Assange's "already assassinated" comment, clarified

Discuss

31 Responses to “Assange's "already assassinated" comment, clarified”

  1. mdh says:

    If he can be extradited to Sweden, incommunicado, for allegedly being a cock-headed two timer who needs STD testing, can he not also be extradited to Zimbabwe for breaking THEIR anachronistic laws?

    (also, yes, I do get to say the nature of the ‘charges’ are spurious. Having read statement from all sides it offends me, as a victim of a violent rape, that what is alleged to have happened in Sweden is even called a rape, but that is a matter for a different comment thread entirely)

    • Anonymous says:

      No. Zimbabwe is not in the EU. Furthermore, the UK has no extradition treaty with Zimbabwe.

    • Cowicide says:

      but that is a matter for a different comment thread entirely

      That would be a first. ;D

    • Brillobreaks says:

      If you’re going to be offended about what he’s accused of doing, you ought to be offended about the right thing. You seem to be criticizing some allegations that don’t actually exist, rather than the ones that were actually made. I do enjoy reading all these comments about STD’s and broken condoms every thread though, rather than the real charges.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Kenya? Hawaii Free Press? Sounds like association planting.

  3. mdh says:

    “or Kenya” is what I meant.

  4. W. James Au says:

    Xeni, as a part-time Hawaii resident, I can confidently say “Hawaii Free Press” is not exactly a well-known or frequently cited publication. And judging by the links and accompanying articles, interestingly enough, it skews right wing. Is there a better citation? The “report” is actually just a Wikipedia press release that’s been copied and pasted. Googling around doesn’t produce a more credible site either.

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      Indeed, I’m looking for that, too. For clarity, I am not saying “here is information confirming that Assange’s claims are correct,” I am simply noting that a Wikileaks volunteer says this is what he meant, and here’s a link.

    • mdh says:

      So, I googled “Oscar Kamau Kingara”, selected the top result, and RTFA.

      Also, it seems WikiLeaks published the report that made Mr Kingara the target of assassination by his own government.

      I found that second point of information by googling “Oscar Kingara” in the news.

      spoonfeeding is not my forté, please, take a class on using the internet.

  5. W. James Au says:

    Cool. The article cites a guy named “Cyprian Nyamwamu”, who apparently has a Facebook account, maybe you can DM him to confirm his quote.

  6. holtt says:

    I do wonder if anyone’s been assassinated yet due to the leak itself. Looking at it from a neutral view, it’s not unreasonable to expect someone who’s name is mentioned to get on a list somewhere. What one does with that list is another matter.

    • Cowicide says:

      I do wonder if anyone’s been assassinated yet due to the leak itself.

      You don’t have to wonder, the Pentagon has already admitted that no one has been harmed and they haven’t even taken any evasive action to protect anyone.

      • Goblin says:

        “You don’t have to wonder, the Pentagon has already admitted that no one has been harmed and they haven’t even taken any evasive action to protect anyone.”

        This belies the fact that there isn’t much the pentagon can do. Contrary to common belief U.S Forces are not everywhere all the time when they are deployed. And as an apparatus of national policy physically protecting sources of information is quite simply an impossible task, and it is unreasonable to hold that expectation.

        • Cowicide says:

          This belies the fact that there isn’t much the pentagon can do.

          And your post belies the fact that no one has been harmed as much as you might like that to be the case?

          • Goblin says:

            Please stop insinuating what you think I am thinking…

            When did I ever state something like that? You assume that everything I post must be anti-whatever simply because I don’t want to give Assange a free pass. I am critical of both sides of this matter. I am simply pointing out the unreasonable expectation you hold that the pentagon WOULD or even be compelled to do something. I am telling you that it is an operational impossibility so you shouldn’t see “no action by the Pentagon” as an affirmation of “no damage”. I don’t think either of us are in a position of knowledge to know if anything has or hasn’t happened because of all this.

          • Cowicide says:

            I don’t think either of us are in a position of knowledge to know if anything has or hasn’t happened because of all this

            Right, that’s why I’ll simply go with the fact that no one has been harmed and that’s been begrudgingly confirmed by the Pentagon as well. Facts. I like them.

            You assume that everything I post must be anti-whatever simply because I don’t want to give Assange a free pass.

            I don’t have to assume anything to see your past behavior here. I just read it. C’mon, get real, it’s easy for anyone to see your spin. This thread like many others, has gone like this:

            Poster 1: Wikileaks has probably killed people.
            Poster 2: The Pentagon has said that no one has been harmed.
            YOU: Well, the Pentagon can’t protect it’s own people.

            Red herring much?

            You ignore the main point previously discussed and try to jump on anything you can sink your teeth into that could divert from even possibly putting Wikileaks in a better light. That’s the very opposite of giving someone a free pass, indeed. It’s more like a persecution and/or trolling.

  7. holtt says:

    Cowicide, you mean “our” people. I’m talking about non-US individuals who’s names were mentioned.

  8. rayven says:

    Don’t know if its been mentioned before… but could he be talking about a “character assassination” versus “physical assassination”?

  9. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Compose yourselves, please.

  10. marco antonio says:

    A quick online search reveals some truths:

    Oscar Kindara’s foundation had accussed the Kenyan police of killing thousands in 2007 and 2008 in extra-judicial killings and disappearances. A preliminary report was released in November 2007, but ignored by Kenyan authorities.

    In September 2008, The Cry of Blood report was then submitted to the authorities in Kenya and to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, but the Report was still not made publicly available in Kenya, even on the official website of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

    Wikileaks published it (I cannot find the exact date, it’s hard to navigate a mirrored WikiLeaks), hoping to apply pressure to commit the Kenya Police Commissioner and other high ranking Kenyans to the International Criminal Court.

    Wikileaks statement:
    https://theirontriangle.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/kenya-the-cry-of-blood-report-on-extra-judicial-killings-and-disappearances/
    (yes, it’s a repost – I can’t find how to link directly to the WikiLeaks original post)

    The original post about the assassinations came from The Guardian, 6 March 2009. (The Hawaii Free Press simply re-posted it):
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/06/kenyan-activists-shot-dead

    In recognition to their efforts, WikiLeaks won the Amnesty International 2009 Media Award for exposing Extra judicial killings in Kenya. (http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=870)

    I makes sense to me that Oscar worked closely with Wikileaks to get the word out, but his life had already been compromise from the moment he presented his initial report in ’07.

    Unfortunately, it seems the killings are still going on.
    http://philoikonya.blogspot.com/2010/11/extra-judicial-killings-have-we-given.html

    What else needs to happen for things to change?
    I don’t care what people think of Julian. Wikileaks plays a very important role in bringing these issues to light – and sometimes change takes place.

  11. Rayonic says:

    Perhaps they were “assassinated” under Swedish law, which has a much more liberal definition of the term.

    • marco antonio says:

      @Rayonic: “Two Kenyan human rights activists shot dead” (The Guardian, quoted above). Using your rule of three would imply that they weren’t – unfortunately they were assasinated by the Kenyan upholders of the law.

      @Anon: The Hawaii Free Press reposted from The Guardian. (quote also above)

    • ncinerate says:

      I believe the correct Swedish term is, “Death by Surprise”…

  12. Chentzilla says:

    No, that somebody commented that Assange was assassinated. Imagine that the quotes include the word “Assange’s” as well – that’s how I read it.

  13. Chentzilla says:

    I like how the post title, when skimmed through, gives an impression that it’s Assange who allegedly was assassinated. Was it the intended effect?

    • Anonymous says:

      Umm – just to be clear, you’re saying that when you skimmed the title of this post, you thought Assange had publicly commented that he’d already been assassinated?

Leave a Reply