What political capital is expended, what major risks are taken, in going after those termed hacktivist-anarchists versus a group the government knows fights Constitutional battles in courts around the world and hasn't lost yet and whose leader has the code and the system in place to release hundreds of thousands of yet-to-be released, raw (un-redacted) international cables and other materials that would be highly damaging to many nation-states and major corporations? Julian Assange may be in solitary confinement with no Internet access. Governments around the world have the full, encrypted file. What calculations are involved at the highest levels of government? Who's paranoid? Who's really after whom?
The U.S. "intelligence community" is taking a huge gamble that Julian hasn't set a short fuse on a chron bomb on his raw data file. If Julian doesn't get to the computer by a certain time, will that computer, which is connected to the Internet somewhere and full time, use the private encryption key and "virus" to spread the raw data around the world in real-time? Is that a risk the governments are willing to take because otherwise, Julian Assange would never be able to be stopped? Are the governments willing to take the hit and go for broke that is a self-admittedly global, fascist, totalitarian dictatorship?
If Julian hasn't set the program to self-release if he's not there to stop it, then perhaps he thought that he might die of natural causes out of prison and wasn't willing to upset the world in that event. We shall see what happens and hear what he has to say about it (if the governments allow words to get out from him). Afterall, if they declare him a terrorist, enemy combatant, his lawyers will be thrown in prison for passing information. Don't think fascists such as Joe Lieberman wouldn't do that for the sake of Zionism. He'd already have Julian being waterboarded and worse (whatever it would take) to give up where his computer is and what his passphrase is, etc.
Of course, there may be some people Julian entrusted and who love Julian. In that case, if they hurt Julian and the walls are closing in on WikiLeaks and everyone else, the entrusted one who loves Julian might just release the data bombs. Maybe there are 3 of them.
As for why WikiLeaks is still up and running while hacktivists and other groups are often found and shutdown, the top Russian leadership hasn't come out suggesting that the hacktivists be given the Nobel Peace Prize (kill him on TV as a sign and warning to those who would resist the dark side, the evil Empire.) while at the same time, the U.S. government would like to throw Julian Assange in prison for life and throw away the key or "better yet," in many of their eyes,
This is geopolitics also in cyberspace. Julian inserted himself at the location of the first shot heard around the world.
Many "news corporations" are making bottom-line calculations. Where should they come down on this? If they go along too far with government, that government could turn around and use the power against them, thereby harming the executives' and stockholders' meal tickets.
WikiLeaks and the group Anonymous (the group that counter-attacked MasterCard, et al.) are separate. They have different types of minds running them, coordinating them. They have different backers.
John Pilger isn't going to sign an open letter to the U.K. leadership to release anarchist hacktivists often seen as fighting for the Wild West and some engaging in, as they say, software cracking and malware distribution and the like. He did for Julian.
Daniel Ellsberg isn't going to boycott Amazon.com over Amazon refusing to host anarchist that include mixed-up malware distributors.
Even the U.N. is making statements on it that run contrary to the Empire's and the Zionists desires.
...the UN's top human rights official criticised websites that have refused to host WikiLeaks, suggesting it breached the platform's right to freedom of expression.
High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told reporters in Geneva yesterday that the moves "could be interpreted as an attempt to censor the publication of information".
Once upon a time, Julian Assange was a teenaged hacker. He's about to enter his forties. Think. Think hard.
There are people who doubt there are real attacks going on by the hacktivists while they also write that the governments take down copyright-violating/sharing/torrent sites, etc. They point out that they consider the hacktivists techno-savvy; but at the same time, they doubt that those hacktivists are really conducting distributed denial-of-service attacks via low-orbit, ion cannons and such against MasterCard, PayPal, VISA, and others? They need to make up their minds.
There are plenty of techno-savvy hacktivists, but this is only the beginning of the beginning. They will adapt and mature. Others who are already mature will become more involved.
It will get much, much worse before it gets better. The world requires extremely stark contrasts. It requires that people have no choice but to choose sides: the dark or the light (God, who is righteousness).
Julian has yet to choose. It hasn't become stark enough for him, or he isn't capable of getting it, in which case, he won't make it. He won't escape the wrath to come.
Please also don't make the mistake of thinking my God is the god of John Hagee or any of the "conservative" or "neoconservative" Republicans. They don't know the God of Jesus. Don't read the Gospels the way they read them.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)