In the interest of maintaining open discussions and allowing a full range of opinions to be viewed, the forum admin would like to place an announcement concerning a defamatory post aimed at the forum and it’s admin. The post actually does violate forum guidelines with accusations and offending material aimed to demonize the forum and it’s admin. The post is presented in full in this announcement as quotes, with each part of it separated between the forum’s staff counter comments that addresses each opinion expressed by the author separately. A separate thread will be provided for comments, as we prefer forum announcements to stand alone for face value.
“WikiLeaks Forum: Smoke and Mirrors
Sunday, January 27, 2013
On January 20, the “WikiLeaks Discussion Forum” published an “Important Forum Announcement”, entitled “Cabledrum.net admits to spamming and hijacking the WikiLeaks Forum”. This announcement was also published on support-julian-assange.com and promoted on the Facebook pages WikiLeaks Cablegate, WikiLeaks: The Global Intelligence Files, Sunshine Press and WikiLeaks Deutschland (info. redacted***).”
The title of “Smoke and Mirrors” has baffled staff because the author, Cabledrummer himself is full of smoke and mirrors, as has been shown many times. Between the numerous unproven accusations he has made about the forum and the harassment of staff with messages to all of them trying to campaign against admin he obsessively tries to smear on a continual bases. The material he always presents can be interpreted many ways, but the way he presents it, his opinion overrides all others. He always speaks to anyone he writes to like they are an unthinking person that needs to be told what to think, that his conclusions are superior to anyone’s.
“While the announcement gives the impression of outlining a current incident, in fact the screenshots are more than four months old. The cited email was sent on 7th September 2012. The mentioned Twitter bot was used as a defence mechanism against a torrent of abusive tweets by forum admins with more than fifty tweets within 24 hours. This bot did not reply “to all tweets by @wikileaks_forum” (as falsely claimed) but only replied to tweets mentioning ‘cabledrum’.
It was deactivated a few days later. In any case, the incident doesn’t justify the lurid headline.”
It makes no difference when the offences occurred, the forum reserves the right to present this material over and over again as Cabledrummers attacks on the forum never end. It would always be appropriate for forum staff to present previous offensives he has made as a reminder to all new comers of his past, which by trying to say this is old news, only exposes his deeper need to cover up what he has done. Each person is of course free to interpret the supposed “facts” as he states them.
“This raises the question: Why does the forum kick up a fuss about old news now? The obvious reason for it, is the intention to detract from significant events, especially from WikiLeaks’ decision to distance itself from the forum.”
With his words “The obvious reason for it” is again his usual pattern to interpret for the reader what they should think about what he has stated. In this case he is wrong, the presentation of his prior offenses is and will always be to defend against his never ending obsession to smear the forum. The forum does not care that WikiLeaks distances itself from the it. The forum is independent and has on some occasions distanced itself from WikiLeaks. We are two separate entities and want very much to remain so.
“On January 17, the forum announced the removal of its “Syria Files” board. Their statement claimed that the “Syria Files” release would “support the destruction of an elected government” and stated that “our conscience won’t allow us to be a part of a propaganda war against a sovereign state.”"
We gave the Syria Files board a chance to prove itself and that material simply has not had the intended effect. The Syrian conflict has only gotten worse and some but not all of the forum staff felt strongly enough to take action and rework the presentation of the material. We are not obligated to post material on the forum just because WikiLeaks wants it there, when any of our staff feel it is incredulous. In the reworking of the material, some post were moved into a dedicated Syria board in the new board “The Arab Uprising” that includes dedicated boards for many other countries affected in the recent years of conflict in the regions. The leaks “The Syria Files” remain available elsewhere on the web.
“The next day, on January 18, WikiLeaks striked the forum off the list of endorsed supporter projects and stated: “The ‘WikiLeaks Forum’ is not run or endorsed by WikiLeaks and has no connection to WikiLeaks whatsoever.”"
We appreciate that WikiLeaks did this, as if further explains our independence. Again Cabledrummer thinks that we are vying for WikiLeaks support and approval of us, and again he is wrong.
“After the forum repeatedly claimed to be the “Official WikiLeaks Forum” and frequently referred to WikiLeaks’ supporters page as proof for it, the admins now obviously strive to conceal WikiLeaks’ statement from the forum’s members. As of today, the forum has still not informed its 15,000 members about WikiLeaks’ decision.”
The forum never tried to conceal WikiLeaks statement, it only confronted WikiLeaks on twitter about trying to say that they NEVER did approve of the forum. When the forum forged a new independence from WikiLeaks, to get out from under that shadow of oppression, that all of our post had to be pro Julian Assange or pro WikiLeaks, we have been met with many attacks by ardent supporters that wanted to quell our freedom of speech. We will not give up our rights to freedom of speech. This announcement should help clarify our position further to members that might have not followed us on twitter and seen the actions themselves.
“Shortly after WikiLeaks’ statement, the owner of WikiLeaks Forum quit. This owner had been appointed only three months ago with a big show: On October 13, the forum got shut down “due to ongoing attacks on staff members of the forum” but reopened just four days later, introducing “pathios” as the new site owner while everything else remained unchanged. The former owner allegedly retired from the forum but actually changed his nickname only.”
The former forum owner retired from that position because there was an invasion of privacy and threats in his real name made, effectively exposing him to danger and disallowing his right to anonymity for his own safety. It had nothing to do with any WikiLeaks statement that has ever been made. Again Cabledrummer is wrong and interpreting things to his own advantage and need to smear this forum.
“One would expect that the forum inform its members about pathios’ decision and clarify who owns the forum now. But there has been not a single word about it in the forum so far. Instead, the forum admins launched a campaign against cabledrum.net: Smoke and mirrors.”
Cabledrummer wants to know who the new forum owner is, he has asked that question on twitter to find out. He needs to know this information so he can continue to attack whoever it might be. Allow the forum to explain a little bit more about Cabledrummer’s history with the forum…
He posted an article on the forum from a source that has been designated by the hosting country of the forum as a terrorist organization, thus putting the forum in danger of legal persecution. When he was confronted about this by forum admin staff he responded with arrogance and defiance and an unwillingness to protect the forum. After sending many personal messages on the forum to staff trying to turn them against each other, he was banned for abuse. He has registered again 5 times in attempts to attack the forum and was banned again and again. He posted on the web the personal names and user names of forum staff to put them in danger. His has posted ongoing slurs and smears against the forum and continues as proven to this recent post above.
In the end it is up to each individual to decide what they want to believe, Cabledrummer is only hurting his own credibility with his coercive and intimidation tactics towards forum staff. This forum stands strong and will continue as it has, with an independent platform to allow freedom of speech and information flow.
This announcement has been made in the agreement and solidarity of the entire WikiLeaks Forum Administration Team.
On Jan 5 2012 the Official Wikileaks Forum lauched its own Google + Group in order to meet demands from Supporters. The Forum has expanded throughout various Social Network platforms and currently maintains it own Twitter account as well as a Facebook page. The forum has is edging towards 12,000 registered members and has approx. 24,000 posts. Feel free to join up and sign up on any of the following URLS:
One thing that seems to have escaped the attention of Gingrich, Christine O’Donnell and other conservatives who are holding up Clinton as being superior to Obama and the administration: Clinton works for Obama, and conducts policy on his behalf as a member of the administration. And under the principle of collective cabinet responsibility, by which Clinton’s actions are the administration’s actions, Obama is indeed a participant in the activities that are supposedly better than himself. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has joined in on the conservative hard line against WikiLeaks head Julian Assange — saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant. In addition, Gingrich has added his voice to those praising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if only as a means of damning President Obama by comparison.
During an appearance last night on Greta Van Susteren’s show, Gingrich was asked about Assange’s statement that Clinton should resign, due to the practice of having diplomats gather intelligence.
“Two quick thoughts: The WikiLeaks guy should be in jail for the rest of his life,” said Gingrich. “He is an enemy of the United States, actively endangering people, and he’s gonna get a lot of folks killed. And I think that’s a despicable act, and we should treat him as an enemy combatant, and as an absolute enemy of the United States.”
“Second, I’m proud that Secretary Clinton actually cared about national security, actually was trying to gather intelligence. And I wish we had more aggressive leaders in the Obama administration who thought that defending America was their first job, and being liked by foreigners was a far distant second. So I think that she ought to be praised for trying to gather intelligence, not in any way attacked or condemned.
“And no one from WikiLeaks should feel comfortable the rest of their lives. These are bad people doing bad things, and they’re gonna get Americans and our allies killed. And we should recognize that, and recognize that it is in effect an act of war against the United States.”Eric Kleefeld December 1, 2010
Watch the Video here: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4442415/
3.40pm: The Assange team is raising issue of “whether the requested person is an accused” and if a prosecution has “commenced”. If not, then the warrant is not valid, they say.
3.22pm: At the high court, Robert Booth points out how dry the Assange team are “with all this legalese about EU law” – a new tack. No more shrill claims about Assange ending up in Guantanamo.
3.10pm: The Assange team says the use of an EU arrest warrant for pre-prosecution questioning is not allowed under UK law.
3.09pm: On the question of whether the offences a suspect is wanted for extradition for would be a crime in England, my colleague Afua Hirsch wrote this interesting piece in December:
The European arrest warrant “has been controversial since it was introduced in 2003, creating everyday injustices”, Afua wrote. It was agreed a week after 9/11 and sold to voters as a way of ensuring cross-border cohesion in prosecuting suspects wanted across Europe for terrorism and serious crime.
It’s been downhill from there. Around three people per day are now extradited from the UK, and there is little to suggest that the majority are terrorists or serious criminals. In fact those involved in the process agree that many of the cases are “trivial”.
She goes on to say that last year Poland accounted for 40% of British extradition requests, giving the example of a case against a man who went over his overdraft limit, which would be a civil, not criminal matter in the UK.
3.02pm: The Assange team thinks it is “profoundly unjust” if allegations are made to satisfy “dual criminality” test for extradition when they actually do not satisfy this test.
2.58pm: The warrant must be a “fair and accurate” version of the claims, Emmerson says, and the court must ask if what is detailed there would be a crime in England, authorities say, according to Emmerson.
2.52pm: Robert Booth at the high court says the debate over the European arrest warrant has “gone into hyperspace”, with Assange’s barrister Ben Emmerson talking at double speed. The application could be significant though, Robert says.
2.36pm: If Assange is extradited to Sweden, and the US were then to request his extradition, what would happen to the Swedish case?
It is worth remembering that there are no extradition proceedings currently pending against Assange from the US.
I have just been speaking to Joshua Rozenberg, who writes for the Guardian’s law site. Rozenberg told me that under the terms of the European arrest warrant, the Swedes would not be able to set aside their own case and pass Assange on to the US. “They are not allowed under the deal to send him to the US on other charges,” Rozenberg said.
If, on the other hand, the US requested Assange’s extradition while the Swedish extradition request was still being decided, the British home secretary would have to decide which request to give precedence to. Rozenberg said he thought the home secretary would be likely to favour the US, on the assumption that the charges from the US would be likely to be more serious.
In addition, Julian Knowles, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, has said that Assange’s contention that he should not be extradited to Sweden because he might be extradited to the US, where he might face the death penalty or detention in Guantanamo Bay, is “frankly, a hopeless argument”.
Amy Jeffress, the US justice department’s attache to the American embassy in London, told the BBC’s Law in Action: “The president, of course, has decided to close Guantánamo Bay, and so no one is going to Guantánamo Bay and that claim is baseless.” She said the US always gave assurances in any case for which it had requested extradition that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. Read the rest of this entry »
1.09pm: The court has now broken for lunch. We will be summing up some of this morning’s proceedings shortly.
1.03pm: The four allegations against Assange are misdescribed in the arrest warrant, Emmerson says, and in all but one case would not be crimes in England.
The alleged rape by Assange when he had sex with SW when she was asleep or half asleep was not a crime, Emmerson says, because SW then consented.
The judges are wondering if they can investigate the difference between the strong wording in the arrest warrant and that of the witness statements.
12.27pm: Emmerson is arguing today that the arrest warrant against Assange inaccurately described what happened.
12.22pm: Emmerson has told the judges that the allegations against Assange cannot amount to crimes in England and therefore extradition must be blocked. The extradition order is also flawed, he says, because it seeks Assange’s return to Sweden “not for prosecution but for the purposes of an investigation” (Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence and according to the Swedish legal system charges will only be laid after extradition and a second round of questioning).
Emmerson argues that using extradition for the purpose only of an investigation amounts to “a disproportionate utilisation” of the European arrest warrant system.
He says the court is not inquiring into the credibility of the women, SW and AA, or determining guilt or innocence. Nothing he says should be taken as condemnation of the women, he says; this is not intended to challenge “the genuineness of their feelings of regret about having had consensual sex with Mr Assange or trivialise their experiences”.
Emmerson said earlier that he was not challenging the fact that they “found Mr Assange’s sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with”. But the sexual activities that occurred had taken place with consent, he argued, and, unlike in Sweden, could not be criminalised in the English jurisdiction.
12.20pm: The thrust of the Assange team’s case is that there was no lack of consent in the incidents and that the Swedish district courts were misled by the wording of the arrest warrant. Emmerson says it is “surprising and disturbing” that the warrant misled the district judges by misinterpreting witness statements.
12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW’s witness statement. Emmerson says:
They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: “You.” She said: “You better not have HIV.” He said: “Of course not.” She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.
11.50am: Emmerson stresses there was “no violence or threats”, so the arrest warrant was misleading, he says.
11.46am: “He ripped her clothes and at one point ripped her necklace,” Emmerson tells the court about Assange and the other alleged victim, known as AA. This alleged victim is “convinced Assange broke the condom by the glans and then continued to ejaculation”, Emmerson says of AA’s statement. Read the rest of this entry »
WikiLeaks founder praised as ‘brave, determined, independent’ by judges
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.
The annual prize is awarded to a journalist “whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or ‘official drivel’, as Martha Gellhorn called it”.
“WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it’s much more. Its goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism,” Martha Gellhorn prize judges said in their citation.
“WikiLeaks has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine: a truth-telling that has empowered people all over the world. As publisher and editor, Julian Assange represents that which journalists once prided themselves in – he’s brave, determined, independent: a true agent of people not of power.”
The judges also gave Martha Gellhorn special awards for journalism to Umar Cheema, of the International Times of Pakistan; Charles Clover, the Financial Times’s Moscow correspondent; and Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist based in Nazareth.
Judges for the 2011 awards were Dr Alexander Matthews, John Pilger, James Fox, Shirlee Matthews, Cynthia Kee and Jeremy Harding.
Visit the New Wikileaks Forum Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/wikileaksforum
The Wikileaks Forum (www.wikileaks-forum.com) is an online discussion community operated by the non-profit media organization Wikileaks. Our aim is to create an open space for people to share their thoughts and ideas on Wikileaks and other topics.
The Wikileaks Forum is an opportunity for its users to stay informed on the progress and actions of the organization and to show their support. The forum stands for the values Wikileaks has defended since its creation, such as freedom of speech and information. Those values are the founding principles of this forum and define the rules we have set and ask the users to respect. Wikileaks believes freedom of speech and freedom of information are paths toward improving the world we live in and those should in no way be used as a pretext for racism, religious vilification, homophobia or any form of hatred.
Wikileaks aims at bringing transparency through the leaking of secret documents from governments, institutions and private companies. It does not stand as pro or against any government, institution or private company. While using this forum we ask you to respect those values. Users come from all over the world and have different backgrounds. We encourage constructive dialogues: this is not the place to express hatred and personal resentment. When posting always make sure that your words cannot be perceived as harmful or insulting to individuals.
Criticisms have to be addressed to policies, defined actions or governments and not to a country, a population or a culture.
Keep in mind when writing that someone across the border, from another religion or another ethnicity will read it.
Visit the New Wikileaks Forum Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/wikileaksforum