It's not such a tinfoil idea. The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers. RT UK's bank accounts have been frozen, and Julian Assange's internet has allegedly been cut off "by a state actor". The push back against Russia is not secret, but quite public. Recall the recent statement by the US that the CIA would cyberattack Russia. Given the very public statements made by the US, I'd say it isn't really a fringe conspiracy theory.
>The US has been pretty blunt and public about the fact that they think the DNC hack was performed by Russian hackers.
The way the joint statement has been covered by the media you can easily be led to believe that the US 1. has actually blamed Russia for the DNC hack 2. this is due to evidence they have. This is not true.
When the joint statement [0] is closely read, taking note of legalese, this is clear as day.
I don't see anything about concrete evidence, but "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails" is a clear accusation.
"including from US political organizations"? OK, legalese can be pretty wild, but to me, this is totally unambiguous. Which political organizations do you think they could be referring to?
Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.
edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.
Sorry, can you diagram the sentence or something? Not only do I not understand what you're hinting at, but I can't think of a more clear way to phrase it. If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous?
Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)"
1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago.
2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons.
2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to?
>If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous?
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on."
Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact.
Edit:
>Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
In your alternative, what does confident mean? Which specific people does "Russian Government" refer to? What does directed mean? What does compromise mean? The English language is not code that can be debugged, you can second guess the semantics of anything.
If credibility is the only thing at stake here, then the legalese is irrelevant. As you noted, it seems like everyone besides you took this statement to be an unambiguous accusation. If it turns out to be wrong, the technical wording will not matter. James Clapper could not maintain credibility by claiming "Oh no you misunderstood, we were talking about a leak from 5 years ago". From a PR standpoint, that would look a lot worse than just saying "We screwed up, sometimes the evidence is misleading".
I'm actually not certain what you are getting at. This reads as unambiguously as any media coverage I've seen, to me at least. How could you phrase this any more unambiguously than "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government..."
What's more interesting to me is that Wikileaks is mentioned specifically in that release. I'm surprised they did this. They'd surely score more points by not acknowledging that Wikileaks exists. The fact that they did, really clearly supports what the OP said, in my opinion.
>The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
At what point in that sentence do they refer to the DNC/Podesta hacks and leaks? These statements are crafted by teams of lawyers to get the wording absolutely correct.
Does this connect to the other report about Julian Assange's internet [0] being cut by state powers? It is honestly really difficult to believe that this is a coincidence. And, although obviously this opinion is completely circumstantial, perhaps a clearer head should look closer.
If it is the US government moving to constrain other powerful media establishments that could counter their voice, it does make you wonder what they are so worried about being released.
Are the emails really so bad they could lose Hillary the election? That would surprise me.
I guess what is particularly strange to me, is why do this now? If they knew they were badly exposed, surely they could have taken action a long while ago when the spotlight on their activity was lower.
Not to mention the UK Foreign Office checksum [0]. UK has so far been relatively unscathed by wikileaks. If the 3 pre-commits refer to the 2013 insurance files, then the Foreign office could be royally buggered. The corresponding file is 320gb.
[0] pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
The shortest distance between two lines being a great circle, I'd look towards Ukraine for the likely explanation; given that HMG referred The Guardian to the Treasury, RBS probably was made aware that there are sanctions either on RT or people or organizations connected to it. Keep an eye on the Consolidated List of Targets (UK's OFAC List, essentially) for additions over the next week or so -- that's likely to be the source of the rationale.
(Addition: Also, if Assange is using the embassy's network access, then I would be dubious of any claims that it's been "cut off," as the UK FO isn't going to willfully violate Vienna Convention strictures over Wikileaks, at least not without a stiffly worded demarche and a whole lot of legal cover.)
> If it is the US government moving to constrain other powerful media establishments that could counter their voice, it does make you wonder what they are so worried about being released.
> Are the emails really so bad they could lose Hillary the election? That would surprise me.
I think who the leaks hurt or don't hurt isn't really the problem. The problem is that a foreign power is selectively leaking data from one political party in order to influence the outcome of the election. It would be just as bad, imo, if they were leaking Trump and the RNC's emails.
banks do this all the time. It happened to some Iranian citizens some time ago too, they'll typically do it when they think the account is being used for illegal activity.
Very common now. The burden is on the banks to make sure their customer aren't breaking any US laws. US law extends its hand to any banks using dollars. It would be reasonable to assume that if there was a possibility principals in RT could be on the sanctions list banks would avoid doing business with RT.
Personally I've found the worst way to read the news is from one single "unbiased" source and the best is to read from a bunch of sources who do not hide their bias. When I see what facts are universally agreed upon then I make my own decision. I do the same thing with business decisions too.
Yes, it is quite unusual. The banks only do it if they expect regulatory, legal or political fallout if they keep the customer. Or if the customer is always trouble, not paying their debt or harassing employees.
Obviously, a bank would never kick a customer to the curb if a normal customer relationship is possible.
Banks drop or just don't accept customers they expect to become a problem in the future.
US citizens are a great example for this. With tensions between Russia and the West rising it's only a matter of time until Russian organizations and citizens become less than desirable as well.
This in itself is a problem for society though. The UK government is generally pushing more and more requirements and liability on banks. At the same time we are moving more and more in the direction of requiring a bank account to be able to participate in society (or as a business).
This has the effect of making it impossible for outliers to operate, even if they are doing so entirely within the law.
I don't think this is acceptable. UK banks over a certain size should be required to provide service (a universal service obligation), or otherwise the UK government should arrange a framework such that outliers can always receive basic transactional banking services.
> It apparently turns out: RBS is simply dropping them as a customer. The UK has not frozen their accounts.
Would be interesting if it's in relation to the UK equivalent of the Federal Reserve implying they'd be "simply dropping RBS as a customer" if they didn't do so.
> Would also be interesting if it's in relation to the ancient lizard people gearing up to head for Mars.
While that'd be interesting on it's own, if the ancient lizard people aren't in charge of the UK finance ministry then it has nothing to do with this.
> What's the point of even stating something like this?
I'm making fun of the GP poster downplaying this as a non-issue. A bank doesn't drop a customer for no reason and given their for-profit motivation the only reason would be political pressure.
Wonder if for-profit is effectively the only motivation for a bank. Or e.g. that they don't include into profit calculations some threats to their reputation.
A highly effective medical tactic against organisms, viruses, or virally-infected cells is to interfere with their energy-exchange mechanisms -- stopping up receptors, halting metabolism, or disabling signalling and control mechanisms.
Much the same logic holds for disabling any business enterprise.
Dismissing this as "a simple bank action" is naive in the extreme.
(Discussions of the justification for actions on the basis of an other-than-simple-bank-action are another matter.)
[rant of my own opinion about RT, not considering their bank accounts]
My blood boils when RT/Russia/Kremlin/et al. start using phrases like “Long live freedom of speech!”.
They have an autocratic country, with _practically_ one party system and no opposition. They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. They blatantly go to other countries and advertise that _all_ that country's media have no second opinion and they will bring the truth to the table. [0] When some prominent news about Syria or Ukraine come up, RT either shows some opinion interviews with facts pulled out of their asses or they will not show anything like nothing happened. [1]
They just simply use liberal and tolerant west, like a bully is using some nerd to bring his lunch. But they will never let something like BBC inside their own territory (with their own studios, multi-million dollar ad budgets, etc.). Personally RT looks to me, just how I would imagine Goebbels would've looked like 75-80 years ago.
[0] google "russia today this is what happens when there is no seconds opinion"
[1] google about ukraine RT and MH17
Agree in principle, but do we have good frames to define "speech" and "propaganda" - something which can be taken differently? Some Western political media have strong bias towards one party or another, but that doesn't justify calling them propaganda and shutting them down?
They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'.
Could you provide more specific information on this? Even if you could simply give a link to something like a wikipedia list of prominent people that just 'disappeared', it would be helpful.
Thank you. Although I have not had a chance to study this regrettable list as closely as I presume you did, a perfunctory search finds only two disappearances, both of them in 1995-1996 during the first Chechen war:
1995 27 February – Maxim Shabalin, politics editor of Nevskoe Vremya newspaper (St Petersburg).[62] and Felix Titov, the paper's photographer, disappeared on an assignment to Chechnya. Despite numerous expeditions, from 1995 to 1999, no trace was found of the two men's remains. Missing [J].
20 March 1996 Chaikova, correspondent for the Obshchaya gazeta (Moscow) weekly newspaper disappeared while on assignment. Her body was found buried in the Chechen village of Gekhi on 11 April, blindfolded and bearing signs of mistreatment. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. The identity of her executioners remains disputed. According to documents from Dudaev's archive, that came into hands of Russian special services in 2002, she was killed by people from so called "Department of state security of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" (Russian: Департамент государственной безопасности ЧРИ).[152][153] At the time there were strong suspicions that Russian security services were involved.
So far we have a list of two, not very prominent, journalists, who disappeared twenty years ago while reporting on a war with well-documented atrocities on both sides. I don't believe this is what the GP had in mind, writing that "prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'".
As an unrelated aside, this happened during the good Russian administration -- dynamic, democratic, West-approved Yetsin, who was so popular in his own country, that Bill Clinton himself came to Russia to support his election campaign:
President Clinton arrives in Russia today facing issues that will severely test his diplomatic mettle. Mr. Clinton's primary purpose is to join other world leaders in a weekend summit meeting on nuclear safety and security that seems primarily designed to burnish Boris Yeltsin's prestige as he campaigns for re-election as Russian President.
Chechnya was squirming with journalists through whole nineties.
Most likely killers were KGB remnants. KGB conceded the media battle over Chechnya in English speaking world very early. But what they didn't like was that these journalists were revealing Russians and Russian speakers what has really happened in Chechnya.
None of murdered journalists were critical of Chechens. Why would Chechens kill them?
Prominent journalists or opposition members are killed in broad daylight and/or in public. They may be 'blessed' with a jail sentence, or if they are very lucky and will "smell the assassins breath" - they will escape the country.
Oligarchs who were opposing Putin in 2000s are either dead, in jail or left the country (and left their businesses to the government).
Boris Nemtsov - was killed in the middle of Moscow, was well known opponent of current Russian political system, after his death practically all opposition is oppressed, because not any opponent wants to die anymore (knowing that there are not many prominent opposition leaders left in Russia).
If you criticize Putin or government too hard you will "magically" earn few criminal cases and it's highly likely you will be convicted (e.g. Alexei Nemtsov, M. Khodorkovsky). You could be in jail as long as they wish, because they "may find extra details" about your case just before you need to be released (Khodorkovsky's case).
If you "speak too much" they will make you "dissapear" from public eye, either by death, jail, making you leave the country or just making sure that you never appear publicly again.
"There's no evidence that Kamaev's death was unnatural, but the well-known poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service and KGB, and a laundry list of journalists who've died during Vladimir Putin’s regime, could leave an observer forgivably suspicious. It’s hard to avoid thinking about it, as the 2016 Rio Summer Games kick off under the cloud of Russia’s doping scandal, which in scope exceeds anything enacted during the Soviet era."
Yes, I suppose Litvinenko did disappear in one sense of the word, i.e. ceased to exist.
However, the sense in which this word is usually used in this context, is different. It usually denotes a forced disappearance, when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person's fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law.[1].
For instance, the following can be validly said about Pinochet's regime and government in Chile:
"He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) ... Pinochet's name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.”
— Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, National Review
I'll take doping scandal over institutionalized torture any time.
Whats interesting about your reference is that I currently have an exchange student staying with me from Turkmenistan and as a former Soviet Republic they still get the bulk of their news from Russian television. We were discussing last night (literally last night) the MH17's destruction and she had never heard of Russia's involvement with the shoot down-she believed that the Ukrainian air force had shot it down and that Russia's involvement in the Ukraine had been greeted with open arms (because Russian television had shown nothing but smiling faces on the Crimean faces). When I showed her the articles about the ethnic Russian's driving everyone out, and the clear Russian military involvement in the area, she was utterly shocked.
Freedom of speech coming from russia is a joke, nobody takes it seriously. They are heading straight back to CCCP times, thanx to Putin and gallery of his comrades.
For me it boils down to russian mentality which didn't change much from past era - only there such a person would be thriving for so long.
As long as this will be contained within russia, i am more or less OK with it, who are we to tell them how to run their own place. I don't think elections there are rigged in any significant way for example. But once results of this will seep out to neighboring countries, in form of expansionism, ie towards europe and former soviet republics, we have a problem.
Basically what you say is: Russia is not a free country and thus its views should not be represented. That definitely what "freedom of speech" is not about.
I'd go that far. I think that freedoms made on the basis of making life good for individuals, should not necessarily apply to governmental organizations and their mouthpieces.
Individual rights have to be protected because individuals are generally powerless.
Governments, on the other hand can reasonably duke it out, power versus power, and protect themselves.
If Russia (as a country) wants to spread destabilizing propaganda that might weaken another nation, I don't think it's the "right" guaranteed by free speech. If Russia, were a free nation though, then the views of RT would just be the views of a random newspaper, speaking words with no more privilege than mine or yours.
> If Russia (as a country) wants to spread destabilizing propaganda that might weaken another nation, I don't think it's the "right" guaranteed by free speech.
Your definition of what might 'weaken another nation' is your own and doesn't represent the views of everyone in the country. Just because something might deflate your nationalistic commie-hating boner or whatever doesn't mean it should be banned.
I absolutely see the same as you do on this. Their coverage of the Syrian war namely the Refugee's is appalling. Europe is having to deal with the influx partly because of Russia's political stance and bombings. But RT will never give the issue coverage without extreme bias.
This isn't about RT. I personally couldn't care less what happens to RT. What I'm really concerned about is freedom of speech and Free Media in the west. Neither of those are"privileges" to be negotiated for as part of some quid-pro-quo agreement among friends. They are rights. If you really believe in the Free Press, you believe that it's in your own country's best interests, regardless of what some other country might be doing. The fact that a respected nation like the UK is moving to silence dissenting media, is something we should all be extremely concerned about.
TL:DR; RT (and Russia/Kremlin in general) are using 'freedom of speech' to tell utter and blatant lies about proven and accepted history. Not to mention that they will _never_ give a second opinion.
Well you described RT (or probably Russia/Kremlin) well.
They will come to Europe/US and say whatever they want and then when you say "hey Mr. RT/Russia/Kremlin/Putin, that's not true, please do not do this again", they will scream like bloody murder that you are restricting their freedom of speech.
I live in post-Soviet country, just before and during Ukraine conflict russian television (not RT) released "documentaries" which said that gulags have not happened, repressions have not happened, and after USSR collapsed, countries like mine were independent without any oppression.
That tv station got banned for a year if I remember correctly.
It's like Deutsche Welle would release documentaries in Poland/Israel/France/Check republic, that invasion/holocaust/concentration camps have not happened.
The UK already has libel laws that are more vigorous than those found in the US. If those laws aren't comprehensive enough, they can pass new laws prohibiting the dissemination of provably-false statements. Arbitrarily shutting down a contrarian media organization is not the answer.
Your response that it's ok because "it's Russia" reminds me of a story that I heard. A man asks a doctor whether it's ok to pull the legs off a spider for amusement, and the doctor says it's not. The man asks why, since the spider isn't capable of feeling any pain. The doctor replies "I'm not concerned about what will happen to the spider. I'm concerned about what will happen to you."
So your whole point is 'its okay to infringe on freedom of speech in the west because it happens in russia' ? Are you a retarded stalinist or what? Also pretending to have sources and then telling people to google it is just a hilarious way of showing people what a clown you are.
I am not saying it's okay to infringe freedom of speech.
I will speak in general of Russia's television networks (because in my country there are not only RT, but more), but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want. But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen? [&][0]( original sources not in english). Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)? What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
I recommended googling to see 'two opinions' yourself and how they present themselves. Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists. How they will disgustingly disguise and create a "mist of lies" around some fact that they know they are wrong about it. E.g. clearly fake satellite pictures how russia managed to picture a fighter jet in the process of firing it's weapons into MH17 (that fighter jet is an infantry support jet, with 7km flight ceiling (or 5km loaded)) [5]
Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
"Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
[&] It's the same that Deutche Welle would start showing documentaries that holocaust and concentration camps didn't happen, a huge insult to victim countries and people, not to say it would be break the law in many countries as well.
> but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want.
That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well.
> Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)?
Like what laws?
> What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me.
> But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen?
You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets.
> Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists.
Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it).
> Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda.
> "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with.
Wikileaks also apparently triggered a dead-man's switch, releasing keys to several pre-committed posts. This has spawned (false) rumours of Assange's death, addressed in the article above.
65 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadThe way the joint statement has been covered by the media you can easily be led to believe that the US 1. has actually blamed Russia for the DNC hack 2. this is due to evidence they have. This is not true.
When the joint statement [0] is closely read, taking note of legalese, this is clear as day.
[0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
That is not an accusation that the Russians are behind the DNC/Podesta leaks. Read carefully. These statements are constructed with the utmost care.
Alright, I suppose there was the Office of Personnel Management breach. Yeah, ok I concede your point.
> "including from US political organizations"
edit: saw your edit. I can see why it is easy to believe what they are saying is totally unambiguous. I would suggest to anyone reading the joint statement that they dissect and debug it like they would code. Parse each statement carefully and check what assertions, are being put forward (these are almost certainly true, gone through many lawyers). Then check what variables in that sentence are definitely assigned to something.
Edit: Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago.
2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons.
2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to?
>If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous?
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on."
Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact.
Edit:
>Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about?
Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.
If credibility is the only thing at stake here, then the legalese is irrelevant. As you noted, it seems like everyone besides you took this statement to be an unambiguous accusation. If it turns out to be wrong, the technical wording will not matter. James Clapper could not maintain credibility by claiming "Oh no you misunderstood, we were talking about a leak from 5 years ago". From a PR standpoint, that would look a lot worse than just saying "We screwed up, sometimes the evidence is misleading".
What's more interesting to me is that Wikileaks is mentioned specifically in that release. I'm surprised they did this. They'd surely score more points by not acknowledging that Wikileaks exists. The fact that they did, really clearly supports what the OP said, in my opinion.
At what point in that sentence do they refer to the DNC/Podesta hacks and leaks? These statements are crafted by teams of lawyers to get the wording absolutely correct.
If it is the US government moving to constrain other powerful media establishments that could counter their voice, it does make you wonder what they are so worried about being released.
Are the emails really so bad they could lose Hillary the election? That would surprise me.
I guess what is particularly strange to me, is why do this now? If they knew they were badly exposed, surely they could have taken action a long while ago when the spotlight on their activity was lower.
[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 (HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929)
[0] pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809
[0] pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab7
pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
claim from intelAnon that Ecuador had caved in to pressure from the Clintons:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu7pNidVIAAUweO.jpg:large
The hashes then being a message from Assange, or it my be Assange being paranoid.. Or something else entirely.
(Addition: Also, if Assange is using the embassy's network access, then I would be dubious of any claims that it's been "cut off," as the UK FO isn't going to willfully violate Vienna Convention strictures over Wikileaks, at least not without a stiffly worded demarche and a whole lot of legal cover.)
I think who the leaks hurt or don't hurt isn't really the problem. The problem is that a foreign power is selectively leaking data from one political party in order to influence the outcome of the election. It would be just as bad, imo, if they were leaking Trump and the RNC's emails.
It seems quite unusual to me.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-...
Personally I've found the worst way to read the news is from one single "unbiased" source and the best is to read from a bunch of sources who do not hide their bias. When I see what facts are universally agreed upon then I make my own decision. I do the same thing with business decisions too.
Yes, it is quite unusual. The banks only do it if they expect regulatory, legal or political fallout if they keep the customer. Or if the customer is always trouble, not paying their debt or harassing employees.
Obviously, a bank would never kick a customer to the curb if a normal customer relationship is possible.
US citizens are a great example for this. With tensions between Russia and the West rising it's only a matter of time until Russian organizations and citizens become less than desirable as well.
This has the effect of making it impossible for outliers to operate, even if they are doing so entirely within the law.
I don't think this is acceptable. UK banks over a certain size should be required to provide service (a universal service obligation), or otherwise the UK government should arrange a framework such that outliers can always receive basic transactional banking services.
Would be interesting if it's in relation to the UK equivalent of the Federal Reserve implying they'd be "simply dropping RBS as a customer" if they didn't do so.
What's the point of even stating something like this?
While that'd be interesting on it's own, if the ancient lizard people aren't in charge of the UK finance ministry then it has nothing to do with this.
> What's the point of even stating something like this?
I'm making fun of the GP poster downplaying this as a non-issue. A bank doesn't drop a customer for no reason and given their for-profit motivation the only reason would be political pressure.
Much the same logic holds for disabling any business enterprise.
Dismissing this as "a simple bank action" is naive in the extreme.
(Discussions of the justification for actions on the basis of an other-than-simple-bank-action are another matter.)
My blood boils when RT/Russia/Kremlin/et al. start using phrases like “Long live freedom of speech!”.
They have an autocratic country, with _practically_ one party system and no opposition. They live in a country where prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'. They blatantly go to other countries and advertise that _all_ that country's media have no second opinion and they will bring the truth to the table. [0] When some prominent news about Syria or Ukraine come up, RT either shows some opinion interviews with facts pulled out of their asses or they will not show anything like nothing happened. [1]
They just simply use liberal and tolerant west, like a bully is using some nerd to bring his lunch. But they will never let something like BBC inside their own territory (with their own studios, multi-million dollar ad budgets, etc.). Personally RT looks to me, just how I would imagine Goebbels would've looked like 75-80 years ago.
[0] google "russia today this is what happens when there is no seconds opinion" [1] google about ukraine RT and MH17
Could you provide more specific information on this? Even if you could simply give a link to something like a wikipedia list of prominent people that just 'disappeared', it would be helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
1995 27 February – Maxim Shabalin, politics editor of Nevskoe Vremya newspaper (St Petersburg).[62] and Felix Titov, the paper's photographer, disappeared on an assignment to Chechnya. Despite numerous expeditions, from 1995 to 1999, no trace was found of the two men's remains. Missing [J].
20 March 1996 Chaikova, correspondent for the Obshchaya gazeta (Moscow) weekly newspaper disappeared while on assignment. Her body was found buried in the Chechen village of Gekhi on 11 April, blindfolded and bearing signs of mistreatment. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. The identity of her executioners remains disputed. According to documents from Dudaev's archive, that came into hands of Russian special services in 2002, she was killed by people from so called "Department of state security of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" (Russian: Департамент государственной безопасности ЧРИ).[152][153] At the time there were strong suspicions that Russian security services were involved.
So far we have a list of two, not very prominent, journalists, who disappeared twenty years ago while reporting on a war with well-documented atrocities on both sides. I don't believe this is what the GP had in mind, writing that "prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'".
As an unrelated aside, this happened during the good Russian administration -- dynamic, democratic, West-approved Yetsin, who was so popular in his own country, that Bill Clinton himself came to Russia to support his election campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/18/opinion/mr-clinton-and-mr-...
President Clinton arrives in Russia today facing issues that will severely test his diplomatic mettle. Mr. Clinton's primary purpose is to join other world leaders in a weekend summit meeting on nuclear safety and security that seems primarily designed to burnish Boris Yeltsin's prestige as he campaigns for re-election as Russian President.
Chechnya was squirming with journalists through whole nineties.
Most likely killers were KGB remnants. KGB conceded the media battle over Chechnya in English speaking world very early. But what they didn't like was that these journalists were revealing Russians and Russian speakers what has really happened in Chechnya.
None of murdered journalists were critical of Chechens. Why would Chechens kill them?
Think.
Prominent journalists or opposition members are killed in broad daylight and/or in public. They may be 'blessed' with a jail sentence, or if they are very lucky and will "smell the assassins breath" - they will escape the country.
Oligarchs who were opposing Putin in 2000s are either dead, in jail or left the country (and left their businesses to the government).
Boris Nemtsov - was killed in the middle of Moscow, was well known opponent of current Russian political system, after his death practically all opposition is oppressed, because not any opponent wants to die anymore (knowing that there are not many prominent opposition leaders left in Russia).
If you criticize Putin or government too hard you will "magically" earn few criminal cases and it's highly likely you will be convicted (e.g. Alexei Nemtsov, M. Khodorkovsky). You could be in jail as long as they wish, because they "may find extra details" about your case just before you need to be released (Khodorkovsky's case).
If you "speak too much" they will make you "dissapear" from public eye, either by death, jail, making you leave the country or just making sure that you never appear publicly again.
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/russian-olympic-doping-sc...
However, the sense in which this word is usually used in this context, is different. It usually denotes a forced disappearance, when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person's fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law.[1].
For instance, the following can be validly said about Pinochet's regime and government in Chile: "He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) ... Pinochet's name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.” — Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, National Review
I'll take doping scandal over institutionalized torture any time.
For me it boils down to russian mentality which didn't change much from past era - only there such a person would be thriving for so long.
As long as this will be contained within russia, i am more or less OK with it, who are we to tell them how to run their own place. I don't think elections there are rigged in any significant way for example. But once results of this will seep out to neighboring countries, in form of expansionism, ie towards europe and former soviet republics, we have a problem.
So, we have a problem.
Individual rights have to be protected because individuals are generally powerless.
Governments, on the other hand can reasonably duke it out, power versus power, and protect themselves.
If Russia (as a country) wants to spread destabilizing propaganda that might weaken another nation, I don't think it's the "right" guaranteed by free speech. If Russia, were a free nation though, then the views of RT would just be the views of a random newspaper, speaking words with no more privilege than mine or yours.
Your definition of what might 'weaken another nation' is your own and doesn't represent the views of everyone in the country. Just because something might deflate your nationalistic commie-hating boner or whatever doesn't mean it should be banned.
Elected representatives do get to take action against foreign state actors that they determine are 'weakening the nation'.
Well you described RT (or probably Russia/Kremlin) well.
They will come to Europe/US and say whatever they want and then when you say "hey Mr. RT/Russia/Kremlin/Putin, that's not true, please do not do this again", they will scream like bloody murder that you are restricting their freedom of speech.
I live in post-Soviet country, just before and during Ukraine conflict russian television (not RT) released "documentaries" which said that gulags have not happened, repressions have not happened, and after USSR collapsed, countries like mine were independent without any oppression.
That tv station got banned for a year if I remember correctly.
It's like Deutsche Welle would release documentaries in Poland/Israel/France/Check republic, that invasion/holocaust/concentration camps have not happened.
Your response that it's ok because "it's Russia" reminds me of a story that I heard. A man asks a doctor whether it's ok to pull the legs off a spider for amusement, and the doctor says it's not. The man asks why, since the spider isn't capable of feeling any pain. The doctor replies "I'm not concerned about what will happen to the spider. I'm concerned about what will happen to you."
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (mis-attributed to Voltaire)
I will speak in general of Russia's television networks (because in my country there are not only RT, but more), but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want. But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen? [&][0]( original sources not in english). Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)? What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
I recommended googling to see 'two opinions' yourself and how they present themselves. Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists. How they will disgustingly disguise and create a "mist of lies" around some fact that they know they are wrong about it. E.g. clearly fake satellite pictures how russia managed to picture a fighter jet in the process of firing it's weapons into MH17 (that fighter jet is an infantry support jet, with 7km flight ceiling (or 5km loaded)) [5]
Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
"Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
[&] It's the same that Deutche Welle would start showing documentaries that holocaust and concentration camps didn't happen, a huge insult to victim countries and people, not to say it would be break the law in many countries as well.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTR-Planeta
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KCzUCJzpig
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dZt60J2fNM
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLmk30tXuyk
[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams...
That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well.
> Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)?
Like what laws?
> What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?
Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me.
> But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen?
You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets.
> Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists.
Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it).
> Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.
Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda.
> "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.
Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with.
https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/
Wikileaks also apparently triggered a dead-man's switch, releasing keys to several pre-committed posts. This has spawned (false) rumours of Assange's death, addressed in the article above.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3602381/is-julian-assange-dead-vira...