Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy'
170 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
The Guardian Bookshop has a special online offer of 6 pounds on the book.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Can someone put the show up on YouTube?
Older episodes are on the Media7 channel
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Would love to watch the Media7 show this week, but sadly the wise folk at TVNZ tell me that “This Video is only available within New Zealand due to International Rights Agreements”
Which shouldn’t be happening, but sometimes does. I’ve notified the appropriate people.
It’ll also end up on YouTube, hopefully – although I see last week’s ep still isn’t there.
How much do you get for the international rights Russell?
Giggle.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
I’ve no problem being identified as a member of a cognitive subspecies.
I'd have a problem identifying you as that. Thank you for your post - I found it illuminating.
-
The latest Down Under Feminists' Carnival has a very useful round up to feminist responses to various kinds of rape apology in the Assange case. Not sure how I had missed Luddite Journo's post on Naomi Wolf, but I had.
-
I do have to say that I’ve known people who display psychopathic behaviours who have been both bad, conscienceless swine and others who have been a hell of a lot of fun to be around (provided you don’t loan them money or expect their schemes to come to anything).
Psychopath is one of the most misued word in the English language, given it has a reasonably precise medical definition.
Robert Hare's 'without conscience' is a good starting point for those who are interested. His website is here.
I’ve no problem being identified as a member of a cognitive subspecies. As Peter Watts likes to observe, maybe we’re undergoing a neurological equivalent of the Cambrian Explosion to cope with the pressures of accelerating technology.
Something I've been thinking about recently, prompted by a rewatch of the film 'cube'. Would love to have a discussion about this, although this is probably not the time and place.
-
Psychopath is one of the most misued word in the English language, given it has a reasonably precise medical definition.
I'm not sure I would call it misused. It has a technical meaning which is more precise than the common usage. Just like force, speed, theory, significant, etc. The difference is that the term originated on the other side. They can all be misused by people deliberately conflating the different usages, but I think the better solution would be to educate about context.
But while we're on the topic of scary nutbars, I read the New Yorker piece on Scientology yesterday. I'd heard a bit about Miscavige before, but yeek!
-
Danielle, in reply to
I read the New Yorker piece on Scientology yesterday
Snap! What a freakshow. The cast of characters in that article runs the gamut from 'deluded and douchey' to 'actively evil'. Haggis weirds me out, too. I think he's horribly revisionist about himself in that interview.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Can someone put the show up on YouTube
It's podcast on iTunes
-
Why was Julian Assange (or his twin) tracking Hone Harawira on the television news the other day?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Why was Julian Assange (or his twin) tracking Hone Harawira on the television news the other day?
That would be John Hartevelt of The Press. He must have some interesting conversations in airports.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
+1. Watching QoT slap down Gordon Campbell is awesome (because she is) and depressing - because I expect a lot more from Campbell.
Now, I've got to go have a cry because Geoffrey Robertson has taken a long, stinky dump on whatever respect I used to have for the man.
-
(back to the crypto sub-thread) - now in a wonderful piece of cluelessness a Sony marketing guy retweets the PS3 master key ... oops ... some lawyer type is probably having words with him as "you sunk my battleship" may actually describe their current law suit
-
Thanks Giovanni for this link, though knowing the extent of Naomi Wolf's 'post-feminist' sell-out has hardly cheered me up. Jacqueline Friedman, who debated the Assange case with Wolf on TV and challenged her claim to represent rape victims - such as herself - offered more cause for hope. Still, I hate how feminist debates are so often reduced to a woman-on-woman battle that is about as liberating as lesbian porn. Wolf's counter claim to Friedman's sensible - you can't consent when you're pinned down or asleep - is basically that there are bigger things at stake here than women's sexual consent, with a dash of Brash (Don) rhetoric on a 'single standard of justice' thrown in for good measure. Yeah, right. There's been a double standard operating to excuse rape (of women) since rape was recognised as a crime. Up until the late 70s and 80s (in Britain), there was a so-called single standard of justice operating that said unwanted sexual contact (rape) between married persons was not a crime. Ostensibly, that law applied a single-standard of justice. Consent could be the basis of a genuine single standard but women's consent/non consent is yet to be taken seriously. Shame on Wolf for perpetuating the 'no means yes' mythology that trivialises women's consent and makes most women involved in what Wolf calls 'ambiguous' rape cases, like the Assange case, doubt their feelings of violation and not come forward to lay charges against the perpetrator. Just as the women in the Assange case did not come forward, except to try to get the law to force Assange to take an AIDS test, and even that was denied them according to the precepts of a single standard of justice.
-
The vast majority of abuse and violence perpetuated in Sweden, New Zealand, and every other country in the world today is perpetrated by men against women with whom they are in some kind of a relationship. This violence is not only the product of a sexist belief system but functions as its main breeding ground, as the children of abused women grow up thinking this abuse is normal.
Society reinforces this belief system in myriad ways, such as John Key's crass endorsement of Tony Veitch on our airwaves last week. Key is going after the sexist vote and he knows just where to find it in concentrated form. Reportedly, ex-All Black Dean Lonegan said Key's broadcasting of his 'wish list' of famous women he would like to screw has made him respect the man even more. Overseas media labelled Key's comments sexist, in NZ, nah, John's just being a good Keywi bloke. Sue Kedgley, on the other hand, is a "mealy-mouthed old hag" (Kerri Woodham) for suggesting that Key's comments are 'unbecoming of a PM'. Unbecoming. How dare she. Woodham also says, "If ever there was a time to say nothing, this was it." WTF? If only she would take her own advice, or come up with something worth saying.
Of course, the blog backlash against Kedgley and feminists in general has been predictably rabid.MenHaveHad Enough (UK) commented: "NZ is the most man-hating country in the world, nothing surprises me about hate-filled feminists there."
From Anne of Auckland: "Feminists are an insult to women."
From Colin of Wellington: "Kedgley is a non-entity...she would have everyone living in caves, she's so backward." (Mail Online).
And for the last – and sadly, infinitely rarer – word, from George of Melbourne, published on the same UK site:
"The man who interviewed the NZ prime minister was found guilty of kicking his partner in the back so hard he broke her back...Within a year he was on radio again...This is the man John Key decided to have public chats with about using women for sexual fantasies. Stay classy, New Zealand."
Okay, not quite the last word. There is nothing much more important than reducing violence in the world, ipso facto, there is nothing much more important than showing equal respect for women and men in public and in private life. Assange and his defenders, Veitch and Key and their defenders, transparently do not show or share this respect. George and Jacqueline transparently do. This is the simple truth of the matter, IMHO.
-
In the mean time, some of the plans to attack and discredit Wikileaks and sow discontent amongst volunteers surface.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/data-intelligence-firms-proposed-attack-wikileaks/
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Man, that's an amazing story -- and it's nice to see Anonymous doing something smarter than trying to break the internet.
Seems fair to note that the firms involved will have got the idea about sowing dissent in Wikileaks from the well-documented dissent in Wikileaks, which I don't think was made up.
-
you can't consent when you're pinned down or asleep
Asleep, no (unless prenegotiated I suppose). But pinned down? Unless your mouth is also held shut, you can surely say yes or no. And you can struggle to show dissent.
I'm not suggesting I know what happened in the room. But I haven't heard of any intimations of violence or even threats of it.
-
Reportedly, ex-All Black Dean Lonegan said Key's broadcasting of his 'wish list' of famous women he would like to screw has made him respect the man even more.
Dean Lonegan's a fuckwit and a former Kiwi League player, not All Black.
Okay, not quite the last word. There is nothing much more important than reducing violence in the world, ipso facto, there is nothing much more important than showing equal respect for women and men in public and in private life.
I agree with you. Entirely.
Assange and his defenders, Veitch and Key and their defenders, transparently do not show or share this respect. George and Jacqueline transparently do. This is the simple truth of the matter, IMHO.
Veitch is a convicted thug, I get your point about him. Key is guilty of making stupid comments and yes, enabling sexist culture, I get your point about him too. Assange however, is yet to be tried and as much as it appears he committed an offence(s), he's not yet guilty and I think that matters.
Incidentally, ABC (Australia) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3126635.htmhas a good radio doco on Assange which, I should say, is editorially favourable to him.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
But I haven’t heard of any intimations of violence or even threats of it.
I hadn’t either until I read this description of the claims:
That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, “Monica”, later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had “the worst sex ever” with Assange: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent."
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I hadn’t either until I read this description of the claims:
Yes. It does annoy me that people still fixate on a couple of tweets when she contemporaneously told friends -- who were later subsequently interviewed by police -- things that seem to bear out her later police statement.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Assange and his defenders
Sally, similar to Paul above, I agree with a lot of what you say, but we should keep in mind Assange himself has denied any wrong doing and the claims made against him remain just that so far – claims. If the claims of the women – especially “Miss W”, are accurate, then I think he is guilty of rape. But we haven’t really heard his version of events yet, other than that he denies rape, and he has not yet had his day in court (on the rape charges per se).
By the way, the reason I say Miss W's claims, if accurate, show rape has occurred is because having sex with a person who is asleep is not a way to negotiate sex – especially if the person in question has made it clear they don’t want unprotected sex.
-
“Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent."
I'm not entirely sure if that couldn't be taken to mean "violent sex" rather than "sexual violence". Do you get the distinction? I don't really get why people like rough sex, but it's not the least bit uncommon. But as you say, this hasn't reached court yet so I'm not too keen to speculate any more about what happened, other than to say it sounds like it could go either way, especially since it will be word against word.
-
I think everyone could be telling what they regarded as the truth here and it still might not be obvious whether what happened was rape.
And it's worth noting the same documents translated by Juha Saarinen also don't speak well of the competence of the Swedish police.
I think what's really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange's lawyers have told about the case, and the implicit encouragement to vilify the women.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.