Julian Assange Pans WikiLeaks Movie 118
As reported by news.com.au, Julian Assange has seen leaked copies of the script of an upcoming film depicting WikiLeaks, and blasts it as inaccurate propaganda. He says, among other things, "They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now." Says the article: "Assange declined to say where he got the script, although he hinted that he had been supplied with several copies of it over time. He also declined to say whether the script would be posted to the WikiLeaks website, saying only that "we are examining options closely.'"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:blasts an (Score:5, Insightful)
upcoming film depicting wikileaks
I have bad news, but films are designed to sell advertising, tickets, and concessions food in that order. you dont achieve all these things by making an accurate depiction of a subject matter, you sensationalize it. among other things patently false in several other films:
1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert
2. transformers: cars do not in fact transform into killer robots.
3. Jurrasic park: while UNIX is in fact quite useful in the administration of automated SCADA systems, no such systems have been constructed to date for the express purpose of housing genetically cloned dinosaurs, which also do not exist.
4. zero dark thirty: "terror" is in fact not something a nation can declare war on or successfully claimed to have emerged the victor from.
Ya know, I think I'd watch a parody movie about Wikileaks. One where Assange is a Cyborg Ninja from the 45th century, sent back to save the world from what the United States will become. But not while he's still alive. I guess I'm saying that my descendants would probably enjoy that movie.
But 1, 2, 3 -- those are obviously based on fantasy. Not reality. This movie is ostensibly based on real people, real events. That puts it in a different light. It is held in a higher standard.
Imagine a movie about Linus Torvalds, where he's portrayed as actively attempting to destroy America's economy by being a socialist communist pink fascist obsessed with "stealing" from American programmers, who put up a valiant and noble fight against him. Would suck, wouldn't it?
As for #4, having not seen the latest "Rah Rah War is Awesome" movie there, nor do I really intend to. (I try to not support political assassination whenever possible.) I can only say that your comment on Zero Dark Thirty seems like more of a statement of fact about a real life policy enacted by the Bush Administration and continued by the Obama administration.
Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.
We caught Bin Laden DESPITE using torture, not BECAUSE of it.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you really call killing Osama a political assassination?
" 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy."
How the hell do you know that if you haven't seen it?
Re: (Score:1)
When notable conservative warhawks like Nancy Pelosi bitch about Zero Dark Thirty's exaggerated US-handled torture scenes, you have to wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.
I didn't get that impression. Further, on The Colbert Report on 2013-01-22, the director called torture "reprehensible," and indicated that the depictions were included in order to avoid whitewashing history.
Re:blasts an (Score:5, Insightful)
We KNOW this because of testimony from the CIA operatives who worked with the captives who provided information about Osama.
In short, they tortured people suspected of knowing important information, and those "informants" gave up shit for intel. They'd say ANYTHING they thought the torturers wanted to hear. And, it was useless.
AFTER all the torturing was finished, different operatives approached the same "informants" in a more friendly manner, and basically bribed useful information from the "informants". Promises of better treatment, promises of religious practice, a little sympathy, a little empathy, share a smoke - the little things that denote that you recognize a man as a man, and that you respect him.
FFS, parents who are worthy of that title can tell you that they can tease information from their children far more readily than they can threaten it or beat it out of them.
Our own experiences in Viet Nam demonstrated quite clearly that our guys would, eventually, tell their torturers anything that the torturers wanted to hear. And, our guys fed the Viet Cong garbage for the most part. The interrogator wants to hear about troop concentrations, complete with equipment lists? Fine, spout some nonsense at them, transpose numbers, inflate some, deflate others, blah blah blah.
Everyone has a breaking point, but the interrogator is only guessing at what that point is, and he's only guessing at the usefulness of the information he extracts.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. There is no clear data on this either way for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations.
Re: (Score:3)
It only requires the THREAT of torture
It's generally considered a form of psychological torture to threaten to torture somebody. For example, from the Geneva Conventions:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Re: (Score:2)
That is quite clearly understood by most of us. However, I said, "It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
In the good cop, bad cop scenario, the bad cop states that you're facing about twelve lifetimes in prison for your crimes, then the good cop comes in, offers you a coke and a cigarette, and offers to help you get your list of crimes reduced to only three lifetimes in prison.
The bad cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely stretched the truth. That is the
Re: (Score:2)
Your attempts to work around the principle remind me of "enhanced interrogation", and backpedaling to boot. You explicitly said, "THREAT of torture", which is explicitly forbidden. See how easy it is to become that which you hate?
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension, much?
Go back, read it again. In fact, I copy pasted my original statement to respond to your post.
"It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring"
Must I draw a picture, color it, and label it for you? I'm opposed to torture. I'm opposed to "enhanced interrogation". I'm even opposed to the "good cop - bad cop" routine.
Read my posts in this thread four or five times, or four or five hundred times if necessary. Nowhere can you find that I've ration
Re: (Score:2)
According to the US government and the US military is just requires the redefining of what is and is not torture. I though the current Uncle Tom Obama approved definition is 'No Permanent Organ Damage'. He must have approved it because there has been not attempt to prosecute for the repeated practice.
There is very little to gain by interrogating a prisoner, you either have the evidence of a crime and the prosecution is valid or you are just fishing because you need to 'win' some prosecutions in order gai
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension, much?
Full of shit, much? You got caught in a bad position and are trying to weasel your way out of it.
I'm even opposed to the "good cop - bad cop" routine.
You didn't state that originally. What you tried to do, in two separate posts, is give a way that wasn't torture for the bad cop routine. Both times you clearly invoked the use of threats, and in the first post one of those threats was the use of torture (key word there being "or"). You can't say you can solve your problems by "evil thing or some other unpleasant things occurring" and pretend you didn't advocate
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to school, chump. You are unequipped to engage in a battle of the wits. There's a community college near you that can help with your own personal set of disadvantages.
There are times when I've failed to convey my thoughts properly, and a couple of times slashdotters have called me on it. When that happens, I am man enough to give them some kind of salute, and acknowledge that I have screwed up - whether I made a simple typo, or I typed to damned fast and allowed my fingers to get ahead of my brai
Re: (Score:2)
I see now that you have abandoned argument and resorted to ad hominem. Ho hum.
Re: (Score:2)
I though the current Uncle Tom Obama approved definition is 'No Permanent Organ Damage'. He must have approved it because there has been not attempt to prosecute for the repeated practice.
You're wrong. There was a policy of torture from the previous administration. This was rescinded. What is true that Obama explicitly decided he was not going to prosecute any of the past torture. Example article here [huffingtonpost.com]. I could understand that point of view, and easily debate both sides, but to say that Obama didn't recognize what went on before as torture is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ on a crutch man! Here is the post you originally replied to:
"The "good cop, bad cop" routine does not require the use of torture. It only requires the THREAT of torture, or some other unpleasant things occurring. The routine is very effective, of course, in certain situations."
How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?
Let's try this: "The formation of ice does not require subzero or even subfreezing temperatures, it only requires a low temperature near freezing, and en
Re: (Score:2)
How in the FUCK do you deduce, from that post, that I approve of torture?
What you endorsed was the threat of torture, which many consider a form of torture in and of itself. What you're ignoring is the context of the rest of the thread:
==
_KiTA_: "We caught Bin Laden DESPITE using torture, not BECAUSE of it."
Anonymous Coward: "And you KNOW this how?"
Runaway1956: "We KNOW this because of testimony from the CIA operatives who worked with the captives who provided information about Osama. [..] AFTER all the torturing was finished, different operatives approached the same "informants
Re: (Score:1)
You will never find anyplace where I have approved of the use of torture, or the threat of torture.
Except I did, in black and white.
No you didn't - and anyone can read the thread and see for themselves.
I don't know why I bothered with this reply as I know how arguing with trolls work - and hell, it's not even my battle. I just get frustrated when I see asses like you who make a mistake and then create an issue out of being mistaken like it's death before you admit it. I did this more to support your victim here than try to argument you - feel free to declare yourself winner after I don't reply back.
Re: (Score:2)
feel free to declare yourself winner after I don't reply back
It's easy to declare myself the victor when you don't make an argument and throw out the word troll. Yes, anybody can read the thread, and I even quoted the essentials in a convenient format in a later post. Since you don't have an argument to make, your support for the "victim" means nothing to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is Uncle Tom Obama recognises it is torture and is just publicly an accessory to crime after the fact and publicly thumbing his nose at the law. So his attitude, "Law, Law, I don't need to stinkin Law, I am the Law". So Uncle Tom Obama's stance is even worse as he does not have ignorance and stupidity as an excuse, he is just a straight up undeniable criminal. Seriously the only legal stance Obama should take would be to force an acknowledgement and a vote on the Congress and Senate
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to debate somebody who needs to pepper their speech with "Uncle Tom Obama". I pointed out your factual error, and will leave it at that.
So is torture forbidden or not ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even arguing whether torture was effective or not is a sign that US propaganda in this regard did very well. Now supported by Hollywood they seem to beat Goebbels to the punch. Torturing people is forbidden by Geneva convetions and international law, period. Anyone using torture under any pretext should be prosecuted, period. This ban has its reason: if you allow your government to torture some "brown people" your govt claims being dangerous, a precedent is being set and very soon the very same government will torture just about anyone they don't like (including their own citizens).
Stop talking about effectiveness of torturing people - your government propaganda division can't be happier hearing this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they weren't doing the well known, "good cop, bad cop"? I do not think the order of torture, then bribery is random at all. The torturing effects how someone responds to bribery later.
There really is no in spite of. It's just the status quo.
If your "bad cop" routine involves hanging known innocents from hooks until they die and shoving flashlights up people's children's asses in front of them to get them to talk (both things confirmed by the Red Cross to have happened to people under our watch in Iraq), seek a different career path.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Boycott Dreamworks (Score:1)
This appears to be a propoganda film. So is Zero Dark Thirty.
IANAL. When companies create movies about people who are alive, and events that are still being ajudicated, they are interfering with due process. Who knows what fallacy will be used against Julian Assange as a result.
Note that Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned in solitary confinement after a judge was convinced that he could just whistle into a phone and launch nulcear weapons. The idea that was pitched to the judge was based on the movie "War Gam
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:blasts an (Score:5, Funny)
1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert
[citation needed]
Produced by DreamWorks (Score:2)
So there's probably a tie-in to the US government. I'm just not certain who is calling the shots.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely not what I was thinking. I was referring to Big Media and our government scratching each other's back. Period.
But since you steered the topic that way: I don't give anyone a get out of jail card just because they might play their anti semetic trump. But I wouldn't put it past our government's propaganda ministry to have done that calculus.
Lies vs Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lies vs Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
By whom? Almost all Americans don't care about Julian Assange or Bradley Manning - they probably don't even know who the two are if you didn't mention Wikileaks in the same sentence.
Now, back to the news - what is important, did Beyonce lipsync?
Re:Lies vs Truth (Score:4, Funny)
WTF is Beyonce?
Re: (Score:2)
The above comment is more true than funny.
I can't watch Mobster movies with the same verve of "gotta get those guys" now that I know how our banking system guarantees winners.
I can't watch some show about people with bad accents and -- ooh, shudder, they are "terrorists" because these WMDs and improvised explosive devices are no match for Nukes and white phosphorous bombs.
The CIA is just corporate espionage, the FBI is after MP3s rather than CEOs who do more damage, the FDA covers for drug companies and I'm
Re: (Score:1)
An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (Score:3)
A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material.
And the unedited helicopter gunship video that brought wikileaks mainstream attention would have been compelling material too. Unfortunately wikileaks saw an opportunity to get the press attention that they desired and to further the political agenda that they desired. So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons. The journalists walking around with armed insurgents was an inconvenient truth for their narrative. An inaccurate portrayal of wikileaks is fitting since they were are al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.
Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?
Re: (Score:2)
So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.
Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?
Actually, yes. One guy had an RPG.
However that does not really matter. The helicopter was out there to protect ground troops. There had just been a firefight between insurgents and US troops in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he panned it. He thought the movie sucked, so he tossed it into a pan, and sauteed it in butter. The movie still sucked, so he left it out for the cats to eat. They're not touching it either.
Iran (Score:1)
They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program
Apparently Assange sat down with Ayatollah Khamenei and got his assurances that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon? Or perhaps he snuck in and examined their facilities? Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.
I'll say.
IAEA Releases New Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program [fas.org]
Iran’s Top Atomic Official Says Nation Issued False Nuclear Data to Fool Spies [nytimes.com]
China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That post is offtopic? Hardly.
From the fine story post:
"They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now."
Both of Assange's assertions are false as shown above. Iran isn't being framed, they do have an actual active nuclear weapons program, including design and testing of implosion based warhead components. What they have yet to do, so far as is publicly known, is to actually produce a real warhead. Anyone reading the papers, as shown in the parent post, or other sources [foxnews.com], knows this. If fact, Iran may be making a move to surge their efforts [foxnews.com]. This isn'
Re: (Score:2)
1- CIA and other intelligence agencies have expressed several times that Iran does NOT have an active nuclear weapons program. No one has ever proved them to have such an active program.
2- All nuclear material in Iran is under 24hours IAEA supervision and accounted for. IAEA has never complained about considerable (more than a few grams) of material missing.
3- Iran has not enriched Uranium at military levels (i.e. more than 24%). There has been one occasion in which an slightly higher enriched trace was fou
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forwa
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't find any reference to unsupervised "nuclear material" (i.e. what NPT is about) except those very small amounts mentioned here "late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s" which is referring to a decade ago. Currently all the fissile material is under supervision.
Conducting tests with highly explosives (non-nuclear material) and missiles is not covered by NPT agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange gets hold of leaked script SHOCKER! (Score:2)
Didn't we discuss this yesterday... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One major difference is Steve Jobs (the main subject) has passed away whereas Julian Assange isn't only very well alive, his story (pun intended) isn't over yet. With a story based heavily on (controversial) history, the story is too fresh. The dust should settle in first.
UN Security Council (Score:4, Informative)
7 times the UN security council has unanimously voted that they have evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and ordered them to stop. If they're being framed, they're being framed in such a way that every single member of the security council has it confirmed by their own intelligence agencies.
And yet Assange individually knows better than all of these intelligence agencies. If he had actual proof of that, that would be a fantastic thing to leak. I don't believe he does.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually most of those agencies believed that they didn't, and stated as much. As did the non-Cheney controlled American analysts. It was pretty obvious at the time that the Bush/Cheney were looking for a pretext for war.
Thats not the case this time. Iran is an existential threat an ally. Has actively supported our enemies. Is unequivocally known to be enriching uranium. Has traded bomb and missile technology with a country that openly admits to be developing weapons to target the U.S..
Furthermore no one is
Re: (Score:3)
Actually most of those agencies believed that they didn't, and stated as much. As did the non-Cheney controlled American analysts. It was pretty obvious at the time that the Bush/Cheney were looking for a pretext for war.
I'll await your citations. I've debated this position with others in the past, and even France, the poster child for the "wise" Europeans counciling against war by the brash Americans, wanted more time for inspections. They never said they believed there were no WMD.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop there.
"UN security council has unanimously voted that they have evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and ordered them to stop"
Is that a joke?
UN voted that they have enriched Uranium for weapons? Iran has never enriched above 20% level. Show me your proof or I call a huge bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#UN_Security_Council [wikipedia.org]
mockingbirds (Score:3)
The US and UK bureaucrats should cut losses, learn lessons and leave Julian and Bradley alone. Let them go wherever they wish while still there is time. They are just too big to be kept down like this. Not good to attract attention to them any longer.
It the USA and UK go berserk the whole world will turn into a zoo.
Re:mockingbirds (Score:4, Informative)
They are on the same scale as Socrates, they are the personages of human civilization. Nothing can be done about it anymore. They are too big and can turn out to be unexpectedly devastatingly strong. The best way is to leave them alone and ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley committed a crime a really bad crime. It was treason.
Arguably. It could also be argued that the people he exposed, those that committed the criminal acts he exposed, those that were complicit, those that created the framework where such disgusting, amoral and hideous acts could be committed - it could be argued that these people were the criminals, and Manning the patriot for exposing them. They were and are acting against the interest of the United States - not Manning. They were, and are, by their actions betraying the principles and ideals that unite the U
Re: (Score:2)
I missed something. What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.
Re: (Score:2)
I missed something.
You sure did. Why is that? Why did it become so important to you to focus on Manning himself and not on the content of the leaks?
What big horrible crimes did Manning's leaks reveal? The only thing close was a video of an airstrike in Baghdad, which he found in a Judge advocates file because it was being investigated by the military already.
Isn't that the one that we later found out the US military had counted as insurgent deaths - when in fact it was a bunch of civilians and a reuters cameraman? The one with the helicopter crew whooping and laughing whilst innocent people are killed, and then later, when they find out that there were kids there, they justified it to themselves by saying that civilians shouldn't hav
He's Just Holding Out (Score:3)
Same old, same old... (Score:1)
Unbelievable hypocrisy (Score:1)
So, he gets a leak about his site that's made of leaked material, but won't post the script of the movie about it FRONT PAGE as soon as received? What an hypocritical imbecile.
Ego (Score:3)
This will cost me karma but when will his fanbois finally understand his ego knows no bounds.
He fell out with with Daniel Domscheit-Berg and other co-founders of Wikileaks.
He fell out with his Alan Smithee his autobiographer.
He fell out with the Guardian Newspaper.
And now he's fallen out with Dreamworks.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't cooperate either. Never cooperate in any criminal investigation in which you might be a subject. Never, never, never. You have the right to be silent - USE IT IDIOT!!!
Investigators never ask an innocent question. A totally innocuous question, such as, "Isn't that a beautiful child?" answered affirmatively, will be used to paint you as a pedo. Never cooperate!
Re: (Score:2)