quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Interestingly, commentators are saying well "we knew they thought x,y,z but they would never say it in public" - so is it the case that we merely are being told what we already knew if we thought about it for more than 5 minutes ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Of course they will hide behind the idea of "national security" or "diplomatic sensitivity", but I'd turn the argument they use against us back on them: if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of. Greater public openness leads to more honest, and therefore better, government. It stops stupid decisions.

---

quote:

---

To my mind, wikileaks shows the need for much greater public openness. It is only the dark decisions, the corrupt decisions, those of dubious legality, which the powerful seek to hide.

Of course they will hide behind the idea of "national security" or "diplomatic sensitivity", but I'd turn the argument they use against us back on them: if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
So to whom are wikileaks responsible? To whom do they give account? And, please, don't anybody say, "The People". That is an evasion. Who are "The People"? And in what way can any organisation such as wikileaks be accountable to them? Wikileaks has the potential to be a completely maverick outfit with no responsibility to anybody for anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until we are no longer at war by other means with these powers (i.e. in diplomatic relationships with them) then Wikileaks is treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
1. Why is it being done? What is leaking this stuff meant to accomplish? Let's get practical: how many ordinary citizens, however desirous of "hard information," are going to plow through thousands of pages of yaff seeking it?

---

quote:

---

2. Who is benefiting from the leaks? Who is making money, gaining political, military, diplomatic, or other advantage, influencing what kinds of outcomes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:


The guy who runs wikileaks should get a Nobel peace prize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.

---

Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

Why? None of this was top secret information. If it were the nuclear launch codes, yeah, you'd have a legitimate argument. But "other Arab countries want us to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is more along the lines of "no shit, Sherlock".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although hard data is hard to come by, it seems like a large proportion of those working on/for Wikileaks are not American citizens. Certainly Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, is not American. And yet Martin maintains that he's a traitor to a country he's not a citizen of.

---

Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

Actually, given they gave access to three million people - it doesn't seem that it would be that hard for someone with IT skills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I'm quite torn on wikileaks. I can imagine much good (or justice, at least) coming from revealing the dirty secrets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Wikileaks may be immoral, but there is at least one person facing possible treason charges here in the U.S. He's a very low level military intelligence worker - a private first class. To me he's the fall guy as I find it hard to believe a private first class had access to and could leak the massive amount of info that Wikileaks has published thus far. There had to be persons further up the chain of command who provided info and assisted in forwarding the info to Wikileaks and should be held accountable and IMO charged with treason.

---

Why? None of this was top secret information. If it were the nuclear launch codes, yeah, you'd have a legitimate argument. But "other Arab countries want us to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is more along the lines of "no shit, Sherlock".

---

It was classified info and much of it was clearly marked Secret and for U.S. eyes only. There were names listed, some of whom were citizens of foreign countries working with us as well as the sharing of classified intelligence with other nations. Wikileaks has published other secret documents this individual leaked. Everything this individual has done constitutes treason as his actions have deliberately leaked information that were for cleared individuals only and in so doing harmed the U.S. and put individual lives in harms way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The leaking of documents by wikileaks and the subsequent publication of the information with commentary by the world media serves no real purpose other than to benefit the wikileaks founder's ego.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does this round of leaks accomplish? You say he's smarmy. I certainly think he's doing it for an ego boost. People do all sorts of crazy things for an adrenaline rush. What kind of adrenaline rush can one person get from grabbing world wide headlines by frequently annoying the most powerful nation in the world and getting away with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Greater public openness leads to more honest, and therefore better, government. It stops stupid decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You see this guy as a hero.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure that will make cooperation among the nations of the world much more likely.

---

quote:

---

Your point about China and North Korea is naive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Faking on this scale seems unlikely.

---

Who said anything about faking it all? Why abuse this golden opportunity for global FUD with something that is so easy to discover? I can think of multiple ways of compromising Wikileaks, and none of them would be detectable by some fools on a bulletin board (or in the press for that matter). Give the secret services some credit, there must be some non-morons in their ranks... (I'm not sure that anyone in the secret services was brilliant enough to invent Wikileaks, though even that is possible. If so, . Seriously, that would be a genius piece of applied crowd psychology. But I'm sure that there is enough opportunistic intelligence and ability in the secret services to work Wikileaks once it's out there...)

[ 29. November 2010, 08:31: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 

quote:

---

If I was in the secret service, I would consider Wikileaks to be a prime opportunity for disinformation at the global scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Bullshit.

Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The case that he made an overt act giving aid and comfort to the enemies would be impossible to show (He gave documents to somebody who had the option of releasing them if they wished, etc...). Two witnesses to such an overt act would be apparently impossible (unless they can swear in computer logs now). He probably won't confess.

The private's actions were certainly illegal under the UCMJ and likely illegal under several sections of US Code, but they don't amount to treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:

---

If I was in the secret service, I would consider Wikileaks to be a prime opportunity for disinformation at the global scale.

---

Having waded through lots of literature on intelligence gathering at one point, I'd be incredibly surprised if this isn't happening. And if it isn't, the relevant agencies are seriously stoo-pid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This isn't the only info this guy leaked. Some was war zone intelligence - and given that we are still at war in both countries it can be said he aided and abetted the enemy. The fact that he couldn't be sure Wikileaks would publish is immaterial as that info should never have been delivered to anyone without a proper security clearance and especially to anyone not a U.S. citizen. As to witnesses - there should be logs of his computer activity - that someone should have paid attention to at the time - and the fact that he's bragged extensively about what he did. There'd be no problem convicting him, though we seem to have had a problem with charging anyone with treason since the Rosenberg fiasco. Still, I hope this guy pays dearly.

People are only focusing on this release - there have been at least 2 other occasions of massive document releases and God only knows what Wikileaks still has in reserve.

---

The handing off of classified info most certainly is a crime. Our being at war is irrelevant. It would be very hard to make a case for treason here. I'd more likely expect some thousands of UCMJ counts brought against Manning (one per document) or espionage charges against him.

Check out http://www.slate.com/id/2262801/ for some relevant precedent and history.
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
Who cares. This is an opportunity for conspiritualists which is too good to miss. It's inevitable as soon as spooks and libations of information are involved.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Yet again, The Daily Mash is spot-on in its analysis.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Beyond the question of why U.S. diplomats are collecting fingerprints and DNA the "key civilian and military officials" they interact with, how are they doing so?

"In my country we greet each other by exchanging cheek swabs, Mr. Prime Minister. I brought a swab for you too, General."
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
The case that he made an overt act giving aid and comfort to the enemies would be impossible to show (He gave documents to somebody who had the option of releasing them if they wished, etc...). Two witnesses to such an overt act would be apparently impossible (unless they can swear in computer logs now). He probably won't confess.

The private's actions were certainly illegal under the UCMJ and likely illegal under several sections of US Code, but they don't amount to treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Have you actually read the news articles about this? The guy did confess (boast is more like it) in an online chat and has been sitting in isolation in the hoosegow for the past seven months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Have you actually read the news articles about this? The guy did confess (boast is more like it) in an online chat and has been sitting in isolation in the hoosegow for the past seven months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I have been interested to note that in the Guardians reporting they have withheld.... the name of the labour minister who was 'a bit of a hound dog where women are concerned' by all accounts a bully and a womaniser.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone wonder if the U.S. might use Wikileaks as an excuse to clamp down on domestic use of the Internet China-style?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
[QUOTE]
And NiteOwl2, I meant why do you think this has to come from someone higher up the food chain? It seems quite reasonable that an intelligence analyst will have fairly generous access to documents that are not classified as top secret.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone wonder if the U.S. might use Wikileaks as an excuse to clamp down on domestic use of the Internet China-style?

---

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with leaking Secret classified documents to a foreign country. This is also not the first publishing of the leaked materials and likely won't be the last.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone wonder if the U.S. might use Wikileaks as an excuse to clamp down on domestic use of the Internet China-style?

---

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with leaking Secret classified documents to a foreign country. This is also not the first publishing of the leaked materials and likely won't be the last.

---

They weren't leaked to a foreign country though. They were leaked to a whistleblower organization that doesn't operate under a flag. There is a pretty big difference, since they weren't leaked to "aid" anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It is still leaking classified "Secret" U.S. eyes only documents to a foreign citizen - that is a grave offense. The fact they were a "whistleblower" organization makes absolutely no difference. And again - this is not a freedom of the press issue. It is in essence espionage, even if it wasn't leaked to a foreign intelligence agent.

---

quote:

---

BTW, the head of Wikileaks is a Swiss citizen with legal troubles of his own and this mess may cause more for him as pressure is applied. The U.S. referred to international law so it will be interesting to see if that is true and if it is enforced.

---

quote:

---

BTW, the head of Wikileaks is a Swiss citizen with legal troubles of his own and this mess may cause more for him as pressure is applied. The U.S. referred to international law so it will be interesting to see if that is true and if it is enforced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

Oh, also, from my understanding NightOwl - as a defense contractor you were under far more restrictions on classified networks than actual military members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

Oh, also, from my understanding NightOwl - as a defense contractor you were under far more restrictions on classified networks than actual military members.

---

Not in this case - we did weapons system analysis and were on a naval base and had access to everything they had - but it was highly compartmentalized. You got exactly what you needed - but nothing more. The naval employees operated under the same guidelines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone wonder if the U.S. might use Wikileaks as an excuse to clamp down on domestic use of the Internet China-style?

---

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with leaking Secret classified documents to a foreign country. This is also not the first publishing of the leaked materials and likely won't be the last.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
If anybody is interested in Assange himself, some people have dug up his blog (ended in 2007). I haven't had a chance to run through it yet personally.

Available here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, lobbying German MPs and MEPs to support American data-sharing for a start, which is contrary to the German Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
I didn't say the WikiLeaks case had to do with freedom of the press. I was just wondering if perchance the situation might be used as an excuse anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, lobbying German MPs and MEPs to support American data-sharing for a start, which is contrary to the German Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, lobbying German MPs and MEPs to support American data-sharing for a start, which is contrary to the German Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you are referring to Julian Assange, he is AFAIK an Australian citizen still. He has talked of seeking asylum in Switzerland, but that would require him to be able to demonstrate that he is unsafe in Australia, which seems an unlikely proposition.

---

quote:

---

Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time......

........Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought...........

..........Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should Hillary Clinton resign as Secretary of State?

Assange says she should resign. No doubt his opinion carries a lot of weight. Jack Schafer of Slate is also calling for her to step down. His reasoning is that the leaks makes it impossible for her to be an effective Secretary of State. I see his point but the next secretary of state would do the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
I didn't say the WikiLeaks case had to do with freedom of the press. I was just wondering if perchance the situation might be used as an excuse anyway.

---

Had this been another Washington Post expose I might envision that happening. But with bloggers and those with server space in other countries to serve up whatever private papers they get access to, it's pretty much a lost cause by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
As always, the questions that such activities raise are:

1. Why is it being done? What is leaking this stuff meant to accomplish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place.

---

From the stuff that has been leaked so far, the main 'wrong' is that American embassies around the world have given rather frank character assessments of the
leaders of their host countries. That's rather embarrassing for the Americans but I'm sure everyone does it and I think it's the sort of think that ought to be done on the QT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
As always, the questions that such activities raise are:

1. Why is it being done? What is leaking this stuff meant to accomplish?

---

quote:

---

"The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."

---

quote:

---

I suppose the Guardian didn’t name him because “un-named government minister" attracts more attention than .......... who no one has ever heard of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Oh yes, he's wanted alright. But do you really believe these "sex crime" charges have any substance behind them? It's a political set-up.

His only crime was embarrassing the mighty; if he goes down, it will be as a martyr to the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Honestly, these leaks have largely improved my opinion of her and Obama on foreign policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Utter nonsense.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Utter nonsense.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

---

I put out the entire pot for you to smell. We'll have to agree to disagree. The evidence will be made public after the arrest or during his trial. Perhaps we'll revisit the topic then.

Edited to add: The earlier leaks that were published contained military secrets - those combined with some of what was disclosed this time around will, at the very least make international diplomacy impossible and at the most cost the lives of military or intelligence agents. I cannot think any person who is only out for the public good would intentionally do that.

---

You both are wrong.

RW - You're being very gullible buying into Assange's paranoid ramblings about this. Combine the source of the complain (an employee who he was with), the slow ramp-up of events, and a country who is already pissed at the US for goofing around in their government, and Assange sounds like a lunatic. His fleeing the country certainly didn't help. The progression of the case through investigation, warrant, etc, to the current state is pretty damn above-board. Pretty slow too, were it a trumped case.

While I don't believe he is a rapist, the charges which were first levied against him include behavior which would be legal in the US/UK but not in Sweden (the criminal molestation charges). His actions since then in fleeing and statements about the reasoning behind the charges certainly haven't helped him.

NO2 - Feel free to offer more than assertion that this cripples our diplomacy. The pretty much official line given by Gates certainly belies that. The content of these messages certainly belies that as well (i.e. not damaging). Heck, in a few specific crisis areas, I could argue strongly that they will help our diplomacy efforts (Iran, NK). Outside of moving some staff around, how have they possibly made diplomacy "impossible"?
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Wikileaks should be shut down and its owner arrested and jailed. He has put many people's
lives in danger .It also makes many nations
intelligence agencies ablity to know what other so & so's are up to much more difficult
Classified material must never be released ever.
 

---

Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on :
 
Posted by Radical Whig:

I'm really surprised by the general tone of responses on this thread. I thought most people on the Ship would see a little further behind the curtain than they apparently do. The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place: our outrage, if it is directed against wikileaks, is entirely misplaced. And yes, maybe it does make US diplomacy more difficult - given the direction of US diplomacy, that can only be a good thing.

--------------------
It isn't so much a question of the leaks making public that which ought not to have been kept secret. It is, rather, the inhibition the leaks impose on anyone required to brief political heads or diplomats who are negotiating on behalf of the United States. I cannot see how anyone sent to represent their country can be expected to deal adequately with whomever he or she is to meet without a frank and honest assessment of whoever is sitting on the other side of the table. Representatives are entitlted to be told that the person sitting opposite has a quick temper and reacts badly to suggestions that they are indecisive. Yet revealing such assessments is offensive and can poison negotiations to the point where the intersts of the country are inadequately served. I agree about unecessary secrecy, but privacy, especially personal assessments of individuals is essential to effecitive international relations.

Wikileaks is a dangerous, offensive, ego-erving piece of bravado. It should be stopped.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And besides, what's new? People think that Iran is dangerous, that Sarkozy is a clothless emperor, that Putin loves to play the Alpha dog, that Berlusconi is a ridiculous old lecher and that there are (at least according to Prince Andrew, with whom I must agree in this particular case) close similarities between doing business in France and Kyrgyztan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
Wikileaks is a dangerous, offensive, ego-erving piece of bravado. It should be stopped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
Wikileaks should be shut down and its owner arrested and jailed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
He has put many people's lives in danger.

---

quote:

---

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
It also makes many nations intelligence agencies ablity to know what other so & so's are up to much more difficult

---

Actually, I think it might make it a lot easier. All they have to do is go to Wikileaks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
Classified material must never be released ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

NO2 - Feel free to offer more than assertion that this cripples our diplomacy. The pretty much official line given by Gates certainly belies that. The content of these messages certainly belies that as well (i.e. not damaging). Heck, in a few specific crisis areas, I could argue strongly that they will help our diplomacy efforts (Iran, NK). Outside of moving some staff around, how have they possibly made diplomacy "impossible"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Lobbying is wrong? You have such a wide definition of wrong as to be useless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
People are also forgetting the earlier leaks involved classified military documents of active war zones and leaks involving intelligence agents. Some of the diplomatic leaks involved Islamic nation states voicing opinions and requests that are in conflict with the radical Islamists in their respective countries, i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which could result in terrorist attacks and/or coup attempts in those countries as a result of those leaks. The total amount of Wikileaks publishings could result in loss of human life.

The private who leaked the info and and the head of Wikileaks are arrogant asses who care more for their self image of world judges than for the possible result of their actions.

---

• Leaks portraying accurate information that might inspire violence (but hasn't yet) is a horrendous crime.

• Lies used to market a war that killed thousands, made millions refugees, and unquestionably inspires terrorism are not only okay, but should be actively protected from being revealed as false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Lobbying is wrong? You have such a wide definition of wrong as to be useless.

---

How about shooting toddlers I’m fairly sure that is wrong. If not you have a definition of wrong which is too narrow to be of any ethical value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Lobbying is wrong? You have such a wide definition of wrong as to be useless.

---

How about shooting toddlers I’m fairly sure that is wrong. If not you have a definition of wrong which is too narrow to be of any ethical value.

---

Talk about your non sequiturs. Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just so we're clear, you're arguing that:

• Leaks portraying accurate information that might inspire violence (but hasn't yet) is a horrendous crime.

• Lies used to market a war that killed thousands, made millions refugees, and unquestionably inspires terrorism are not only okay, but should be actively protected from being revealed as false.

---

quote:

---

We need to do everything we can to make it more difficult for Canadians to fall into the trap of seeing all U.S. policies as the result of nefarious faceless U.S. bureaucrats anxious to squeeze their northern neighbor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure Chill is referring to WikiLeak's "Collateral Murder" video, during which two children were shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And besides, what's new? People think that Iran is dangerous, that Sarkozy is a clothless emperor, that Putin loves to play the Alpha dog, that Berlusconi is a ridiculous old lecher and that there are (at least according to Prince Andrew, with whom I must agree in this particular case) close similarities between doing business in France and Kyrgyztan.

---

... that Britain promised to protect American interests at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chill:
So over all is it worth it and are the leeks in the public interest I would have to say yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
First question is yes, that is horribly bad because of the very possible reality that lives could be lost even if they haven't yet. This is especially true in Arab countries where leaders face the very real possibility of Islamic jihadists overthrowing their government because of the opinions expressed privately to us were made public. As I've already stated Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are just 2 of those countries.

---

quote:

---

Authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East have suppressed virtually all mention of the documents, avoiding the public backlash that could result from such candid portrayals of their leaders' views.

In China, the WikiLeaks site has been blocked by the government's "Great Firewall," and access to other sources for the documents has been restricted. Most Chinese are unable to read the contents of the diplomatic cables - including reports that China's Politburo ordered the hacking of Google's computer system and that Chinese leaders expressed frustration that ally North Korea was behaving like a "spoiled child."

In many Arab countries, the mainstream media have largely avoided reporting on the sensitive contents of the cables, including accounts of Arab leaders drinking alcohol and siding with Israel in advocating a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

---

quote:

---

providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices

---

quote:

---

a secretive and autocratic outfit that campaigns for openness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I would like to know from the pro-Wikileaks folks on this thread how leaking the list of facilities vital to US security contributes to the site's stated aim of

quote:

---

providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices

---

This week's Economist beautifully describes Wikileaks as

quote:

---

a secretive and autocratic outfit that campaigns for openness

---

I repeat my charge that this is attention-whoring, not whistle-blowing. In fact I think it's doing incalculable damage to deserved whistleblowing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
So is Wikileaks even legal? And if so, where?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Generally, this sort of leak is not prosecuted if it comes via a news outlet. Wikileaks is largely seen as an illegitimate news outlet though (and a case which rests on that assumption would have a very tenuous progression through the appeals process).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
If a soldier let a load of strangers into a nuclear base - you'd be able to evict them. And probably prosecute them for trespass (whilst the charges against the soldier would be more serious). There doesn't seem to be an equivalent for information.

---

quote:

---

Ok, a question on my part: We are divided whether Wikileaks is moral and good or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I thought most people on the Ship would see a little further behind the curtain than they apparently do. The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place: our outrage, if it is directed against wikileaks, is entirely misplaced. And yes, maybe it does make US diplomacy more difficult - given the direction of US diplomacy, that can only be a good thing.

---

The more I read, the more sympathetic I become to Wikileaks and those working for it. Any little guy who manages to embarrass a government or corporate big guy without any violence or mayhem whatsoever has has my prima facie admiration. The information is out now and just shutting down the Wikileaks website will not put the genie back in the bottle. There are numerous mirror sites.

What comes out in the New York Times series of articles is the unpleasant surprises regarding problems that we thought had been solved, such as the number of parties circling like vultures over Iraq upon the departure of Americans. Every country and insurgent organization in the region has designs on Iraq. The legitimate government will probably be unable to cope with the threats and challenges to be unleashed. This issue just one example of the ways in which, in the most general terms, our elected officials still refuse to be straight with the voters, instead lulling them with rosy scenarios. What innocent parties would be threatened, or foreign-policy interests compromised, if a President or a Secretary of State were more forthcoming as to a gathering storm abroad?
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
In any event, pursuing a nebulous entity such as Wikileaks, which is neither a person nor a corporation, is going to be highly problematic. Perhaps the US PTB have simply decided that they will go for maximum entanglement and reverse-annoyance in the hope somebody will be tempted to break a law in a more obvious fashion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I thought most people on the Ship would see a little further behind the curtain than they apparently do. The wrong is not that Wikileaks leaked this stuff, but that the governments are doing wrong in the first place (...)

---

The more I read, the more sympathetic I become to Wikileaks and those working for it. Any little guy who manages to embarrass a government or corporate big guy without any violence or mayhem whatsoever has has my prima facie admiration.

---

The fact that governments misbehave does not justify any and every counter-action. Wikileaks is at once indiscriminate (in terms of just releasing huge dollops of information) and discriminatory (it now seems to be targeting the US exclusively). The more it simply appears to publish any and every US classified document it can get its hands on, the more it looks puerile. (Another interesting question is qui bono? at this point. What's to say Wikileaks isn't now being funded by Al Qaeda, say, or the Chinese government )

I say 'appears to publish' because there is no such thing as dissemination of information without editorial control. We don't know what Wikileaks might have chosen not to publish or why. And since the content it is publishing no longer seems to add up to its stated aims, there's no telling what it might leak next. Alogon, would you be still be so delighted if it was your e-mail account?

As to the sexual assault charges, on the one hand the timing is fishy. On the other, Assange strikes me as someone who has an unwavering sense of his own righteousness and entitlement to do as he likes (which reminds me of some charismatic church leaders) and in that light the allegations sound quite plausible to me.
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wikileaks is at once indiscriminate (in terms of just releasing huge dollops of information) and discriminatory (it now seems to be targeting the US exclusively). The more it simply appears to publish any and every US classified document it can get its hands on, the more it looks puerile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
Of course, it isn't publishing every US classified document it can get its hands on. It was given a huge number of them in one dump, and is publishing those until they're gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the least, it looks biased. I haven't heard many Wikileaks about, say, human-rights abuses in North Korea this week. They are under no obligation to keep on publishing everything they have, and in fact I'm sure they aren't - see my point above. Their actions are a semblance of transparency, not actual transparency. Does US diplomatic intelligence suck at security? Apparently. I think the point's been made now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
To claim that they're biased towards anti-US reporting though is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Breaking news: Assange's just been arrested in London.

---

quote:

---

Mr Stephens [Assange's lawyer] said Mr Assange had been trying to meet the Swedish prosecutor to find out the details about the allegations he faces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
(As I understand it, the relatively easy access Brendan Manning had to a lot of classified information was the result of a response to insufficient information-sharing by government agencies at the time of 9/11

---

50/50. His access to the war materials was part of his job, and appropriate. His access to State Dept. cables was pure idiocy on the part of the gov't (that traffic should have *never* been run over SIPRnet). His ability to pull the info off the system was apparently as a result of 9/11 and (I think moreso) the wars. When I was in 'til 2005 I never would have been able to burn a CD on any classified systems.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
When assesing a conspiracy, ask whop benefits. (Something at the back of my mind says that that was called qui bono?)

These wikileaks generally make the US government look better than it did. So assuming the CIA are the competent to do it, I suggest them as the real source of the leaks. Whether or not Mr Assange is a willign ally or has been tricked we will probable never know.


 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
But in what respects do you feel the American government now looks better than it did?
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Ken wrote

quote:

---

When assessing a conspiracy, ask who benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
But in what respects do you feel the American government now looks better than it did?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Is anyone making any money out of this ? Newspapers and Journalists probably.

Any more suspects ?

---

Hey, I was the first to usen the words qui bono on this thread!

One interesting answer here. Again, I might be projecting my own past experiences, but it wouldn't surprise me if that take was close to the truth.
 

---

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :
 
Ummm......I think you'll find it's cui bono, chaps......
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If you have to choose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, choose the stuff-up every time...
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
These wikileaks generally make the US government look better than it did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
If someone leaked the day's nuclear launch codes and passed them to a journalist who broadcast them on the radio, that wouldn't be illegal and/preventable ?

That seems dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

Even if Assange's acts re Wikileaks are a crime under US law, it may be impossible to charge him if he did them while in Australia.

It might well be Australian law rather than US law that applies. And I very much doubt that publishing a foreign government's sensitive documents constitutes a crime under Australian law.

IN the meantime, the Guardian has published a summary of leaks relating to the release of Abdelbasat al-Megrahi; in short nothing to surprise anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
These wikileaks generally make the US government look better than it did.

---

Would that be the leak about how the U.S. tried to cover up kidnapping and torturing an innocent German citizen, the one where it colluded with the British government to cover up a bunch of lies that got thousands killed, or the one where it tried to get its kidnappers and torturers off the hook in the Spanish courts? While you may think that kidnapping, torture, and wars of aggression make countries "look better", most people regard these things as attrocities.

---

quote:

---

Assange defended his Internet publishing site in a newspaper commentary on Wednesday, saying it was crucial to spreading democracy and likening himself to global media baron Rupert Murdoch in the quest to publish the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Royal Spaniel:
Ummm......I think you'll find it's cui bono, chaps......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you have to choose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, choose the stuff-up every time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
While you may think that kidnapping, torture, and wars of aggression make countries "look better", most people regard these things as attrocities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The bad stuff I believed already, so the bits of common sense that come out now and again actually make me feel better about them.

---

quote:

---

The UK government joined in because the Americans were the biggest kids on the block and they didn't have the guts to say "no".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Ummm......I think you'll find it's cock-up, chaps...

---

quote:

---

An Anonymous member told AFP news agency the group would extend their campaign to anyone with "an anti-Wikileaks agenda".

---

quote:

---

Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

---

So what do people think about Assange being in prison for alleged sex crimes in Sweden ?

Conspiracy or what? Gotta say the timing is very interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Sweden has some very liberal sex laws. One instance, if true, would qualify as rape in my book and that is the charge he had sex with an unconscious woman. I believe that will also lead to a charge of rape in the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Also, anyone have any thoughts on the "revenge" attacks his loyal followers are doing? I rather thought his threat of unleashing a poison pill mass leak if he was arrested was pretty much blackmail. Pretty much goes along with what I think of him - narcissistic. Definitely not any kind of hero.

---

IMO, the whole affair is quickly devolving into a struggle between two curious alliances:
1. On the one side you have those who feel (understandably, at least to a degree) that the state has to be able to have private internal conversations and those who have some very embarrassing truths to hide.
2. On the other side you have those who genuinely think the press has right, nay, a duty to scrutinise what the publicly elected leaders of state and their"retainers are up to, and those who see Wikileaks as a vehicle to attack the state out of purely anarchistic motivations.

I suspect that Assange is probably fairly anarchistic in outlook, which is underpinned by his former career as a hacker. Recent events have probably tipped him more in in that direction. I also suspect that the large amount of people who have recently turned their backs on Wikileaks have done so because they are "scrutinists" and not anarchists, and have become increasingly uncomfortable with the underlying motivations of the anarchists which seem to have gained the upperhand in the organisation. It is no secret that the Wau-Holland Foundation in Guxhagen, Germany (established with the estate of the late Herwart Holland-Moritz, co-founder of Hamburg's Chaos Computer Club), has been a large sponsor of Wikileaks. Wikileaks has thus, premeditatedly or otherwise, become an anchor point for anarchists, with an agenda to suit and excellent connections to a body capable of carrying out cyber attacks. It is not surprising that the motivation - and abilities - could be mustered to carry out a reprisal DDoS attack in defence of Wikileaks.

Accordingly, Wikileaks is quickly becoming a vehicle for state subversion. As an organisation it has only flirted with illegality. As a movement it has certainly crossed the fine line.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Interesting analysis, MtP.

But first, some background reading:-

1. Useful background article on Julian Assange from the New Yorker by Raffi Khatchadourian, dating to before this business blew up (link here). It's an 11-pager so give yourself time!

2. More information than you probably needed on the anonops ddos attacks (here).

The anonops servers have been pretty comprehensively blitzed and hacked since yesterday, so this is obviously a game that two can play. And if people are so naive that they think that volunteer botnets won't get traced, then heaven help them.

But the point is the ongoing link with what is coming to be called the Pirate Party tendency. Julian Assange has most definitely been heavily involved with these people in Iceland, Sweden, Germany and Switzerland. If you visit their websites, their main thrust appears to be that they want reform of copyright and intellectual property laws so they are fit for a digital age. Fair enough - I can support that myself. But in practice, they seem to use more bandwidth to host pirated music and video torrents. Presumably the choice of the word "pirate" was deliberate...

This has consequences - unless you are one of the few names that can command stellar sums from international recognition, the net effect of pirated file-sharing has been to depress adversely the ability of new entrants to the music business to make any realistic income. It used to be possible, but now you really have to do it for love. As always, it is the less well off that suffer disproportionately from theft.

I always have trouble deciding whether anarchists are left-wing or right-wing. Their self-image is left-wing usually. But things like this increasingly convince me that whilst they talk the left-wing talk, they walk the right-wing walk. Pirates were the robber-barons of the sea after all.

But the question I cannot at present answer is whether Julian Assange associates with these people because of their hacktivist abilities or because he genuinely feels his cause lies there. I have read his own rationale for the Wikileaks approach, and think it great if confined to theory, but absurd in practice, liable to cause the exact opposite of what is needed. But that would be a tangent too far at present.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
From what has been seen in public in Sweden, the case for Assange as a rapist is rather anorexic.

First a low-ranking prosecutor orders his arrest and runs to the media with the story (not necessarily in that order), then her superior removes the order as soon as she gets in charge, and then after the attorney of the alleged victims goes out to the media and says it's a clear-cut deal of women's rights another even higher ranking prosecutor re-orders for Assange to be arrested. 2 notes, just here:
1. There's something Simpsonian about it all.
2. The women's attorney is Claes Borgström, the former national ombudsman for equality and a high-ranking politician in Sweden's biggest party, the Social Democrats. In my opinion he has well crossed the line for populism a couple of times in the past, but that's just my opinion - a lot of people would disagree. And that might just be party policy.

Assange stayed for 40 days extra in Sweden to be available for hearings, and even offered himself to show up for the hearings. The police didn't. After he had left, they claimed to know nothing of this. Voices have been raised by Swedish law professors saying there is something strange going on here - not sure if all of them agree on this, though.

Also, the Swedish police isn't known to be the brightest authority we've got. They messed up on the Interpol arrest order, and that's not so surprising. Older Brother found out through dealing with the police through his work that some police stations are unfamiliar with e-mail systems, and don't even have them. They are currently digitalizing their files (2010).

These are just some thoughts from a young suspicious Swede. I won't say that I know all about this, but there seems to be something fishy about all of this. Assange could still be a rapist, and he could have violated Swedish law - but at least one rather high-ranking prosecutor didn't think it was even worth digging into since the case seemed so thin to her. I'm not giving any guarantees as to in what way the Swedish police and prosecutors have mishandled the entire situation, but whatever the outcome, that should be the conclusion.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
According to analysis on the BBC early today, the greatest significance of this affair will be the technological showdown between the resilience of the Internet and those who believe in freedom of information worldwide, and governments which attempt to make it respect national borders. Just a few months ago, most Americans scoffed at the censorious habits and efforts of the Chinese. Today there are those in our own superpower government who dearly wish to do the same, and some may be secretly attempting it at this moment. My bet (and crtainly my hope) is that the Net will survive these onslaughts, at least with the help of its friends who fight back. At least, it is most likely survive American onslaughts. (China has recently unveiled a supercomputer that runs rings around anything in the U.S., demonstrating that the glory has departed in yet another respect.)

Although no doubt those embarrassed by Wikileaks will make life as difficult as possible for the site and all who have worked for it, both out of sheer vindictiveness and to warn others not to do likewise, the conflict essentially has gone beyond these localized, vicissitudes, in that there are now many mirror sites.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Thank you for that insight, JFH. I've deliberately tried to steer clear of the whole rape allegations issue precisely because it all seems a bit too convenient to me. Some of the shortcomings you mention have made it through to here, but if a European arrest warrant is issued by any country, action has to be taken by the receiving country, provided the warrant has been issued properly. That hasn't been tested yet of course.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Missed the edit window, so this apprentice gets a walk of shame - on googling for sources, I can't seem to find those articles by law professors. I thought I had read them, but it seems I can't find them right now (my computer is having a bad day though, so might find them later on). Could mean I made stuff up, though.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
On the whole I was inclined against the Wikileaks position until this article emerged. It suggests that the British Foreign Office and the US military were conspiring to pervert the clear choice of the elected government on the issue of cluster bombs. If this is proven, a large number of FCO mandarins - and preferably David Milliband - should be attaindered, i.e. stripped of all status, pension and property. But of course it won't happen.

I still think that most of the wikileaks stuff shouldn't have been released - governments need to be able to discuss things in private - but there are a few gems in there that seem to be worth having; it's a shame that the journalists have not focused on the significant stuff.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
One of the cables proves that the US used pure power measures to get Norway to pick the F-18 fighter planes instead of the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen. In order to get it to work in public, they had Norway fake an open deal, and it was a surprise of rather Qatari measures when it was revealed that the Norwegian defence preferred the American planes. This was a deal worth about 1 billion dollars, which I guess many Americans would think is a small matter to bother about, given the size of the national deficit and all, so I'm just thinking, "Could we have it back? Just for European good will and stuff? We might even throw in Assange for a small add-on fee (Ryanair style)?"
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
So we now know that Wikileaks is worse than even the Ku Klux Klan.

This article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung attests (sorry, it's in German), that while Wikileaks credit card payments are blocked, you may cheerfully use them to make a thoughtful donation to the kkk (though, please, only if you're white).

I clicked through the kkk homepage as far as the payment - and they really do offer Visa - Mastercard - American Express payment options! (though, obviously I didn't actually finish the test by making a payment)

I am now going to empty my cache, wash my hands and go for a shower.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
I read about it in a Swedish newspaper, that attested the discovery to the Guardian.

I am getting more and more convinced of actually getting a Diner's Club card. They seem to be the least horrible creatures in the cave.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Sorry for the double-post, but I just wanted to post this new discovery concerning Assange on the thread before I'm off to bed:
The Guardian just posted their take on the situation. I must say though that I find their sources rather bewildering. They are quoting a "professor Monica Burgman" whom I have never heard of. Neither has Google. Thus it's hard for me to verify the quality of that source, honestly. There IS a Monika Bergman mentioned in a report I found, who is apparently working with the Crime Victims' Association, but I she has no title listed - which she'd be likely to have if she had a special one. No universities show up when I google for her name and "professor".

Also, the correspondent they are quoting is also rather unheard of, and from a minor TV network. Google points out that he's a reporter for one of the morning newscasts doing interviews with movie actors (in the particular case, those from the movie "Sex and the City"). That article is from 2008, but he's still not a Mike Wallace. He's not well-known, and not with one of the most respectable news-sources, so I find it strange that he is the one whose opinion gets spead over the world.

Neither is Oisin Cantwell a household name. They are essentially quoting minor journalists of the Daily Mirror and Wail. I don't understand why, when there are so many brilliant and respected journalists and commentators writing on the subject, in and from Sweden.

I'm still not saying that Assange is innocent - just that I don't understand why everything is so strange about this business. It might be that it is strange because I don't understand it, but that still would not explain why the Guardian has such a low standard suddenly. Nor why no international newspaper has interviewed Eva Finné, the prosecutor who wanted to drop all charges until mr Borgström of Borgström & Bodström (Bodström being Sweden's former minister of justice) came along and made it a national business. And made sure that the prosecutor one step up decided to press those charges again.
 

---

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with leaking Secret classified documents to a foreign country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with leaking Secret classified documents to a foreign country.

---

Is this why some one (the CIA?) is hounding Assange on 'rape' charges, that seem from the outside to be about as credible and as strategically timed as the sodomy charges against Anwar in Malaysia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
So we now know that Wikileaks is worse than even the Ku Klux Klan.

This article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung attests (sorry, it's in German), that while Wikileaks credit card payments are blocked, you may cheerfully use them to make a thoughtful donation to the kkk (though, please, only if you're white).

I clicked through the kkk homepage as far as the payment - and they really do offer Visa - Mastercard - American Express payment options! (though, obviously I didn't actually finish the test by making a payment)

I am now going to empty my cache, wash my hands and go for a shower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
I am getting more and more convinced of actually getting a Diner's Club card. They seem to be the least horrible creatures in the cave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I don't know if the KKK is illegal or just distasteful so whether this could apply.

---

quote:

---

...possibly due to his own behavior and the fact that Sweden's sexual assault laws are about the most liberal in the world.

---

quote:

---

But as to whether Sweden's sex laws are the most liberal in the world - well, not according to this article (link).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

But as to whether Sweden's sex laws are the most liberal in the world - well, not according to this article (link).

---

I think that by "liberal" Nightowl meant something like "more influenced by feminist thought and hence victim-friendly". Not "liberal" in the ACLU sense of being tilted in favour of the suspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
First blood from the wikileaks ?

---

quote:

---

Pope Benedict refused to allow Vatican officials to testify in an investigation by an Irish commission into alleged child sex abuse by priests, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, The Guardian newspaper reported.

<snip>

According to the cable detailing the Vatican's refusal to cooperate in the abuse investigation, the Vatican believed opposition politicians in Ireland were publicly putting pressure on the government to vilify the Vatican just to make "political hay".

The Irish government, meanwhile, wanted "to be seen as co-operating with the investigation" because its churches and education department were also involved in the scandal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
First blood from the wikileaks ?

---

I guess the question is how WikiLeaks got access to Mr. Holbrooke's aorta.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
I'm sorry if my outbursts before have been OTT regarding conspiracistity.

---

Those are amazingly restrained outbursts, then

The Sweden parts that bother me:
*The prosecutor who reopened the case, I've read, has a very wildly feminist history and this may be biasing her.

*Assange offered to talk with them repeatedly from within a Swedish Embassy. I poo-poo'ed his videoconference stuff before, but if he is putting himself under Swedish control to do so, that's a much higher level of cooperation to be spurning imo. I presume that he could be detained/arrested at an embassy and arrangements made for his departure to Sweden.

*One of the women apparently wrote positive comments on her blog about Assange after this is supposed to happen, and then wiped them (and ones from before they got together) from her twitter acct/blog/etc.

The whole thing reeks of, at minimum, incompetence and confusion. Sweden doesn't seem to have enough of a dog in this fight though to cooperate on the conspiracy front.

Puzzling.
 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Something terrorist like* happened in Sweden, just hit the news.

*It may be an accident and details are sketch in local (uk) news (suggest 1 fatality, vague reports of gas canisters in a car).

[ 11. December 2010, 18:35: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Car bombs in Sweden
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, Assange's British lawyers claim that he has offered to do the hearings over the phone or using videocalls, and that this is allowed in the UK. How common is this in the UK and what are the limits for that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
First blood from the wikileaks ?

---

I guess the question is how WikiLeaks got access to Mr. Holbrooke's aorta.

---

I was more thinking of his stress levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
First blood from the wikileaks ?

---

I guess the question is how WikiLeaks got access to Mr. Holbrooke's aorta.

---

I was more thinking of his stress levels.

---

That seems as tenuous as it is speculative. The theory is what? That there's no other way a sixty-nine year old man who worked for decades in a high stress job could develop heart trouble, so the only possible explanation is stress from the fear that someone might find out what he did on that job?

Come to think of it, I think that's how the CIA eventually decided to assassinate Castro: make his life stressful for long enough.

---

I was not entirely serious - but I thought that changes in the american diplomatic scene would be relevant to the thread.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
According to one tabloid, there were six pipe-bombs on the man's body, but only one went off.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
[Sorry for double-post, edit time elapsed.]

Concerning the bombing:
According to one tabloid, there were six pipe-bombs on the man's body, but only one went off.

Also, the same paper claims there was a message sent to a Swedish news agency saying something like "Now your children, sisters and daughters will die, just like our children, sisters and daughters are dying."
This has apparently also gone to the SäPo - the Swedish special police.
The man is also supposed to have said that, "Our actions will speak for themselves. As long as you do not stop your war against Islam and defiling the Prophet and your silly support of the pig Lars Vilks."
The man then, according to the tabloid Aftonbladet, told all muslims in Sweden to "stop sucking up and defiling yourselves". Then he is supposed to have told everyone not to wait any longer, and strike with "whatever you have, even a knife - and I know you have far more than a knife." whereupon he is supposed to have finished off with the somewhat Shakespearian, "Fear no one, fear not prison, fear not death."

I don't know if it's confirmed that this man is the one who actually executed the bombing. Either way, Sweden sure has become a very complicated country these days.
 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Oh I hadn't heard about the Swedish cartoons, thought it was just Denmark.
With Anarchists interested in your country, groups that would find it convenient if you were more scared, and actual terrorists having you as a prime target, not to mention having offended China. Sweden is suddenly looking more complicated than I could ever of imagined.

In any case for the victims and for the people and government as they come to terms.
 

---

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
I'm sorry if my outbursts before have been OTT regarding conspiracistity.

---

Those are amazingly restrained outbursts, then

The Sweden parts that bother me:
*The prosecutor who reopened the case, I've read, has a very wildly feminist history and this may be biasing her.

*Assange offered to talk with them repeatedly from within a Swedish Embassy. I poo-poo'ed his videoconference stuff before, but if he is putting himself under Swedish control to do so, that's a much higher level of cooperation to be spurning imo. I presume that he could be detained/arrested at an embassy and arrangements made for his departure to Sweden.

*One of the women apparently wrote positive comments on her blog about Assange after this is supposed to happen, and then wiped them (and ones from before they got together) from her twitter acct/blog/etc.

The whole thing reeks of, at minimum, incompetence and confusion. Sweden doesn't seem to have enough of a dog in this fight though to cooperate on the conspiracy front.

Puzzling.

---

quote:

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930488
Mr Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, has criticised the Swedish prosecutors, saying Mr Assange had been offering to meet since August.

He said they had offered to put Mr Assange up for interview at the Swedish embassy, by video conference recorded in Sweden or at Scotland Yard.

Mr Stephens said: "So far the Swedish prosecutor has declined to take up those offers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
Jay-Emm:
We haven't offended China. That was Norway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
America doing all it can to distance itself from us (the other continent that likes liberal democracy and human rights) doesn't make me feel any better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930488
Mr Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, has criticised the Swedish prosecutors, saying Mr Assange had been offering to meet since August.

He said they had offered to put Mr Assange up for interview at the Swedish embassy, by video conference recorded in Sweden or at Scotland Yard.

Mr Stephens said: "So far the Swedish prosecutor has declined to take up those offers.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

Even if Assange's acts re Wikileaks are a crime under US law, it may be impossible to charge him if he did them while in Australia.

It might well be Australian law rather than US law that applies. And I very much doubt that publishing a foreign government's sensitive documents constitutes a crime under Australian law.

IN the meantime, the Guardian has published a summary of leaks relating to the release of Abdelbasat al-Megrahi; in short nothing to surprise anyone.

---

There's no evidence he's been in Australia any time recently, either. If anything, he's spent most of his time in recent months in the UK and Sweden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
pssst - JFH - I think you'll find ES is posting from the UK, not the USA. It's best not to take these matters personally.

---

...


Methinks it best to just head to bed now.
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The issue is where he was when he committed his alleged "crimes" (espionage seems to be nosing in front at present). It is not where he is at present.

It may be that under US law, the crime of espionage may be committed by any person in any part of the world. I don't know. But if not, US prosecutors have a problem.

ISTM they also have a major problem if they can't show that Assange did anything more than receive and publish information leaked by someone else. Still, if they get him in front of a lynch-mob jury that might not matter. I daresay they could also lock him up in the legal black hole that is Gauntanamo.

---

quote:

---

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but what has the bomb in Sweden got to do with Wikileaks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

If he did commit rape he should be tried and sentenced for it. But looking at the charges leveled against him I would have thought it next to impossible to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, unless there is extant surveillance footage. It is inherent in the nature of the charges - it will be a he said / she said case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Given the scale of the wikileaks phenomenon, it is difficult to see how Assange would get a fair trial anywhere in relation to it. And no-one who disagreed with the verdict would believe the trial to be fair anyway. Which makes the whole thing a bit moot.

If he did commit rape he should be tried and sentenced for it. But looking at the charges leveled against him I would have thought it next to impossible to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, unless there is extant surveillance footage. It is inherent in the nature of the charges - it will be a he said / she said case.

---

Iran? They (the government) must love Wikileaks so far, and I don't know if there is such a thing as male rape in practice.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
That would just be a trial biased toward him, rather than a fair trial.
 

---

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that Sweden sat out WWII as a neutral.

---

Some 8,000 Danish Jews have reason to be grateful for that. We did what we could in Denmark to save them from the Nazis, but without Sweden's willingness to welcome them that would likely not have been enough.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
For those who want to know these things, they might find it helpful to remember Article 1 Section 9 of the US constitution states:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
From here. This means that they can't pass a law to punish Assange for this offence...

[ 12. December 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For those who want to know these things, they might find it helpful to remember Article 1 Section 9 of the US constitution states:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
From here. This means that they can't pass a law to punish Assange for this offence...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

§ 793, though could possibly be used. (See here for text of the section. This involves receiving or passing on things connected to national defense with intent to injure the US national defense, or reason to believe that they could be used to the advantage of another nation. Sickeningly vague.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
My brief read of §793(e) makes me think that the section criminalises newspaper editors who publish documents. I'm sure that can't be right, and I wonder what I am missing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Doesn't the US constitution protect free speech rather than a free press?

If so, wouldn't that cover Assange as much as, say, the Guardian?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Another point often missed is that to commit a crime, the criminal act has to be done in or be in some way connected with the jurisdiction whose laws make that act a crime.

---

Yeah, in the good old days. Then someone thought of prohibiting "sex tourism." That little idea has diluted the concept of jurisdiction irretrievably.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0