage.

Ron Paul is also an evil little prick and a national disgrace for singing the praises of two people that stole and broadcasted military secrets to the enemy.



Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Michael -- Spying isn't always criminal or immoral. The US is militarily and diplomatically supporting tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere). Some of those terrible secrets and destructive evils need to be exposed. Wikileaks is a good means to that noble end.


Richard Goode's picture

Nice work.

(I shall, of course, "steal" your words. I hope you don't mind?!)


Richard Goode's picture

I followed your links.

The New York Times reports that WikiLeaks, an organization that says its goal is to promote transparency in governments by leaking secret information that reveals unethical behavior, did not release 15,000 of the documents until it could redact names of people who might be harmed were their identities revealed. The Guardian reports that “most of the material, though classified ‘secret’ at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive.”

The reports also record numerous instances of torture by Iraqi security forces of detainees that US troops often ignored.

The revelations have caused the UN and human rights groups to call on the US administration to investigate possible violations of international conventions on torture.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a statement reiterating its concern that "US authorities committed a serious breach of international law when they summarily handed over thousands of detainees to Iraqi security forces who, they knew, were continuing to torture and abuse detainees on a truly shocking scale".

Manfred Nowak, the UN's chief investigator on torture, yesterday told the BBC that if "authorities hand over detainees knowing there is a serious risk of them being subjected to torture, they violate article 3 of the UN convention that precludes torture".

"Potentially what one could mine from a huge data base like this are vulnerabilities in terms of how we operate, our tactics, our techniques, our procedures, the capabilities of our equipment, how we respond in combat situations, response times - indeed how we cultivate sources," Mr Morrell said.

When WikiLeaks posted 70,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan in July, the Pentagon suggested the same dangers applied. Two weeks ago, however, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, acknowledged that the first leak had not disclosed any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.

Scott Stewart, an intelligence analyst with Stratfor, a Texas-based think tank, said the nature of the Iraq documents was likely similar.

Assange shot back Friday that if the names of any Afghan informants were identified in the WikiLeaks documents, the U.S. military has only itself to blame for what he said would be a “disgraceful” lapse in security by allowing easy accessibility to such material. While declining to identify any of the organizations sources, he said the documents were available through SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) — the Defense Department’s standard classified Internet network that is widely accessible to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

“We treat these allegations seriously,” Assange said of the accusation that the leaked documents contain the names of informants. But “we don’t engage in the kind of sloppy lack of professionalism that the U.S. military appears to have engaged in.” The information posted by WikiLeaks “was available to every member of the U.S. military and every U.S. contractor — not just in Afghanistan — but all over the world. The military has acted in a disgraceful and careless way.”

At least one veteran former U.S. intelligence officer said Friday that Assange “absolutely has a point” that the identities of Afghan informants should never have been so widely accessible in the first place.

“It’s plain sloppy, there is no other interpretation of it,” said Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer in the Mideast. “You never, never, never have the names of informants” in reports that are widely accessible throughout the government. When he was at the CIA, the standard rule was that information about informants was strictly compartmentalized and “stove-piped” so only a handful of supervisors at headquarters would know their real identities, he said.

Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Mullen, said the Pentagon is now “reviewing” its policies and procedures that govern how classified information is made available throughout war theaters. There had been an effort in recent years to make more classified information quickly available to troops in the field for tactical purposes, but that “we are now looking at that” to see if procedures should be tightened.

*Specifically*, what sensitive national security information did Assange release?


Michael Moeller's picture

What is "heroic" about releasing stolen sensitive national security information that puts American citizens, particularly our military men and women, at risk?

Would you have considered the Rosenbergs "heroic" if they published the "truth" about American nuclear secrets in newspapers all over globe, instead of giving them secretly to the Soviets? No, they would still be every bit the spies and they would still be delivering military secrets into the hands of the enemy. Same thing applies to Assange.

Assange is a total scumbag and should be dragged back to the US to face charges of espionage.


Exposé Heros

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Michael -- I agree that there's a commonality between Ron Paul and Julian Assange, but as far as I can tell it's a virtuous one -- not vicious. Both these individuals are hideously compromised intellectually, and a real mess, so it's hard as hell to see thru to the truth. But the essence of Wikileaks seems to be that it's a whistle-blowing, secrets-revealing group in love with truth and tweaking the lying and destructive powers-that-be (mostly gov't, Big Biz, and Big Media). The digging out of truth, and the publicity thereof, ultimately leads to Good defeating Evil.

And I hope everyone can at least somewhat see the farce of the current Swedish sex investigation (not charges) against Assange for what it is. He's an arrogant, manipulative jerk, evidently, who recently banged two hot groupies in Sweden. (Who wouldn't, given the chance? Sticking out tongue ) After he dumped them hard and cold, they accidentally found out about each other, and seemingly decided to seek revenge via the ludicrous and unknown 'crime' claim of "sex by surprise." Assange is willing to cooperate in this silly, phony, harassing investigation, but Swedish officials refuse to question him in Britain. It all stinks of extradition to America, and more legalistic BS and rank injustice.

And on and on. Seems like all smears against heroic Assange and Wikileaks. No actual substance or meat to the innuendo, sarcasm, insults, lies, and cheap-shot slanders against these two.

Someone somewhere somehow needs to just once name something evil done by Wikileaks and Assange. An actual proven crime or immorality, however tiny. And even if someone can, these truth-seekers and truth-tellers are are almost certainly, on net balance, hugely advancing the cause of Good over Evil.

Um, Kyrel

Michael Moeller's picture

Assange released all kinds of sensitive national security information stolen by Manning, including operations of special forces, military reports and operations in Afghanistan, the names of US and Afghan informants, and sensitive diplomatic negotiations and communications. See here, here, and here.

Of course a lying sack of garbage like Richard Goode would not give a shit about American lives, particularly military personnel, but don't fall prey to it. Naturally, low-life Assange is a pin-up for other low-lives, like Goode and Ron Paul.

Perfect bedfellows, especially when you consider the fact that Goode steals other people's writings.


Are you out of your skull, Michael?

Richard Goode's picture

What sensitive national security information did Assange release? Specifically?

Rhetorical questions.

Keeping the World Safe for Slavery

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Michael -- Julian Assange and Wikileaks go to a lot of trouble to redact information harmful to Western, NATO, and American personnel. So far as I know, no-one has been hurt by them, and no proper military secrets have been compromised.

So the US gov't can continue to safely support the socialist, shariaist, anti-American, universally-hated dictatorships of Maliki in Iraq and Karzai in Afghanistan. No-one is threatening America's promotion of worldwide slavery. Not even the truth-tellers Assange and Wikileaks, who do not have a properly libertarian political philosophy to guide them.

No-one is seeking to put on trial or execute the hideous traitors to America and liberty known as George Bush and Barack Obama. And certainly no Objectivist organization is trying to advance political freedom or defeat tyranny thus.


Richard Goode's picture

What sensitive national security information did Assange release? Specifically?

Are you out of your skull, Kyrel?

Michael Moeller's picture

Do you know what they call it when somebody releases sensitive national security information to the enemy (regardless of whether he directly works for the enemy), such as names of informants, troop locations, diplomatic negotiations, and military planning?

Espionage. He should be brought here to face trial. It the past, he would have faced the death penalty like the Rosenbergs, even if not working directly for the enemy like they were.

Far from being a "truth-seeker", this scoundrel is putting sensitive national security information in the hands of enemies, and putting the lives of military personnel at risk.

Of course he is a hero to the national disgrace known as Ron Paul. Assange is out to destroy our military and national defense, so no surprise that Ron Paul rushes to his defense.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul continues to slander our military and the CIA, while simultaneously relying on the CIA for his "blowback" nonsense, ironically enough.

On what evidence? And evidence of what, exactly? Ron Paul has no evidence, so he permits himself wide latitude in fomenting lies about the CIA destroying evidence (of some unspecified crimes).

Pure slander. The man is a national disgrace. Period.



Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Julian Assange may be fairly pompous and weird personally, but he uncovers and publicizes the truth about issues and phenomena which the world's leading powers-that-be prefer to lie about, evade, or cover up. He exposes our dishonest, hypocritical, sleazy planet for what it is. He's fighting the good fight, and causing virtue to ascend. Bad people fear him, good people back him.

Magnificent speech by Ron Paul

Richard Goode's picture

The CIA destroyed all the evidence.

Enough said.

Assange ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is a Ronroid pin-up.

Magnificent piece by Hopkins.


Richard Goode's picture

Don't know about Wikileaks, but is anyone else able to access Wikipedia right now?


Richard Goode's picture

Thanks for this.

I had my first blog request the other day. For a post on Assange. Coming up. (Of course, I would have preferred to have been commissioned.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.