Is it just me, or is it very very convenient that an international arrest warrant was issued roughly the same time as a major Wikileaks release?
Here is a comment from CNN Sr legal analyst Jeffery Toobin [Assange can't "rub the United States' nose in committing illegal acts and get away with it" and he can't elude attention because he's become a "huge celebrity."]
So ummmm, wait. Its ok for the government to do illegal gak, but its horribly wrong to call attention to it? I don't think he's a hero or anything, but the world and (more importantly in my mind) the citizens of America NEED to know what our government is doing....both good and bad so that we can have a form of government more representative of the will of the people. Keeping secrets and running clandestine ops isn't where I want my taxes going.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said Assange should be prosecuted for espionage. He also said that the United States should classify WikiLeaks as a terrorist group so that "we can freeze their assets." And he called Assange an enemy combatant."
I love how fox news is calling for whoever leaked the info to be executed as a traitor. They compare embarrassing the state department with leaking nuclear launch codes. I think it’s hilarious. I don’t think Julian Assange is a hero but I do respect his massive balls. Truth is something someone is trying to hide, everything else is just advertising.
Kilkrazy wrote:The collection of information on foreign diplomats at the UN, ordered by Hilary Clinton.
Wow, I'm surprised to see you jump on the bandwagon so quickly without all the evidence. There is nothing specifically illegal that has been brought to light, or to quote the article, "as suggested by a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks". Suggested doesn't mean that illegal information gathering took place. I can't think of a single country who's diplomats don't keep track of who they talk to and what was said. The appearance of impropriety is not the same thing as being improper. Ignoring the difference is Fox News' bread and butter.
I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
Kilkrazy wrote:The collection of information on foreign diplomats at the UN, ordered by Hilary Clinton.
Wow, I'm surprised to see you jump on the bandwagon so quickly without all the evidence. There is nothing specifically illegal that has been brought to light, or to quote the article, "as suggested by a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks". Suggested doesn't mean that illegal information gathering took place. I can't think of a single country who's diplomats don't keep track of who they talk to and what was said. The appearance of impropriety is not the same thing as being improper. Ignoring the difference is Fox News' bread and butter.
Kilkrazy wrote:The collection of information on foreign diplomats at the UN, ordered by Hilary Clinton.
Wow, I'm surprised to see you jump on the bandwagon so quickly without all the evidence. There is nothing specifically illegal that has been brought to light, or to quote the article, "as suggested by a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks". Suggested doesn't mean that illegal information gathering took place. I can't think of a single country who's diplomats don't keep track of who they talk to and what was said. The appearance of impropriety is not the same thing as being improper. Ignoring the difference is Fox News' bread and butter.
"WikiLeaks had moved its site to Amazon's servers on Sunday, after it was the target of a denial-of-service attack from a hacker on its old servers last week."
Yes, because I am sure that it was a hacker that attacked the site and not a government paid cyber security specialist.
agroszkiewicz wrote:Yes, because I am sure that it was a hacker that attacked the site and not a government paid cyber security specialist.
Yes, because no hacker would ever want to go after a high profile target. I think it's time to put our tinfoil hats on lest the government read our thoughts while we discuss this matter.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
Interpol wants him on rape charges in Sweden, I think Interpol is the least of his worries. His blabbing about the Russian Government and their ties to the Russian mafia are going to get him killed.
Side note: Fox News isn't advocating him being executed or brought on on anything. That was a congressman (Peter King NY 3rd). In fact 3 of their employees last night (Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Colmes and John Stossel) said he should be left alone. Asange hasn't done anything wrong technically, Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Stormrider wrote: Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
I support this, and I might even support trying him for espionage. Sucks, but you gotta do the time if you commit the crime.
The ongoing thing with Assange and the charges from Sweden just seems too well timed....or maybe his release of documents is an effort to keep from being tried on rape charges. Who knows? Its good knews anyway....better than the latest tragedy in Haiti, or another lolcat.
Crablezworth wrote:I love how fox news is calling for whoever leaked the info to be executed as a traitor. They compare embarrassing the state department with leaking nuclear launch codes. I think it’s hilarious. I don’t think Julian Assange is a hero but I do respect his massive balls. Truth is something someone is trying to hide, everything else is just advertising.
Because the suspected person who leaked the info to WikiLeaks in the first place didn't just leak diplomatic cables.
The suspect, who also leaked classified Pentagon documents, and in the process of illegally obtaining the diplomatic cables(which he didn't have access to) willingly compromised the security of hardened military networks. Also bear in mind that said suspect is a serving member of the US military.
That drastically changes the situation.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh.
Well, releasing details about US troop movements and the like kind of is y'know...treason. And Assagne has done that.
Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
No, it's really not?
Switzerland has been saying for a few months now that they're investigating him about these rape allegations. They have said for awhile that they were trying to decide whether the claims had merit.
Bear in mind, this was even before Assagne started mouthing off about having US diplomatic cables.
Wikileaks makes me feel conflicted. On the one hand I'm all for a more open and honest government, and I feel like they should be willing to reveal things to the people they govern... but at the same time, I worry that they won't know when to stop and will eventually release some kind of information that will actually lead to the country being harmed in some way, either via strained relations with other foreign powers or via actual physical attacks on soldiers or civilians. I respect what they're trying to do, it's noble to try and get the truth out to the people, but they're playing a very, very dangerous game, and eventually something is going to go horribly wrong and hurt everyone involved... which includes us as a whole nation.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh.
Well, releasing details about US troop movements and the like kind of is y'know...treason. And Assagne has done that.
I haven't been able to find any documents on US troop movements. I've looked and just haven't seen anything that detailed current troop positions, supply lines, dropsites, etc. Quoted from the wikileaks front page.
Cablegate: 250,000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables
2010-11-28
On Sunday 28th Novembre 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government's foreign activities.
War Diary: Iraq War Logs
2010-10-22
The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.
War Diary: Afghanistan War Logs
2010-07-25
From here, you can browse through all of the documents that have been released, organized by type, category, date, number of casualties, and many other properties. From any document page, clicking on the green underlined text will open a popup that links to other documents that contain those phrases, making it possible to see important search terms and connections that you might not otherwise notice.
Video: Collateral Murder
2010-04-05
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
Assagne can't commit treason as he isn't a US citizen. Espionage maybe, but even that is stretching it. As long as he didn't tell someone to obtain them illegally and just received them then it isn't even necessarily that. Research the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers.
Ahtman wrote:Assagne can't commit treason as he isn't a US citizen. Espionage maybe, but even that is stretching it. As long as he didn't tell someone to obtain them illegally and just received them then it isn't even necessarily that. Research the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers.
Yeah, I know he can't commit treason.
However, the soldier who stole the documents did commit treason.
Ahtman wrote:Assagne can't commit treason as he isn't a US citizen. Espionage maybe, but even that is stretching it. As long as he didn't tell someone to obtain them illegally and just received them then it isn't even necessarily that. Research the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers.
Yeah, I know he can't commit treason.
However, the soldier who stole the documents did commit treason.
Are you positive that this fits the legal definition of treason? Also, is this from the perspective of a military or civilian court? None of the information was specifically leaked to foreign nationals or to an arm of another government. Not saying he isn't guilty, just that its a VERY serious allegation.
I support the prosecution of anyone that has committed a crime, but not by a military tribunal in what is clearly NOT a combat situation.
If Assagne isn't a US citizen, then he's a foreign national.
And uh, guy...
The man who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks was in Iraq.
Pretty sure that's clearly NOT him being on vacation.
He was on a combat deployment. Thus, combat situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If you are soldier and steal classified documents from a military facility you are not going to be tried as a civilian.
Especially when you're actually on deployment.
And this wasn't really a case of "Oops, I accidentally left some unsecured files on my desk".
The soldier in question had no reason, whatsoever, to be viewing diplomatic cables.
He had to willfully compromise the security on the diplomatic communication network to obtain them.
Kanluwen wrote:If Assagne isn't a US citizen, then he's a foreign national.
And uh, guy...
The man who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks was in Iraq.
Pretty sure that's clearly NOT him being on vacation.
He was on a combat deployment. Thus, combat situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If you are soldier and steal classified documents from a military facility you are not going to be tried as a civilian.
Especially when you're actually on deployment.
And this wasn't really a case of "Oops, I accidentally left some unsecured files on my desk".
The soldier in question had no reason, whatsoever, to be viewing diplomatic cables.
He had to willfully compromise the security on the diplomatic communication network to obtain them.
Post edited. I agree....the Pvt should be tried under military code since he was physically in Iraq, by definition this is a combat area. As for Assange....I'm still not really seeing what he's done to violate US law. I'm no lawyer though, so y'know.
Unless of course he coerced the Pvt into getting those files. Then he's guilty of something...not sure what.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
Interpol wants him on rape charges in Sweden, I think Interpol is the least of his worries. His blabbing about the Russian Government and their ties to the Russian mafia are going to get him killed.
Side note: Fox News isn't advocating him being executed or brought on on anything. That was a congressman (Peter King NY 3rd). In fact 3 of their employees last night (Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Colmes and John Stossel) said he should be left alone. Asange hasn't done anything wrong technically, Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
O'reilly was calling for his execution, that's fox news
Assange isn't on trial in the US, or even at this time wanted by the US. I'm sure they could get him for receiving stolen property or classified documents, etc. But that doesn't matter because as I said...he's not wanted by the US.
He's wanted by Switzerland for a series of alleged rapes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
Interpol wants him on rape charges in Sweden, I think Interpol is the least of his worries. His blabbing about the Russian Government and their ties to the Russian mafia are going to get him killed.
Side note: Fox News isn't advocating him being executed or brought on on anything. That was a congressman (Peter King NY 3rd). In fact 3 of their employees last night (Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Colmes and John Stossel) said he should be left alone. Asange hasn't done anything wrong technically, Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
O'reilly was calling for his execution, that's fox news
Execution of Assange or the private leaking documents to Assange?
I think it's fair to say Assange is guilty of pretty poor judgement, and his own reasons for releasing documents are really very odd, and don't really convince me he's the best guy to decide what really needs to be released to the public.
But that's wholly different to calling people traitors or guilty of treason. I think that kind of talk is kind of dangerous to be honest, and I've never really understood why people are so hostile to the release of secrets.
That said, the guy may or may not be guilty of rape, that's for the courts to decide.
The calls for him to be hunted down like Bin Laden (who hasn't been hunted down, BTW) are just crowd pleasers for the Tea Particrats.
Really though, those sorts of hysterical calls for condign punishment are worse than the original leaks.
Everyone with a bit of sophistication and knowledge is fully aware that these sort of messages are going around all the time. There has been nothing shocking in them -- everything I have seen has been a pithy, accurate assessment.
It's far more embarrassing to see the shrieks of horror from Joe Lieberman and the like.
agroszkiewicz wrote:Wait, so you are saying you do support the suppression of information? Think really carefully about that.
No, I'm not, and I'd go so far as to say that there is no way you could have sensibly read that from my post.
I am saying that taking leaks and releasing them to the general public requires a level of decision making as to where the public good really lies. Releasing diplomatic memos to the US from Middle Eastern nations who are concerned about Iran has achieved nothing but make those nations more wary about dealing with the US over Iran.
While many of the leaks have been for the public good, some have been damaging, and most utterly trivial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:He has pissed off the USA. That's enough.
The calls for him to be hunted down like Bin Laden (who hasn't been hunted down, BTW) are just crowd pleasers for the Tea Particrats.
Really though, those sorts of hysterical calls for condign punishment are worse than the original leaks.
Yeah, the thing that's been causing me to drift back to Assange's side in the last few days has been the ludicrous reactions from various politicians. It kind of reminds me how much some people worship at the temple of state power, and how brave it can be to break that down by releasing secrets.
Then I remember some of the crap he's actually leaked, and I kind of end up somewhere in the middle.
sebster wrote:
Yeah, the thing that's been causing me to drift back to Assange's side in the last few days has been the ludicrous reactions from various politicians. It kind of reminds me how much some people worship at the temple of state power, and how brave it can be to break that down by releasing secrets.
Then I remember some of the crap he's actually leaked, and I kind of end up somewhere in the middle.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I will be the first to admit that I haven't read all of the documents on wikileaks (haha, good luck), but the very fact that folks are screaming for this guy's head on a plate is what disturbs me. Accusing him of treason, being an enemy combatant, those sorts of things....ugh. Plus the timing on his international arrest warrant is really really fishy.
Interpol wants him on rape charges in Sweden, I think Interpol is the least of his worries. His blabbing about the Russian Government and their ties to the Russian mafia are going to get him killed.
Side note: Fox News isn't advocating him being executed or brought on on anything. That was a congressman (Peter King NY 3rd). In fact 3 of their employees last night (Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Colmes and John Stossel) said he should be left alone. Asange hasn't done anything wrong technically, Pvt.1st Class Manning (the leaker) is probably going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
O'reilly was calling for his execution, that's fox news
O'Reilly is a fool, but he's got an opinion on an opinion show, that is the big difference between reporting the news, and having an opinion. I doubt Rupert Murdoch wants a fellow Aussie to be executed for using information he recieved from a willing and malfeasant Pvt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:
Julian Assange wrote: I mean, I don't even look like a rapist...
agroszkiewicz wrote:Wait, so you are saying you do support the suppression of information? Think really carefully about that.
No, I'm not, and I'd go so far as to say that there is no way you could have sensibly read that from my post.
I am saying that taking leaks and releasing them to the general public requires a level of decision making as to where the public good really lies. Releasing diplomatic memos to the US from Middle Eastern nations who are concerned about Iran has achieved nothing but make those nations more wary about dealing with the US over Iran.
Bingo.
The cable from Yemen is one that really should have been kept under wraps, but noooo. He just dumps them out while at the same time
While many of the leaks have been for the public good, some have been damaging, and most utterly trivial.
I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.
Kilkrazy wrote:He has pissed off the USA. That's enough.
The calls for him to be hunted down like Bin Laden (who hasn't been hunted down, BTW) are just crowd pleasers for the Tea Particrats.
Really though, those sorts of hysterical calls for condign punishment are worse than the original leaks.
Yeah, the thing that's been causing me to drift back to Assange's side in the last few days has been the ludicrous reactions from various politicians. It kind of reminds me how much some people worship at the temple of state power, and how brave it can be to break that down by releasing secrets.
He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.
What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.
Then I remember some of the crap he's actually leaked, and I kind of end up somewhere in the middle.
I'm very anti-Assange. He's an insufferable twit who really should be taken down a peg or two.
I completely disagree on things being "kept under wraps". The footage of US soldiers gunning down civvies is something that the citizens of the US (who pay the salaries of those servicemen/women with our taxes) have a RIGHT to see. I don't want my sweat and effort going to help pay for the murder of anyone, let alone innocent photographers.
On the subject of Assange, I'm willing to bet that he's quite the narcissist and possibly suffers from megalomania. Nobody takes center ring against the US government with a full deck of cards. He's going to end up dead.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I completely disagree on things being "kept under wraps". The footage of US soldiers gunning down civvies is something that the citizens of the US (who pay the salaries of those servicemen/women with our taxes) have a RIGHT to see. I don't want my sweat and effort going to help pay for the murder of anyone, let alone innocent photographers.
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".
On the subject of Assange, I'm willing to bet that he's quite the narcissist and possibly suffers from megalomania. Nobody takes center ring against the US government with a full deck of cards. He's going to end up dead.
Yes, because obviously everyone who opposes the US government "ends up dead".
I think we know who really isn't playing with a full deck of cards here.
Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".
Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makbood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>
Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.
Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".
Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makmood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>
What part of "flying top cover for a convoy" is difficult for you to understand?
The Apache was not engaging to protect itself. They were protecting troops on the ground, who they(and the people who gave them clearance to engage) believed would come to harm if those individuals were left alone.
"No uniform" is a perfectly acceptable excuse, by the by.
If you're in a combat zone, engaging uniformed soldiers displaying proper identification(or do you think that soldiers have US/UK/German flags on their uniforms to look pretty?) while not wearing a uniform...guess what?
You're an illegal combatant, and are not subject to the "rules of war" outlined by the Geneva Convention. However, the US and UK and other non-backward third world countries will give you those rights outlined in the GC.
Oh, and as an aside?
"Makmood and Allah Street" was an anecdote. I don't expect you to understand what that means, but it felt 'wrong' to say Dave from Main Street driving up to administer first aid to the people who just got smacked down by an Apache in Baghdad.
Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.
It doesn't matter one damn bit if they're "raising a weapon" or not in this context. This isn't a cop shooting a hunter in the woods.
This is a case of soldiers in a warzone engaging armed and non-uniformed individuals within a combat zone, where shots from AKs and RPGs had been reported not even minutes prior.
As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being. They're in combat, they have to be able to get the feth over it and keep doing their job. They can't break down crying because they shot someone.
The legality of it, by the way, is yes. Proper and legal. The gunner and pilot were exonerated of wrong-doing because they and their higher ups genuinely believed there was a threat to the troops on the ground.
Does the fact that it's proper and legal mean it was a good thing that it happened?
No.
All it has done is damage international relations.
Kanluwen wrote:What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.
Actually I'd say it's more like Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then someone outside the company got Dave in Networking to get them a copy, then the someone from outside gave the sex tape to the press.
Kanluwen wrote:
Except they didn't just start firing wildly into a crowd, fool.
The Apache was flying top cover for a convoy within the vicinity which was taking fire. They were given the all-clear to engage a group of armed individuals who were heading towards the convoy. They lit them up, believing them to be a threat because hey let's face facts here.
There's no uniformed combatants in this war, other than us and our allies. Insurgent organizations do not wear uniforms or any real distinguishing marks.
Then an unmarked, white van(interestingly enough...you know, like what alot of reports of insurgents using for kidnappings and the like) pulls up to the individuals that were just taken down.
Tell me, what conclusion would you draw? Because I can tell you in that situation I wouldn't think "Oh, it's just Makmood from Allah Street coming to administer first aid".
Fool? Me....[see forum posting rules] please. I watched the fething video...they opened up on a group that was clearly NOT engaging them. "No uniform" isn't an excuse. I can tell by your "Makmood and Allah Street" that you've got a pretty well entrenched opinion. <shrug>
What part of "flying top cover for a convoy" is difficult for you to understand?
The Apache was not engaging to protect itself. They were protecting troops on the ground, who they(and the people who gave them clearance to engage) believed would come to harm if those individuals were left alone.
"No uniform" is a perfectly acceptable excuse, by the by.
If you're in a combat zone, engaging uniformed soldiers displaying proper identification(or do you think that soldiers have US/UK/German flags on their uniforms to look pretty?) while not wearing a uniform...guess what?
You're an illegal combatant, and are not subject to the "rules of war" outlined by the Geneva Convention. However, the US and UK and other non-backward third world countries will give you those rights outlined in the GC.
Oh, and as an aside?
"Makmood and Allah Street" was an anecdote. I don't expect you to understand what that means, but it felt 'wrong' to say Dave from Main Street driving up to administer first aid to the people who just got smacked down by an Apache in Baghdad.
Shooting a bunch of people that are gathering on a corner and CLEARLY NOT RAISING ANY WEAPON isn't what I call proper rules of engagement...plus the bit where the guy is literally laughing about gunning down other human beings? I'd like to know if you honestly think that the actions in that video are proper and legal.
It doesn't matter one damn bit if they're "raising a weapon" or not in this context. This isn't a cop shooting a hunter in the woods.
This is a case of soldiers in a warzone engaging armed and non-uniformed individuals within a combat zone, where shots from AKs and RPGs had been reported not even minutes prior.
As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being. They're in combat, they have to be able to get the feth over it and keep doing their job. They can't break down crying because they shot someone.
The legality of it, by the way, is yes. Proper and legal. The gunner and pilot were exonerated of wrong-doing because they and their higher ups genuinely believed there was a threat to the troops on the ground.
Does the fact that it's proper and legal mean it was a good thing that it happened?
No.
Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And i beleive the whole Yemen bombings is relevant, considering one bombing killed something like 24 women and 12 children (dont have exact numbers)
I mean surprizingly terrorists live with their families and all... but saying it was yemen bombs has got a few people suspicious of cover up
Also, whats the point of releasing 250,000 documents at once? release the controvosial ones or the ones that indicate war crimes etc if you want attention brought to them. Releasing that many at once takes attention away from the serious stuff and makes the whole thing mundane to the average person
Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?
About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.
Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?
About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.
Ah okay.... so why is this the first time im hearing this? Damn american news...
Kanluwen wrote:As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:Do you have any source which shows it was a combat zone? or that they were givin permission to engage?
About everything written about it after the video was leaked has that information. The military released official documents and all sorts of other exciting things showing what really happened, including the full video and not just a clip.
Would love to see this info....haven't been able to find it in a search though. Could you point me in the right direction?
This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.
It wasn't exactly common when this sort of thing came to light in WW1, but it wasn't exactly rare either. Some people break down with shell-shock. Some people manage to forget about it. Others learn to take pleasure in it. Is it wrong? Perhaps. But enough people (1 in 20?) ended up like that that its hardly a rare thing. Makes it difficult to judge as 'wrong' so quickly.
This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.
You should probably go back and read the post again tbh.
This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.
You should probably go back and read the post again tbh.
I read it 3 times. I stand by my statement.
As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
Really, what do you expect him to do? Have a moment of silence like some samurai to "respect his fallen foe"?
They have to desensitize soldiers to the point where they can pull the trigger on another human being
Am I missing something here? Being OK with killing doesn't mean taking malicious pleasure in killing people from a helicopter and then laughing while they are running from cover. Honestly, it makes me physically ill.
In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>
Kanluwen wrote:As for the gunner laughing about gunning down other human beings...so bloody what?
This is literally the most sickening statement I've seen on this forum, and that includes the random links to 4chan. If you honestly feel that way, please for the love of god and everyone else in your life....seek some professional help. Finding amusement in the death of another human being, or really feeling that its OK for others to laugh as they commit murder is sick. Sick sick sick sick. Disgusting, barbaric, and sickening.
There's nothing wrong with increasing the amount of laughter in the world. Would you rather have them die in vain?
agroszkiewicz wrote: In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>
So violence is OK to get what you want as long as you don't have a laugh about it?
If you put this in perspective. The pilots are defending ground troops, if these guys get away they will most likely attempt to harm the ground troops at some point. I think protecting your side is something to be happy about, it's also a way to blow off steam and to not have to deal with it. The people that they shot would do the same in a heartbeat.
It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.
Medium of Death wrote:
It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.
So its ok to find amusement in gunning down reporters, photographers, and unarmed MALE civvies? Because thats exactly what the video shows. Guys standing on the corner commiting NO VIOLENT ACTION AGAINST ANYONE AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT.
Medium of Death wrote:
It's not as if they are screaming bloody murder and manically laughing, all the while gunning down unarmed women and children.
So its ok to find amusement in gunning down reporters, photographers, and unarmed MALE civvies? Because thats exactly what the video shows. Guys standing on the corner commiting NO VIOLENT ACTION AGAINST ANYONE AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT.
Hey there! It appears you left caps-lock on!
Yeah, I've seen those videos and I didn't see anything that looked like a camera.
agroszkiewicz wrote: In my world violence directed towards another person is a means to an end, not something amusing or something that should be taken lightly. If you disagree, thats your right. Don't ask me to cosign on it or convince me that your stance is correct. <shrug>
So violence is OK to get what you want as long as you don't have a laugh about it?
Not at all. Violence is an acceptable means of action in cases where all other options have been exhausted. This is clearly NOT the case in the video in question. If the guys had made any type of threatening gesture I would absolutely support the miliatry actions. This crap a few of you are spewing about "sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time next to some guy that may or may not be holding a gun" is really perplexing.
From what I can tell, some folks think its OK to shoot someone just because they happen to be in the same general vicinity of someone that might be carrying a gun.
If nothing else, this whole crapstorm highlights the fact that using the military as a police force is the biggest bone head move ever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:
Yeah, I've seen those videos and I didn't see anything that looked like a camera.
Watch it again bro, there are several points in the first 10 minutes where you can see a camera...not absolutely clearly but enough that it should have called some serious questions into the minds of the men that took lives that day.
Kanluwen wrote:I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.
Then you haven't been following the leaks very closely, to the point where you should really consider whether or not you should be commenting on the issue.
Wikileaks has released the list of websites proposed to be banned under my government's planned internet firewall. It has released information on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, including evidence that certain prisoners were kept away from Red Cross supervisors. It has released information on multiple corporate corruption scandals (and the upcoming release of banking memos could be the biggest yet). And yes, it released information on the infamous Baghdad airstrike - whether you believe the soldiers involved acted properly or not, there is no denying that public awareness of such events is very important, because it is very important that the public is aware of real nature of war.
He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.
No, challenging the state, whether for good reasons or bad, is a brave thing to do, because it will carry consequences.
What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.
Your analogy assumes the only leaks made by wikileaks are of a trivial nature, with no public good. This is very wrong.
I wonder if Julian shouldn't surrender to the rape charges. It's one thing to offend the United States, but he released confidential statements from several Middle Eastern dictatorships who will not have the same moral compass as the elected officials in Washington. He basically outed the Yemem President and the King of Saudia Arabia, among others. It won't happen this year, but why wouldn't they make sure his life comes to a violent end for this? How happy is Putin about the comments his country is run by the Mafia. Putin can't do much to America, but this is the country that allegedly placed radioactive isotopes into it's enemies bodies. These are the people you have embarassed? Good luck and don't stand next to me, ever.
I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do. You can't fight a war if the people having to fight it are emo bitches crying over every moment.
You also give the impression of someone who hasn't watched a movie, read a book, or seen the news about modern conflict. Having a camera would in no way be an indication that the people on the ground are not hostile combatants. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al love to film their actions.
Ahtman wrote:I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do. You can't fight a war if the people having to fight it are emo bitches crying over every moment.
True, we shouldn't demand our soldiers spend their nights in angst over the cruel face of war. But it is good that the public is made aware of the thought processes of their troops.
You also give the impression of someone who hasn't watched a movie, read a book, or seen the news about modern conflict. Having a camera would in no way be an indication that the people on the ground are not hostile combatants. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al love to film their actions.
The issue is not that observing cameras would mean they weren't combatants, the issue is that the cameras were mistaken for weapons. When it was subsequently established that they were cameras and not weapons, it becomes obvious they were civilians. The military does not dispute they were civilians.
The point for debate is whether the soldiers took sufficient measures to determine if these people were civilians or fighting troops. I don't have a comment on that, but it is important that the footage was released, so that the public is more aware of the nature of the conflict.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:Brave or foolhardy/reckless? Matter of perspective really. One chap says terrorist, the other says freedom fighter.
Foolhardy would require the guy to be unaware of any risk to his own person. Given his personal/political beliefs, it's obvious he isn't just aware that a government might come down hard on him, he's hypersensitive to it. So he certainly is brave.
Note that being brave doesn't mean he had decent judgement towards what information releases are and what aren't in the public good, indeed the same ideology that feeds his need to release information is the same ideology that clouds his judgement on that issue.
The guys have AK's! There is a group of them, some of them have un-identifiable objects and some have AK's. One points something that looks either like an RPG or a large lensed press camera, out from a corner up at the Helicopter. Not the smartest thing to do when there is a gunship in the sky, circling around you.
The kids part is the most upsetting bit, but how the hell could they have known?
Kanluwen wrote:I can't really think of anything that has been leaked "for the public good". The gun camera footage from the Apache definitely wasn't "for the public good", it was just to incite public opinion against the US at a time it wasn't necessary.
Then you haven't been following the leaks very closely, to the point where you should really consider whether or not you should be commenting on the issue.
Wikileaks has released the list of websites proposed to be banned under my government's planned internet firewall. It has released information on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, including evidence that certain prisoners were kept away from Red Cross supervisors. It has released information on multiple corporate corruption scandals (and the upcoming release of banking memos could be the biggest yet). And yes, it released information on the infamous Baghdad airstrike - whether you believe the soldiers involved acted properly or not, there is no denying that public awareness of such events is very important, because it is very important that the public is aware of real nature of war.
Sure public awareness of such events is very important.
But it's not like the events were classified prior to the WikiLeaks. The military announced they had done an investigation into it, and even had released the video before WikiLeaks.
So what's the point of that again?
He's not being brave. He's being an ass. Diplomatic cables are personal opinions of how those writing them feel about the countries/leaders they work with.
No, challenging the state, whether for good reasons or bad, is a brave thing to do, because it will carry consequences.
So by your logic, if I challenge the state about why I have to pay taxes it's a brave thing to do?
What he's doing is effectively like if Debbie in Accounting made a sex tape, then Dave in Networking released it to the rest of the company. It can strain working relationships and make things awkward, and make it so that people don't communicate on the level that they should be for fears that what they say/do in private will end up public.
Your analogy assumes the only leaks made by wikileaks are of a trivial nature, with no public good. This is very wrong.
No, my analogy is just that: an analogy.
Oh, and? Diplomatic cables aren't really "public good".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:The guys have AK's! There is a group of them, some of them have un-identifiable objects and some have AK's. One points something that looks either like an RPG or a large lensed press camera, out from a corner up at the Helicopter. Not the smartest thing to do when there is a gunship in the sky, circling around you.
The kids part is the most upsetting bit, but how the hell could they have known?
Well, plus just because there's a large lensed press camera there...it doesn't necessarily mean that it's actual, vetted journalists of any news network(I guess Al-Jazeera counts, if Fox Network does). It's not unheard of for insurgents to have press cameras to film their attacks with.
Kanluwen wrote:Sure public awareness of such events is very important.
But it's not like the events were classified prior to the WikiLeaks. The military announced they had done an investigation into it, and even had released the video before WikiLeaks.
So what's the point of that again?
The military performed an informal investigation, and there was little public awareness of the event. Because of the leak, the public is now much more aware of the nature
You didn't comment on the range of other leaks I posted, in response to your claim that wikileaks hasn't released anything of value. I take it you're withdrawing that claim?
No, my analogy is just that: an analogy.
Oh, and? Diplomatic cables aren't really "public good".
No, your analogy is flawed because it only 'worked' by replacing leaks with a public sex tape, which doesn't serve the public good at all. Which is a problem, when it is very obvious to anyone who's ever followed any whistleblowing at all that the the public good can be served by the release of certain secrets.
And while I'm happy to have this conversation, I will ask you to read the thread more closely. I have stated that I don't believe there was any value in releasing the diplomatic memos, you even quoted me to agree with my point. So pointing that out to me just make it look like you aren't really following the conversation.
You keep saying public good but you don't explain what that means, or at least what it means to you. I don't really see much good coming out any of this except inflaming everyone. No one has learned anything they didn't already know. A combat zone is dangerous? WTF are you serious? Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me! Why, the average person is so much more enlightened now! The public good of these items is fairly anemic. Its inflammatory value on the other hand is quite high.
Sharing secrets isn't a valuable service in and of itself, which is mostly what we are getting here.
sebster wrote:And while I'm happy to have this conversation, I will ask you to read the thread more closely. I have stated that I don't believe there was any value in releasing the diplomatic memos, you even quoted me to agree with my point. So pointing that out to me just make it look like you aren't really following the conversation.
I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand:
Wikileaks has become analogous to this of information nobody wants leaked:
It isn't that no one wants it leaked, it is that most of it isn't worth leaking and occasionally dangerous to do so. They are leaking classified information just to leak it, which isn't a good idea or necessarily very ethical either. I don't buy their lies about information being free. Some things are secret for a reason.
I'm also not saying there shouldn't be accountability or that leaks in general should never happen (again, Watergate), but I find this group less than credible and their motives less than pure.
I don't know. I was doing some research on the Bush invasion of Panama a while ago, and I was able to derive more useful information from 3, 2 paragraph cables than I was from ~600 pages of scholarship on the event.
If you assume that knowledge of state motivations and activities is, in general, a good thing, then any leak is going to be for the public good to some extent.
Kanluwen wrote:
Well, plus just because there's a large lensed press camera there...it doesn't necessarily mean that it's actual, vetted journalists of any news network(I guess Al-Jazeera counts, if Fox Network does). It's not unheard of for insurgents to have press cameras to film their attacks with.
Wait, why the hate for Al Jazeera?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: No one has learned anything they didn't already know.
I did. But then not many people are concerned with the invasion of a South American nation in the late 80's.
Ahtman wrote:It isn't that no one wants it leaked, it is that most of it isn't worth leaking and occasionally dangerous to do so. They are leaking classified information just to leak it, which isn't a good idea or necessarily very ethical either. I don't buy their lies about information being free. Some things are secret for a reason.
I'm also not saying there shouldn't be accountability or that leaks in general should never happen (again, Watergate), but I find this group less than credible and their motives less than pure.
Something that is a secret or classified or hidden is something people do not want to have others see. Wikileaks seeks to expose those things, especially in the context of organizations and governing bodies whose decisions affect millions if not billions.
The majority of the information leaked that you have seen get press released has been major dumps of information regarding powerful entities. The lesser tidbits of information are things that are small scale secrets and information that recieve less attention.
There is a subjective agenda behind the information exposed on a grander scale by Wikileaks. That is definately no denial, but here is a straight rup from their pages about what Wikileaks does:
important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.
Further...
Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.
Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.
In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.
WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership.
Ahtman wrote:You keep saying public good but you don't explain what that means, or at least what it means to you.
Sorry, I thought it was generally understood term. It just means the welfare of the population at large, such as it would be safe to say 'it is in the public good to leak information about the government's plan to build giant robots to enslave us all'. Obviously, exactly what is and isn't in the public good is a difficult issue, requiring considerable judgement. I personally don't believe Mr Assange is particularly capable of making this judgement.
I just disagree with Kanluwen claim that none of the wikileaks have been at all useful.
I don't really see much good coming out any of this except inflaming everyone. No one has learned anything they didn't already know.
Probably because you are only aware of a handful of the leaks provided by wikileaks. To quote my earlier post; "Wikileaks has released the list of websites proposed to be banned under my government's planned internet firewall. It has released information on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, including evidence that certain prisoners were kept away from Red Cross supervisors. It has released information on multiple corporate corruption scandals (and the upcoming release of banking memos could be the biggest yet)."
A combat zone is dangerous? WTF are you serious?
That soldiers are making split-second judgement calls on whether a person is a civilian or not, on very limited information. To bring home the reality that we are fighting a war in someone's neighbourhood.
Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me!
For feth's sake. I mean fething seriously, honest to God...
I've posted several times that I don't believe there was any public good in releasing the diplomatic memos. I even corrected Kanluwen on this very point.
And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.
Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me!
For feth's sake. I mean fething seriously, honest to God...
I've posted several times that I don't believe there was any public good in releasing the diplomatic memos. I even corrected Kanluwen on this very point.
And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.
An opinion of the public good is subjective to who sees what as good for the public.
Of course, as it has been stated, Wikileaks can be leaking this information to spite those who are in power rather than as a service to the public.
But then again, can anyone find anything within the Wikileaks releases that could be construed as good for the public?
sebster wrote:And there's breaking information now about a US deal with Yemen, where a failed US strike killed civilians, and deal was struck with the government to take the blame in exchange for some weapons. Damn straight it's in the public interest to know that.
Why? Just saying that you believe to this to be in the best interest of the public doesn't make it so. Again, there isn't anything shocking here or all that unexpected. Of course trying to keep from inflaming the population even further with anti-Western rhetoric is kind of moot now. Now we can give terrorist organizations another rallying cry for an unfortunate reality of conflict that they brought on themselves*.
You aren't convincing and sound a bit like an apologist as far as Wikileaks is concerned. The best argument you have is that they had a list of websites that might be blocked by a proposed firewall. Are we to believe that no one would know what websites were to be blocked before the law went into effect and that without Wikileaks there would be absolute surprise and disgust?
*I'm referring to the terrorists, not the civilians. It isn't as if we went over there for no reason and happened to discover terrorism.
WarOne wrote:An opinion of the public good is subjective to who sees what as good for the public.
Yes, such is the challenge that's been facing the traditional media for a century or more.
Of course, as it has been stated, Wikileaks can be leaking this information to spite those who are in power rather than as a service to the public.
But then again, can anyone find anything within the Wikileaks releases that could be construed as good for the public?
Read my earlier post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Why? Just saying that you believe to this to be in the best interest of the public doesn't make it so.
No, it is by its nature subjective. Yet I'm happy to say that revealing the secret deal to cover up the killing of civilians in exchange for weapons is in the public interest. To be honest, I'm staggered that anyone would argue otherwise. Have things that ridiculous, that people will defend given a foreign government weapons to bribe them into taking the blame for killing civilians.
Again, there isn't anything shocking here or all that unexpected. Of course trying to keep from inflaming the population even further with anti-Western rhetoric is kind of moot now.
Which is the kind of rhetoric that people in positions of power always use to justify hiding their actions.
You aren't convincing and sound a bit like an apologist as far as Wikileaks is concerned.
Then you aren't listening. I do not think Assange has shown the level of judgement necessary. But I think there is a real, public good in leaks, and this includes some of the leaks from wikileaks. That wikileaks established that there were prisoners at Gitmo who were being kept from the Red Cross, despite US government claims to the contrary is something the public should know.
The best argument you have is that they had a list of websites that might be blocked by a proposed firewall. Are we to believe that no one would know what websites were to be blocked before the law went into effect and that without Wikileaks there would be absolute surprise and disgust?
Not really, no. The current government is very secretive, and does not reveal basic information on legislation up for review. Right now there's a debate on $40 billion worth of fiber optic cable, and the government won't release the business plan. It would have been remarkable if this information ever reached the light of day, even once the plan was put into action.
*I'm referring to the terrorists, not the civilians. It isn't as if we went over there for no reason and happened to discover terrorism.
WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?
Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.
And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.
WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...
I don't follow. Are you saying you don't actually read something if you're confident it'll be right? How do you learn anything?
Kanluwen wrote:Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.
And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.
So you accept that some information should be made public? Do you accept that some of the information released by wikileaks was correct?
sebster wrote:Terrorism. In Iraq? Is that why we went?
Oh, we are only in Iraq? And here I thought the people died in Yemen. If it was a cover up we wouldn't know about the deaths at all. What was concealed was the how they died, not that they did. Does the report explain why it was done? The Yemen government agreed to it as well and it was there people. Was it really as simple as just giving guns and them hushing it up? And again, if it was that simple, who is surprised? No one. A simpleton thinks the foreign affairs is as simple as checkers when it is chess. I'm not saying that it is a good, only that it isn't anywhere near as simple as you are presenting it.
You keep doing a backslide every few sentences that you don't really care for the guy but everything else you type screams admiration when they aren't admirable in the slightest. It might not be how you are meaning to come across but that is what is happening. It's like holding Che Guevera up as a hero because he fought for what he believed even though to meet those ends he did despicable things and killed a lot of people, and to top it off not even believing what he did. Just leaking things doesn't make it brave and it sure as hell doesn't make them smart. They are playing a dangerous game with relatively trivial information that is in fact not serving any public good.
@Killkrazy - So everything should be available? As soon as the Brits do away with all security clearances maybe we'll follow but I doubt it. We aren't talking about censorship either, we are talking about leaking classified materials. If you can make the argument nothing should ever be classified then I may agree with you but if you can't and have to capitulate that not everything is for public consumption than you may have to reevaluate equating the US with China as far as censorship is concerned.
WarOne wrote:I'm hardly following the conversation because sebster/dogma's statements are usually correct and its better to simply move along/pick fights with lesser opponents/post hardly relevant images to the topic on hand...
I don't follow. Are you saying you don't actually read something if you're confident it'll be right? How do you learn anything?
It's my special rule versus arguments versus Logic D/S (A pun on the Nintendo DS, but with logic, you and dogma).
1. I state something.
2. Logic D/S contradicts it/denies it (not ignore it, which is a key difference), poking holes in my logic.
3. I attempt to logic back in failure.
4. Logic D/S chides me for my failures.
5. I get angry and make personal attacks/poorer logical arguments.
6. Logic D/S again corrects my illogicity.
7. I either continue steps 3-6 or simply step away/agree/descend into posting random things/pictures.
Consider it a defense mechanism against trying to fight against the Logic D/S. It's simply far superior to my ability to execute logical thinking.
I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.
Ahtman wrote:Oh, we are only in Iraq? And here I thought the people died in Yemen.
Oh, that was in regards to Yemen specifically. Sorry for the misread, I was thinking that came out of the blue a bit.
If it was a cover up we wouldn't know about the deaths at all. What was concealed was the how they died, not that they did. Does the report explain why it was done? The Yemen government agreed to it as well and it was there people. Was it really as simple as just giving guns and them hushing it up? And again, if it was that simple, who is surprised? No one. A simpleton thinks the foreign affairs is as simple as checkers when it is chess. I'm not saying that it is a good, only that it isn't anywhere near as simple as you are presenting it.
That's a silly definition of a cover up. Of course a cover up can involve hiding the responsible parties.
Yes, the Yemeni government agreed to it, because they wanted weapons. So both parties agreed to keep the general populations of their countries in the dark as to how the war on terror can blow up civilians.
Knowing how anti-terrorist operations can end up tragically is in the public good. I find it simply incredible that anyone would argue otherwise.
You keep doing a backslide every few sentences that you don't really care for the guy but everything else you type screams admiration when they aren't admirable in the slightest.
No, I really fething haven't been. I've been clear as day from my first post on this issue, and I really don't how my opinion has been so confusing to you. I think some leaks can serve the public good. I think releasing leaks is a brave thing to do. I think deciding which leaks should and shouldn't be released is a complex thing requiring considerable professional judgement, and I think Mr Assange lacks that judgement. I think we can recognise that some of the leaks he's released has been for the public good, while others are not.
It might not be how you are meaning to come across but that is what is happening. It's like holding Che Guevera up as a hero because he fought for what he believed even though to meet those ends he did despicable things and killed a lot of people, and to top it off not even believing what he did.
Bad people can have admirable qualities. If I was only mentioning this one quality, and not mentioning (again and again and again) that he also has a bad quality, then I might appear as an apologist. But I have mentioned his poor judgement, so viewing me as an apologist would be in error, wouldn't it?
Just leaking things doesn't make it brave and it sure as hell doesn't make them smart.
Doing something out of personal conviction, at considerable personal risk, is brave. It doesn't make it right, but it is brave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.
I've found your arguments are a lot better than that. Anyway, I do find it disappointing that you don't at least read the posts, especially when I'd already pointed out several good wikileaks, and that's exactly what you were asking after.
sebster wrote:Doing something out of personal conviction, at considerable personal risk, is brave. It doesn't make it right, but it is brave.
No it doesn't, or you have a much lower view of bravery than I do. Doing something dangerous or out of personal conviction doesn't automatically make a person brave. They could also be foolhardy or just plain dumb as well. in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.
There are bad people with good qualities, but there are also good people with those same qualities, so [expletive deleted] the bad ones.
Ahtman wrote:in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.
So you think someone that is the figurehead of an organisation who, by being one of only a handful of people who reveal themselves to protect the hundreds of other members of Wikileaks is narcissistic?
WarOne wrote:I learn not to argue a point as more often than not I cannot sustain an argument beyond simple statements.
I've found your arguments are a lot better than that. Anyway, I do find it disappointing that you don't at least read the posts, especially when I'd already pointed out several good wikileaks, and that's exactly what you were asking after.
I'm a minimalist in many respects and a realist in others. I appreciate you finding me disappointing as people need decisive opinions and conclusions/assumptions to make life simple. I've already grasped where the thread was going based on the assumptions of what recently posted. I assumed that there could of been relevant posts to what I asked for already done, but did want others to bring it up for the benefit of my own ignorance/shortsightedness/failure to click the back button and read five minutes of a thread's prior page.
It really depends at which point I enter a thread. I like to start fresh, so at the very least I can stay somewhat relevant. The later the thread I enter, the less relevant my opinion becomes. Weighing my opinion within a thread several pages long does not allow me to feel like I have contributed anything worth it. Now if someone decides to pick a fight with me, completely different. I will attempt a spirited defense.
The greatest failure on my part will always be what others think. I need a clear picture/perception of what the other side thinks of my argument. For the better part of going against Logic D/S, I rarely see input (attempting to read between the lines of yours and dogma's posts, discerning what you feel/think when you post beyong what you post) and never seem to see any change in the critical thinking process happening on the other end. I will get quickly discouraged/flustered at arguing against Logic D/S as it seems there is little change in how your stance on an issue changes and never do I feel rock solid in what I argue for against Logic D/S.
Ahtman wrote:No it doesn't, or you have a much lower view of bravery than I do. Doing something dangerous or out of personal conviction doesn't automatically make a person brave. They could also be foolhardy or just plain dumb as well. in this case I think it is becuase he is a narcissist more so than bravery.
There are bad people with good qualities, but there are also good people with those same qualities, so [expletive deleted] the bad ones.
It's not that I have a lower opinion of bravery, I'm really just looking at bravery in isolation of any other character traits. I think doing something out of personal conviction, and not worrying about the personal risk is the definition of brave, and it doesn't matter if that thing was actually right or wrong. Bank robbers can be brave.
If someone jumped in unaware of the dangers, they would be foolhardy or dumb, but that isn't the case with Assange. Given his personal political views, I think he is likely very aware, and likely overstates, the personal threat to his life.
And I certainly agree this doesn't make him a good person, nor worthy of a place on any kind of 'best brave people of all time' list, but he's still brave. Driven out of a conviction in a political worldview that is very silly, but brave in following it.
Ahtman wrote:I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do.
So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill? I believe I've already stated how ridiculous it is to try and use military to police a country that we have purposefully destabilized.....perhaps you aren't reading the whole posts that folks put up?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?
Certain information should not be available to the general public.
....Are you being serious or trolling? Until the military ceases to be FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYERS then we certianly have a right to know where, how, and why our troops are dying and we are spending billions. Transparency is vital, and don't try to pull that "but the military NEEDS its secrets to protect lives!" crap. There was nothing in any of those releases that put any front line soldiers in direct and imminent danger, but on the off chance you've seen something I haven't then please post it up.
Up til now all I've heard is rambling and pro-military comments with no factual basis. IE opinions.
Ahtman wrote:I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do.
So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill?
So I'll take that as a 'no'. To answer your silly question, training doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing. And yes, there are times it is ok to kill.
Ahtman wrote:I take it you haven't spent much, ie any, time studying combat psychology. These aren't police, they are soldiers, they are trained to be aggressive and to kill; that is what they do and that is what they are encouraged to do.
So because you are trained to kill it becomes OK to kill?
So I'll take that as a 'no'. To answer your silly question, training doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing. And yes, there are times it is ok to kill.
Even trained soldiers make mistakes. Even restraint fails. Hell, humans make mistakes and people die for poor reasons.
Remember that America has the luxury of restraint, and as a nation conscious about what we do, have the ability to hold others who live here accountable for what they do.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why does a section of the US public want information to be censored like the Great Firewall of China?
Certain information should not be available to the general public. For example, you or I have no real business knowing that on January 30th the USMC is launching a massive campaign in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan aiming at reducing narcotrafficking.
And just like I have no business reading your emails you write within your company, intended for distribution within your company...there's no real business for the general public to be reading diplomatic cables.
That is true, however people have called for Wikileaks to be shut down, it has been attacked on its servers, leading to them being moved, and people have boycotted Amazon because they carried Wikileaks information.
Clearly these people would rather shout down "the enemy" than make a reasonable argument about what should be done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:1. The helicopter video is reminiscent of a scene in Orwell's 1984.
Which one?
The one in which the video feed from a helicopter gunship bombing a refugee boat is put on the telescreen.
What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.
Information is classified secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security.
What does that mean? It doesn't mean that it is hidin from John Q Public because no one wants you to see what is going on. It is being hidden because if that information falls into our enemies hands, the can use it against us.
No one gives a flying fornication about the general public when they are determining somethings classification. They are thinking about how the enemy will use that data against us.
How it will help recruitment. How it will help them find informants. How it will help them dodge planned offenses, or examine base lay outs.
When that data was put onto the internet, the last thing on anyones mind was "Oh gak! Mary Sue in St. Louis is going to see this!"
No, the thing we were sweating was the fact that the people we are fighting a war with now had access to hundreds of thousands of documents that we did not want them to see.
So let me ask you "public" since you think this info is for your "good". What do you think it means for those of us out here whose lives have been directly impacted by these releases? What do you have to say to the families of Iraqi and Afghani informants when their husband/wife/father/mother is kidnapped and killed for trying to better their country?
Everyone of you would have gone on living a perfectly normal life if you had never seen any of this information. How many people will not go on living at all because of it?
I hope that is worth it to you, because it certainly isn't to me.
djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.
So you've basically ignored the actual content in this thread, and decided to lecture us with your very basic understanding of security classifications. Good job.
djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.
Information is classified secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security.
What does that mean? It doesn't mean that it is hidin from John Q Public because no one wants you to see what is going on. It is being hidden because if that information falls into our enemies hands, the can use it against us.
Well, no. It could actually mean either of the things that you've nominated. National security is a highly flexible idea because it is defined by those who have the power to render their own failings a part of that category.
djones520 wrote:
So let me ask you "public" since you think this info is for your "good". What do you think it means for those of us out here whose lives have been directly impacted by these releases? What do you have to say to the families of Iraqi and Afghani informants when their husband/wife/father/mother is kidnapped and killed for trying to better their country?
djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.
No, its just that some of us don't buy into the concept of governments keeping secrets, engaging in clandestine activity, and purposefully misleading the citizens of the country in question.
Ahtman wrote:You keep saying public good but you don't explain what that means, or at least what it means to you. I don't really see much good coming out any of this except inflaming everyone. No one has learned anything they didn't already know. A combat zone is dangerous? WTF are you serious? Diplomats speak candidly in private memos? You have got to be kidding me! Why, the average person is so much more enlightened now! The public good of these items is fairly anemic. Its inflammatory value on the other hand is quite high.
Sharing secrets isn't a valuable service in and of itself, which is mostly what we are getting here.
My understanding is that much of the current batch consists of private diplomatic cables, which were not classified secret, though they would be protected by diplomatic immunity and the diplomatic service's normal standards of behaviour. I don't there has been much to surprise any moderately well-informed observer of the international scene. The shock is merely the embarrassment of such plain speaking being made public.
So I agree these leaks don't have much of a "public interest" defence.
Earlier leaks have included genuinely disturbing material that implicated US forces in various questionable incidents and in cover ups about them. These are matters that it is in the public interest to lay bare and investigate, IMO.
The problematic issue is that the great bulk of these leaks are "anti-American" in the sense that they are leaks of information the US would have preferred to keep secret, which are embarrassing. The relatively innocuous nature of the latest batch makes it look like Assange has got it in for the USA. However the reaction from some US commentators makes it look like the US wants to use the excuse of the recent release to stop him leaking the really important stuff.
If governmental blunders regularly get exposed, it will probably make the government try to be more competent and honest so someday there will be nothing to expose.
Sadly, some people would rather just shoot the messenger (some literally,) don their tin foil hat and live happily ignorant ever after.
I think it's important that people see the screw ups that happen in war not because it will demonize the troops (I think that's a really dumb reaction, the troops are generally doing their best in a crappy situation) but because it brings home to the people funding the war at home how nasty war is. It helps curb gung ho, immature attitudes to warfare. We need to see it for the nasty, often ambiguous and bloody work it is. Seeing that footage doesn't make me hate america, it makes me think "Yup, wars are crap."
Kanulwen's attitude in this thread is far too aggressive, I think. I agree with Sebster (as usual, heh) that yer man himself seems to have poor judgement but that doesn't mean everything on Wikileaks is bad. (he also seems to have an anti USA bias, which hurts his credibility in my mind pretty severely. In terms of dodgy dealings, the US isn't even close to the top, internationally.)
djones520 wrote:What a lot of you people seem to be missing is why this data was classified in the first place.
No, its just that some of us don't buy into the concept of governments keeping secrets, engaging in clandestine activity, and purposefully misleading the citizens of the country in question.
It's already been discussed that the idea of no classified anything is unlikely and a bad idea. Sometimes you need to have a secret or two. Not everything is for public consumption, whether it be in the public or private sphere.
lord_blackfang wrote:If governmental blunders regularly get exposed, it will probably make the government try to be more competent and honest so someday there will be nothing to expose.
If anything it will just make them more paranoid and tighten security up.
I also don't get this idea that people think war is fun or not difficult. The people that naive probably aren't going to change their mind by any of this stuff and are probably the ones overreacting.
sebster wrote:It kind of reminds me how much some people worship at the temple of state power
You can just as easily worship at the alter of civil disobedience. CD can be a good thing, just as sometimes a state having some authority can be a good thing. The problem is when one just assumes that one is right by virtue of being what it is without looking at the context. CD just for the sake of CD is hollow and meaningless.
Is it just me who wonders whether its possible the US government is putting pressure on the Swedish one to get Assange locked up, in order to tar his name?
Ketara wrote:Is it just me who wonders whether its possible the US government is putting pressure on the Swedish one to get Assange locked up, in order to tar his name?
Yes, it is just you. No one has considered that. It is a silly idea. Of course perhaps another country is putting pressure on them to do so knowing that the tinfoil hat brigade will assume it is the US doing it. Or, perhaps, he might have actually done it. We don't know.
Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine if that plot were real and it got leaked.
Imagine if it were fake and fake details got leaked?
At this point he is almost bullet proof becuase whatever he does or doesn't do, it can all be explained away as a conspiracy against him.
Da Boss wrote:I think it's important that people see the screw ups that happen in war not because it will demonize the troops (I think that's a really dumb reaction, the troops are generally doing their best in a crappy situation) but because it brings home to the people funding the war at home how nasty war is. It helps curb gung ho, immature attitudes to warfare. We need to see it for the nasty, often ambiguous and bloody work it is. Seeing that footage doesn't make me hate america, it makes me think "Yup, wars are crap."
Your attitude is a very rare one. Screw-ups that happen in war don't necessarily have to "demonize the troops". They can also break public opinion of supporting the war, with people thinking "This is why our soldiers are dying?!". Look up the US embassy siege in Saigon during the Vietnam War and the effects of it being broadcast on TV.
Kilkrazy wrote:The other thing that can happen is that fake leaks can be made to manipulate public opinion.
Or real leaks can be made to manipulate public opinion. That sword cuts both ways.
Of course, that really is the point of all this isn't it? Official press releases, unofficial releases, real leaks, fake leaks, they are all about public manipulation. I don't mean that as some conspiracy either. Different ideas are competing and so they try to get their message out.
Dogma was probably right when he wrote that Assange is a puppet of the CIA or some other governmental entity that is getting out it's information in a clandestine way. That is the real plot.
Kilkrazy wrote:The other thing that can happen is that fake leaks can be made to manipulate public opinion.
Or real leaks can be made to manipulate public opinion. That sword cuts both ways.
Of course, that really is the point of all this isn't it? Official press releases, unofficial releases, real leaks, fake leaks, they are all about public manipulation. I don't mean that as some conspiracy either. Different ideas are competing and so they try to get their message out.
Dogma was probably right when he wrote that Assange is a puppet of the CIA or some other governmental entity that is getting out it's information in a clandestine way. That is the real plot.
Indeed.
I think the sudden success of Wikileaks has given it a cachet which could be exploited by leaking false information.
Anyway we all know no government could possible lie about killing civilians or coverup freindly fire incidents
(seriously america needs to work on reducing the freindly fire)
Wikileaks should be used to release evidence of wrongdoing etc not mundance diplomatic cables
things like the collecting info on diplomats (apparently things like passwords and credit card numbers aswell as biometric data), the air strikes in yemen and coverups should have been the focus
Releasing 10 damning documents is far for damaging than losing them in 250,000 "meh" ones
Ketara wrote:Is it just me who wonders whether its possible the US government is putting pressure on the Swedish one to get Assange locked up, in order to tar his name?
Yes, it is just you. No one has considered that. It is a silly idea. Of course perhaps another country is putting pressure on them to do so knowing that the tinfoil hat brigade will assume it is the US doing it. Or, perhaps, he might have actually done it. We don't know.
That is correct. The very concept of the US government making a smear campaign against someone who is proving of tremendous irritation and embarassment to them, is of course, an unthinkable and silly idea. /sarcasm off
I'm not saying its the case. But knowing how badly the US government reacts to being embarassed, and the unnecessary lengths they sometimes go to as a result of that (the Gary Mckinnon case springs to mind, amongst others), I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. Considering how ridiculous the rape laws there appear to be, one wonder if this would even have come up if he wasn't in the position he is now.
Ketara wrote:Is it just me who wonders whether its possible the US government is putting pressure on the Swedish one to get Assange locked up, in order to tar his name?
Yes, it is just you. No one has considered that. It is a silly idea. Of course perhaps another country is putting pressure on them to do so knowing that the tinfoil hat brigade will assume it is the US doing it. Or, perhaps, he might have actually done it. We don't know.
That is correct. The very concept of the US government making a smear campaign against someone who is proving of tremendous irritation and embarassment to them, is of course, an unthinkable and silly idea. /sarcasm off
I'm not saying its the case. But knowing how badly the US government reacts to being embarassed, and the unnecessary lengths they sometimes go to as a result of that (the Gary Mckinnon case springs to mind, amongst others), I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. Considering how ridiculous the rape laws there appear to be, one wonder if this would even have come up if he wasn't in the position he is now.
It isn't the idea that is silly, it is the idea that you are the first to consider it, or at least pretend that you were the only one. It also isn't that your idea is entirely unfounded either, it is that it is to narrow in scope. The US doesn't have a monopoly on any of the things you state and would not be the only ones to profit from both smearing Assange as well as making the US look bad. Of course the truth is we don't know what happened. It is entirely possible that he is both a political agitator and a rapist, or one, or neither.
As far as I can gather both women entered into sexual intercourse with him willingly... but his condom broke, they say they asked him to stop after this happened, he says they didn’t, and either way he didn’t. And then rape charges were filed.
Ketara wrote:Is it just me who wonders whether its possible the US government is putting pressure on the Swedish one to get Assange locked up, in order to tar his name?
I kind of felt this way, but the sex crime deal in sweden has been a pretty long term thing. Given what I've read of Assange and my own knowledge or personality types/proclivities its entirely possible that he latched onto this Wikileaks idea in order to keep the sting of a rape trial off himself.
Then again, it IS entirely possible that its a smear campaign. Really its up to the observer to make their own call.
It's a smear campaign regardless of whether he is actually guilty of rape or not. Just look at it, there's a notice about him on top of Interpol's webpage http://www.interpol.int/ Your run-off-the-mill rapists don't get this kind of publicity, do they? Interpol doesn't usually even deal with rape (there seem to be only about 50-ish wanted rapists in their database and none of them have a front-page notice)
LYON, France - INTERPOL has made public the Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the request of Swedish authorities who want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences.
The Red Notice for the 39-year-old Australian, which was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries on 20 November, has now been made publicly available by INTERPOL following official authorization by Sweden.
All INTERPOL National Central Bureaus (NCBs) have also been advised to ensure that their border control agencies are made aware of Assange's Red Notice status, which is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition.
Many of INTERPOL's member countries however, consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.
INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sure run-of-the-mill rapists don't get this kind of publicity simply because they're not him, unless they're particularly heinous individuals who've made the news beforehand.
However, with Assange, something crops up that affects how this is going to be perceived. He's a public figure. The allegations were going to get public attention, regardless of how this case was handled.
When Swedish authorities originally filed a request with British authorities for extradition, it made the news.
No-one would bother to smear a two-bit non-entity.
OTOH, just being an Internet Celebrity doesn't mean you cannot be genuinely suspected of a crime.
I don't know the timing of the alleged offences, the complaints from the women involved and the US reaction to different sets of leaks. This surely is important in forming an idea of whether it is or isn't a smear.
No-one would bother to smear a two-bit non-entity.
Exactly. But then again...
OTOH, just being an Internet Celebrity doesn't mean you cannot be genuinely suspected of a crime.
This is also in effect. And of course, whenever someone who is "sticking it to the man" is suspected of a crime, it OBVIOUSLY has to be a conspiracy to take them into custody where they'll disappear and Jack Ruby will get them!
I don't know the timing of the alleged offences, the complaints from the women involved and the US reaction to different sets of leaks. This surely is important in forming an idea of whether it is or isn't a smear.
The complaints from the women involved were after he leaked "documents from the Afghan conflict" and that's really all I can find about it.
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
Oh the mighty Swedish authorities
You're aware that consent can actually be retracted in some cases, right?
Like say...ohhhhh, a condom breaks in the middle of intercourse. Which is what's claimed to have happened.
The women are both saying that when the condoms broke, they "told him to stop and put a new condom on, but he refused to and just kept going".
It's a reach to say that it's "rape" in anything but the loosest sense...but consent can be withdrawn during sex.
Indeed. It's a bit difficult to prove such an offence though, is it not? She can say she told him to stop, he can say she didn't. Which is what's happened. It's not quite the same as him breaking into his wicked way with them.
Kanluwen, I could have an interesting and detailed discussion about whether it could or could not be a smear campaign, and we could go through all the different historical precedents, and the facts of this case, and it would probably be quite interesting. If it was with another poster, say sebster.
The problem is, you seem to follow the 'figure of authority' be it GW, the US government, or whoever it is in the topic of discussion so blindly, that frankly, I don't think the conversation would turn out being that way. And that's actually a real shame. Not the stance you choose to argue your corner, but the fact that I perceive that if I even tried to have an interesting conversation with you, you'd refuse to budge an inch from whatever you say in your initial statement, treat the whole thing like its an argument, and as if anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a real shame that it makes me not actually want to have a conversation with you. It truly is.
Ketara wrote:Indeed. It's a bit difficult to prove such an offence though, is it not? She can say she told him to stop, he can say she didn't. Which is what's happened. It's not quite the same as him breaking into his wicked way with them.
"No" means just that though, Ketara. It means "No". Of course, the whole thing would be moot and solving it in making the public establish either a "guilty" or "not guilty" if it were a child or teenager that was making the accusations(what? he's a child molester? who cares if he's a public figure, burn him!) or if the women were seeking monetary recourse(oh, they want money? obviously they're lying or being put up to it!).
It's also worth noting that in these kinds of cases where consent is retracted mid-intercourse, they have actually successfully prosecuted...but mostly when STDs are involved(reckless endangerment of the public is one that I remember, but I don't remember an exact case name. Man with AIDS was engaged in sex while wearing a condom, it broke and he kept going without informing his partner the condom broke).
Kanluwen, I could have an interesting and detailed discussion about whether it could or could not be a smear campaign, and we could go through all the different historical precedents, and the facts of this case, and it would probably be quite interesting. If it was with another poster, say sebster.
No, you couldn't. This case has been in the works since before the US government really got upset with Assange, and as has been mentioned...
It's not necessary to make a smear campaign on someone if they truly are guilty of a crime.
There's also of course, been the suggestion that he's only doing the leaks of diplomatic cables right now to avoid prosecution for these rape charges and to garner sympathy for himself and the ability to claim the charges are politically motivated(despite Sweden not being a country targeted by any of the leaks).
If you really want to go into conspiracy theories, I like that one.
But there's also the fact that he claims that he's going to be assassinated by Western intelligence agencies(really? The guys who leaked the Pentagon Papers, arguably far more important than any of the crap he's leaked so far, weren't killed). Sounds so much better as a public stance than him admitting that he is evading the police for questioning in relation to these rape allegations.
Which is another thing that bugs me about the whole thing. He's wanted for questioning. They're stating it like they're waiting to question him until they finally decide if they can actually prosecute or not.
The problem is, you seem to follow the 'figure of authority' be it GW, the US government, or whoever it is in the topic of discussion so blindly, that frankly, I don't think the conversation would turn out being that way.
This makes so little sense to it makes me want to poke you with a stick loaded with some of my posts. But I'll refrain. You have to come to me with actual proof, not coincidences or hearsay to make me change my mind from backing an entity that I find credible(To give an example... if you had came to me saying "DARK ELDAR ARE SQUATTED! I HEARD IT ON THE INTERNET!" while Games Workshop was saying "We're in the process of redoing them, we're just not sure exactly how we're going to do them.." You better have a signed memo from GW's development team stating some solid evidence to prove something so blatantly against what they're saying/doing).
And that's actually a real shame. Not the stance you choose to argue your corner, but the fact that I perceive that if I even tried to have an interesting conversation with you, you'd refuse to budge an inch from whatever you say in your initial statement, treat the whole thing like its an argument, and as if anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a real shame that it makes me not actually want to have a conversation with you. It truly is.
Fair enough, I will admit I'm not the greatest in debates on the Internet.
I still will hold on to my stick poking rights though.
Kanluwen wrote:
The women are both saying that when the condoms broke, they "told him to stop and put a new condom on, but he refused to and just kept going".
It's a reach to say that it's "rape" in anything but the loosest sense...but consent can be withdrawn during sex.
Given the gravity of an international arrest warrant, I can only assume that the case details are FAR more complex than a simple condom breaking and refusal to stop the act of intercourse.
Kanluwen wrote:
The women are both saying that when the condoms broke, they "told him to stop and put a new condom on, but he refused to and just kept going".
It's a reach to say that it's "rape" in anything but the loosest sense...but consent can be withdrawn during sex.
Given the gravity of an international arrest warrant, I can only assume that the case details are FAR more complex than a simple condom breaking and refusal to stop the act of intercourse.
Uh, they're really not. Sweden has released that much information about the case, along with the reason that they gave Interpol the arrest warrant just as a matter of procedure and so that English authorities(where Assange is suspected to be at currently, as apparently he's constantly on the move and going through cell phones like "most men go through shirts", according to a journalist who interviewed him in October) will have no choice but to detain and extradite him to Sweden.
They've also released that, as of this moment, he's only wanted for questioning and to put his side of the story on the official record. Rape however, even the mere accusation of it, is a fairly grave crime that bears investigation. In a case like this, I can't see them really going through all this trouble unless they know something else though...like perhaps he has an STD of some sort that's fairly serious. But I doubt that's public knowledge to the point where you or I could Google it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: AND BINGO!
Apparently, part of the reason he's wanted for questioning is because he refused STD testing after his insistence that " the condoms split".
This is more or less what appears to have happened. The Daily Mail newspaper’s delving into how Assange had consensual sex with the women but was reported to police after he refused to use a condom or, later, take an STD test, make the affair seem more like a bedroom farce than the actions of a high-minded individual.
At least it was clear that a high minded Anna Ardin helped bring Assange to Sweden for a speaking engagement. She allegedly let Assange stay in her one-bedroom flat in Stockholm. They went out to dinner and – as consenting adults will – later had sex, according to a “police source”. During this he insisted the condom had split. To quote LOLcats: orly?
Woman No. 2 met Assange the next day at the conference organised by Ardin, was later invited out for lunch with Assange and his entourage. She lent him a charger for his laptop, paid for his metro card and they went to a movie, becoming “amorous”. A few days later they had sex without a condom, despite her insistence that he wear one, according to the Mail.
Woman No.2 then called Ardin and the pair put two and two together. They claimed a fear of STDs and pregnancy, but one can also see another angle – both were deeply concerned by Assange’s care-free approach to them.
I asked a Swedish friend about this. She says “Most women I know in Sweden/Stockholm take the pill or have a sterilet/copper ring. I have never heard of anyone demanding that their sex partner take a STD test after unprotected sex unless the woman knows for a fact that she has been infected and then in order to trace/stop the source the partner can be asked for an STD test.”
But at any rate, how would a normal, more sensitive, man react? Apologise, maybe? Certainly a man with a lot at stake and concerned about how something like this might look would think twice about his next moves.
No, Assange refused an STD test asked by the women. Incensed, they went to police and a warrant for Assange’s arrest was issued. A prosecutor decided there was no evidence of rape but by that stage the news was out. Now another Swedish prosecutor has reopened the investigation saying there was “reason to believe that a crime was committed” citing “sexual coercion and sexual molestation”.
It can when your partner and another woman(with no link between them other than you) contract the same STD and you refuse testing, then leave the country.
1. It were proved the STDs came from the subject, and,
2. It were proved he had prior knowledge of being infected and thus deliberately put his partners at risk, even in this case;
C. It would not be a sex crime, it would be assault with a noxious substance or attempted poisoning, something like that. People have been successfully prosecuted for this in various countries, most recently that pop star in Germany.
Accusations of Rape
Conversely, if the condom split in mid-act, and the woman noticed and asked the man to stop, and he refused, and she refused to go on with intercourse and he did anyway, that would be rape whether or not he was carrying an STD.
I'm not defending Assange, but it is important to get the legal principles clear, otherwise the allegation of rape obviously does become a smear.
Kanluwen wrote:It can when your partner and another woman(with no link between them other than you) contract the same STD and you refuse testing, then leave the country.
Would that be a violation of US law? I know it sounds a little US-centric but I'm just trying to draw a reference point I can actually understand. If two members are engaged in consensual sex then whats the crime? I mean unless there was evidence of physical violence, and emotional content that became "rape"....otherwise its just some chickenhead bitching because the rubber broke.
It is not against the law to refuse to take a voluntary medical exam. Now a court ordered STD test....sure to refuse that WOULD be a crime.
Deliberately exposing someone to the risk of infection with an STD, without their informed consent, is a crime in various countries. It amounts to exposing someone to a toxic substance, which is a type of physical assault.
No meaning no during is a bit harder to prosecute on.
Doing a runner afterwards is morally unsound but hardly a crime. Especially in a place as lax as Sweden.
What I see is, US want to throw book at him, assange flees to Sweden tries to gain shelter there. US pulls strings, Swedes say no and Assange seeing the way it is going skips the country, hides in UK or elsewhere.
Case is blown from docs-need-him-for-a-quick-checkup to arresst warrant to satisfy the CIA. If they didnt get a warrant on that they would have found an minor unpaid bill magnified it and called it fraud or theft.
Police don't call in interpol for international arrest warrants because a condom broke during what appeared to be consentual sex girl worried and changed her mind. I don't even think loal police would waste their time over it.
No meaning no during is a bit harder to prosecute on.
We've established that part. Yes, it's difficult.
Doing a runner afterwards is morally unsound but hardly a crime. Especially in a place as lax as Sweden.
Doing a runner after your one night stand partners, who only have the fact that they've had sex with you in common, have contracted a STDis a crime though.
Publicly naming the two women who are accusing you, in violation of most rape/sexual harassment laws, is also a sleazy as feth thing to do.
What I see is, US want to throw book at him, Assange flees to Sweden tries to gain shelter there. US pulls strings, Swedes say no and Assange seeing the way it is going skips the country, hides in UK or elsewhere.
Wut? Sweden filed charges back in August/September, but the UK threw them out as "lacking foundation".
And the Swedes never really said no to Assange seeking shelter there. He's actively still seeking shelter there, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that "Swedish justice has failed me".
If the US wanted to throw the book at him, they would have gotten him when he was in Washington or New York.
Case is blown from docs-need-him-for-a-quick-checkup to arrest warrant to satisfy the CIA. If they didnt get a warrant on that they would have found an minor unpaid bill magnified it and called it fraud or theft.
HAHAHA! Now you sound like Assange's October interviews.
Where he claimed that "Australian intelligence services warned him to be wary of the 'honeypot' trap, wherein Western intelligence services would try using women and one night stands to fabricate charges against him". Of course, Australian intelligence services have also publicly said they gave him no such "warning", and even if they had...not like he listened.
I mean really. You get told "People who want to see you discredited and arrested are going to use women who you get involved with for just sexual intercourse". And what's the first thing you do?
Exactly that thing you were warned against. Have two one night stands with people who know each other, while trying the same lameduck "Oops, condom broke. My bad." excuse on both(really? two condoms in the same situation break? You're not doing it right).
Police don't call in interpol for international arrest warrants because a condom broke during what appeared to be consensual sex girl worried and changed her mind. I don't even think local police would waste their time over it.
If someone is exposed to a STD, particularly something nasty, then yes. INTERPOL and local police would definitely "waste their time over it".
It is not against the law to refuse to take a voluntary medical exam. Now a court ordered STD test....sure to refuse that WOULD be a crime.
It's voluntary...until it's not. In a case where two complaining witnesses, with no link whatsoever between them sexually outside of one night stands with you, have contracted STDs and both have the same complaint of "In the midst of sex, he says the condom split but it never felt like there was one there to begin with!"...then it most definitely is not a voluntary test if you don't want them seriously looking at you for poisoning, etc.
B. If it did, it would only be a crime if,
1. It were proved the STDs came from the subject, and,
2. It were proved he had prior knowledge of being infected and thus deliberately put his partners at risk, even in this case;
C. It would not be a sex crime, it would be assault with a noxious substance or attempted poisoning, something like that. People have been successfully prosecuted for this in various countries, most recently that pop star in Germany.
This is where it seems to get weird. There was a case in Pennsylvania of a guy with HIV that kept claiming his condoms "split", and he's actually been charged with(if I'm remembering right) attempted manslaughter and reckless endangerment of the public good.
So you wouldn't even really need to charge him with rape in this case, as the attempted manslaughter charges would trump them in terms of severity. But I think part of it is it depends on what the actual STD involved is. If it's something treatable, then yeah. It'd be something minor with fines or small amounts of jailtime involved. Something bigger and untreatable...then the punishment goes waaaaaaay up.
BBC wrote:Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had a reputation for being suspicious and paranoid even before everyone was out to get him.
Everyone, in this case, is the US - where government lawyers are hoping to prosecute on espionage charges - and the European Union, where he is wanted for questioning about an allegation of rape.
As of Tuesday, Mr Assange has also been liable to arrest in any of the 188 member countries of Interpol - from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe - in connection with the Swedish case.
Last seen in London, he is widely assumed to be in the UK now, though remaining continuously on the move.
If he appeared in public, British police would be obliged to arrest him under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish authorities - though it's not clear that anyone is going to go out of their way to find him.
"If there is no indication that the accused is in a particular region, you won't expect a police force to investigate," said a spokesman for the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).
So, supposing Mr Assange is still in the UK, and he lies low, he may be able to avoid arrest. In spring, however, his six-month visa will run out, creating additional problems for him.
Whispers
It would not be safe for him to appear in person at a news conference, but he has shown this week that he can continue to communicate with journalists virtually - via video recorded on a mobile phone or via Skype.
According to New York Times reporter John F Burns, who interviewed Mr Assange in October, he changes mobile phones "the way other men change shirts", uses cash instead of credit cards and stays either with friends, or in hotels under false names.
When the two men met in a London Ethiopian restaurant, Mr Assange spoke in a whisper, for fear of eavesdropping by Western intelligence agencies.
A journalist who met Mr Assange earlier this year told the BBC his "over-suspicious" behaviour made the meeting unnecessarily awkward.
"You ask him a harmless question - and he looks at you as if to ask 'Why do you want to know?'" the journalist said.
At that point, Mr Assange was not a wanted man. It's only recently that has freedom of movement has been seriously curtailed.
In April he travelled to the National Press Club in Washington to show a video of a US military helicopter killing 12 people in Baghdad in 2007, including two Reuters journalists.
His position became more precarious in July, after Wikileaks made public 77,000 US military documents on the Afghan conflict in July, and even more so after the publication of nearly 400,000 secret papers on the Iraq war in October.
Espionage charge
He was still able to unveil the Iraq documents to the media at a news conference in London, though US officials were already muttering then about a possible espionage prosecution.
A senior Pentagon official told the Associated Press this week that lawyers from the Justice, State and Defense departments were now actively discussing whether or not some kind of charge could be made to stick.
A possible obstacle to a prosecution under the Espionage Act could be the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.
But experts quoted by the Associated Press also raised the possibility of other charges, such as theft of government property, receipt of stolen government property, mishandling of classified documents, or aiding and abetting illegal leaks of documents by government employees.
It has also been suggested that Mr Assange could be successfully prosecuted under the Espionage Act, without falling foul of the First Amendment, for wilfully withholding information in defiance of an official demand for its return. Just such a demand was made by the State Department on Saturday, before the latest release of US diplomatic cables.
Rape allegation
After the Afghan document release, Mr Assange travelled to Sweden and applied for residence and a work permit.
With its strong traditions of press freedom, the country could have become a safe haven. However, he soon faced allegations of rape and sexual molestation from two Swedish women, which now represent the most immediate threat to his liberty.
He denies any wrongdoing, saying he had consensual sex with both women.
In November a warrant was issued for his arrest, to enable Swedish prosecutors to question him, followed by the European Arrest Warrant. Two appeals against the Swedish warrant have failed, though the European Arrest Warrant has had to be re-issued because of a procedural problem.
Mr Assange's London lawyer, Mark Stephens, has argued that the European Arrest Warrant is invalid, because his client has not been charged. However, SOCA says no charge is necessary - it is sufficient that the individual is "facing prosecution".
In the midst of these legal proceedings, in October, Sweden rejected his request for residency.
Subsequently, Mr Assange is said to have raised the possibility of taking refuge in Switzerland or Iceland.
'Red notice'
While both are members of Interpol and both have extradition treaties with the US, this does not automatically make them hostile territory for him.
A "red notice" issued by Interpol on Tuesday informing all of its 188 member countries that he is wanted in Sweden does not legally oblige any of them to hand Mr Assange over - though a spokesman told the BBC that "usually they feel duty bound to do so".
Equally, while a country that has signed an extradition treaty with the US might usually be expected to give him up, it might not if the crime was regarded as a political one.
Ecuador briefly appeared a promising haven earlier this week, when deputy foreign minister Kintto Lucas said he would be welcome to take up residence there - but President Rafael Correa subsequently dismissed the idea.
Another possible destination might in theory have been Australia, as Mr Assange was born there and holds an Australian passport. However, this does not in practice look like a good choice for the Wikileaks founder.
Like Iceland and Switzerland, Australia is also a member of Interpol and has an extradition treaty with the US. In addition, Australia's Attorney General, Robert McClelland, said this week that police were investigating whether the latest round of Wikileaks disclosures had broken Australian law.
Furthermore, a senior Australian official once warned Mr Assange that since he played "outside the rules", he would be dealt with outside the rules - or so he told the New York Times.
Whichever country Mr Assange aims for next, his biggest problem could be getting there.
If he is currently in a European Union member state, he risks arrest as soon as he presents his passport at the border.
There's a few fun tidbits in there that show that he's either got a guilty conscience or he's just a freakin' nutter.
Biggest one?
Furthermore, a senior Australian official once warned Mr Assange that since he played "outside the rules", he would be dealt with outside the rules - or so he told the New York Times.
Source Obviously, I've underestimated Australian law enforcement. They must be putting those Drop Bears to great use now as political assassination tools.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:You have implied he infected them with STDs, and you don't have any evidence for that.
I don't have any evidence that he didn't either.
Plus, it is theoretically possible to have an STD without knowledge of it as you never have any outbreaks. Very rare, but possible.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a few fun tidbits in there that show that he's either got a guilty conscience or he's just a freakin' nutter.
Obviously, I've underestimated Australian law enforcement. They must be putting those Drop Bears to great use now as political assassination tools.
Plus, it is theoretically possible to have an STD without knowledge of it as you never have any outbreaks. Very rare, but possible.
Opinion
Opinion
REALLY reaching on the last point.
You ever had a condom break, or a bitch come back on you yelling baby daddy or something? That happens constantly too...probably more often than semi-consensual sex that turns into rape after the condom breaks and infects them with STDs. FYI, its fairly rare to become infected with any serious (IE not Herpes or HPV) STD during first time intercourse with an infected person. As this was a one time deal, and supposedly in both cases the condom broke combined with the fact that the lubricant in condoms not only is spermicidal but also helps to kill STD's....did you think that 99.9% effectiveness in prevention was because of only latex?
To illustrate my point here is a quote from statistical data provided to me by my medical doctor during an instance when I had a condom break and flipped my wig about STD's. Facts and data generally make a point better than random comments spewing completely uninformed opinions.
Average risks for a single exposure are approximately:
Receptive anal intercourse 1-3%
Insertive anal intercourse 0.1-1 %
Receptive vaginal intercourse (the woman) 0.1-1 %
Insertive vaginal intercourse (the man) 0.01-5.6%
Receptive oral sex with ejaculation almost zero, although it can happen.
These numbers appear to be very small, but health care workers who get a needle stick have a risk of 0.3 % of getting infected, and PEP (post exposure prophylaxis for occupational exposure) is recommended for them. For health care workers who get blood splashed in the eye or mouth, PEP is offered but not recommended. The risk from that kind of exposure is about 0.03 %.
PEP refers to the antiviral load that will kill HIV infections dead as piss if taken within the first 72 hours after exposure. Any other STD (herpes and HPV excepted) are cureable if caught early with nothing more than antibiotics. I SERIOUSLY doubt that given these statistics and modern medicine (which Sweden has a very high standard of practice in) that these crazy bitches are actually infected with ANY STD even if Assange were a walking petri dish....which he looks like he might actually be.
Just to give you the cliff notes in case you don't actually look at the numbers I quoted, women are almost 6x more likely to transmist STD's to male sexual partners that engage in vaginal intercourse than the man is likely to infect her. Thats presuming you accept something as clearly useless and silly as large sample number statistics gathered over a 25 year study that covers just about every demographic and sexual proclivity in America.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a few fun tidbits in there that show that he's either got a guilty conscience or he's just a freakin' nutter.
Obviously, I've underestimated Australian law enforcement. They must be putting those Drop Bears to great use now as political assassination tools.
Plus, it is theoretically possible to have an STD without knowledge of it as you never have any outbreaks. Very rare, but possible.
Opinion
Opinion
REALLY reaching on the last point.
Did you ever actually read the article, or just come in saying "Opinion, opinion!".
Furthermore, a senior Australian official once warned Mr Assange that since he played "outside the rules", he would be dealt with outside the rules - or so he told the New York Times.
That's what ASSANGE told the New York Times. Not what "the New York Times was told by a senior Australian official who remains unnamed".
You ever had a condom break, or a bitch come back on you yelling baby daddy or something? That happens constantly too...probably more often than semi-consensual sex that turns into rape after the condom breaks and infects them with STDs. FYI, its fairly rare to become infected with any serious (IE not Herpes or HPV) STD during first time intercourse with an infected person. As this was a one time deal, and supposedly in both cases the condom broke combined with the fact that the lubricant in condoms not only is spermicidal but also helps to kill STD's....did you think that 99.9% effectiveness in prevention was because of only latex?
The fact that "in both cases the condom split(the exact wording used in a few of the articles I've read lately from the BBC and elsewhere)" means it's a bit different than it just "breaking". A condom "breaking" doesn't tell you anything of what happened. A split implies it split right down the middle. When during intercourse, we don't know...but it takes alot of stupidity to put a condom on in a way that it gets to the point that it splits.
To illustrate my point here is a quote from statistical data provided to me by my medical doctor during an instance when I had a condom break and flipped my wig about STD's. Facts and data generally make a point better than random comments spewing completely uninformed opinions.
Average risks for a single exposure are approximately:
Receptive anal intercourse 1-3%
Insertive anal intercourse 0.1-1 %
Receptive vaginal intercourse (the woman) 0.1-1 %
Insertive vaginal intercourse (the man) 0.01-5.6%
Receptive oral sex with ejaculation almost zero, although it can happen.
These numbers appear to be very small, but health care workers who get a needle stick have a risk of 0.3 % of getting infected, and PEP (post exposure prophylaxis for occupational exposure) is recommended for them. For health care workers who get blood splashed in the eye or mouth, PEP is offered but not recommended. The risk from that kind of exposure is about 0.03 %.
Fun? Statistics aren't completely reliable though, at least without a source and a few other statistics to compare them against.
PEP refers to the antiviral load that will kill HIV infections dead as piss if taken within the first 72 hours after exposure. Any other STD (herpes and HPV excepted) are cureable if caught early with nothing more than antibiotics. I SERIOUSLY doubt that given these statistics and modern medicine (which Sweden has a very high standard of practice in) that these crazy bitches are actually infected with ANY STD even if Assange were a walking petri dish....which he looks like he might actually be.
Opinion, opinion, opinion!
It really doesn't matter in these kinds of cases that "they were cured before the infection could take root". It's the practices of what he did that are what would get him in trouble.
To use KK's poisoning charge example: If I were to put rat poison in your drink, you drank it and then realized you were poisoned and got treated for it...they wouldn't drop the charges because "you got better". They'd still charge my ass with poisoning and maybe even attempted murder.
Just to give you the cliff notes in case you don't actually look at the numbers I quoted, women are almost 6x more likely to transmit STD's to male sexual partners that engage in vaginal intercourse than the man is likely to infect her. That's presuming you accept something as clearly useless and silly as large sample number statistics gathered over a 25 year study that covers just about every demographic and sexual proclivity in America.
If it covers "just about every demographic and sexual proclivity in America", then we should be seeing that "6x more likely" in roughly the same exposure rate for bisexual women giving STDs to other women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't have any evidence that you haven't infected those two women with STDs.
Would that justify my accusing you of crimes?
I'm not accusing him of any crimes. Sweden and INTERPOL are
I'm amazed that you seem to enjoy taking factual evidence based claims and spinning them into some kind of bizzare interpretation.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a few fun tidbits in there that show that he's either got a guilty conscience or he's just a freakin' nutter.
Obviously, I've underestimated Australian law enforcement. They must be putting those Drop Bears to great use now as political assassination tools.
Plus, it is theoretically possible to have an STD without knowledge of it as you never have any outbreaks. Very rare, but possible.
These statements ARE opinions. Period. No matter how much you believe they are true, they are totally impossible to prove because you are trying to quantify unquantifiables....essentially.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
If it covers "just about every demographic and sexual proclivity in America", then we should be seeing that "6x more likely" in roughly the same exposure rate for bisexual women giving STDs to other women.
What possible logic do you base this on? I'm only asking because your answer is sure to make it even more painfully obvious that in this case you have no idea what you are talking about.
Think about it for a minute....what is the physical act of sex between a man and a woman in regards to the exchange of bodily fluids and the contact of mucus membranes. Those are the only two factors that you can consider regarding the transmission of STD's from partner to partner.
I also spent a year and a half working with AIDS victims and other damaged demographics here in the bay area on top of a year of solid training in gender/lifestyle roles and cooccuring treatment concerns for clients with chronic disease...IE cancer and AIDS. I would be willing to bet every item I own that I know a bit more about wtf I am talking about in this case than you do.
Do you also think that homosexual males spread STDS with greater frequency than other demographics?
I'm amazed that you seem to enjoy taking factual evidence based claims and spinning them into some kind of bizzare interpretation.
And I'm amazed that you seem to still be talking. Interesting.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a few fun tidbits in there that show that he's either got a guilty conscience or he's just a freakin' nutter.
Obviously, I've underestimated Australian law enforcement. They must be putting those Drop Bears to great use now as political assassination tools.
Plus, it is theoretically possible to have an STD without knowledge of it as you never have any outbreaks. Very rare, but possible.
These statements ARE opinions. Period. No matter how much you believe they are true, they are totally impossible to prove because you are trying to quantify unquantifiables....essentially.
Of course they're opinions. Just like you saying that these women, who had no ties between them sexually before they slept with him gave him the STD.
The difference is, I have an article and situational experience of how law enforcement works that I've formulated my opinion from. You have statistics from no cited source, whereas I cited mine(and even copy/pasted the entire article here, so there's no excuse for you not to have read it other than being lazy) so you can read it and formulate your own opinion from it.
As an aside, let's look at the situation like this:
People don't usually flee a country when they're innocent. Especially a country like Sweden, which has a history of opposing extradition for politically motivated charges. You also don't go underground and start living like bin Laden when you're innocent either, in most cases like this in a Western nation. If he were in Russia or one of the former Soviet Bloc countries, the Middle East, Africa, etc...yeah, I could understand that.
But Sweden and the United Kingdom? Really? You're living like a terrorist or public enemy #1 to hide from them? Nor do you engage in sex with two completely unknown to you women, when you were supposedly warned by the intelligence services of your home country to beware of the potential to be taken in on "trumped up charges" for sexual activities.
But hey. What do I know. I guess I'm not a hero of the people, bravely sticking it to the government!
Kanluwen wrote:
Of course they're opinions. Just like you saying that these women, who had no ties between them sexually before they slept with him gave him the STD.
You should actually try reading what other people post. I said that according to the statistical rate of STD transmission, its far more likely that a female will pass an STD to her male partners during vaginal penetrative intercourse. Thats not the same thing, and someone that is reasonably articulate/intelligent (IE users of this site) should be pretty capable of seeing that without your logical fallacies.
Kanluwen wrote:
If someone is exposed to a STD, particularly something nasty, then yes. INTERPOL and local police would definitely "waste their time over it".
That depends on the country, in all honesty. Its an almost unprovable case because you have to show that Assange was the knowing source of STD in both cases, which is incredibly difficult given that he may have unknowingly carried the STD from one woman to the other.
In any case, this has gotten attention because of who the accused is.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's voluntary...until it's not. In a case where two complaining witnesses, with no link whatsoever between them sexually outside of one night stands with you, have contracted STDs and both have the same complaint of "In the midst of sex, he says the condom split but it never felt like there was one there to begin with!"...then it most definitely is not a voluntary test if you don't want them seriously looking at you for poisoning, etc.
Its still voluntary. There is no reason to assume that Assange was the initial carrier even were he to test positive.
Kanluwen wrote:
This is where it seems to get weird. There was a case in Pennsylvania of a guy with HIV that kept claiming his condoms "split", and he's actually been charged with(if I'm remembering right) attempted manslaughter and reckless endangerment of the public good.
Sure, but he had medical records indicating that he had HIV. Until such records are discovered indicating that Assange was a prior carrier of the STD in question, the point is moot.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't have any evidence that you haven't infected those two women with STDs.
Would that justify my accusing you of crimes?
I'm not accusing him of any crimes. Sweden and INTERPOL are
You posted:
Kanluwen wrote:Doing a runner after your one night stand partners, who only have the fact that they've had sex with you in common, have contracted a STD is a crime though.
Publicly naming the two women who are accusing you, in violation of most rape/sexual harassment laws, is also a sleazy as feth thing to do.
That actually isn't a crime, as I pointed out earlier but you ignored. When I called you on it, you justified the statement on the fact that we don't know the women haven't got STDs.
This matter isn't what the Swedish prosecutor has accused Assage of.
Ahtman wrote:This whole scenario is going to be hilarious when all it really leads to more security and more controls on the internet.
Yeah, its just going to end up with another layer of security around "secrets".....so does the leak actually change anything or is it just a weirdo's way of gaining global attention? Only time is gonna tell.
I don't know how much the leaks will change things.
I would like to think that the serious leaks, about the alleged war crimes, for instance, would lead to governments being less "gung ho" about how they carry out brushfire warfare, and more open about keeping an eye on and prosecuting their troops when they do something wrong.
The rest of the leaks are pretty trivial. Embarrassing, but nothing over which to change long term relationships.
I mean, saying that Berlusconi is a clown, Sarkozy is a control freak, and Prince Andrew is rude. That doesn't mean Italy, France and the UK will stop being allies of the USA. Everyone knew.
The Russia situation is a bit more serious, as Putin and his coterie really do rule everything, so personally insulting them is bound to result in coolness.
I suppose governments could make all employees encrypt everything with PGP.
Ahtman wrote:This whole scenario is going to be hilarious when all it really leads to more security and more controls on the internet.
Next talking point on the docket: net neutrality jeopardizes national security.
Apparently PayPal has closed their account so they can no longer get donations through it, which was the easiet and most prevelant way to donate. Paypal said they violated the "our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity" part of having an account. I guess getting people to turn over stolen documents falls under that category. Of course Wikileaks says it is the US putting pressure on PayPal.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't have any evidence that you haven't infected those two women with STDs.
Would that justify my accusing you of crimes?
I'm not accusing him of any crimes. Sweden and INTERPOL are
You posted:
Kanluwen wrote:Doing a runner after your one night stand partners, who only have the fact that they've had sex with you in common, have contracted a STD is a crime though.
Publicly naming the two women who are accusing you, in violation of most rape/sexual harassment laws, is also a sleazy as feth thing to do.
That actually isn't a crime, as I pointed out earlier but you ignored. When I called you on it, you justified the statement on the fact that we don't know the women haven't got STDs.
Actually, depending on your locality, refusal to be tested for STDs can be a crime when your partners have reason to believe they were exposed to it through you. Even if you're unaware of having the STD in question.
And naming the accusers in a sexual harassment case, in spite of them having guaranteed anonymity can be legally prosecuted here in the US. Can't speak for Sweden, but I'd assume they're not that ass-backwards.
This matter isn't what the Swedish prosecutor has accused Assage of.
You have accused him of doing it.
I didn't realize my opinion on a case now had legal standing and weight. Interesting.
I've refuted your points, but I guess I should say this as a caveat:
It is my opinion that Julian Assange is a self-righteous, egotistical sleazebag who thinks of noone but himself and his vaunted "transparency" is bs what with him going into hiding like a criminal.
Ahtman wrote:This whole scenario is going to be hilarious when all it really leads to more security and more controls on the internet.
Next talking point on the docket: net neutrality jeopardizes national security.
Apparently PayPal has closed their account so they can no longer get donations through it, which was the easiet and most prevelant way to donate. Paypal said they violated the "our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity" part of having an account. I guess getting people to turn over stolen documents falls under that category. Of course Wikileaks says it is the US putting pressure on PayPal.
This is really sad. I can understand Amazon giving into pressure of public opinion, but I'd have expected a bit more confidentiality and neutrality from Paypal. Private business has a right to make their own choices of client though.
Everyone hates them, whatever any connection or not to the US government.
I've never had any problems with PayPal. Sounds personal, where on the wallet did they touch you?!
agroszkiewicz wrote:This is really sad. I can understand Amazon giving into pressure of public opinion, but I'd have expected a bit more confidentiality and neutrality from Paypal. Private business has a right to make their own choices of client though.
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.
What amuses me so much about the "its just the US pressuring others" line of commentary is that, if it is true, then its completely self-evident.
The most powerful government in the world is going to use its clout in order to ensure that its secrets stay secret?
Hell, I'm just a graduate student and I use my clout, such as it is, to ensure that my secrets stay secret. That's basically part and parcel to having secrets.
Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.
The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.
They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?
Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.
The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.
Read the legal agreement again before getting all government conspiracy. They don't have to steal the documents themselves to fall under the agreement they made. The only way the site can exist is if people break the law to give them illegally obtained documents. To 'promote and encourage' they don't have to explicitly state they want people to do it (which is why I left incite off), they just have to create an atmosphere that would get people to do such things. They traffic in stolen goods even though they don't steal the goods themselves.
Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.
The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.
Yeah...that's not the "only criminal activity" involved. Sorry.
Receipt of known stolen goods(documents do actually count in this, by the by), possession of stolen goods, and refusal to surrender stolen goods and/or (in this case at least) classified government property upon notification of status of goods. I'd assume, however, if the US were to prosecute him for espionage it will be for reciept of classified government documents without proper security clearances and mishandling of said documents(both of which carry relatively lengthy sentences with them, at least if it can be established that it wasn't accidental).
Those are all crimes.
Scenario for you here:
Say Dave steals a plasma TV. You, an unwary buyer, purchase said TV from Dave. The police arrest Dave for his thieving ways, and he fingers you as the buyer. Upon matching the serial number of the TV from the place where it's stolen, it becomes painfully obvious that you in fact are in possession of stolen goods.
Police tell you to give the TV over, since it's evidence in the case against Dave. You refuse, because hey "I paid for it!". Too bad. Obstruction of justice charge if you don't hand the TV over.
Situation becomes something totally different if you knowingly buy the stolen TV from Dave and they can prove that you bought it, with the full knowledge that it's stolen. Then you can be charged with possession of stolen goods and receipt/purchase of stolen goods...which will put you, on levels of how serious the charges are, about on par with Dave.
They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?
PayPal is an international company. I doubt they closed it "just" because of public opinion in the West.
dogma wrote:What amuses me so much about the "its just the US pressuring others" line of commentary is that, if it is true, then its completely self-evident.
The most powerful government in the world is going to use its clout in order to ensure that its secrets stay secret?
Hell, I'm just a graduate student and I use my clout, such as it is, to ensure that my secrets stay secret. That's basically part and parcel to having secrets.
Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.
The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.
Yeah...that's not the "only criminal activity" involved. Sorry.
Receipt of known stolen goods(documents do actually count in this, by the by), possession of stolen goods, and refusal to surrender stolen goods and/or (in this case at least) classified government property upon notification of status of goods. I'd assume, however, if the US were to prosecute him for espionage it will be for reciept of classified government documents without proper security clearances and mishandling of said documents(both of which carry relatively lengthy sentences with them, at least if it can be established that it wasn't accidental).
Those are all crimes.
Scenario for you here:
Say Dave steals a plasma TV. You, an unwary buyer, purchase said TV from Dave. The police arrest Dave for his thieving ways, and he fingers you as the buyer. Upon matching the serial number of the TV from the place where it's stolen, it becomes painfully obvious that you in fact are in possession of stolen goods.
Police tell you to give the TV over, since it's evidence in the case against Dave. You refuse, because hey "I paid for it!". Too bad. Obstruction of justice charge if you don't hand the TV over.
Situation becomes something totally different if you knowingly buy the stolen TV from Dave and they can prove that you bought it, with the full knowledge that it's stolen. Then you can be charged with possession of stolen goods and receipt/purchase of stolen goods...which will put you, on levels of how serious the charges are, about on par with Dave.
They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?
PayPal is an international company. I doubt they closed it "just" because of public opinion in the West.
Do you really want to try and debate semantics with me again?
If you knew what it meant, then why did you misuse the word?
No one is arguing about the meaning of words here.
In fact, Kanluwen was basically mocking your statement based on the explicit meaning of it; ie. your indication that it was only (just) public opinion that inspired PayPal to close the account.
If anything, you were the one to take us all down the rabbit hole of a semantic argument by calling Kanluwen's comment one which turned on semantics, which it wasn't.
dogma wrote:If you knew what it meant, then why did you misuse the word?
No one is arguing about the meaning of words here.
In fact, Kanluwen was basically mocking your statement based on the explicit meaning of it; ie. your indication that it was only (just) public opinion that inspired PayPal to close the account.
If anything, you were the one to take us all down the rabbit hole of a semantic argument by calling Kanluwen's comment one which turned on semantics, which it wasn't.
Misinterpretation of my statement was a fallacy on his part that led to the debate of the meaning of differing laws etc. IE this entire thread is literally debating the semantic component of the ethical and legal ramifications of the whole leak incident.
Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>
agroszkiewicz wrote:
Misinterpretation of my statement was a fallacy on his part...
At the very least you are both equally responsible for the issue. You don't get to abdicate responsibility for your own words.
agroszkiewicz wrote:
...that led to the debate of the meaning of differing laws etc. IE this entire thread is literally debating the semantic component of the ethical and legal ramifications of the whole leak incident.
That's not a semantic argument. A seamnatic argument would be one that disputes the meaning of a given word like, say, "realism". What this thread is about is what a given thing, the leak incident, is best described as; which is sometimes known as a substantive argument. You can tell the difference between the two quite easily because semantic arguments, like this one, usually include phrases like "that's not what that word means".
Though really that dichotomy is misleading, because semantic disputes are perfectly legitimate.
agroszkiewicz wrote:
Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>
dogma wrote: You can tell the difference between the two quite easily because semantic arguments, like this one, usually include phrases like "that's not what that word means".
Though really that dichotomy is misleading, because semantic disputes are perfectly legitimate.
agroszkiewicz wrote:
Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>
Or simply clarified your meaning.
Ok ok, I give up....I misused the word! lol
Interesting, now the government is issuing a statement that these documents are still considered classified and that contractors and unauthorized employee's aren't to access the site on their home computers. I can see where they are coming from, but it sticks in my craw to have a government tell certian people that they cannot view what is now essentially public record.
Kilkrazy wrote:My understanding is that much of the current batch consists of private diplomatic cables, which were not classified secret, though they would be protected by diplomatic immunity and the diplomatic service's normal standards of behaviour. I don't there has been much to surprise any moderately well-informed observer of the international scene. The shock is merely the embarrassment of such plain speaking being made public.
So I agree these leaks don't have much of a "public interest" defence.
Earlier leaks have included genuinely disturbing material that implicated US forces in various questionable incidents and in cover ups about them. These are matters that it is in the public interest to lay bare and investigate, IMO.
The diplomatic leaks have actually revealed US cover up, where a failed US op killed a bunch of Yemeni civilians, but Yemen agreed to take the blame in exchange for some US weapons. So in amongst the stuff about diplomats not liking world leaders there's some pretty important leaks as well.
The problematic issue is that the great bulk of these leaks are "anti-American" in the sense that they are leaks of information the US would have preferred to keep secret, which are embarrassing. The relatively innocuous nature of the latest batch makes it look like Assange has got it in for the USA. However the reaction from some US commentators makes it look like the US wants to use the excuse of the recent release to stop him leaking the really important stuff.
Yeah, I really wish most of the harmless but sometimes funny diplomatic leaks had been left out, and only the really messed up stuff like I mentioned above were released. It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:You can just as easily worship at the alter of civil disobedience. CD can be a good thing, just as sometimes a state having some authority can be a good thing. The problem is when one just assumes that one is right by virtue of being what it is without looking at the context. CD just for the sake of CD is hollow and meaningless.
Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, I work at a university so I see that everyday and it's exactly like you describe it, hollow.
The trick is finding that balance between the two, but for too many people it's too easy to pick an extreme.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:At this point he is almost bullet proof becuase whatever he does or doesn't do, it can all be explained away as a conspiracy against him.
Heh, at this point Assange is almost free to do whatever he wants. Run naked through the US embassy yelling 'I am the God of all your children'. If it was reported everyone would just assume it was a CIA plot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Your attitude is a very rare one. Screw-ups that happen in war don't necessarily have to "demonize the troops". They can also break public opinion of supporting the war, with people thinking "This is why our soldiers are dying?!". Look up the US embassy siege in Saigon during the Vietnam War and the effects of it being broadcast on TV.
If the public will is broken because the public learns things about a war and no longer wants to support it, then that is the democratic process in action. The alternative, that you appear to be implying, is to keep the realities hidden from the public, is a really, really dangerous course of action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:I am not buying this.
No means no, beforehand.
No meaning no during is a bit harder to prosecute on.
There are instances of successful conviction, though (there was a case here in Australia of a guy given the very unfortunate nickname of the '30 second rapist', who was convicted for continuing sex for 30 seconds after consent was withdrawn. The girls accusing him of the crime later admitted they made the whole thing up, but the legal principle is still there, if consent is withdrawn you need to stop.)
But it is, like you said, extremely difficult to prosecute. Assange should still comply with police and give them his statement, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Apparently PayPal has closed their account so they can no longer get donations through it, which was the easiet and most prevelant way to donate. Paypal said they violated the "our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity" part of having an account. I guess getting people to turn over stolen documents falls under that category. Of course Wikileaks says it is the US putting pressure on PayPal.
All of which seems pretty reasonable. I mean, I'm sure the US is leaning on Paypal, which only makes sense from the POV of the US (I'd think most other countries would do the same, to the extent that they have any power to influence proceedings). But Paypal is only being sensible in closing the account, whether Assange is doing good or not, what he's doing is illegal and Paypal really shouldn't be offering to collect money on behalf of an organisation dedicated to breaking the law.
WarOne wrote:I wonder what other dirty little secrets Julians has stashed away that he has willingly not published yet.
It could only mean bad things that he would consider dumping out the contents of his bag of secrets at one time.
He's said they're preparing a release of documents from the banking sector that'll destroy a couple of banks. It's unlikely that'll be true and the guy has oversold his leaks before, but given what's been going on in banking in the last decade, no doubt there'll be some really bad stuff in there.
It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.
I agree, the nature of these leaks is very vindictive and petty. It's somebody trying to screw over the US, it's not somebody who happened across an event that simply HAD to be exposed. This isn't noble whistleblower activity, this is just somebody getting any and all laundry they can put hand to, and hoping some of it is dirty.
The fact that Assange is publishing it all indicates to me that he's in that same vindictive, childish mindset. That said, I don't think he's really breaking any laws. There's talk here of "receiving stolen goods," and perhaps that type of charge could be made to stick, but it seems that precedent in these sorts of matters is that once the law was broken and security breached, the information is now public. After all, the major news outlets are happily distilling Assange's data down to the choice bits and replaying it.
I tend to agree with the sentiment that the people doing the actual leaking should be found and executed. Some people might think that's draconian or McCarthyism, but stop to think about it... We can be pretty certain that at least a few Afghans/Iraqis/others who cooperated with us, who stood with America, have been killed as a result of these leaks. The act of leaking this information cost our allies their lives.
So, do we really think an American life is worth more than an Afghan's life? Truth: yes, we totally do. But if we want to have any degree of moral fortitude, we'd realize that the leaker is responsible for the death of another human being, and that their punishment should fit that crime. This isn't a funny little game. This is serious. We should put an American gravestone on this so that people don't forget that their petulant little outbursts cost REAL lives. If they can't be bothered to notice Afghan blood, then let it be American blood.
The problem is when one just assumes that one is right by virtue of being what it is without looking at the context. CD just for the sake of CD is hollow and meaningless.
QFT. And step 1 of making CD mean something is to put a consequence on it. If people want to stand up in the face of death, I'll take them a lot more seriously.
The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting. It confuses people. They hear about injustice in Iraq, and all they can come up with is "oh, right, like the time my poli sci teacher, like, TOTALLY didn't like my paper? That sort of injustice?"
No, the sort of injustice where the Ba'athists kill your family, and torture you for four years, then let you out and laugh at you because you can't get a job since you have no fingers.
Sometimes I think that the best thing "the terrorists" could do for us, is to seriously damage our way of life, inject a little pain into our world, to the point that we realize that it actually does matter what you do, what you say, what you value and what you're willing to fight for.
He's preparing an "insurance package" of documents from the banking sector and "classified military operations" in case he's ever arrested.
I love that he doesn't say what specifically he should get arrested for in order for the documents to be leaked. Just "arrest and I leak!". What a tool.
He's said they're preparing a release of documents from the banking sector that'll destroy a couple of banks.
Ut oh. The US government might not assassinate the guy, but if he starts messing with big banks...
Honestly, I hope somebody kills him. I just would not want it to be officially sanctioned by our government (or unofficially). I just wish the guy the worst possible fate, I don't feel morally justified in demanding it.
I love that he doesn't say what specifically he should get arrested for in order for the documents to be leaked. Just "arrest and I leak!". What a tool.
And, obviously, of questionable morals. If his information is so dire, then it needs to be exposed. This is clearly not "bigger than him" something he's doing simply because he has to. He's obviously a self-serving profiteer, whatever the form he chooses to take his profits.
sebster wrote:
Yeah, I really wish most of the harmless but sometimes funny diplomatic leaks had been left out, and only the really messed up stuff like I mentioned above were released. It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.
Phryxis wrote:I agree, the nature of these leaks is very vindictive and petty. It's somebody trying to screw over the US, it's not somebody who happened across an event that simply HAD to be exposed.
If you read Assange's writings on the wikileaks site, you'll see he's pretty much got a hate on for all governments, out of some interesting, but kind of silly and completely impractical ideas about how governments and large organisation should operate.
I'm kind of intrigued by this growing idea that the leaks are aimed at some kind of anti-American drive. Is a person anti-American if he acts in a way that makes the US government look bad? Even if he's also making other governments look bad? I mean, the civilian government of Pakistan came out of these leaks looking about as stable as two legged dog.
That said, I don't think he's really breaking any laws.
I don't really know the law that well, but I'd be shocked if publishing secret documents wasn't illegal in most countries. I think what might save him is jurisdictional weirdness, an Aussie citizen who's in the UK, publishing in servers listed in all kinds of countries, the secrets of many countries, would be a hard case to give jurisdiction to.
Not that Australia is going to go in to bat for him. We don't do squat to protect our citizens overseas, and our Prime Minister has already called Assange a criminal, but the jursidictional weirdness in and of itself might see people reluctant to push for conviction.
I tend to agree with the sentiment that the people doing the actual leaking should be found and executed. Some people might think that's draconian or McCarthyism, but stop to think about it... We can be pretty certain that at least a few Afghans/Iraqis/others who cooperated with us, who stood with America, have been killed as a result of these leaks. The act of leaking this information cost our allies their lives.
Do you think that Scooter Libby (or Rove, or Cheney or whoever actually authorised the leak) should be killed? By some reports the outing of Valerie Plame, and thereby the outing of her workplace as a CIA front, exposed many, many contacts, and by some reports resulted in deaths.
The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting. It confuses people. They hear about injustice in Iraq, and all they can come up with is "oh, right, like the time my poli sci teacher, like, TOTALLY didn't like my paper? That sort of injustice?"
So it's a good thing when leaks show people the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then?
Did you see that two legged dog that only had it's front legs? It could only walk in little bursts, but it was kind of impressive it could do it at all.
As you say, there isn't any "public interest" defence of this set of leaks.
OTOH any intelligent enemy could come up with a target list on their own initiative, so it isn't a serious leak from that viewpoint. So it seems a bit pointless.
It reinforces my impression that the purpose of the leaks, more than anything, is to embarrass the US and boost Assange's profile.
Phryxis wrote:Honestly, I hope somebody kills him. I just would not want it to be officially sanctioned by our government (or unofficially). I just wish the guy the worst possible fate, I don't feel morally justified in demanding it.
[...] He's obviously a self-serving profiteer, whatever the form he chooses to take his profits.
Self-serving profiteers of questionable morals deserve death or 'the worst possible fate' through government agency? Pretty strong words when it hasn't really been established that's what he is. That definition itself covers a broad range of capital endeavours. Do all self-serving profiteers deserve assassination? Or just this one?
I imagine they at least deserve hyperbole and/or exaggeration. Death seems a bit much admittedly. In the end he really isn't the one responsible, he's just the tool that has put his face to the problem becuase he craves the attention.
the only thing that that leak is useful for is giving a shopping list for terrorist organisations.
Wow, there is no possible reason to leak that other than to harm someone else. I just lost my last degree of respect for Wikileaks. Hate to say it, but I really don't think there is much point to all of this other than more attention for an attention whore.
I do stand by my statements about governmental transparency though.
Whatever else WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has accomplished, he's ended the era of innocent optimism about the Web. As wiki innovator Larry Sanger put it in a message to WikiLeaks, "Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.—not just the government, but the people."
The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. The outrage is that this is Mr. Assange's express intention.
This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to "cut the head off the snake." This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions.
Leaks will also restrict information flows within the U.S. A major cause of the 9/11 intelligence failures was that agencies were barred from sharing information. Since then, intelligence data have been shared more widely. The Obama administration now plans to tighten information flows, which could limit leaks but would be a step back to the pre-9/11 period.
Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower—there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables—but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.
In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. "To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed," he writes. "Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate," he writes, and "pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result."
His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."
Berkeley blogger Aaron Bady last week posted a useful translation of these essays. He explains Mr. Assange's view this way: "While an organization structured by direct and open lines of communication will be much more vulnerable to outside penetration, the more opaque it becomes to itself (as a defense against the outside gaze), the less able it will be to 'think' as a system, to communicate with itself." Mr. Assange's idea is that with enough leaks, "the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller."
View Full Image
AFP/Getty Images
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hopes to hobble the U.S. government.
Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."
This worldview has precedent. Ted Kaczynski, another math-obsessed anarchist, sent bombs through the mail for almost 20 years, killing three people and injuring 23. He offered to stop in 1995 if media outlets published his Unabomber Manifesto. The 35,000-word essay, "Industrial Society and Its Future," objected to the "industrial-technological system" that causes people "to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior." He's serving a life sentence for murder.
Mr. Assange doesn't mail bombs, but his actions have life-threatening consequences. Consider the case of a 75-year-old dentist in Los Angeles, Hossein Vahedi. According to one of the confidential cables released by WikiLeaks, Dr. Vahedi, a U.S. citizen, returned to Iran in 2008 to visit his parents' graves. Authorities confiscated his passport because his sons worked as concert promoters for Persian pop singers in the U.S. who had criticized the theocracy.
More on WikiLeaks
Cables Reflect Tensions Over Terrorism Funding U.S. Cable: China Ordered Google Hack The cable reported that Dr. Vahedi decided to escape by horseback over the mountains of western Iran and into Turkey. He trained by hiking the hills above Tehran. He took extra heart medication. But when he fell off his horse, he was injured and nearly froze. When he made it to Turkey, the U.S. Embassy intervened to stop him being sent back to Iran.
"This is very bad for my family," Dr. Vahedi told the New York Daily News on being told about the leak of the cable naming him and describing his exploits. Tehran has a new excuse to target his relatives in Iran. "How could this be printed?"
Excellent question. It's hard being collateral damage in the world of WikiLeaks.
Foreign Government: Your internet sites are airing our dirty laundry!
US government: We have freedom of speech, deal with it.
China: Ok then, gloves are off.
US Government: Freedom of speech might not be that important, we will lean on software companies to get a result for you on access within your borders.
Most of rest of world: What about us?
<silence>
<later>
US Government: Your internet site is airing our dirty laundry!
US website: We have freedom of speech, deal with it.
Frankly this whole situation has really ruined all the Jason Bourne/James Bond/super CIA hitman movies for me. If they can't even stop this loser with a creative accident or better yet, Machete style free for all followed by really big fireball then whats the freaking point?
Fraz, you should have posted the link for that. It was an interesting piece, combining some interesting observations, including a pretty decent summary of Assange's beliefs, the silly, comparing him to a mail bomber, and the incredibly wrong, such as the claim no evidence of wrongdoing coming from the diplomatic cables.
Phryxis wrote:
The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting.
I would love to know how your concept of 'total safety, total freedom, and total divorcement from anything unsafe' applies to the destitute in 'first world countries' - or even the lower end of the American middle class. Sure we don't suffer under a genocidal anarchy or are exposed to torture on a routine basis - but that hardly puts the majority of us into a 'totally safe' fantasy land you're describing.
Don't use your hate for privilege to justify injecting some brutality into the 'first world' life.
Anonymous has launched a broad-ranging campaign in support of Wikileaks, starting with a DDoS assault on a PayPal website.
The denial of service attack lasted for eight hours and resulted in numerous service disruptions, Panda Security reports.
The group, spawned from anarchic message board 4chan, first came to prominence with a long running campaign against the church of Scientology, its beef with the Hubbard faithful centering on their attempts to censor content from the net.
PayPal's decision to stop processing donations for Wikileaks following its controversial publication of US diplomatic cables as well as the withdrawal of hosting services by Amazon are seen on 4chan and elsewhere as attempts to censor the whistle-blowing site, a development Anonymous intends to oppose.
That link shows Wikileaks publishing America's list of critical companies and installations deemed vital to American interests (i.e. terrorists targets).
IceRaptor wrote:I would love to know how your concept of 'total safety, total freedom, and total divorcement from anything unsafe' applies to the destitute in 'first world countries' - or even the lower end of the American middle class. Sure we don't suffer under a genocidal anarchy or are exposed to torture on a routine basis - but that hardly puts the majority of us into a 'totally safe' fantasy land you're describing.
I don't think you could have illustrated Phryxis's point any better.
It shows how much you take for granted like clean water, food stamps and hospitals that will take care of you in an emergency even without insurance, and (for the most part) non-corrupt infrastructure. Being poor in the US is pretty damn nice compared to say, living in Haiti. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/ns/world_news-americas/
I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
The poor can have lots of children, apply for aid, and live better than some medium income families in America.
Yes. Yes they can.
That isn't going to happen in every country. Even the poor in America need to quit their bitching, quite frankly. FFS, get a little perspective people.
sebster wrote:Fraz, you should have posted the link for that. It was an interesting piece, combining some interesting observations, including a pretty decent summary of Assange's beliefs, the silly, comparing him to a mail bomber, and the incredibly wrong, such as the claim no evidence of wrongdoing coming from the diplomatic cables.
sebster wrote:Fraz, you should have posted the link for that. It was an interesting piece, combining some interesting observations, including a pretty decent summary of Assange's beliefs, the silly, comparing him to a mail bomber, and the incredibly wrong, such as the claim no evidence of wrongdoing coming from the diplomatic cables.
Sorry, Op Ed this morning-Wall Street Journal
Pfft...who listens to that crap on the internet anyway?
Is a person anti-American if he acts in a way that makes the US government look bad?
Well, not necessarily, but this guy is pretty much come out and said he's against the American government. There's a whole debate about "is America the government or the people" but at the end of the day, it's not all that salient. We have a process for change, and this guy is trying to circumvent it. We have laws on information control, and this guy is trying to actively circumvent them.
Also, I say "US" only because that's his obvious preferred target. I don't think he particularly cares who he hurts, so long as he hurts somebody "bigger than him." He's pathological, and his pathology should never be confused with genuine insight or real concern for humanity.
I don't really know the law that well, but I'd be shocked if publishing secret documents wasn't illegal in most countries.
Well, it's possible, but as I understand US law, at least, if somebody with a security clearance leaks a document, it's on them. It can then be published by whomever they leak it to, it's still on them, not the publisher.
If it didn't work that way, I tend to think this guy would be in jail already.
Self-serving profiteers of questionable morals deserve death or 'the worst possible fate' through government agency?
Please re-read. I did not suggest that the government should assassinate this guy. Quite the contrary, I think they should NOT. That's not a good way to promote the rule of law.
What I'm saying, is that I think this guy is getting people hurt and killed, all for a self-serving need to feel important. I wish him the worst possible fate, but would never suggest that any reputable entity actively enforce that fate upon him.
That's what you have governments like Pakistan for. If they're going to be horribly corrupt, and their ISI is rife with Taliban supporters, and they generally flaunt the rule of law, PERFECT. Let those who already have dirty hands deal with this guy. That's what's so frustrating about the badguys. They're never around when you need them.
I would love to know how your concept of 'total safety, total freedom, and total divorcement from anything unsafe' applies to the destitute in 'first world countries' - or even the lower end of the American middle class.
The US is a country where poor people are fat. I realize that life for a person in poverty in America isn't a cakewalk, but compared to life for ANYBODY in Africa, it really is. If you go to in ER in the US, you're going to get treated. If you need food in the US, there's somebody that's going to give it to you. It might not be a comfortable existence, but it's a level of care that MOST people don't ever get.
So to be clear, I'm not saying "life's fine for me, what's your problem?" What I'm saying is "if you think life is EVER hard in the first world, you're unfamilliar with what life is like in the rest of it." Being pulled out of your bed in the middle of the night and killed isn't a rarity. It's the NORM.
Plus, on top of that, even if the poor in America are as bad off as you suggest, they're not driving "the culture." We live in a culture that's constantly obsessing over the details of what your cholesterol is, whether a painkiller increases your risk of heart problems by 5% over 20 years, making sure that our kids wear helmets, elbow, knee and hip pads before they ride their bike, etc. etc. etc. Poor people might have it bad, but that doesn't change what the mainstream media are talking about.
We're such a coddled, safety obsessed society, so totally unwilling to allow ANYONE to have a bad outcome EVER that we can't really process reality effectively. In real life, bad outcomes happen CONSTANTLY.
Do you think that Scooter Libby (or Rove, or Cheney or whoever actually authorised the leak) should be killed? By some reports the outing of Valerie Plame, and thereby the outing of her workplace as a CIA front, exposed many, many contacts, and by some reports resulted in deaths.
I hadn't heard that, so I hadn't considered it. The spin I read was that Plame was no longer an operative, and her status was of dubious secrecy anyway. If that's not true... I don't know.
But, if we assume that it did lead to deaths of our allies, and that it can be proven that Libby was responsible, then yes...
The only caveat I'd add is that these are very senior people. It's actually somewhat "their job" to make decisions on subjects like this, and if they feel it's acceptable for people to get killed, that's part of their job description. You get into all sorts of weirdness if you don't allow for that. If the President announces that we're going to attack Fallujah (for example) one might say that makes the task harder and costs US lives, but it's also in the President's power to make that sort of announcement.
Bottom line, I'm all about proof and clearcut boundaries. If there are clear rules, the rules were broken, the action constitutes treason, then I'm in favor of execution. If it's muddy, like did Libby do it, was he authorized by somebody else to do it who had the ability to make that authorization, etc. etc. etc. then not as much. But if it's clearcut that Libby acted on his own, knowing it was a treasonous offense, then yes, he should be executed.
So it's a good thing when leaks show people the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then?
Yes it is, but it's also not really necessary to have sensitive information involved in doing so. You don't need to have specific GPS coordinates, names, dates, etc. to convey the horrors of war, or the complications of conducting peacekeeping operations.
This somewhat comes back to the question of whether WikiLeaks is about spreading truth, or it's about undermining governments. It seems to have been stated pretty clearly that it's about the latter.
Phryxis wrote:Yes it is, but it's also not really necessary to have sensitive information involved in doing so. You don't need to have specific GPS coordinates, names, dates, etc. to convey the horrors of war, or the complications of conducting peacekeeping operations.
If we're talking about the States' involvement in Iraq, that's not a peacekeeping operation, it's being a belligerent. However, I don't know if a belligerent can then take on a peacekeeping role afterwords. Seems a little dodgy to me, though: "we conquered you, now we're keeping the peace here". If we're not talking about Iraq, disregard this comment.
Whilst there is a moral component to this where the publisher has taken steps to hide names and people this new round of leaks, whilst it has not directly put anyone at risk, has highlighted to the world that governments need civilian based contractors.
The focus for terrorist groups could drastically change and make almost anyone a target. Irrespective of what you do for a living, if you have any links to the military, no matter how tenuous then you may now be a target. Now that bit does worry me.
I was happy being a target. It's my job and part of my life to check my stuff for tampering, being careful who I tell what to, registering on whacko websites, personal security, private mail etc but this takes it to a different level.
So if this guy is keeping more damaging stuff for if he is arrested, why didnt he just release that stuff? Give himself some credibility and actually do some whistleblowing?
If he has this information he could of released it and held on to the diplomatic cables as insurace, kind of "dont arrest me or i'll damage your foreign relations".
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
With which part? That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing? I don't disagree with the former, but I take offense to the second. A society achieving success in overcoming the dangers inherent in nature isn't something to be vilified but celebrated, in my view. What precisely would Sweden gain from having rampant Cholera epidemics? What would America gain from a greatly increased infant mortality? Does Ireland gain something from another famine?
It's fun to theorize about how we as a society have somehow lost some magical attribute that makes suffering worthwhile. You know - something that romanticizes the past when 'men where men' or something like that. But that's simply nostalgia.
Phryxis wrote:
What I'm saying is "if you think life is EVER hard in the first world, you're unfamilliar with what life is like in the rest of it."
British
I'll readily agree that life in the rest of the world is significantly harder than what the vast majority of Americans will face. What I don't agree with (nor understand, frankly) is how you are somehow equating hardship with virtue. Why do you think that 'having a little pain injected to our world' makes us somehow better? Are you proposing that pain equals value, even in some form of derivative effect?
Phryxis wrote:
What I'm saying is "if you think life is EVER hard in the first world, you're unfamilliar with what life is like in the rest of it." Being pulled out of your bed in the middle of the night and killed isn't a rarity. It's the NORM.
There are places in the world that your premise holds, but for the fast majority, that's just not the case. Unless I missed the part about roaming Swedish death squads or murderous Australian prime ministers?
Phryxis wrote:
We're such a coddled, safety obsessed society, so totally unwilling to allow ANYONE to have a bad outcome EVER that we can't really process reality effectively. In real life, bad outcomes happen CONSTANTLY.
I simply don't understand what you think constitutes 'processing reality effectively' consists of. Avoiding pain seems like a highly successful 'processing of reality', that's tightly ingrained into our animal nature. Are we simply lacking some protestant spirit of suffering that you believe have value? What exact value does suffering - and the understanding you seem to believe comes from suffering - impart?
An interesting ‘coincidence’ in the still unfolding honey pot trap that has ensnared Julian Assange. From Kirk Murphy at Firedoglake.com:
Yesterday Alexander Cockburn reminded us of the news Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett broke at Counterpunch in September. Julian Assange’s chief accuser in Sweden has a significant history of work with anti-Castro groups, at least one of which is US funded and openly supported by a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up.
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here.
Quelle surprise, no? Shamir and Bennett went on to write about Ardin’s history in Cuba with a US funded group openly supported by a real terrorist: Luis Posada Carriles.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”
Who is Luis Posada Carriles? He’s a mass murderer, and former CIA agent…
Luis Posada Carriles is so evil that even the Bush administration wanted him behind bars:
In 2005, Posada was held by U.S. authorities in Texas on the charge of illegal presence on national territory before the charges were dismissed on May 8, 2007. On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported, finding that he faces the threat of torture in Venezuela.[11] His release on bail on April 19, 2007 had elicited angry reactions from the Cuban and Venezuelan governments.[12] The U.S. Justice Department had urged the court to keep him in jail because he was “an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks”, a flight risk and a danger to the community.[7]
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
With which part? That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?
If that's what you're taking from that, you're missing the point.
People in "first world nations" live in a sterile, insular bubble of privilege that skews their view of reality. I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.
As noted, if we're that lame can't we just hire some ex KGB guys to stick him with an umbrella or maybe sic the IRS on him? If anyone knows how to put someone through a tortured painful death, its the IRS.
The Obama administration is really starting to look incompetent in not stopping this stuff. ZombieRoosevelt would know how to handle this!
But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenom factories, likely were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information.
Ahtman wrote:I'm anti-Castro, does that mean I am also a CIA stooge?
Only if you have ties to the CIA and have received funding from them
Monster Rain wrote:
IceRaptor wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
With which part? That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?
If that's what you're taking from that, you're missing the point.
People in "first world nations" live in a sterile, insular bubble of privilege that skews their view of reality. I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.
Agreed, i dont think anyone here really know what its like to starve or what living in a warzone is like
Monster Rain wrote: I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.
The point above can be flipped to apply to any person around the world, though.
'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from America that may have been killed as a direct result of taking a shortcut in their sweatshop to they would be so cavalier about the subject.'
'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from England that may have been killed as a direct result of using leaded paint would be so cavalier about the subject.'
'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from the next town over that may have been killed as a direct result of dumping aspirin down the drain would be so cavalier about the subject.'
If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.
My wife once visited some family friends in Pakistan for nearly a month. When the towers fell, the family she stayed with spent the better part of their day confirming that she was alright (she lived in middle America, so was obviously completely safe from harm, but they didn't realize that at the time). Their friends in the village who had met her regarded the news with distaste and some empathy for the losses. Those that didn't meet her rooted for the attacks. This was a poor village by most standards. The 'sterile bubble' applies pretty much the world over, not just to privileged countries.
So I'll agree with you in the aggregate (people tend not to have empathy) but it's a general trend, not one focused in countries that have wealth.
IceRaptor wrote: If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.
Also not the point, but I don't have the patience to explain it again. Phryxis can pick up on this if he feels like it.
You said this:
IceRaptor wrote:
Phryxis wrote:
The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting.
I would love to know how your concept of 'total safety, total freedom, and total divorcement from anything unsafe' applies to the destitute in 'first world countries' - or even the lower end of the American middle class. Sure we don't suffer under a genocidal anarchy or are exposed to torture on a routine basis - but that hardly puts the majority of us into a 'totally safe' fantasy land you're describing.
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you subscribe to the view that personal experience is the only source of knowledge?
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but the answer is no. It's not the only source.
IceRaptor wrote: If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio
Monster Rain wrote:
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.
I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were. And I already conceded that in aggregate third world nations have a greater level of suffering than first world, by a significant factor.
I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'. I'm not disputing that Americans are generally self-involved, or that we could do with some perspective about our place in the greater scheme of the world.
Gibbsey wrote:
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio
which affects you more?
Ohio, obviously. Isn't that exactly the point I made above? Every person is more impacted by losses that are socially close to them?
IceRaptor wrote:I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were.
From the perspective of a US citizen, I'm baffled as to how someone in this country could starve to death what with all of these social programs that are in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IceRaptor wrote:I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'.
It's not a matter of being "bad" or "good", but more of a matter of that it is real and not some ethereal concept that happens "over there".
Monster Rain wrote:
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.
I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were. And I already conceded that in aggregate third world nations have a greater level of suffering than first world, by a significant factor.
I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'. I'm not disputing that Americans are generally self-involved, or that we could do with some perspective about our place in the greater scheme of the world.
Gibbsey wrote:
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio
which affects you more?
Ohio, obviously. Isn't that exactly the point I made above? Every person is more impacted by losses that are socially close to them?
The point is it wouldent matter if it was Ohio or New York it would still affect you even though you may not personaly know the people affected. A tragidy happens in some obscure country and it doesent affect people, my point is this extends further than your social circle, but a country in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the world? You may think that what happened was horrible but in a week you would have forgotten entirely about it.
Monster Rain wrote:
From the perspective of a US citizen, I'm baffled as to how someone in this country could starve to death what with all of these social programs that are in place.
You and me both, but it does happen. It's exceptionally rare, of course - but the rate is not zero. Ohio doesn't provide malnutrition as a cause of death, but the CDC lists it in their http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm statistics. Assuming that the malnutrition category covers as wide range of causes, the likelihood of dying due to starvation should be a rounding error, but it's still present.
I know in the local news there are occasionally reports of homeless dying due to starvation / exposure, and they are just as easily dismissed as Afghan war footage.
Monster Rain wrote:It's not a matter of being "bad" or "good", but more of a matter of that it is real and not some ethereal concept that happens "over there".
Suffering happens everywhere, and no one place has a stranglehold on it. I doubt seriously the family of a child dying of leukemia in a 'safe hospital bed' doesn't understand the concept of suffering, despite having access to fresh water, warmth and advanced medical treatment. Just because that family doesn't devote their time to improving the lot of someone in Africa doesn't mean they don't understand suffering.
Will they ever know the hopelessness of the family in Africa? Almost assuredly not. But that doesn't mean they need to be 'taught the value of suffering' just to instill that empathy into them.
Gibbsey wrote:my point is this extends further than your social circle, but a country in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the world? You may think that what happened was horrible but in a week you would have forgotten entirely about it.
Oh, then I agree. It was a poor choice of words on my part to say social 'circle', when I probably should have used 'community'. Geography typically implies empathy, but familiarity almost always does.
Natural disasters are prime examples about how lots of concern pops up at the beginning of the recovery, but quickly tapers off and people forget about it within a short period of time. Like perhaps the 2004 tsunami?
If we're talking about the States' involvement in Iraq, that's not a peacekeeping operation, it's being a belligerent.
Well, whatever... That's another debate. My use of the term "peacekeeping" was to capture the fact that the US had great success in the intial combat phase, and since then has struggled a great deal with keeping things calm in the aftermath. This is commonly referred to as the "peacekeeping" phase, and it's rife with terrible stories of human tragedy.
That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?
I didn't mean to imply the latter, at least not in the net. Overall, I'd rather be safe. But, one of the downsides of safety is inexperience with danger, and that results in some of the confusions we see the American consciousness exhibiting. We've lost perspective on what is real danger, and what isn't. We've lost perspective on a lot of things that other cultures deal with day to day.
If one believes that the US is generally a force for stability and good in the world (and I do), and our loss of perspective is negatively impacting our ability to continue to be that force (which I think it is), then one might hope for something to come along and reverse that trend. I'd love for that simply to be a natural, organic shift in our society, or to be brought about by some charismatic leader, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather see the American people go through some hardships if that's what's required to avert more and greater hardships down the line.
Unless I missed the part about roaming Swedish death squads or murderous Australian prime ministers?
No, apparently you missed the part about Sweden and Australia being part of the first world.
There are over a billion people in China and India each. In both of those places there is very little in the way of social justice or legal due process. Get on the wrong side of the local powerbase, and you literally can be pulled from your bed and shot. That's pretty well near half the world's population right there. Now throw in 90% of Africa, a lot of South/Latin America, Bangladesh, etc. etc. etc. The MAJORITY of people live in situations where the "rule of law" does not exist, and they are subject to the whims of local government/gangs/thugs.
So, you're wrong. The vast majority of people aren't safe. Quite the opposite. It's pretty much only the 1st world, and parts of the 2nd, and that's a small minority, perhaps 25% of the world population.
Avoiding pain seems like a highly successful 'processing of reality', that's tightly ingrained into our animal nature. Are we simply lacking some protestant spirit of suffering that you believe have value?
The US is deeply in debt. We simply don't have enough money to do all the things we want to do. Despite this, we're trying to assure that everyone has universal healthcare.
Now, I'm not trying to get into that debate, I'm just saying it's a real thing going on. It's a situation where it may simply NOT be possible for everyone to get the level of healthcare they need. If it's simply NOT possible, do we have the perspective required to make real, rational choices.
For example, let's say you've got two people who have been bitten by snakes, and only one dose of antivenom. What do you do?
I fear that we're the sort of people who would say "save them both!" Ok, but you can't. One dose. Who gets it? "Save BOTH! Nobody should have to die of snakebite." But this isn't Hollywood. What do you ACTUALLY do?
The answer I'd suggest would be something along the lines of figuring out what application of venom has the best chance of maximizing survival. You have to get practical and serious. I'm not sure we have the perspective to do that as effectively as we should.
If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free.
The word you're looking for is "empathize" and no, that's not what I'm talking about. People all over the world have an increasingly difficult time empathizing with other people the further those people are from their experience. That's understood. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about having REAL experience with what hardship is like, in order that you can make real decisions around that hardship.
I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'.
Nobody is suggesting that. It's clear that having your child die is bad. You don't need much perspective taking skill or life experience to know that.
On the other hand, if you've had a child die, you can really feel, firsthand, just how completely and totally irrelevant it would be to have to settle for a 46" LCD TV instead of a 52". But, unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who lack the life experience to put those events in their proper perspective.
I don't want to kill children to teach people that lesson. Not at all. My point is more that if we spend our time dwelling on the size of our TVs, and then, eventually, think that it somehow stacks up against the loss of a child in significance, we've so badly lost the plot that eventually the world WILL start killing off our kids. You simply can't be that ignorant and sheltered and NOT start suffering for it.
Frazzled wrote:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hopes to hobble the U.S. government.
Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."
Purposeful destabilization of a society is the purest definition of terrorism. Transparency is a laudable goal, this crap about trying to balkanize (ugh) the US government is NOT laudable and does nothing to help anyone.
This fether is a tool and his attitude has completely spoiled a concept I originally supported.
I suppose his premise is "oh well if they lock down internally its not OUR fault...we just posted the leaks!", although to what end is all of this being done? Bringing attention to the murder of civilians is good, trying to hobble the US government because you just want to be anti-American.....
As for the comments about starvation in first world countries.....there may not be folks that die of it but plenty of folks here in the USA go to bed hungry on a regular basis.
sebster wrote:Fraz, you should have posted the link for that. It was an interesting piece, combining some interesting observations, including a pretty decent summary of Assange's beliefs, the silly, comparing him to a mail bomber, and the incredibly wrong, such as the claim no evidence of wrongdoing coming from the diplomatic cables.
Sorry, Op Ed this morning-Wall Street Journal
Cheers. Ah, so WSJ... that would explain the combination of insight and complete lunacy.
But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenom factories, likely were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information.
What's interesting to me is that the government suddenly becomes infallible when considering national security. Many people don't trust the state to allocate funds for highway construction, but when something like an anti-venom factory in South Africa is identified as critical to national security, no one bats an eyelash. I mean, the nature of anti-venom is such that it only works with certain types of animals, and the SAMIR anti-venom made in South Africa is only useful in counteracting the venom found in certain African and Arabian creatures.
Given that, the extent to which the items on this list actually represent critical assets is questionable. In fact, I'd argue that any facility that isn't obviously central to national security probably isn't central to national security at all.
In fact, I'd argue that any facility that isn't obviously central to national security probably isn't central to national security at all.
I'm sure there are many entries on the list that are laughable.
The real question is why "leak" it? I think that virtually everyone in this thread is coming to the same conclusion, which is that Assange is not a "whistleblower" he's just a vindictive little clown.
His goal is not to help the people, it's to hurt the governments.
Any positives that may come of that are purely coincidental. Kinda like how fish eat when a hippo takes a dump. Only Assange is more malicious. So he's actually worse than a crapping hippo.
Phryxis wrote:Well, not necessarily, but this guy is pretty much come out and said he's against the American government. There's a whole debate about "is America the government or the people" but at the end of the day, it's not all that salient. We have a process for change, and this guy is trying to circumvent it. We have laws on information control, and this guy is trying to actively circumvent them.
Also, I say "US" only because that's his obvious preferred target. I don't think he particularly cares who he hurts, so long as he hurts somebody "bigger than him." He's pathological, and his pathology should never be confused with genuine insight or real concern for humanity.
Looking at both his statements and his actions, he's against government, not just the US government. Well, he's against the shadowy forces within government that get their way by keeping their actions secret from the rest of us. Who will be rendered powerless because government will have to control its communications more closely.
Which makes no sense, but doesn't really produce a specifically anti-US bias.
Well, it's possible, but as I understand US law, at least, if somebody with a security clearance leaks a document, it's on them. It can then be published by whomever they leak it to, it's still on them, not the publisher.
If it didn't work that way, I tend to think this guy would be in jail already.
Australia is looking into how they might arrest him. I think that's probably the approach preferred by everyone, given he's an Australian citizen, so it'll all be a lot neater. Unfortunately to this point he's only released a couple of Australian documents.
I hadn't heard that, so I hadn't considered it. The spin I read was that Plame was no longer an operative, and her status was of dubious secrecy anyway. If that's not true... I don't know.
But, if we assume that it did lead to deaths of our allies, and that it can be proven that Libby was responsible, then yes...
Well, there's no doubt Libby was involved, in that he was convicted of obstructing justice in providing information on the actual source of the leak. There's little doubt that the leak came through Cheney and Rove.
As to whether it blew her cover, well it did, the claims that she wasn't 'really' undercover was spin. It resulted in the CIA having to shut down her front employer, and outed a whole lot of other people working at that same organisation. Whether or not it actually got anyone killed is another question, I only know of that because of an interview she gave recently, in the film they show people getting killed as the result of her outing, and the interviewer asked if anyone actually died as result - she claimed she couldn't comment for security reasons. Which likely means no-one died and the film was just making things more dramatic, but still...
The only caveat I'd add is that these are very senior people. It's actually somewhat "their job" to make decisions on subjects like this, and if they feel it's acceptable for people to get killed, that's part of their job description. You get into all sorts of weirdness if you don't allow for that. If the President announces that we're going to attack Fallujah (for example) one might say that makes the task harder and costs US lives, but it's also in the President's power to make that sort of announcement.
Sure, lives will be lost in advancing the nation's interests, and keeping other people alive. But there is a difference between ordering a military action, and spitefully leaking information because someone's husband wrote a report that you didn't like the sound of. The protection given to those in power should only extend to the actions they undertake as part of their duties, it shouldn't extend to revealing secret information to spite people who are have published a report that disagrees with administration policy.
Bottom line, I'm all about proof and clearcut boundaries. If there are clear rules, the rules were broken, the action constitutes treason, then I'm in favor of execution. If it's muddy, like did Libby do it, was he authorized by somebody else to do it who had the ability to make that authorization, etc. etc. etc. then not as much. But if it's clearcut that Libby acted on his own, knowing it was a treasonous offense, then yes, he should be executed.
It wasn't Libby, he was convicted of obstruction of justice, because he was covering for Cheney and/or Rove. I personally wouldn't be alright with any of them receiving death, I think like everything the response needs to be proportionate - and I don't think Cheney/Rove's leaks have been anywhere near that level. Assange has certainly done a lot more than they did, but I still think it falls a long way short of death.
But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.
Yes it is, but it's also not really necessary to have sensitive information involved in doing so. You don't need to have specific GPS coordinates, names, dates, etc. to convey the horrors of war, or the complications of conducting peacekeeping operations.
Sure, so you'd be alright with something like the video feed from the helicopter firing on those kids getting leaked?
This somewhat comes back to the question of whether WikiLeaks is about spreading truth, or it's about undermining governments. It seems to have been stated pretty clearly that it's about the latter.
It's certainly doing that latter. I said from the start that leaks are a good and important part of a democratic society, but what should and shouldn't be leaked is a difficult matter, and needs someone with better judgement than Assange. Unfortunately the traditional media has become so spineless they're not much of an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hemingway wrote:If we're talking about the States' involvement in Iraq, that's not a peacekeeping operation, it's being a belligerent. However, I don't know if a belligerent can then take on a peacekeeping role afterwords. Seems a little dodgy to me, though: "we conquered you, now we're keeping the peace here". If we're not talking about Iraq, disregard this comment.
Sure you can. Keeping the peace is keeping the peace, whether you were invited by the nation, or whether you conquered it. It's a lot harder in the latter case, but it is what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:Only if you have ties to the CIA and have received funding from them
You mean you're not funded by the CIA? Dude you're missing out.
I hope you're at least invited to the Chrismas party.
Phryxis wrote:
The real question is why "leak" it? I think that virtually everyone in this thread is coming to the same conclusion, which is that Assange is not a "whistleblower" he's just a vindictive little clown.
His goal is not to help the people, it's to hurt the governments.
Absolutely.
I regard Assange with about as much respect as I would any anti-government activist.
But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.
It depends on what context you're asking in as well.
If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.
I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped. I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.
It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.
Phryxis wrote: The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about
Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?
As for the Pfc that downloaded the files, its been well established that he is under military law and that's totally reasonable. I want you to answer the first question with a simple yes or no answer based on the hard-line stance you have taken.
Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?
No.
The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.
Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.
It should also be noted that the penalty for treason isn't always death.
US Code Title 18 2381 wrote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?
No.
The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.
Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.
I wonder if the world can argue that Assange has destabilized the world and therefore must be held accountable for his actions, breaking some sort of international law.
Of course, no American would ever stand for such a trial against themselves.
Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?
No.
The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.
Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.
Phryxis wrote:It depends on what context you're asking in as well.
If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.
I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped.
Standards are looser, yes. I think this is really an acknowledgement that we are much more powerful, and much stable than we've ever been. Leaking these documents can't actually bring down industry, or destroy trade routes.
I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.
Sure, but exactly what's needed to show that this isn't a joke may not be death. Despite the history of treason, what we're looking at here is basically a white collar crime committed by a goofball pseudo-intellectual. 10 years in max is a serious penalty that will resonate among those like him.
It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.
If you believe, as Assange does, that those running the government are not doing so for our benefit, it makes a lot more sense. How anyone can reach the point where they believe that the malevolent forces inside government are so great that they dominate the benevolent elements is beyond my comprehension, though.
I'll be looking forward to the end of this guys influence.
In terms of the folks who are responsible for stealing the documents in one way or another, they should and probably will get the shorter end of the stick on this deal. Julian Assange, Julian Assange, Julian Assange, Sarah Palin... TSA.
sebster wrote:
If you believe, as Assange does, that those running the government are not doing so for our benefit, it makes a lot more sense. How anyone can reach the point where they believe that the malevolent forces inside government are so great that they dominate the benevolent elements is beyond my comprehension, though.
I don't think its that difficult of an idea. I think that, in general, you'll find a lot of people that don't consider the government to be benevolent. Indeed, I generally take that position. However, the fact that something isn't benevolent does not indicate that it is malevolent. That is unless one is of the opinion that there is no space between the two concepts, meaning that anything that isn't good is inherently bad.
Given that, the real issue is how Assange came to adopt a sort of black and white world view. Given that quite a few middle class people adopt dogmatic beliefs (I'm think of the many Objectivists in America) during their youth, it is at the very least not surprising, if still inexplicable with respect to the limits of this format.
dogma wrote:I don't think its that difficult of an idea. I think that, in general, you'll find a lot of people that don't consider the government to be benevolent. Indeed, I generally take that position. However, the fact that something isn't benevolent does not indicate that it is malevolent. That is unless one is of the opinion that there is no space between the two concepts, meaning that anything that isn't good is inherently bad.
Oh, I certainly know that it isn't that common. And don't get me wrong, I don't believe the people working in government are predominantly benevolent or anything, but in most developed countries the structures are in place that result in a government that is benevolent.
There comes a point where I just don't understand how people could fail to recognise that. I mean, you just have to look at the modern world and the living standards provided and know government is a huge part of that, and then consider places where government is disfunctional, and what living standards are like there.
Given that, the real issue is how Assange came to adopt a sort of black and white world view. Given that quite a few middle class people adopt dogmatic beliefs (I'm think of the many Objectivists in America) during their youth, it is at the very least not surprising, if still inexplicable with respect to the limits of this format.
In every graduate class there'll be a few who never quite grow up.
Wrexasaur wrote:Some pretty good questions from the host.
I stopped aboput halfway through but everything up to that point was "no, Wikileaks is awesome". The closest to anything negative would be the questions from the host which the guests would than disagree and heap praise Wikileaks again for being so awesome. I didn't find either guest all that credible.
Wrexasaur wrote:Some pretty good questions from the host.
I stopped aboput halfway through but everything up to that point was "no, Wikileaks is awesome". The closest to anything negative would be the questions from the host which the guests would than disagree and heap praise Wikileaks again for being so awesome. I didn't find either guest all that credible.
Should have watched the whole thing. They brought up good points and the guy hosting the show was very objective. Presented arguments for and against Wikileaks. The resounding point to me was that modern media isn't any good at actually running news about the truth or whats really going on....if they did then Wikileaks would never have come about. The whole protection of confidentiality thing is a really good point.
The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.
Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.
Shocking, a show that presents commentators with divergent views! Plus you did state you only watched half of it...can't really base your opinion on an incomplete picture of how the ideas and questions were presented.
I have other things I need to do besides watch 24 minutes of it at this time. I am perfectly allowed to have an opinion of what I saw. I didn't lie about it and pretend to watch the whole and explicitly stated that the opinion given was based on 12 minutes of viewing.
That 'interview' wasn't different commentators giving divergent viewpoints. It was more akin to an infomercial style interview where the so called interviewer is actually feeding the so called guests questions with pre-arranged answers. An actual interview requires some push and pull, give and take, and mild, but sensual probing. He never followed up a question or questioned their responses. If you want to see the difference, watch the Frost/Nixon tapes, or the movie about them. There isn't much journalism here. here is the pattern it followed the entire first half:
Intervewer: Guest A, X has been Said about Wikileaks.
Guest A: No, Wikileaks is awesome
Intervewer: Guest B, Y has been Said about Wikileaks.
Guest B: No Wikileaks is awesome
Intervewer: Guest A, X has been Said about Wikileaks.
Guest A: No, Wikileaks is awesome
Intervewer: Guest B, Y has been Said about Wikileaks.
Guest B: No Wikileaks is awesome
Just look at how they discussed the Apache incident without ever actually discussing it. If you don't know what happened you would get the impression it was a cut and dry case of an Apache purposefully targeting reporters becuase they were reporters, which isn't what happened at all.
The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by the Metropolitan Police.
The 39-year-old Australian denies allegations he sexually assaulted two women in Sweden.
Scotland Yard said Mr Assange was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT.
He is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court later.
Mr Assange is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.
But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.
It depends on what context you're asking in as well.
If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.
I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped. I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.
It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.
he's a terrorist using information. Sweeps terminate him.
Frazzled wrote:Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.
On a charge of what? He's broken no laws. Embarrassing the US is not a crime.
The really disappointing part about this whole affair, if you ask me (and no one did) is how quickly the media has jumped whole hog onto all these extralegal remedies for the wikileaks problem. The United States being minorly embarrassed is not illegal, and not a problem. A document being leaked that we consider nuclear power plants to be sensitive sites is not a problem. The fact we know that the Afghani President's brother is more overtly gangster then politician then we allow in polite society is also not a problem.
The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.
Frazzled wrote:Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.
On a charge of what? He's broken no laws. Embarrassing the US is not a crime.
The really disappointing part about this whole affair, if you ask me (and no one did) is how quickly the media has jumped whole hog onto all these extralegal remedies for the wikileaks problem. The United States being minorly embarrassed is not illegal, and not a problem. A document being leaked that we consider nuclear power plants to be sensitive sites is not a problem. The fact we know that the Afghani President's brother is more overtly gangster then politician then we allow in polite society is also not a problem.
The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.
I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.
The poor can have lots of children, apply for aid, and live better than some medium income families in America.
Yes. Yes they can.
That isn't going to happen in every country. Even the poor in America need to quit their bitching, quite frankly. FFS, get a little perspective people.
Yeah, I would agree with this. Most people aren't very traveled. Leave the US and you'll see what poverty is.
Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively just cap his sorry ass. people have died because of him
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?
Frazzled wrote:He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.
Why stop there? The NY times published this information. Should we not also blow up the NY times headquarters? At what point is it no longer OK to call someone "a terrorist" and then murder them without any due process of law? Who gets to make that call?
Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively just cap his sorry ass. people have died because of him.
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.
Why stop there? The NY times published this information. Should we not also blow up the NY times headquarters? At what point is it no longer OK to call someone "a terrorist" and then murder them without any due process of law? Who gets to make that call?
Vote for Frazzled on the Weiner Dog ticket in 2012 and I will!
WikiLeaks is also apparently threatening the legal system with the rest of the diplomatic cable release if anything happens to him. Currently, he's being considered for extradition to Sweden and has been refused bail. As far as I can tell at least.
Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.
I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.
Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some why attempting to incite fear?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?
You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".
You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.
ChrisWWII wrote:Don't know if this just goes here, or if I should start a new thread, but Julian Assange turned himself into to Scotland Yard today in London.
WikiLeaks is also apparently threatening the legal system with the rest of the diplomatic cable release if anything happens to him. Currently, he's being considered for extradition to Sweden and has been refused bail. As far as I can tell at least.
Thats blackmail. Another felony... this is reaching Doctor Evil proportions. Where's my sharks with frigging laser beams?
Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.
I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.
Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some way attempting to incite fear?
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.
Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.
Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?
You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".
You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.
Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.
I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.
Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some way attempting to incite fear?
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.
Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.
Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?
You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".
You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.
Has there even been a case where someone who was named died? thats what we're asking for, sure its hard to say if they died because of wikileaks. But its pretty damn easy to know if they were named and later died.
Kanluwen wrote:
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.
Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.
Wait, so military operations designed to damage enemy morale should also be considered terrorism?
I mean, I'm fine with that, but then we're just left with the question "What sorts of terrorism are acceptable?" Which means we haven't really gotten anywhere.
Kanluwen wrote:
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.
Its not actually illegal to receive classified information. If it were, then everyone who has read any of the leaks would also be guilty of espionage.
You might be able to get away with a violation for the publication of classified information, but the jurisprudence surrounding that isn't clear cut; even if the law itself is reasonably so.
Kanluwen wrote:
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.
Well, yeah, that's the difference between "may have" and "have".
Kanluwen wrote:
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.
Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.
Wait, so military operations designed to damage enemy morale should also be considered terrorism?
I mean, I'm fine with that, but then we're just left with the question "What sorts of terrorism are acceptable?" Which means we haven't really gotten anywhere.
Nope, they're "Psychological warfare"!
There's a huge difference between sanctioned military operations, conducted during war, and things done outside of a war.
Kanluwen wrote:
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.
Its not actually illegal to receive classified information. If it were, then everyone who has read any of the leaks would also be guilty of espionage.
No they wouldn't. They're reading published documents.
It's the whole "intent" thing again. Assange has made it publicly known that anyone who sends classified or illegally obtained documents to WikiLeaks will be protected.
He's, for all purposes, stating that he "wants" the information made available to him. A good prosecutor could spin this far better than I could.
You might be able to get away with a violation for the publication of classified information, but the jurisprudence surrounding that isn't clear cut; even if the law itself is reasonably so.
Here's where it gets fun.
They've got a system in place that really has only had to deal with accidental publishing of classified information(barring that douchebag Scooter Libby).
Now we've got Assange to practice on! A foreign national, with no affiliation to any government agency to back him up, who's requested classified information relating to deployment schedules, etc...it's a goldmine for an espionage charge.
Why do I say that?
Because they can nail him with a publishing classified information at the very least. He's also violated the protection of anonymity for informants(which is a huge deal to prosecutors. Anytime it crops up in mob related cases, even accidentally blowing the cover of a witness is jailtime at the least. This is far more than that).
Kanluwen wrote:
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.
Well, yeah, that's the difference between "may have" and "have".
No, it's not.
It's the difference between responsibly publishing classified material intended to cast light upon previously unknown or hidden facts(ex: Pentagon Papers/Watergate) and just publishing everything because you have relative anonymity.
I really find it hard to believe that there's a "group of journalists who carefully work with government agencies" to verify what is/isn't proper to publish. The list of informants alone proved that it's BS.
Another one of the many problems caused by this leak....I swear Julian Assange is going to cause a major diplomatic incident at this rate. More importanly is the fact that he and his webstie think it's ok to just leak out military operations...seriously. I'm all for transparency, but couldn't these people, y'know, have a brain when it comes to leaking this kind of information? I swear, this website seems dedicated to just causing problems....
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?
Ouze, The mods have diplomatic immunity when it comes to trolling.
Best to just not take the bait and move along...
its not trolling because someone disagrees with you. I know thats an alien concept in your part of town.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089
Another one of the many problems caused by this leak....I swear Julian Assange is going to cause a major diplomatic incident at this rate. More importanly is the fact that he and his webstie think it's ok to just leak out military operations...seriously. I'm all for transparency, but couldn't these people, y'know, have a brain when it comes to leaking this kind of information? I swear, this website seems dedicated to just causing problems....
Thats the point of what they are doing. People who think they are doing this for some higher purpose are deluded.
Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.
Can you reference a show that does what you're talking about on this issue?
I thought the guy asked a few good questions, and I enjoyed the fact that they didn't focus on Assange AT ALL. Certainly not the best piece I've ever seen, but the main problem was with the guests.
Sorry anyway. My apologies for providing you the opportunity to waste twelve minutes of your time, then spend five more minutes explaining why you don't want to spend twelve more minutes talking about it. Not that I think you are just being mean or anything.
You probably know much more about this issue, but whatever.
There's a difference between a free press and what wikiLeaks is doing. Some of the information released can obviously be downright harmful to relations between states or to the national security of a state.
That type of behavior is not to be condoned, even with a free press.
lord_blackfang wrote:Now what? Guantanamo? Shot while trying to escape?
B is preferred but Gitmo is not needed. Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.
He'll be someone's prison bitch in about a week. Look at that long lustrous hair!
I find it galling that he appears to think its OK to sit around and make an appointment to turn himself in. Mighty civilized, but once again very telling about his level of personal arrogance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me be really clear though, I don't think he's violated a single US law. The deal in Sweden well whatever...thats for the Swede's to handle. I just think the guy is a self righteous twit that has poinsoned and destroyed what I think an anonymous leak facilitating organization should have been.
I'd love to see him get a beat down on GP.Y'know...good old fashioned ass whooping where you get your shoes, coat, and hat tooken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Besides he's really starting to get on my nearves, the little geek terrorist. We need to link him up with that Palin show.
"Today's going to be a good hunt, we're going to bag us some Assange, you betcha!"
I'd watch it. Personally I think that releasing universally annoying folks into the wild and letting rednecks hunt them is a fabulous idea. Can we do it with Pauly Shore next?
Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.
Can you reference a show that does what you're talking about on this issue?
Hardball, Meet the Press, NPR, hell, even Bill O' Rielly well press his guests to elaborate.
Wrexasaur wrote:I thought the guy asked a few good questions
I thought the questions were good as well but then he didn't do anything with them. The answers were less than satisfying and nothing much came of them.
Wrexasaur wrote:Sorry anyway. My apologies for providing you the opportunity to waste twelve minutes of your time, then spend five more minutes explaining why you don't want to spend twelve more minutes talking about it. Not that I think you are just being mean or anything.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. For one I didn't ask for an apology becuase one isn't needed. You didn't do anything wrong by posting it. I also never said anything about my time being wasted, just that I was doing other things. I didn't say they were productive things. I got tired of listening to it. The discussion of it was more engaging so it got more time.
Wrexasaur wrote:You probably know much more about this issue, but whatever.
Ahtman wrote:Hardball, Meet the Press, NPR, hell, even Bill O' Rielly well press his guests to elaborate.
Hmm... I haven't been following this story all that closely, and I should probably just look farther into the coverage.
I thought the questions were good as well but then he didn't do anything with them. The answers were less than satisfying and nothing much came of them.
Yeah, it wasn't amazing.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. For one I didn't ask for an apology becuase one isn't needed. You didn't do anything wrong by posting it. I also never said anything about my time being wasted, just that I was doing other things. I didn't say they were productive things. I got tired of listening to it. The discussion of it was more engaging so it got more time.
Fair enough.
Oh I doubt it.
I get the impression that you've followed this much more than I have. The constant references to Assange in the coverage I've seen have really made me lose interest.
I'll just look a bit further into this when I have the time.
Ouze wrote:The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.
It's really, really weird, isn't it. People will invent all kinds of bizarre interpretations to argue that you can't expand healthcare under the constitution, but be fine with the idea of black ops teams killing people who oppose government. Really, really weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.
Which you know from your extensive experience in prosecuting people for espionage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?
Can i hate the government AND Julian?
Oh and everyone in between.
Only as long as you hate the traditional media as well, and think their failure to undertake investigative journalism produced the vacuum that allowed a wingnut like Assange to come in.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote:Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Source: Cornell University Law School
Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.
The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote:Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Source: Cornell University Law School
Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.
The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....
He's not a US citizen, kind of moronic to hold him to US law. At most we should be pressing charges with the international justice system....but being America we tend to think we ARE the international justice system.
If he's succesfully extradited to the United States like the US government wants him to, then he will be charged as such under US code, US citizen or not. The question is whether or not he'll be extradited for trial in the US, not whether or not he can be tried using US law.
Seriously, his leak was US diplomatic communiques...not global ones. Charging Julian Assange with a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 is not an international issue. It's a US issue, and we should prosecute him as such. In al honesty, the Swedes will be prosecuting him for rape in their justice system....why should the United States have to bend over backwards to prosecute him for espionage in an international system?
I'd really like to say its because he put up classified docs from all sorts of world governments.........................
But I can't, cause he didn't. Again, Assange's own self centered, arrogant, pointlessly anti-American stance has poisoned what an anonymous leak site should be. I think 10 years is fair for the amount of EVERYONE's time that he's taken up over the last couple of weeks.
Basically I think he's a completely self righteous twit, and if he's smart enough to figure a way out of getting tried in the US more power to him. However if he does get the book thrown at him I won't shed a tear.
ChrisWWII wrote:the Swedes will be prosecuting him for rape in their justice system....why should the United States have to bend over backwards to prosecute him for espionage in an international system?
They shouldn't, but I doubt he will get extradited.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote:Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Source: Cornell University Law School
Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.
The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....
yes, the law is clear. Unfortunately you have glossed some of the elements of it which make his prosecution decidedly less possible.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information
The first part of the law would apply to Bradley Manning, but not Assange. The precedent set by the the Pentagon Papers case is fairly unambiguous; you cannot be prosecuted for simply receiving classified information. If that were the case any person who read this information in the NY Times could be successfully prosecuted.
For the middle part, you'd have to prove that the information thus provided was in fact prejudicial to the safety and interest of the US; it's likely you'd have to release more classified information to do so. Unlikely.
Finally, you'd have to prove for the latter part that he explicitly provided this information to a foreign government, simply publishing it would not pass this test.
Additionally, there is the "question" of whether or not US law is applicable to a noncitizen who committed an act in a foreign country which is not illegal in their jurisdiction. I put the word question in quotes because I don't think it's much of a legal argument.
I know that the media is pounding a relentless drumbeat of using the espionage act to prosecute this man, and that several politicians are echoing the same noise in a wonderful cacophony of stupidity. After all, when you have all these wise intellectuals, these commentators and lawmakers and pundits in such pure agreement, how could they all be wrong? It's clear he violated the espionage act. The Duke Lacrosse team definitely raped that woman. There is no question that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The election will definitely be Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Guiliani. There is no way the dems will pass healthcare. Ad nauseum.
Here's a better question: if the espionage act is so well suited to prosecuting Assange, why have we introduced amendments to it covering what Wikileaks have done?
So is terrorism, at least if we're taking this whole "War on Terror" thing seriously.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a huge difference between sanctioned military operations, conducted during war, and things done outside of a war.
There is? I mean, I realize that one of the acting bodies doing the sanctioning (because I imagine that Asange sanctions his own behavior in the same way the US sanctions its behavior) is way more powerful than the other, but I'm having a hard time seeing a difference that isn't merely one of degree.
I mean, its not like we pay a whole lot of attention to the conventional rules of war anymore, formal declarations being a thing of the past, so the "war is different" line of reasoning doesn't really hold a lot of water. Basically, either this is nothing more than a crime, its terrorism and terrorism is nothing more than a crime, or its terrorism and a whole ton of other things have suddenly been include in the definition of "terrorism".
Personally, I think the whole "This is terrorism!" commentary is obnoxiously stupid because it cheapens tactics that not only actually induce terror, but are explicitly intended to do so.
Kanluwen wrote:
No they wouldn't. They're reading published documents.
If your standard of espionage is simply receiving confidential material, then yes, they absolutely would be.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's the whole "intent" thing again. Assange has made it publicly known that anyone who sends classified or illegally obtained documents to WikiLeaks will be protected.
He's, for all purposes, stating that he "wants" the information made available to him. A good prosecutor could spin this far better than I could.
Again, the receipt of classified documents is not illegal, and neither is soliciting them, no matter how its spun. What is illegal is publishing those documents, or providing material aid to people in obtaining them. The case is difficult because the prosecutor must prove that Assange either published the documents, or provided material aid to the people who obtained them. That's much more difficult than proving that he had them in his possession once.
Kanluwen wrote:
They've got a system in place that really has only had to deal with accidental publishing of classified information(barring that douchebag Scooter Libby).
Now we've got Assange to practice on! A foreign national, with no affiliation to any government agency to back him up, who's requested classified information relating to deployment schedules, etc...it's a goldmine for an espionage charge.
Why do I say that?
Because they can nail him with a publishing classified information at the very least.
Well, they can try. There a whole bunch of jurisdictional rules in the way, not to mention nominal standards of proof.
Kanluwen wrote:
He's also violated the protection of anonymity for informants(which is a huge deal to prosecutors. Anytime it crops up in mob related cases, even accidentally blowing the cover of a witness is jailtime at the least. This is far more than that).
As far as I know the jurisdictional rules regarding informants in the US do not apply to informants abroad, not as of yet anyway. You're basically talking about what would be a landmark case.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's not.
It's the difference between responsibly publishing classified material intended to cast light upon previously unknown or hidden facts(ex: Pentagon Papers/Watergate) and just publishing everything because you have relative anonymity.
Nice attempt at deflection, but there is no reason that a leak that sheds light on hidden facts cannot cause incidental death. You're treating the two categories as though they're implicitly distinct, when that isn't the case at all. What I initially said is absolutely correct, the difference between correlation and causation is the difference between "may have caused" and "have caused"; essentially by definition.
Kanluwen wrote:
I really find it hard to believe that there's a "group of journalists who carefully work with government agencies" to verify what is/isn't proper to publish. The list of informants alone proved that it's BS.
Sure, but that's not material to the issue. Assange isn't especially bight, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.
I'm really starting to get bored with the US and it's arrogant bullying stance that it's constantly taking nowadays. Assange is just one man, he's the head of Wikileaks, he didn't hack in and get the info, one of your own people gave it to Wikileaks (notice I said Wikileaks here, it's a group not a person). Assange didn't sit there typing this up himself, his staff would of, so that's a larger group of people who think what they were doing was right, not just one ego.
If the US does try to extridite him, although I'm only one person, I will refuse to, to the best of my abilities, stop buying anything that will profit a US company. The US has the right to defend itself, but you are turning into a twisted empire that wishes to impose it's views on the rest of the world. Nice to see that the principles your constitution aply just to yourdelf and nobody else.
Wolfstan wrote:I'm really starting to get bored with the US and it's arrogant bullying stance that it's constantly taking nowadays. Assange is just one man, he's the head of Wikileaks, he didn't hack in and get the info, one of your own people gave it to Wikileaks (notice I said Wikileaks here, it's a group not a person). Assange didn't sit there typing this up himself, his staff would of, so that's a larger group of people who think what they were doing was right, not just one ego.
If the US does try to extridite him, although I'm only one person, I will refuse to, to the best of my abilities, stop buying anything that will profit a US company. The US has the right to defend itself, but you are turning into a twisted empire that wishes to impose it's views on the rest of the world. Nice to see that the principles your constitution aply just to yourdelf and nobody else.
Well hello there Mr. IpostedbutIdidntbotherreadingthethreadoranyoneelsesviewsingit.
Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.
Ouze wrote:
yes, the law is clear. Unfortunately you have glossed some of the elements of it which make his prosecution decidedly less possible.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information
The first part of the law would apply to Bradley Manning, but not Assange. The precedent set by the the Pentagon Papers case is fairly unambiguous; you cannot be prosecuted for simply receiving classified information. If that were the case any person who read this information in the NY Times could be successfully prosecuted.
You have a point, but if you notice, the law does not say that anyone who RECEIVES such information is a violation of the act, but instead, that it's publishing, communicating or otherwise making the information available. In that case, as editor in chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange is indeed guilty of this violation.
For the middle part, you'd have to prove that the information thus provided was in fact prejudicial to the safety and interest of the US; it's likely you'd have to release more classified information to do so. Unlikely.
No, we won't. If you notice the wording of the act uses OR instead of AND in all of its criterion. He doesn't have to publish the informationg AND use it in a manner prejudicial to the safery and the interest of the US, he has to, according to the law, communicate, furnish, transmit, make available, OR us in any manner prejudicial to the safety of the US. The use of the word OR here is key, as it quite simply means that a violation of just one of those is enough for him to qualify as violating the act, and valid for a 10 year sentence.
Finally, you'd have to prove for the latter part that he explicitly provided this information to a foreign government, simply publishing it would not pass this test.
No. No we won't. The same semantical argument applies here. He doesn't have to publish information AND be doing it to assist a foreign government, the publishing is a crime in and of itself.
Additionally, there is the "question" of whether or not US law is applicable to a noncitizen who committed an act in a foreign country which is not illegal in their jurisdiction. I put the word question in quotes because I don't think it's much of a legal argument.
Well, we've prosecuted terrorist suspects for murder and all other kinds of crimes against US citizens...I fail to see why the same logic could not be applies to Assange. He violated an American law, by publishing American classified documentation. That's what cringes it for me...if it was classified documentation stolen from Russia, I'd say send him to Moscow, and let them prosecute him. But the information he made available was mostly American classified diplomatic communiques. As such, I think it's fair for the US to want to extradite him back here for trial.
Snipped.
Here's a better question: if the espionage act is so well suited to prosecuting Assange, why have we introduced amendments to it covering what Wikileaks have done?
Because law changes over time. We can prosecute him now, and have a decent case against him, but that doesn't stop us from wanting to change the law to specifically ban the kind of thing he did. '
Edit:
Wolfstan. So it's wrong for the US to want to prosecute someone whose been taking secrets from the United States government and publishing them left and right without a thought as to who would actually benefit, or be hurt by the release? Yes, a lot of Americans are out for his blood. But imagine if he's instead been publish secrets of the Russian government, or the British one....especially LISTS of sites that its diplomats considered vital to the nation all over the world, or releasing plans that could lead to an undue increase in tension? They'd be screaming for his blood too.
Wolfstan wrote:Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.
Hey now, I don't assume all you guys like "shrimp on dah barby" (though you do) and get smashed before you challenge kangaroo's to a boxing match.
Wolfstan wrote:Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.
Some US posters are as you have assumed, and so are some UK posters.
OTOH some posters from both countries are arguing for following due process of the law.
Edit:
Wolfstan. So it's wrong for the US to want to prosecute someone whose been taking secrets from the United States government and publishing them left and right without a thought as to who would actually benefit, or be hurt by the release? Yes, a lot of Americans are out for his blood. But imagine if he's instead been publish secrets of the Russian government, or the British one....especially LISTS of sites that its diplomats considered vital to the nation all over the world, or releasing plans that could lead to an undue increase in tension? They'd be screaming for his blood too.
You're missing my point. He's the public face Wikileaks, there are plenty below him, so if it was so wrong surely some of his own people would of spoken up or been in the press saying so.
As also mentioned, he didn't hack the US systems, one of their own people handed it over. Just because he took advantage of this dosen't make him a criminal.
Read the law I quoted earlier. He is guilty of publishing classified information, and that makes him as much of a criminal as the man who stole the information in the first place.
And...given that he's got a whole website dedicated to spreading out leaked infromation? I doubt any of his underlings would have 'spoken out' against the 'wrongness' of leaking classified info stolen from the US. I'm willing to be most of them though of such actions as a great thing instead of a bad thing.
ChrisWWII wrote:Read the law I quoted earlier. He is guilty of publishing classified information, and that makes him as much of a criminal as the man who stole the information in the first place.
I read it, and do not agree with your statement. Please explain to me how a man who is not even a citizen of the country is guilty in the same way/to the same degree as the Pfc in question that actually downloaded the files.
