18 July 2013

Trailer for "The Fifth Estate"

The trailer for Bill Condon’s WikiLeaks movie, “The Fifth Estate” has arrived, starring “Sherlock” and “Star Trek Into Darkness” star Benedict Cumberbatch as a singularly-focused Julian Assange.

Assange, however, has consistently criticized the project, calling it “a massive propaganda attack” on the organization and even refused to meet with Cumberbatch.
From within London’s Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange remains in hiding, he connected with Oxford University students via Internet and slammed the film, which allegedly contains scenes regarding a nuclear weapons program in Iran. ”How does this have anything to do with us?… How is it that a lie gets into a script about WikiLeaks?” he asked. He called the scenes “an attack against us [WikiLeaks]” as well as “an attack against Iran.” “It fans the flames to start a war with Iran,” he said.


  1. Basically a trap. You go watch it because you believe in the ideals portrayed, you end up believing a bunch of lies put there to deceive you.

    That's how efficient propaganda works, and it's everywhere. Take World War Z. It seems to be about how the world needs to realize how getting united is the only way to fight big causes, but it ends up being about how a cowboy gets to solve the problem through violence. All the United Nations vibe is just a hook for liberals. I'm impressed how people still fall for that.

  2. Word War Z was a movie about a zombie apocalypse. A very popular topic nowadays. The UN was used because, like all these big adventure movies, Will Smith or Tom Cruise work for the government.

    A former hacker, Assange may or may not be a rapist. I admire some of his views, such as anti-war and anti corporate crime, as well as exposing war crimes and corruption, but he is an egomaniac who, as a foreigner, hurt the integrity of my countries international relations by exposing un-redacted diplomatic cables that had no business being exposed. Governments have a right to their secrets. Even the idiot Sarah Palin has a right not to have her private e-mails posted to his site.

    I am not a communist and I think that interloper should be trailed and placed in a US prison.

  3. No, your country hurt your country's international relations, by engaging in flagrantly inhumane practices in contravention of any number of international treaties, conventions, and agreements. Your country did that (and presumably continues to). It didn't learn either, Snowden later exacerbated your country's embarrassment, and rightly so. There will likely be more such whistle blowers, i only hope their fate is better than that poor soul Bradley Manning who has since been kept in extremely cruel and unusual circumstances (nigh on blatant retributive torture).

    Your country needs to shape up. Despite what you have been raised to repeat on an almost daily basis, you do not live in the greatest country in the world. Not sure it would even make the top 20. What you are suggesting is that instead of improving its dismal record of war atrocities, orwellian surveillance, and a culture of coverups, it merely continues its oppression of those who would expose it, presumably in the same bullying manner it already has (unethical exertion of pressure on Swedish figures of authority and law to trump up sex charges which had already been dropped by the plaintiffs, who only wanted Mr Assange to undergo a test for STI's after they'd engaged in unprotected sex but have now been railroaded into pursuing charges). The US government's façade of infallibility needs to be broken in the minds of lackey patriots like yourself who will heed and agree with the call of the government for the heads of those who expose its injustice and evil. Instead of due shame at the exposure of such evil deeds, the people of America seem to be on the whole clinging with desperation to self-righteousness, and lashing out at people like Manning and Assange and Snowden who merely substitute truth where in the past you've been flooded with comforting lies. It's intensely disappointing, i can only imagine how those three feel about it.

    Your culture is sick, and you're exhibiting symptoms of the sickness with your final sentence.

    1. Bravo. Well spoken. I think most international readers here would totally agree with you. Maybe most Americans - I don't know.

  4. I should add... He should be put in a US prison? What crime has he committed? Those who are leaking these documents are the employees of the various agencies/departments/bureaus/corporations who do so against their confidentiality agreements and, in the cases of the diplomatic cables, iraq war logs and other US government documents, against US law. Bradley Manning definitely broke the law. So many people are instantly up in arms that Assange should be in a US prison despite not breaking US law. Wikileaks is primarily hosted in Sweden; if you want to talk about bringing him to court for Wikileak's release of documents voluntarily submitted to it by whistle blowers, it seems to me that anything relevant to Assange that you think might be indictable would be in Sweden's jurisdiction.

    Even if this all DID happen in America, there's precedent for this. It's already been established in the Supreme Court (more than once) that re-publication of illegally leaked information is not illegal and is protected by US constitution if the publisher didn't break any laws acquiring it. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-the-first-amendment/

    What do you want to charge him with?

  5. I agree much of American culture is sick, as is Western, Eastern and everywhere in between. American culture is especially violent for the Western world. However, there is much that is still good and there is enough variety that I choose to expose myself to the same sort of stuff anyone named "Jim" or John or Mike has access to. In fact, my "culture" might be just like yours.

    Not that this discussion has anything to do with culture, but when you are being smug and hateful, why not just throw that criticism in, too. How dare you insult me as a sick lackey. I was against the invasion of Iraq, and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. Some of what Bradley Manning exposed, as far as war crimes, was good. But on the while, he overstepped. Although he is clearly a traitor in some instances and a whistleblower in others, if he was treated inhumanely, justice should be served to those individuals as well. Assange did some good, but he doesn't get a pass for ruining the careers of diplomats and risking the lives of sources, such as Zimbabweans and Ethiopians, struggling in oppressive regimes.

    Assange sees himself as infallible and if he is a rapist I wouldn't be surprised. The fact that you see no fault in what he does speaks volumes. YOU ARE WRONG about the sex charges not being pursued by the plaintiffs.

    May 23, 2013 10:46AM

    ... "Sweden must put pressure on Ecuador to get Assange handed over to Sweden," Elisabeth Massi Fritz, a lawyer for one of the two accusers, wrote in a statement.

    Assange should be charged under the Espionage Act for redistributing classified information with an intent to injure the US and in bad faith as he was not intended to receive it. The Supreme Court HAS NOT ruled on this Act.

    He could also be charged with conspiracy. Frontline on PBS reported prosecutors can show Assange has lied about his contact with Manning and can show how he really acquired stolen documents mean to harm the U.S.

    You really are patronizing and condescending when you make such wide comments as "...the people of America seem to be on the whole clinging with desperation to self-righteousness ..." Generalize much? You clearly are anti-American and I could care less. America often oversteps and many don't even know the bullying tactics we've used.

    Tell me your country, and I'll make you whimper in embarrassment at all its faults.

    Your arrogance appears to know no bounds.

    The Top 20? What a ridiculous assumption to think I rate nations in order of greatness. Greatness in what? Education? Quality of Life? Life Expectancy? I'm well aware our income disparity makes all those impossible. I also recognize some countries might offer more freedom. But if I disagree with you, I must be uninformed. Au contraire.

    1. Re: the sex charges, it pays to be informed. Here are two good sources. I invite you to thoroughly read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
      and to watch:
      In the six day period after he'd had sex with either plaintiff and before they went to the police station, one plaintiff hosted a party in honour of Assange at her home, and neither decided to go to police before speaking to each other, becoming concerned about STD's and deciding to go to police to ask if he could be legally compelled to take an STD test if he refused to volunteer. Charges were laid by police, not the 2 plaintiffs, after misinterpreting their question as an accusation of sexual assault. Assange did volunteer himself 10 days after the prosecutor's arrest warrant, was interviewed, and then released and freely allowed to leave the country while the investigation continued (in the end it was decided by the prosecutor to drop all charges). Then, a second prosecutor decided to appeal the dismissal and picked up the charges again, on behalf of the Swedish police. About two weeks later and somewhat mysteriously, an interpol red notice (usually reserved for potential terrorists, etc) arrest warrant was issued for Assange by Sweden. No question he's an egomaniac and acted like a jerk, but he didn't rape anyone, and his accusers never claimed he did. An interpol red notice??? Come on.

      The espionage act? A vaguely worded, nearly 100 year old act is a straw clutch if ever i've heard one. Redistribution by anyone other than the original leaker of data has only ever been attempted to be prosecuted once ever (see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050101310.html). It fell apart.

      The problem you will find with conspiracy is that it requires conspiring. Charging him with conspiracy to disclose classified documents would literally be breaking new legal ground. What you really want is to work the legal system around exacting revenge on the source of embarrassment, not the use of justice to apprehend a criminal.

      I'm sorry if i was ad hominem, i suppose i was in a nasty mood. Yes, i was making a general statement, but i think it to be the correct one. The reaction to repeated revelations of unspeakably evil conduct by people in general has been disappointing. I'm not anti-American, i'm anti-Americanism. I don't want to make this a patriotic bigger dick competition either, make no mistake: my country is every bid as culpable as yours when it comes to human rights abuses. The whole world is. I don't mean to say that America is the evil overlord that needs to be overthrown. It just needs to shape up.

  6. There is no possible way of argumentation against nationalism.

  7. Yes, Paulo, I agree. There are many nations in the world I would gladly call home if circumstances occurred.

    Jim, you are only calling it Anti-Americanism because we had been so successful the last couple centuries. It's called Imperialism and we didn't invent it.

    I accept your apology, Jim. I find it is best to walk away from the keyboard when angry.

    Here is a link to the other accuser's current charges. I already linked tot he first accuser's recent statements. So, yes, the claims have not been recanted.


    Like I said, there is likely evidence Assange solicited the diplomatic cables that were not his possessions. He is not that smart and not the only one who knows how to trace things on the internet. Receiving stolen goods is a crime if you know they were stolen. One can't just pretend this stuff fell into one's lap when the purpose of your site is to trade in stolen information. That makes it rise to the level of espionage also.

    Assange was reckless in his personal life and is paying the price for making up his own rules.

  8. Jim, you are only calling it Anti-Americanism because we had been so successful the last couple centuries. It's called Imperialism and we didn't invent it.

    That's non sequitur, it's not even a rebuttal. It seems irrelevant that 100 years ago i might have been talking about the British empire's transgressions with the same vitriol, or that 100 years from now i may well be discussing ChinIndia's. The question with regard to imperialism and nationalism of 'who started it', like the concept of a #1 country or ranking order of countries is just too banal to even contemplate. The fact that nationalism and imperialism have always been around is not in any way a source of mitigation. Frankly, rebuttals amounting to "we didn't start it" and "they do just as bad as us" seem empty diversions to me.

    Here is a link to the other accuser's current charges. I already linked tot he first accuser's recent statements. So, yes, the claims have not been recanted.


    Firstly, you didn't post any other link. Secondly, what you've linked me to is a tabloid's reposting of a swedish newspaper's reposting of a blog which itself was published a whole 3 years after said events (i would posit that that is plenty of time in which to be seduced by tabloid lucre or some other outside interest), by Anna Ardin, who i will discuss in more depth later. Thirdly, it speaks not even in the slightest about events relating to her alleged rape, and only about the aftermath of the press frenzy after police pressed charges. This says nothing whatsoever about the origin of the charges, which you should know by now were laid not by Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen, but by the Swedish police. You've not reading either your or my provided references if you're continuing down this fruitless avenue.

    According to police records, sometime during Sofia Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down, and later said that she felt railroaded by the police.

    As for Anna Ardin, she's the one more willing to go along with the prosecutor's line, even though it involves self-contradiction of previous testimony. Whatever her motives for doing so are now, they were never from having been raped. Quoting the following from the ABC:

    Assange was offered Anna Ardin's apartment while she was away, but Ardin returned home a day early on Friday the 13th. She invited Assange to stay the night, and they had sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.

    The following day, Assange addressed the conference with Ardin at his side. Later that afternoon Ardin organised the Swedish equivalent of a top-notch barbeque - a Crayfish Party. She posted a Twitter message. "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party. Anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow?"

    The crayfish party was held that night in a court yard off her apartment. It went on until the early hours of the morning. Ardin tweeted at 2am: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!"

    A guest at the party would later tell Swedish Police the event was a very hearty evening. When he offered to put Assange up at his apartment, Ardin replied, "He can stay with me."

    In the past 24 hours, Ardin had worked closely with Assange, had sex with him, organised a crayfish party on his behalf - and, according to one witness, turned down alternate accommodation for him. It is during this same period that police will later investigate whether Assange coerced and sexually molested Anna Ardin.

  9. Not the most credible post-rape actions for a victim, especially since the 'rape' story didn't surface until a second prosecutor (who is also under investigation for misconduct during the Thomas Quick trial) mysteriously took up the case after it had already been dismissed.

    Receiving stolen goods wouldn't come under consideration in this case, per se. Computer crime uses separate legislation due to the uniquely intangible nature of computer data. That minor detail out of the way, you still don't really know what you're talking about. There is plenty of evidence in the public domain (legally or not) detailing what few conversations there were between Manning and Assange, and none of what's there would even remotely constitute conspiracy, especially when you essentially have Manning's explicit, written confession to the data theft and distribution in his conversations with other parties. He details his motives for doing so thoroughly and passionately as being an overweening urge to do the right thing and expose his government's wrongdoing (pointedly not among them being: Assange asked me to).

    The FBI refuses to detail their evidence gathered, if any, and the US government continues to make no comment on whether or not a grand jury is investigating Assange and Wikileaks. Even if you were the foremost expert in constitutional law, you wouldn't be able to sit there and tell me with certainty that Assange is indictable. You might really really want it to be true, but unproven assertions and wishful thinking often go hand in hand. I've evidence from you so far for nought but that you really want Assange in "US prison" regardless of what he did or didn't do, where he did it, or whether he is or isn't protected by the 1st amendment (like every other defendent in every other acquittal in history for similar actions). I feel so far the overall mixture of weakly constructed rationales for indictment and the raw fervour with which they're used to justify the consideration of Assange as an unforgiveable enemy of the state have only been proving my point that the real motive here is retribution, and not "justice for all". I'm sorry if you're offended by that, but i do think your emotions are clouding your judgment on this issue, and i further think that the majority of Americans think just the same.

  10. One can't just pretend this stuff fell into one's lap when the purpose of your site is to trade in stolen information. That makes it rise to the level of espionage also.

    You really need to read up on the law. The source of the "stuff" is irrelevant, so long as it was not illegally obtained. Manning illegally stole the information and illegally leaked it, yes. After that, as i've mentioned, the 1st amendment protects the release of it. There is more than one precedent for this.

    You also need to reconsider the certainty of your assertion re: espionage, given not only how absurdly vague the original 1917 act is, but how untested it is in court. Do you not see how much of a logical stretch what you are suggesting is?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...