Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Julian Assange Pans WikiLeaks Movie

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the his-hair-looks-nothing-like-that dept.

Movies 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

blasts an (3, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700881)

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.

Re:blasts an (5, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700981)

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:blasts an (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701081)

... We caught Bin Laden DESPITE using torture, not BECAUSE of it.

And you KNOW this how?

Re:blasts an (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701255)

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:blasts an (1, Troll)

zakkudo (2638939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701483)

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.

Re:blasts an (1)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701585)

Agreed. There is no clear data on this either way for obvious reasons.

Re:blasts an (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702023)

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:blasts an (2)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705149)

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:blasts an (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705207)

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 "some other unpleasant things". The good cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely validated that truth stretching, and offered to help you.

Re:blasts an (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705253)

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:blasts an (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705387)

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 rationalized, justified, approved of torture. I don't even attempt to redefine what torture consists of, to provide a loophole for the assholes to jump through.

I despise the Bush administration based on two issues, more than all others combined.
1: the invasion of Iraq, based on lies
2: the use of torture

I could provide you with a longer list, but those two issues will be on top.

You will never find anyplace where I have approved of the use of torture, or the threat of torture.

Re:blasts an (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706335)

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 evil thing.

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.

Re:blasts an (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706451)

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 brains. In a few cases, I simply didn't have all the facts, and even changed my perspective on an issue after another person presented me with links to more information.

But, you, Sir, will have to learn to read before you earn a salute for catching me up. Maybe you could use Google, and enter my user name along with the word "torture". I've commented often, in many places. Go ahead, hit the WWW to find all the places where I've defended the Bush administration's use of torture.

Hit that community college too - you'll be amazed what you can learn.

Re:blasts an (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706515)

I see now that you have abandoned argument and resorted to ad hominem. Ho hum.

Re:blasts an (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706547)

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 enough wind to encourage evaporation."

From THAT sentence, can you deduce my preferences in weather?

Internal combustion engines do not require an external electrical spark. They only require that fuel be compressed enough, in the presence of oxygen, that pressure causes combustion."

From THAT sentence, can you deduce whether I prefer a gasoline engine, or a diesel engine?

I could go on for days, but the fact that you fail at reading comprehension suggest that I'll be wasting all that time.

Go, get that education. And, maybe get a life while you're at it.

Re:blasts an (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706825)

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" in a more friendly manner, and basically bribed useful information from the "informants"."

zakkudo: "Are you sure they weren't doing the well known, "good cop, bad cop"? [..] The torturing effects how someone responds to bribery later."

Runaway1956: "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."

Runaway1956: [in an attempt to justify the previous remarks] "The bad cop hasn't done anything illegal, he's merely stretched the truth."

==

I'll stop there.

Go, get that education. And, maybe get a life while you're at it.

More ad hominem. You can have the last word in this thread, as it's all been laid bare.

Re:blasts an (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706385)

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 gain a promotion. The questioning should just furnish some additional details, otherwise things well inevitably get out of control, false confession will get forced, false witness against others for reduced sentences will occur, as well as of course falsely ramping up charges for a better reputation.

As for the propaganda campaign against Wikileaks, obviously it is nothing more than an attack upon the truth. The battle between mass media propaganda and all independent news websites. There is always a price to be paid for propaganda hit pieces everyone associated with gets perceived as a quisling, a betrayers and has the public career crippled as a result.

Re:blasts an (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706537)

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:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706125)

For example, from the Geneva Conventions:

To qualify (as a prisoner of war) under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

If you don't follow the Convention, you are not entitled to its protections, something Assange, et. al like to routinely ignore. Al-Q doesn't wear uniforms, thus they don't qualify for those protections. No, I am not justifying torture, but it is not a War Crime under the Convention.

So is torture forbidden or not ? (5, Insightful)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703347)

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:So is torture forbidden or not ? (1)

perceptual.cyclotron (2561509) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704575)

Reply to clear errant downmod...

Re:So is torture forbidden or not ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706165)

Torturing people is forbidden by Geneva convetions

You have to follow the Convention to get those protections. One absolute requirement is use of a uniform, which these people do not do.

As for "International Law", there is no such thing. There are Treaties and Agreements, which a Sovereign Nation may choose to either participate in or not. For all the screaming you people do about the US "imposing their will" on other nations, you're pretty quick to do the same in return when it suits you.

Note that I am not defending Torture, it's illegal in the US (barring some highly questionable loopholes). But if conducted properly, it can indeed be highly effective. Most of the time you're not trying to get someone to give you some dark secret- the knowledge which is useful they most likely won't realize is useful. When you are looking for specific information, it's only useful in situations where it can be verified directly- for example the combination of a safe or a password, etc.

The biggest problem I have with the whole torture debate is how people define it. Some people seem to think that even giving a prisoner a dirty look amounts to torture.

Re:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703993)

bollocks.

Any torturers worth their salt have a process. The process ends when the process is over not when the torturer believes they have the full information. The 'correct' information does not result in an end to the torture. You will give up 'everything' and this will be evaluated by someone who is not the torturer.

Everyone has a breaking point and the interrogator does not have to guess the point, s/he will blast through it without a second thought.

Re:blasts an (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703995)

Not to mention we tortured people that anybody with a fucking brain would know wouldn't be told jack shit. We tortured the cab driver the Taliban grabbed and used to ferry around some of their high level guys...he was a fucking CAB DRIVER, do they think that the world works like a James Bond film? that the villain is just gonna monologue their plans to some dumb shit that doesn't have squat to do with anything? Of course not he was told "STFU and drive until I say stop" and that was it. It would be like torturing Romney's garbageman to find out what his campaign plans are, how the hell is he supposed to know this? You think he goes out for a beer with Romney or something?

And THIS is why i'm so saddened and disgusted by the people in this country not saying shit about Assange and letting our leaders keep him locked in a room in that embassy because you read the shit that was posted on Wikileaks and its pretty damned obvious that several high level members of our government frankly should be brought up to the Hague for war crimes. Its disgusting the shit that our government and those hired by our government have been doing in these countries, shit just as evil as during the worst days of the Vietnam war (which you noticed the press didn't make shit about the government FINALLY coming clean and admitting The Gulf Of Tonkin was a false flag) only now the evil bastards at the top learned from their mistakes in Vietnam and simply bought up all the MSM. So now instead of anybody saying shit about this stream of information proving multiple war crimes we get "Assange is a dirty pervo rapist who need to be sent to Gitmo". you know what? I don't give a rat's ass if Assange spends his weekends pushing little old ladies down the stairs as HE ain't killing thousands of people and starting shit all over the planet!

I urge everyone to watch the end of America [youtube.com] by Naomi Wolf. She isn't some whacko here, she is a quiet little conservative Jewish girl (I personally think she is a little TOO conservative when it comes to the conclusions) who is now on the watchlist for daring to speak about our rights under the constitution. That's right folks, simply giving a lecture about what the declaration of independence and constitution says is enough to have you put on the list. In this video she shows several examples in history of free societies that became non free overnight, and she gives a step by step account of how it happens. She calls it the "universal playbook" that has been used by everyone from Stalin to Franco and watch how many of those plays are already either in motion here or have already been used. And one of the final steps she lists is a society creating a framework to where people can be tortured outside the rule of law. Why is this one of the last steps? Because it always starts small and gets bigger. Hitler started with only communists, Stalin started with the kulaks, in EVERY case she shows how these extra judicial systems grow like a cancer to cover more and more "undesirable elements".

so we need to seriously wake the fuck up, stop letting the MSM divert us with bullshit like Assange and start demanding that they go after the big issues like the tortures, bombings, and all the other nasty evil shit [killinghope.org] that has been and is being done in our name and with our money.

Re:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706191)

We tortured the cab driver the Taliban grabbed and used to ferry around some of their high level guys...he was a fucking CAB DRIVER, do they think that the world works like a James Bond film

He knows a lot more than you think, or than he realizes. He knows times, places, faces, and methods of contact. He knows habits, mannerisms, and a lot of other stuff that could be useful. He knows who associates with who, sizes of groups, frequency of meetings, etc. To use a computer security phrase, he can be used as a "side-channel" attack even though he doesn't have any direct information.

And THIS is why i'm so saddened and disgusted by the people in this country not saying shit about Assange and letting our leaders keep him locked in a room in that embassy because you read the shit that was posted on Wikileaks and its pretty damned obvious that several high level members of our government frankly should be brought up to the Hague for war crimes.

Oh, Assange, the guy who basically said he hates our guts and is going to use Wikileaks to do everything he can to bring down our government? Why should the average citizen listen to him, exactly? Disinformation is powerful, don't expect the masses to be immune here in the US or anywhere else in the world.
And nobody is keeping him in a locked room buddy. Especially not here in the US, he's on the other side of an ocean, just FYI. And there of his own free will.
Yes, I've read a good pile of the cables, and I have yet to see anything which even remotely qualifies as a fucking War Crime. Put up some hard information as to what you're speaking please, because I hear this drivel a LOT. What I DID see, was a whole bunch of shit that is completely unrelated to any war crimes, and doesn't show anything other than normal diplomatic banter. Much of it not even directly involving the US at all.

HE ain't killing thousands of people and starting shit all over the planet!

The fact that you really think world politics is that simple shows exactly how stupid you really are. I recommend starting by reading a History book in order to correct your head-in-ass syndrome. I'm not saying my government is always right, but I get really annoyed that you want to blame everything on the Big Bad USA while completely ignoring a fucking shitload of events done by other governments which are far more heinous and far more frequent.

I urge everyone to watch

Go trawl for youtube hits somewhere else dickhead.

stop letting the MSM divert us with bullshit like Assange

What? This is Assange standing on his soapbox again, it's got nothing to do with the MSM diverting jack shit.

Re:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706585)

Not to mention we tortured people that anybody with a fucking brain would know wouldn't be told jack shit.

Mod him up, when he's right (and he is sometimes) he's right. Seems only him and cold wet dog have anything intelligent and interesting to say these days.

The rest of the old crew can't even be arsed logging in to post amongst the sea of sock puppets and wet brain morons.

Re:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42705205)

Honestly, who cares? Torture is wrong regardless of whether or not it brings results. Anyone who says otherwise is anti-freedom.

Re:blasts an (0)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701563)

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:blasts an (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702729)

When notable conservative warhawks like Nancy Pelosi bitch about Zero Dark Thirty's exaggerated US-handled torture scenes, you have to wonder.

Re:blasts an (-1, Offtopic)

niyagamu (2825201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703541)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] as Rose implied I didn't even know that a mother able to profit $5340 in one month on the computer. have you seen this site

Re:blasts an (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705617)

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.

Boycott Dreamworks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701011)

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 Games".

Re:blasts an (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701099)

I have worse news. That movie comes from the propaganda factory of the powers that be, exactly the ones that want to imprint into public opinion that Wikileaks is something evil that only spread lies. Not exactly surprised about what Assagne said about it.

Re:blasts an (4, Funny)

sheetsda (230887) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701379)

1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert

[citation needed]

Re:blasts an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42702445)

I have bad news, but you're a moron for believing that making Abraham Lincoln into a vampire hunter is morally equivalent to falsely depicting the efficacy of torture, or a choad for knowing the difference but attempting to frame it as the same for propaganda purposes.

Either way, minions, downvote that shit.

Produced by DreamWorks (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700889)

So there's probably a tie-in to the US government. I'm just not certain who is calling the shots.

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700963)

The Gays.

All Hollywood is under control of the Gays and the Jews.

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701597)

Its true, we run shit. Do you want to bend over now or can I tell you about my allergies first?

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701643)

Is that you, Mel Gibson?

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42702123)

Chevy Chase.

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701955)

Hitler already said that.

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705311)

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.

Re:Produced by DreamWorks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701771)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers

Directed by
Bill Condon
R.J. Cutler

Writing credits
(in alphabetical order)
R.J. Cutler writer
Daniel Domscheit-Berg book "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website"
Luke Harding book "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy"
David Leigh book
Josh Singer adaptation

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837703/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

Production Companies

        Anonymous Creators
        Candescent Films
        DreamWorks SKG
        Participant Media

Distributors

        DreamWorks Pictures (2014) (USA) (theatrical)
        Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (2013) (USA) (theatrical)

Other Companies

        Codex Digital digital recording equipment
        Dolby Laboratories sound mix
        Sky Media Travel travel agent

Lies vs Truth (5, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700899)

A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material. They could touch on Manning's plight in jail, on the embassy drama, the fights within the organization, etc. By choosing to fabricate key elements of the plot to push an agenda that is anti-wikileaks and pro war with Iran, Dreamworks is passing up a massive opportunity as a studio, and opening themselves up to a PR nightmare.

Re:Lies vs Truth (4, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701021)

a PR nightmare

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701105)

pfft. Of course, Beyonce lipsynced! Not only that but it was completely different singer who was on the recording. A woman by the name of Lennay Kekua, I think.

Re:Lies vs Truth (3, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701275)

WTF is Beyonce?

Re:Lies vs Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704713)

Nice hips big tits?

Re:Lies vs Truth (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701397)

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 supposed to think that an obscure website could censor information about Iran when all the networks and government are doing their best to paint them as the next "bad guys with bad accents"?

The wikileaks movie will be as bad as Matt Daimon's "The Informant!" which should have been about how a mega corp bought off FBI agents to make a whistleblower look bad, but I'm supposed to eat popcorn and think some dude worked against his powerful corporation and framed it for profitable collusion so he could get attention. Obviously, TV has not had the intended effect on me.

Re:Lies vs Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701557)

The masses are cowards and/or ignorant and stupid.

The government just uses prejudices to win these things. They instill patriotism in youngsters and then pose people/countries/entities as the enemy wanting to take away what you have. It isn't true though most of the time. It is fabricated propaganda. It is done to get your support. The elite take advantage of you. Weather Obama is part of the elite or not it doesn't matter. He is working (as well as all or most leaders/political people/etc) on there behalf. Not our (the masses) behalf.

Demoracy is a genius idea by those at the top of society. Control the people without wars and rebellions. It is huge smoke screen given to the people to ensure they don't rebell against those in power. Those in power are not the leaders though. They are the people at the top.

We have slavery today. It just comes in a different form. Wages so low one can't afford to feed his family and hours so long you can't see your family. Things may have improved for the lower class slightly although people are still going hungry. They just get "technology" like TVs, heat (although even the middle class tends to freeze itself due to the cost of heating in many places), electric, and a useless "education".

Yes- I'll admit to being a slave owner by working alongside and contributing to this system. I have $8 an hour employees who get no health benefits from state or me, no vacation time, no nothing. Beyond the 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunchs I'm required by law to give. And this is actually better working conditions than the people in China producing the critical components of the systems we sell.

Unfortunately I see no way around it although continue to push for policies, laws, etc that are less strict and keep anti-freedom stuff in “check” (really reduce the speed at which we are becoming more enslaved and the people criminalized).

Re:Lies vs Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42702741)

Yes- I'll admit to being a slave owner by working alongside and contributing to this system. I have $8 an hour employees who get no health benefits from state or me, no vacation time, no nothing. Beyond the 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunchs I'm required by law to give. And this is actually better working conditions than the people in China producing the critical components of the systems we sell.

You absolute cock.

Re:Lies vs Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703747)

Oh come now. The man no doubt has a family to support and was probably unaware of the point of view he expressed when he became trapped in his present circumstance. He's no less a victim than the low wage workers he employs, although arguably they have more freedom as they can likely leave more easily. If he wasn't filling that role then somebody else would, and perhaps a less benevolent person. The entire system is the problem, a system predicated on greed. This starts with the consumer and works it's way up. Rather than quitting jobs in the system or raging against the machine your sacrifice and effort would be better exercised participating in setting up a market force for ethicality merely by giving much greater weight to company ethics, relative pay, etc in your choice of purchases, the bank you use and what you invest in. Oh and don't forget to encourage others to do this also and explain why it's important. It is far easier however to blame other people that to modulate one's own behaviour.

An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (2)

drnb (2434720) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702353)

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 all about inaccurate portrayal as well. All the leaks that fit their agenda and politics, none that do not.

The idea to anonymously leak info to the press is a good idea. Wikileaks/Assange was the wrong group/person to lead that effort. They/he have set back an otherwise good idea.

Re:An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703759)

The idea to anonymously leak info to the press is a good idea. Wikileaks/Assange was the wrong group/person to lead that effort. They/he have set back an otherwise good idea.

Yeah and I absolutely believe everybody has the right to protest, just not here, not now and not near me!

Re:An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705089)

This

Re:An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about a year and a half ago | (#42706379)

So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.

Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?

Re:An inaccurate portrayal is appropriate ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706523)

Doesn't matter. The right to bear arms only applies to white Americans. Anyone non-white carrying weapons in a country America occupies, even a dangerous lawless one where one might get killed at any moment, is clearly a bad guy.

missing an 'l' in the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700901)

he probably 'plans' a movie

Re:missing an 'l' in the title (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701283)

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 (0)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700905)

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:Iran (1, Offtopic)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701023)

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:Iran (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701723)

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't good.

Assnage's comments are just another example of Assange's self-glorification. Nobody knows about Iran because Wikileaks hasn't release anything? Please.

That isn't much different from the claim he makes in regard to planning the Arab Spring [rollingstone.com] . I doubt that is even 5% true.

. . . The first time I went to Egypt, also in 2005, I met the same kinds of people I met in Lebanon. Cosmopolitan, liberal-minded individuals who were like Arab versions of me. Egypt had nothing like Hezbollah controlling large swaths of the country and warmongering against the neighbors. No foreign army smothered the country. Instead it had a police state. The narrative there at first seemed to be: democrats against the regime. That’s what it looked like. But my experience in Lebanon prompted me to ask a question of my liberal Egyptian friends that seems not to have occurred to some of the other journalists and Western internationalists who have been there. I asked these Egyptian liberals, “how many Egyptians agree with you about politics?” The answer stopped me cold: five percent at the most. . . . --- The International Elite Bubble [worldaffairsjournal.org] , by Michael J. Totten

Re:Iran (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701875)

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 found but later it was resolved (it was because of calibration problems in some centrifuges).

Now you show us any PROOF you have of them producing nukes.

Re:Iran (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702883)

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 forward are especially interesting. Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload, is a bit hard to explain if you want to maintain the fiction of Iran's peaceful intentions.

The short of it is that the Iranians are engaged in activities consistent with designing and testing the components for a nuclear warhead to fit on one of their existing missiles [fas.org] , and building secret uranium processing facilities to provide the nuclear material for the warheads. There isn't publicly available evidence to show that they have started manufacturing any real warheads, or that they as yet have enough nuclear material. They seem to be limiting themselves to putting the infrastructure in place. . . . for now.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran [fas.org]
IAEA Board of Governors
Date: 8 November 2011

ANNEX - Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme

A. Historical Overview

Between 2003 and 2004, the Agency confirmed a number of significant failures on the part of Iran to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the processing and use of undeclared nuclear material and the failure to declare facilities where the nuclear material had been received, stored and processed.2 Specifically, it was discovered that, as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Iran had used undeclared nuclear material for testing and experimentation in several uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and irradiation activities, including the separation of plutonium, at undeclared locations and facilities.3 . . .

. . . The Agency continued to seek clarification of issues with respect to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly in light of Iran’s admissions concerning its contacts with the clandestine nuclear supply network, information provided by participants in that network and information which had been provided to the Agency by a Member State. This last information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.10 All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. . . .

. . . Between 2007 and 2010, Iran continued to conceal nuclear activities, by not informing the Agency in a timely manner of the decision to construct or to authorize construction of a new nuclear power plant at Darkhovin16 and a third enrichment facility near Qom (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant).17,18 The Agency is still awaiting substantive responses from Iran to Agency requests for further information about its announcements, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, that it had decided to construct ten additional enrichment facilities (the locations for five of which had already been identified)19 and that it possessed laser enrichment technology.20 . . .

C. Nuclear Explosive Development Indicators
C.1. Programme management structure

. . . the green salt project (identified as Project 5.13) was part of a larger project (identified as Project 5) to provide a source of uranium suitable for use in an undisclosed enrichment programme. The product of this programme would be converted into metal for use in the new warhead which was the subject of the missile re-entry vehicle studies (identified as Project 111). As of May 2008, the Agency was not in a position to demonstrate to Iran the connection between Project 5 and Project 111. However, subsequently, the Agency was shown documents which established a connection between Project 5 and Project 111, and hence a link between nuclear material and a new payload development programme. . . .

C.3. Nuclear material acquisition
C.4. Nuclear components for an explosive device
C.5. Detonator development
C.6. Initiation of high explosives and associated experiments
C.7. Hydrodynamic experiments
C.8. Modelling and calculations
C.9. Neutron initiator
C.10. Conducting a test
C.11. Integration into a missile delivery vehicle
C.12. Fuzing, arming and firing system

Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload

Re:Iran (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705125)

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:Iran (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702075)

undoing moderation.

PERPETRATED BY THE MAN TO KEEP WIKILEAKS DOWN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700927)

What's an Assange(tm) to do ?? Cry foul ?? Boo-hoo !! Don't mess with Unkle Sam !! PUNK !! Die down in your hole !! Losing your soul !! Feeling so small !! Out of control !! You have been DENIED !!

Re: PERPETRATED BY THE MAN TO KEEP WIKILEAKS DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701019)

Do not troll, you ignorant buffoon.

Iran (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700951)

Why on earth wouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapons program? The accepted wisdom now is that a nation with nuclear weapons can't be invaded by another nation. The strategic advantage of having them is massive. Even assuming they don't have ambitions of attacking Israel or anyone else, the impact on how they have to be treated in foreign relations is huge.

Now, I don't know if they have an EFFECTIVE nuclear weapons program. Maybe due to embargoes they're just banging rocks together like Saddam was. But it seems implausible that they don't have some resources devoted to developing nuclear weapons.

Re:Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706069)

Furthermore how does a nation develop a modern economy and advanced technology without the ability to create a nuke should it so desire? The current position held by The West on what Iran should be able to do seems somewhat akin to the position The Taliban has on whether women should be able to learn to read. This is all the more baffling given that there seems to be a negative correlation between levels of education and the right-wing views held in Iran that so trouble us in The West. No I'm not saying right-wingers are stupid ignorant fools, just that education seems to breed liberals and we'd like more of those in Iran, not less.

Perhaps Manufactured Conscent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700973)

I am not a conspiracy guy but it has been my experience that movie studios, record companies and governments are not that fond of openly shared information.

annonympus to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700995)

Now that all movie theatres are showing films digital only, can't he just get his annonymous friends to just hack the projector and show whatever he wants people to see.

Assange gets hold of leaked script SHOCKER! (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701017)

Film at 11. And now, sports.

Re:Assange gets hold of leaked script SHOCKER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701197)

If you think this story is about him GETTING the script, then you must be shocked by lots of things.

Didn't we discuss this yesterday... (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701061)

For a complete discussion, just read this story [slashdot.org]

Re:Didn't we discuss this yesterday... (1)

LuSiDe (755770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701943)

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 (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701063)

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:UN Security Council (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701449)

Uh-huh. UN Security Council members with really crack intelligence agencies also insisted that Iraq had WMD's just prior to its invasion in 2003.

Re:UN Security Council (2)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701653)

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 talking about regime change. The hit that WILL come to Iran is going to be aimed at the nuclear program and overwhelmingly specops/aerial/naval, which in fact adds credibility to the motives.

Re:UN Security Council (2)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42705109)

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:UN Security Council (2)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701913)

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:UN Security Council (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703973)

No one is doubting the UN Sec. Council. Did you even read the article?

Assange says the whole story is "a lie built on a lie", claiming that the US intelligence community generally believes that Iran stopped comprehensive secret work on developing nuclear arms in 2003, and that, in any case, the world had yet to see evidence of a case in which WikiLeaks had exposed a CIA informant.

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,..

I seriously doubt at any time during the Bush presidency that the US-Intel. comm. thought Iran stopped nuclear weapons research; i.e. Uranium refinement. We can thank Stuxnet for ongoing status of that. Whether Assange 'believes' the US-Intel. Comm thinks that, is irrelevant, despite his statement above, which goes to the narrative of the movie and not to Wikileaks actual work. That the film is pushing the idea that Wikileaks somehow kept the public from knowing Iran had an active nuclear weapons program, again Uranium refinement, is fairly absurd. We all know Wikileaks IS the bastion of journalism and only one looking for a scoop, right? Independent investigations for other news agencies don't exist.

And then they throw in that tied to this supposed 'kept knowledge' is the outting of a CIA informant, presumably connected to Irans NWP, and that Wikileaks was responsible for that. Has any CIA informant been compromised by any Wikileaks' releases? It's hard for me to believe anything the US Gov. puts out these days, especially regarding matters of Intelligence, as they are entirely full of shit and wouldn't know the truth and fact if it stomped on their face.

So what are we to believe? Well, it's a movie. And that's where it should end. It might be based on factual information, but how it's told and the narrative put forth should be kept at arms length, right along with science fiction. Treat it like a movie, and nothing more.

Frankly, if I want some in-depth reporting on a subject, I'll head over to PBS' website. And even then, PBS doesn't get it right sometimes.

Re:UN Security Council (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704105)

Score:5, Informative with absolutely nothing to back it up? Come on /., you're better than that.
If that's true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't as I honestly do not know, can you please post a link to the resolution in question?

Slightly off-topic but ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42701103)

Is he just trying to stay in the topic. Until he helps Sweden's investigation into stuff he may or may not have done, he doesn't have any credibility and is just hurting Wikileaks.

Re:Slightly off-topic but ... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701329)

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!

mockingbirds (2)

Max_W (812974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701497)

The Soviet bureaucrats learned hard way that keeping such phenomenons as Andrei Sakharov, Anatoly Sharansky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in prison is like trying to kill a mockingbird.

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 (-1, Troll)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701701)

Bradley committed a crime a really bad crime. It was treason. You can't have committed in the military. He should absolutely spend the rest of his life in jail.

Assange's Wikileaks activity was perfectly legal and he should be left alone for that. I have no idea if he committed a crime in Sweden, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he did. He talks like a narcissistic sociopath.

Re:mockingbirds (3, Informative)

Max_W (812974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702007)

A law has a letter and a spirit. Socrates also broke a letter of a law. And he was condemned to a capital punishment by sort of a kangaroo court of that time.

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:mockingbirds (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703063)

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 United States - not Manning.

Arguably, he is a true patriot.

When do you suppose those whose crimes were exposed by Wikileaks will be brought to justice?

Re:mockingbirds (1)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703589)

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.

is this guy for real (-1, Redundant)

zakeria (1031430) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701621)

how much of a narcissist is this man, his narcissism knows no bounds!

He's Just Holding Out (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42702031)

He's just holding out for Brad Pitt to be cast as the role of Julian. Then I bet he'll change his tune. The final cut of the movie will be 5 minutes of explosions followed by 90 minutes of Brad Pitt crashing on a couch in an embassy somewhere.

Assange shilling for Iran? Is anyone surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42702251)

What a waste of life

Film designed to sell war with Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42702461)

War is coming with Iran. Just as Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf' so the world could not pretend to be ignorant of his intentions if he gained great power, the zionist madmen of America wrote "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC). Here we learnt that the madmen would create a "New Pearl Harbour", and use it as an excuse for a rolling program of wars in the Middle east, exterminating each enemy of Israel and Saudi Arabia in turn.

Today, with live in the period of PNAC's endless 'war on terrorism'- which actually translates to endless American aggressive wars- defined previously at the Nuremberg war-crimes trials post WW2 as the "ultimate Crime against Humanity". America, of course, puts itself above all Human courts, just like Nazi Germany did before. All America has to fear is its own people.

This being so, the American people must be both disarmed (politically and physically), and subject daily to ever more pro-war propaganda.

Slashdot is part of this. The paid zionist shills are given endless pools of moderation points to promote pro-Israel, pro-Saudi, and pro-war positions. Ordinary Americans that post here naturally tend to have the opposite position, but they are usually swamped and intimidated by the continuous pro-war, pro-military, pro-Obama rhetoric.

The Wikileaks situation is depressing. Wikileaks was used in a security service operation run by the British (but with massive American participation) to create the so-called 'Arab Spring', where the British created 'Muslim Brotherhood' (actually more masonic than Islamic) would take over control is as many nations as possible, providing for governments in the pockets of the West that oversaw extremist forms of Islam for the common people.

This is the Saudi model, where American playboy stooges rule Saudi, and these playboy stooges encourage extreme religious nutters to control the lives of the ordinary citizens.

Assange was too egotistical to realise he was being 'played'. He was far too stupid to understand that the so-called Bradley leak was actually an intelligence operation to ensure Wikileaks had the information required. When intelligence services release propaganda, they need the message to be seen as arriving from a 'trusted' source.

There is a deeper game being played. While Israel loving racist filth simply want any nation of Muslims to be destroyed, the zionist racists themselves are being used as Assange was used. Iran is being set up for the world's first nuclear war. And this war is designed to trigger another World War, where the 'enemy' shifts from Muslims to the Russians and Chinese. Or, to put it more correctly, the enemy shifts from the Muslims to America itself.

If any American was really concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of racists ruling rogue states, they'd immediately focus on Israel. This sickening theocracy calls its zioinist population the 'master race' (ring any bells). This sickening theocracy has actively dedicated its industry to producing thousands of nuclear warheads, and the missile technology needed to strike any Human population centre. This sickening theocracy has never ceased waging genocidal wars on its mostly unarmed neighbours, since Jewish terrorists flooded into Palestine after WW2, and ethnically cleansed the existing population.

This sickening theocracy was the number one supporter of the depraved APARTHEID regimes of South Africa. So evil is Israel, it actually provided biological weapons to the racist regime of Rhodesia, and gave nuclear weapons to the racist regime of South Africa, both with the specific intent of maintaining "White Rule", even if that meant the genocide of tens of millions of black Africans. Israel has NEVER hidden its racist evil.

When one decent Israeli attempted to warn the planet about Israel's depraved nuclear weapons program, zionist terrorists, with the full assistance of the UK, US, French and German governments, kidnapped this man from Europe, and took him back for torture and years of solitary confinement in an Israeli gulag.

Dreamworks is owned and controlled by zionists that are proud to help finance the crimes of Israel. For the owners of Dreamworks, the nuclear annihilation of tens of millions of Humans in Iran would be 'god's work'.

Ordinary Americans don't want another World War. Ordinary Americans don't want their soldiers invading other nations. Hitler had the same problem with his population, when he became leader. Hitler also had control of a Hollywood like film industry, and wasted no time having his propagandists craft films like the 'Wikileaks Movie'.

Demonise the 'other'. Make your people constantly fearful. Ensure people see the face of the police state daily. Cause people to expect endless war. Allow the media to speak in only one voice- a pro-war voice. Create a 'win at all costs' mentality. Justify the world's largest military, and justify the yearly need to grow that military. Am I describing Nazi Germany, or present day America?

Same old, same old... (1)

crepe-boy (950569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703017)

On one flight I had the misfortune to watch the atrocious remake of The Italian Job. Paramount spent a significant amount of that film bashing Napster and Shawn Fanning.

Diddums..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703813)

It was to expected, we haven't heard from the cellar-dweller for a few weeks.

Got to keep the pot boiling!!!

(capatcha - puberty. If only Assange hadn't passed through it, he wouldn't have had any problems with Swedish women...)

Underpromoted the Aussie connection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704147)

Timothy, I'm shocked, and I know samzenpus will already be composing a blistering email rebuke.

There were so many ways to shoehorn in far more pro-Australia hype in the summary, yet that's the best you could do?

For shame.

ORSTRARLYA, ORSTRARLYA... HOW OI LAAAARRRVE THEE SOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Unbelievable hypocrisy (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704499)

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.

Re:Unbelievable hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42706265)

hey hey now, posting confidential embassy cables is one thing, but he's smart enough to know you don't want to mess with hollywood.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?