The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and said “Kompromat“. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments. They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
Well, Julian Assange has been getting the bog standard Kompromat. I had imagined he would get something rather more spectacular, like being framed for murder and found hanging with an orange in his mouth. He deserves a better class of kompromat. If I am a whistleblower, then Julian is a veritable mighty pipe organ. Yet we just have the normal sex stuff, and very weak.
Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads:
“He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”
So from rape to non-sexual something. Actually I rather like that law – if we had it here, I could have had Jack Straw locked up for a year.
Julian tells us that the first woman accuser and prime mover had worked in the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC and had been expelled from Cuba for anti-Cuban government activity, as well as the rather different persona of being a feminist lesbian who owns lesbian night clubs.
Scott Ritter and I are well known whistleblowers subsequently accused of sexual offences. A less well known whistleblower is James Cameron, another FCO employee. Almost simultaneous with my case, a number of the sexual allegations the FCO made against Cameron were identical even in wording to those the FCO initially threw at me.
Another fascinating point about kompromat is that being cleared of the allegations – as happens in virtually every case – doesn’t help, as the blackening of reputation has taken effect. In my own case I was formerly cleared of all allegations of both misconduct and gross misconduct, except for the Kafkaesque charge of having told defence witnesses of the existence of the allegations. The allegations were officially a state secret, even though it was the government who leaked them to the tabloids.
Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated – but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these “serious allegations”.
Governments operate in the blackest of ways, especially when it comes to big war money and big oil money. I can see what they are doing to Julian Assange, I know what they did to me and others (another recent example – Brigadier Janis Karpinski was framed for shoplifting). In a very real sense, it makes little difference if they murdered David Kelly or terrified him into doing it himself. Telling the truth is hazardous in today’s Western political system.
Avatar, as before, you make some powerful points wrt covert operations, global hegemony, etc. but – as I’ve said before – I think you get carried away and tend towards the essentialising of entire peoples, calling, as you seem to do, for their extermination.
Look, if the UK sank into the Atlantic Ocean this very evening, does one imagine that the imperial wars and other heinous activities undertaken by the MI complex would cease? No. It’s not about ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ or whatever one wants to call it, it’s about money, power and the political and philosophical systems that buttress the acquisition and maintenance of those goals. Tribalisms of various sorts are utilised as vehciles for the pursuance of those neoliberal/ neocolonial aims. Do not mistake the husk for the kernel (as the Sufis say in an entirely different context). This fixation with ‘Anglo-Saxons’ (what, Ethelred the Unready?) and call for genocide is every bit as uncalled-for as similar exhortations wrt ‘the Jews’, ‘the Arabs’, ‘the Chinese’, or whatever.
he is a damn rapist ok? i have the proof:
http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=88
(-;
“This fixation with ‘Anglo-Saxons’ (what, Ethelred the Unready?) and call for genocide is every bit as uncalled-for …”
Uncalled for?
UNCALLED FOR?
LOL
Well, anonymous poster at 9:51pm, I’m using politesse, humour and understatement as a contrapuntal means to point-up what are, if taken on face value, horrendous statements. Without attempting to be an apologist, I sense that avatar tends to use hyperbolic rhetoric. Nonetheless, if, as I suggested, we were to substitute most other groups of people for ‘Anglo-Saxons’… so what’s the difference? There isn’t one.
Avatar Singh – the main effect of your bizarre post was to make me want to defend the English – and i’m Scottish.
The Russian government and its forces have killed as many or more civilians than the Chechen terrorist groups and rebels.
You condemn the British for backing Chechen terrorists and calling them “freedom fighters” while simultaneously saying that in your opinion the Chechen terrorists are indeed “freedom fighters”.
What in hell is your point (in less than 500 words please)?
Anyway, Aethelred the Unready was much-maligned, yet he was credited with commencing trial-by-jury. So, in the long picture, maybe not so unready. He was facing a juggernaut of Vikings. Horns, rape, pillage and all that.
… the ritual of the Blood eagle… of course, the Vikings, too are much-maligned (though in war, they were fearsome), yet they exhibited a rich culture, eg. the Norse epics and the poetry of the Skalds.
Orkney is replete with Viking remnants. It’s fascinating.
Nonethless, if you were a monk on an island, the shape of a longship rising over the horizon was a fearsome sight indeed. No amount of Buckfast would sate those warriors.
Here you are Clark, some info. on Wikileaks finances.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/wikileaks-fears-funding-network-and-sources-may-be-targeted-says-assange/story-e6frg90x-1225908983516
They are struggling financially, apparently, despite raising $1.1 million in the first eight months of this year, which justifies my description of them as a multi-million-dollar operation.
And I did not smear Wikileaks, although you seem to be attempting to smear me by suggesting that I did.
What I said was:
“…Wikileaks may not publish a genuine leak with implications for the security state, but merely pass it to a security service that might seek to take care of the leaker. …
I do not see, therefore, how a prospective leaker could be sure, or would be wise to assume, that Wikileaks is what it purports to be.”
This is clearly hypothetical. I am open to facts that refute the hypothesis. So far you have offered none, merely gone off at a tangent about personalities. Therefore, I remain of the view that a person contemplating the transmission of state secrets to Wikileaks should think carefully about the potential hazards of such action.
Frankly, I don’t care if your name is Kilroy or Kamaluddin, and your web page proves little since the fabrication of identities on the web is not difficult — which is not to say I doubt what you say. Why, after all, should you lie? But in a remote discussion such as this, it is only content that seems to me to be of interest.
more seriously, bottom line is that smearing campaigns always work, because let us face it we live in a world in which the people who really try to save it are so few, they are easy prey of an arrogant lot of humans who care for nothing but thier big job/money. And the mass sees reality as a cricus and cares nothing. In an age of automatons and a market whose only objective is to evolve machines and make moneyw with them peopel like assange should have a better treatment. But the owners of the world and the mass of sheeple slaves couldnt care less and so if humans dont care why the Universe should let us stay anylonger ‘man is a mush on the surface of a rock in a corner of the Universe, departing of these facts we can talk about him’ schppenhauer
“Reality as a circus” with passive spectators: Yes, indeed, Paul, I agree. The Situationists predicted this.
TM,
so far, WikiLeaks seem to have done very good work. All that I’ve seen and read so far confirms that WikiLeaks does exactly what it says it does. The background of Assange and the Wau Holland foundation strongly contradict your assertion that WikiLeaks could be an intelligence agency front.
Sorry if I appeared to smear you. Assuming that they are genuine (which I do), Assange and the other members of WikiLeaks have placed themselves in the firing line of some of the most powerful organisations on Earth. I respect that, and I think you should be more careful about propagating these rumours; encouraging mistrust of WikiLeaks works to the advantage of the secretive and the powerful.
My little web page proves nothing in itself, but I am CONTACTABLE through it; what more could be asked of someone who is not publicly known? Do come round and ask my neighbours how many men in trenchcoats and dark glasses come to visit me. I’ll let you try out the ejector seat in my Aston Martin and let you fire harpoons at my sharks.
159.172
Paul,
I agree that high-profile opponents of the propaganda and war machines are a small minority. However, there are many people that oppose oppression in less conspicuous ways. I also disagree that the majority do not care. There are many that would care if they knew, but they are not exposed to informative media, and they lack the time to find out. There are also many that do care but feel that they are powerless to change things.
I find the UK political and mass media systems very disheartening; it seems so difficult to change anything. But I think we should try to nurture our optimism and encourage people to get involved.
Hi Suhayl – that’s extremely kind of you to say so, please let me know if you have specific questions about the place. Thank you for overlooking the odd grammatical howler and clumsy wording which must make a real author like yourself cringe.
somebody: I’ll second that, about the demonisation of the three ‘c’s, as you rightly put it. I’d also like to remind old Abe that Cuba is not 1930s Russia, and Castro is not Stalin.
“I remain of the view that a person contemplating the transmission of state secrets to Wikileaks should think carefully about the potential hazards of such action.”
Well, good lord. A person contemplating the transmission of state secrets should think carefully about the potential hazards of such action. Yes indeed. It’s hardly open to doubt, is it ?
Clark,
“I think you should be more careful about propagating these rumours; encouraging mistrust of WikiLeaks works to the advantage of the secretive and the power”
I am not propagating rumors. I stated a logical inference from limited knowledge. Your knowledge is possibly greater but evidently no more definitive than mine, otherwise you would have stated why the possibilities that I referred to can be definitively ruled out by a leaker contemplating using Wikileaks as an intermediary.
Further it is illogical to say that such reservations as I outlined about the wisdom of using Wikileaks as an outlet for classified or proprietary information necessarily “works to the advantage of the secretive and the powerful.”
On the contrary, if the hazard I postulated is real, then the concern I have expressed works exactly contrary to “the secretive and the powerful”, i.e., those who might have set up Wikileaks as a trap for leakers.
If, I were intent on leaking information in contravention of, say, the Official Secrets Act, I would certainly consider alternatives to Wikileaks as a channel to the public. One of the most spectacular leaks in recent times was of the “Climategate emails”, an operation that was conducted with great effect without the aid of Wikileaks.
In fact I really don’t see what useful function Wikileaks serves. They claim to assess and edit material, but a conscientious leaker should know the material much better than Wikileaks and would likely not want to be second guessed by people about whom they likely know rather little.
A further point is this: Wikileaks are best known for the release of tens of thousands of classified Pentagon documents on the Afghanistan war. What has been the effect? To allow the mainstream media to publish stories stating that Osama bin Laden is alive and well, living in Pakistan and directing the war in Afghanistan. Since bin Laden was near death with kidney failure nine years ago, I find these stories hard to believe. It is not hard to believe, however, that Wikileaks has either been duped or has acted as an accomplice to an intelligence agency seeking to promote extension of the War on Terror to Pakistan.
While I don’t doubt your personal information, I can only take it on trust, unless I hire a gumshoe to make enqiries in Chelmsford, an expense I an presently ruling out.
To Anonymous: You attention span may be limited, but do try to understand things in their context.
TM
I agree with you. There’s something very odd indeed about WikiLeaks’ release of the Pentagon documents. I see it as a stunt to get WikiLeaks as much publicity as possible in order to rein in potential leakers to the one site and thereby control the leaks – a logical step by such corrupt governments fearful of exposure.
TM,
I agree with you. There’s something very odd about WikiLeaks’ latest releases. I think the intention is to gain as much publicity as possible in order that the site gathers in potential leakers thereby placing leaks under covert government control. To me it’s quite a logical step for the US/UK governments to take in light of their corruption and the possible growing alienation of their employees.
I am always reminded of the BT ads when the boy is telling his gran (Maureen Lipman) how he got an’ology’ in his exams.
Seems Dr Hunt chose the wrong ‘ology’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308509/David-Kelly-doctor-Nicholas-Hunt-cautioned-breaking-GMC-rules.html
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306524/Dr-David-Kelly-inquiry-Doctors-accuse-pathologist-preventing-investigation.html
Climategate, “an operation that was conducted with great effect”.
It was, wasn’t it ? Of course, if you can be sure that your information is going to be given big headlines all over the English-language press, then the problem’s sorted. Apart from worrying about possible journalistic cherrypicking, anyway. (Incidentally, did anybody do any work on how that hacking was done, or who by, just a couple of weeks before the big conference ?)
Are these things exclusive, could one not send the stuff to Wikileaks and do whatever else one can think of, at the same time ?
And, anybody else that offers to take such potentially problematic info, are they not equally to be careful of ?
This is not to support Wikileaks particularly, of which I have no more knowledge than is publicly available,
it’s just to point out that this is indeed potentially a serious business, and one’s hard thinking should deal with that problem in its entirety. Trust tentatively, but verify just as hard as you can. *All* possibilities, not just the ones that we sudenly have people turning up telling us to distrust.
And, of course, to note that Wikileaks’ getting all this attention and argument is a function of its success in publishing a vast amount of info. Of varying value, of course. Its being on a website means that people can go look at it for themselves, in years to come; if you give it to a newspaper it’s likely to disappear along with the headlines.
Aand, from a different angle … to run a website holding such stuff, and keep it running, you’d need some people with fairly mighty sysadmin skills. They’re not necessarily in such great supply.
Just so’s the discussion doesn’t become unecessarily narrowed down …
It’s a pity Craig’s so busy, he might have some interesting stuff to say on the problems of getting stuff published.
TM,
I really can’t find any reason to distrust WikiLeaks. Reasons to trust them include Assange’s background in hacking, activism and Free Software, the involvement with the Wau Holland foundation, the host of material on the WikiLeaks site, and the lack of warning from the Cryptome site.
Whether Osama bin Laden had died or not has been a matter of controversy for years (though not in the Mainstream Media). Yes, of course the Mainstream has seized upon Osama bin Laden, whose name I expect sells many newspapers. Not having read the Afghan War Diaries, I do not know if they include evidence that Osama bin Laden actually still lives, or merely that US forces believe that he does.
We need skepticism, but ‘Divide and Rule’ has always been a technique of the powerful, and without some degree of trust our efforts could become hopelessly fragmented.
Still, if you have any actual evidence against WikiLeaks, I’ll read it with interest.
What’s all this nonsense about a ‘gumshoe’? You could just e-mail me. If I were to prove evasive then you’d have some reason for suspicion. All I have to judge you are the initials “TM”. The same goes for Assange; he’s prepared to stand up and be counted. As such, he’s more open and accountable than yourself.
Clark – I’m certainly suprised by the suggestion that Wikileaks “allowed” the publication of noise about ObL. Remembering such stories from way before I’d ever heard of Wikileaks, I don’t think the headline writers needed its permission. Indeed, what wouldn’t ‘allow’ them to write such things, if they think it’s going to sell some copies ?
Incidentally, I’m not sure that involvement with “Open Source” guarantees a wonderful personality, but as a technique, yes. Let people see how you reach your conclusions, show why you think you’re right (“many eyeballs make any bug shallow”, to borrow from someone I’m not altogether hugely impressed by, just as a case in point). More specifically, in this case, I see many people making assertions about what the material says, but very few urls showing where it says it.
Bleargh, did it again. Me at 1:01
I agree with Clark and his logic of assessing Wikileaks from passed history and the actions of its co-founder.
With respect to TM and Ruth, I personally believe, somewhat inevitably and repeated again, that the Pentagon papers were purposely leaked to Julian and his people; of course right now I have no evidence to back this claim which is based on intuition and a wry look from an intelligence friend who remained silent.
As an aside, during this recent conversation I learnt that Ayman al-Zawahiri is a Russian agent. Interesting!
Paul,
Spot on about smearing campaigns – in a recent argument with our friend tomk in another place I have been extremely careful not to become too embroiled in ‘propaganda and war-machines’ as Clark points out, I am in a minority at present, therefore vulnerable; however a dedication to data-mining and persistent inquiries will I hope increase that minority and enable me to confront lies and government conspiracies head-on.
Still going on about Julian Assange? If you’re such a caring man, Mr Murray, why did you become a British Ambassador and help implement British foreign policy, which is all about helping British corporations pillage from poor nations.
As an atheist, you claim death is the end, that you’re just a mass of atoms moving about. But if your entire existence is nothing more than particles moving about, then you don’t exist. How do particles moving about create what doesn’t exist in the matter universe – conscious experience? THEY DON’T!
If death is the end, why are you alive? Before you were born, you were particles in space. When you die, you become particles in space again. You were dead before you were born! Who’s to say you won’t be born again – religious pun not intended.
*** UPDATE ON BRADLEY MANNING ***
IF PEOPLE DESERT MANNING, YOU WON’T HAVE ANY MORE WHISTLEBLOWERS OF SUBSTANCE, AND WIKILEAKS WILL GO DOWN THE PLUG-HOLE. Stupid idiots!
“[Manning’s] attorney…says Manning is currently receiving treatment, including a regimen of prescription drugs, for depression and insomnia.”
ww w dot bradleymanning dot org
If you want, make a donation to buy Manning a good legal team – or you can just send him a card, so that he knows others give a damn about him.
Alternatively, keep reading Mr Murray’s posts and remain spectators – exactly what the politicians want!
If Bradley Manning did leak the video of US soldiers killing Iraqis, he gave WikiLeaks a big boost – donations surged in after that video was released.
If you want WikiLeaks to stay around, support the whistleblowers when they end up in dire straits and on suicide watch.
My Existence Isn’t Real,
You made a good point on whistle-blowers but you weakened your argument by being unkind to Craig Murray; everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Thank-you for the update I am concerned that he is being given a ‘regimen’ of drugs. Is this to obtain a false confession? see my last post.
Clark said:
“I really can’t find any reason to distrust WikiLeaks.”
Famous last words.
LOL
Or as Andy Grove, CEO of Intel, remarked “only the paranoid survive.”
I don’t know if that was strictly true at Intel, but it must certainly be true in the intelligence world.
You mistake a lack of proof of dishonest intent for proof of honest intent. Or you are deliberately promoting what may be a trap for leakers and a channel for US pro-war propaganda — which I suppose would be a perfectly honorable thing to do for a citizen of the UK, which is a loyal ally of the US and partner in the War on Terror.
I am not able to judge Dr. Assange’s character from the fact that he is a “hacker” etc. However, judging by his academic credentials (see http://edu.npo.eu/news/, as posted above), he looks a bit flakey to me.
Oops,
When I said supporting the War on Terror is an honorable thing for a UK citizen to do, I should have said “patiotic thing to do.”
Patriotism being the “last refuge of the scoundrel” and all that, it is clearly not necessarily equivalent to honorability.
Mark,
When you say “I personally believe… that the Pentagon papers were purposely leaked to Julian and his people” you are implying that Wikileaks is, at best, a dupe of US intelligence, at worst, an accomplice.
How then can you agree with Clark that there is “no reason to distrust Wikileaks”? Either they are incompetent in what they claim to be doing or they are entirely fraudulent.
TM (Confused)
Re: Wikileaks funding
They claim to have raised over $1.1 million this year. That would mean one hundred and ten contributions of $10,000 each. However, they have had only one such contribution, they say. So to achieve the reported fundraising total they would have needed 110,000 contributions of $10 each in the last eight months.
I find such success in fundraising hard to believe. I mean, how many of the Wikileaks supporters here donated even ten bucks?
However, to claim a brilliantly successful fundraising campaign would mask any income from other sources, e.g., to fund Assange’s global travels, his legal fees, etc., etc.
The CEO of Intel is one Paul Otellini.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/bod.htm
I don’t give a stuff what the CEO of Intel has to say. The Zionist Hasbara trolls are always keen to mention the name when they are boasting about Israel’s technological achievements. They also mention phamaceuticals but never their weaponry used to kill the Palestinians.