12/10/10

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the man behind the publication of more than 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables, could face spying charges in the U.S. under the U.S. Espionage act.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/assange-lawyers-prepare-u...

His lawyer contends that it puts all media organizations at risk but activating rather than repealing the act, contending that the government will now take the actions in the future to censor papers and reporters through using this old legislation.

IMHO this argument is utter idiocy. In fact the newspapers who published the cables actually had the Pentagon and State Department redact the cables for security purposes. Assange is being prosecuted for illegally obtaining the cables for the express purpose of promoting his own goals.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/12/04/shocker-us...

Comments (54)

12/10/10

Completely agree. The guy is getting railroaded by a bunch of angry diplomats and career pols. If this were the 1800s, there would be an insurrection before he was carted off to jail.

12/10/10

This guy is a huge tool bag. As Anthony/MSFHQ has pointed out over the last week or two, this guy has no intention of righting some wrongs or of shedding light on some crazy government scandal, his goal is to be a jerk and his intent is to damage America's reputation.

Sadly he has done far worse than that. He has jeopardized the lives of Afghani informants, this country's foreign relations and potentially the lives of American soldiers.

It's also worth noting that the soldier (I use that term loosely) that stole much of the leaked information is a homosexual, which, oddly enough, I did not know until today. I guess the media must have been too busy to report that pertinent fact...coincidentally at the same time all of the "Don't ask, don't tell" debate is ongoing. Must be a coincidence.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/10/10
cphbravo96:

It's also worth noting that the soldier (I use that term loosely) that stole much of the leaked information is a homosexual, which, oddly enough, I did not know until today. I guess the media must have been too busy to report that pertinent fact...coincidentally at the same time all of the "Don't ask, don't tell" debate is ongoing. Must be a coincidence.

Regards

Private Mannings sexual orientation was revealed a week after he was arrested.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/...

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10
eokpar02:
cphbravo96:

It's also worth noting that the soldier (I use that term loosely) that stole much of the leaked information is a homosexual, which, oddly enough, I did not know until today. I guess the media must have been too busy to report that pertinent fact...coincidentally at the same time all of the "Don't ask, don't tell" debate is ongoing. Must be a coincidence.

Regards

Private Mannings sexual orientation was revealed a week after he was arrested.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/...

Just one more reason not to repeal DADT.

12/10/10
cphbravo96:

Sadly he has done far worse than that. He has jeopardized the lives of Afghani informants, this country's foreign relations and potentially the lives of American soldiers.

That is nothing more than a Sarah Palin talking point. The news agencies that actually published the information gleaned from Wikileaks had the federal government redact all information that could result in the deaths of Afghani informants.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/12/04/shocker-us...

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/13/10
cphbravo96:

This guy is a huge tool bag. As Anthony/MSFHQ has pointed out over the last week or two, this guy has no intention of righting some wrongs or of shedding light on some crazy government scandal, his goal is to be a jerk and his intent is to damage America's reputation.

Sadly he has done far worse than that. He has jeopardized the lives of Afghani informants, this country's foreign relations and potentially the lives of American soldiers.

It's also worth noting that the soldier (I use that term loosely) that stole much of the leaked information is a homosexual, which, oddly enough, I did not know until today. I guess the media must have been too busy to report that pertinent fact...coincidentally at the same time all of the "Don't ask, don't tell" debate is ongoing. Must be a coincidence.

Regards

thank god he has. America has no business anywhere else but america

12/13/10
Batrick Pateman:
cphbravo96:

This guy is a huge tool bag. As Anthony/MSFHQ has pointed out over the last week or two, this guy has no intention of righting some wrongs or of shedding light on some crazy government scandal, his goal is to be a jerk and his intent is to damage America's reputation.

Sadly he has done far worse than that. He has jeopardized the lives of Afghani informants, this country's foreign relations and potentially the lives of American soldiers.

It's also worth noting that the soldier (I use that term loosely) that stole much of the leaked information is a homosexual, which, oddly enough, I did not know until today. I guess the media must have been too busy to report that pertinent fact...coincidentally at the same time all of the "Don't ask, don't tell" debate is ongoing. Must be a coincidence.

Regards

thank god he has. America has no business anywhere else but america

That's debatable. Part of me would like to run an experiment to see how fucked up the world would get if America just looking out for itself (and maybe some allies) and stopped handing out billions of dollars a year in foreign aide, etc. On the other hand, I don't know that I would like to sit by and let the world turn into a (larger) shit hole because that would drive even more people to our great nation.

If we just let the world go to shit, I feel like the US would be the gf that left you because you weren't willing to tell her how much you loved her. Then, after she's gone, you realized just how bad you fucked up.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/10/10

cph - you just hate gay people and are anti-freedom

In all seriousness, this guy deserves whatever he gets. I hope they 'randomly' pair him up with a great roommate in prison...

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

12/10/10

Your point? Even dimwits have the right to free speech. Especially when they are foreigners receiving documents legally and then turning around and publishing them. Also, what is so wrong about the American public finding out what's going on behind the scenes? If the government doesn't want the world to discover its secrets, maybe it shouldn't keep them.

I like Ron Paul's response to all of this. A bunch of neocons are getting angry because their strategy depends on government secrets rather than a straightforward foreign policy.

Next time one of you publishes something on Tiananmen Square, you'd better watch your back. You might get extradited to China.

12/10/10
IlliniProgrammer:

Your point? Even dimwits have the right to free speech. Also, what is so wrong about the American public finding out what's going on behind the scenes? If the government doesn't want the world to discover its secrets, maybe it shouldn't keep them.

I like Ron Paul's response to all of this. A bunch of neocons are getting angry because their strategy depends on government secrets rather than a straightforward foreign policy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't keep secrets of any kind? At all? Wait til dude releases how far certain missiles can penetrate into armor or caves, or wait until they release the specs for new weapons, equipment, etc. To think that government needs no secrets is a bit short sighted. I'm not saying that anything thus far has been akin to what I've suggested but it's only a matter of time

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

12/10/10

^^^ It's the government's job to keep that info secure, not Mr. Assange's.

12/10/10

^^^ doesn't matter who's job it is, if it's illegal it's illegal

not that I've read these leaks or anything though

n just because something's illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad

but saying that it's not his job to keep it secure is not a good point

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

12/10/10

By definition it can't be illegal because:

1.) The US has no more jurisdiction over this than the Chinese government has over me saying the words "Tiananmen Square."
2.) Even if the US did have jurisdiction, Assange obtained the documents legally and has the basic human right to free speech, regardless of what governments choose to call "illegal".
3.) If the US government can take away Assange's right to free speech, the Chinese government can take away my right to discuss Falun Gong or Tiananmen Square.

If governments do not wish for people to spread their private information with impunity because they have the fundamental human right to share information, perhaps governments should keep better control of their own secrets before they get to the general public.

Regardless, SCOTUS is going to throw this out based on existing case law from the Pentagon Papers. That's what we need to hope for. Otherwise, more disgruntled secret-keepers will show up and release even more embarassing info to Assange's replacements. This is going to be like Iraq. Without an effective strategy of supporting free speech, the US's efforts will make the problem worse rather than better.

12/10/10
IlliniProgrammer:

Regardless, SCOTUS is going to throw this out based on existing case law from the Pentagon Papers. That's what we need to hope for. Otherwise, more disgruntled secret-keepers will show up and release even more embarassing info to Assange's replacements. This is going to be like Iraq. Without an effective strategy of supporting free speech, the US's efforts will make the problem worse rather than better.

This isn't going to make it to SCOTUS; no federal prosecutor in his right mind would bring charges that he knows can't be withstood after 10 minutes of a judge's deliberations.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

ron paul to the rescue!

12/10/10
mania:

ron paul to the rescue!

When did he become the face of sanity?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

How can anyone who calls them self a conservative support the prosecution of a man who published information that he didn't steal? And if you do support the prosecution of a journalist for publishing, or making available information, would you support the prosecution of the newspapers that actually made the information possible. Remember, it was the newspapers that acted as the true conduits of information. You may not like Assange, but you can't, in good conscience, support the machinations of a completely political prosecution.

And what would they charge him with?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

While I agree in transparency, I think Wiki Leaks has gone to far this time. I was fine with the site in the past but my opinion has changed.

If you want to reveal our troops killing innocent Iraqis that is good. Ideally change will be brought about.

But releasing all of these cables puts the lives of field workers in danger as well as the general population. Not to mention it has the potential to provoke geopolitical instability.

Another thing that I find bothersome is why all the leaks are directed at the United States. I find it unfathomable that other nationals, especially the real players - UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc - don't operate their clandestine/diplomatic services in the exact same manner as the US. If Wiki Leaks was so concerned with transparency it would be releasing the same caliber of information from all countries, especially the more closed ones such as China.

I fully support throwing Assange in the slammer for a very long period of time. And while I'm not attorney, I don't really buy the whole he didn't steal the info argument because he is still an accomplish to the crime, not only is he inducing criminal behavior but he is distributing stole information. An analogy could be a guy that tells criminals if they steal laptops he'll give them away to kids for free, while he may not be doing the stealing he knowingly receiving/distributing stolen goods. Both of which I'm pretty sure are illegal.

12/10/10
ke18sb:

I fully support throwing Assange in the slammer for a very long period of time. And while I'm not attorney, I don't really buy the whole he didn't steal the info argument because he is still an accomplish to the crime, not only is he inducing criminal behavior but he is distributing stole information. An analogy could be a guy that tells criminals if they steal laptops he'll give them away to kids for free, while he may not be doing the stealing he knowingly receiving/distributing stolen goods. Both of which I'm pretty sure are illegal.

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10
eokpar02:
ke18sb:

I fully support throwing Assange in the slammer for a very long period of time. And while I'm not attorney, I don't really buy the whole he didn't steal the info argument because he is still an accomplish to the crime, not only is he inducing criminal behavior but he is distributing stole information. An analogy could be a guy that tells criminals if they steal laptops he'll give them away to kids for free, while he may not be doing the stealing he knowingly receiving/distributing stolen goods. Both of which I'm pretty sure are illegal.

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

Newspapers fact check. They are accountable and responsible. If a newspaper published something known stolen and secret without regard for anything but PR, then yes, they should suffer consequences.

This is not an attack on freedom. This is an attack on someone who clearly wants to hurt this country.

EOK - Why do you hate America? Hopefully you are not an American, because at least then I could stomach your wanton desire to see this country destroyed.

I am sure all those men who dies on the beaches of Omaha and Utah are applauding this guy helping a traitor damage this country.

12/10/10
MSFHQ:

Newspapers fact check. They are accountable and responsible. If a newspaper published something known stolen and secret without regard for anything but PR, then yes, they should suffer consequences.

This is not an attack on freedom. This is an attack on someone who clearly wants to hurt this country.

EOK - Why do you hate America? Hopefully you are not an American, because at least then I could stomach your wanton desire to see this country destroyed.

I am sure all those men who dies on the beaches of Omaha and Utah are applauding this guy helping a traitor damage this country.

Haha, Anthony I know you are in finance so I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of American law in regards to "leaking". But, I would expect you to understand one of the building blocks of the rights we are endowed with through the constitution. A free press is the back bone of a democracy. To say the staffs of newspapers should be prosecuted is laughable and just shows the rampant dearth of knowledge about our liberties that I have noticed in America. The question I posed is obviously rhetorical; countless court rulings have produced the same answer that I was try to ferret out: NO, journalists can not be prosecuted unless they break the LAW, and publishing information that you know is stolen is not against the law. Jesus Christ, read about Daniel Ellsberg and Nixons attempts to stop the NYT and other reputable papers from publishing the pentagon papers. The precedent is there and the answer to my rhetorical question couldn't be more obvious.

And the question you posed is laughable: why do I hate America? What a joke and for your information I am American. Every time I have debated foreign policy here I have made it clear that I don't want Americans to die for pointless military exercises. I don't think there is anything more pro American. This question is funny for two reasons: 1) your invariably know little about the bill of rights, 2) its coming from someone who supported the our deadly operation in Iraq. You are the one pushing an assassination and the prosecution of members of the press, I couldn't think of anything more anti-American.

I think those who died in major battles would be as ideologically split as you, CPH and, Illini and me.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10
eokpar02:

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

This illogical response on two levels.

First, the news papers did not actively solicit the stolen material nor do they harbor it on their servers. They are merely reporting what is already publicly available information. Had the news papers been the ones to obtain the info that would be a different story.

Second, and although this could be debatable, Wiki Leaks is not a news paper, and thus it shouldn't be able to hide behind the same 1st amendment protection. They aren't reporting, they are merely housing stolen information. That is not journalism.

12/10/10
ke18sb:
eokpar02:

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

This illogical response on two levels.

First, the news papers did not actively solicit the stolen material nor do they harbor it on their servers. They are merely reporting what is already publicly available information. Had the news papers been the ones to obtain the info that would be a different story.

Second, and although this could be debatable, Wiki Leaks is not a news paper, and thus it shouldn't be able to hide behind the same 1st amendment protection. They aren't reporting, they are merely housing stolen information. That is not journalism.

Who said that Wikileaks is newspaper? I didn't, and who said the first amendment only applies to newspapers? Do you honestly believe that only newspapers have the rights afforded to the public through the first amendment? This isn't some banana republic, you can not sue or prosecute someone for publishing something.

Are you saying that wikileaks solicited the "stolen" information? How? They didn't pay for it. They didn't provide private manning with some type of gift are award. They put no bounty on the information. Wikileaks didn't even publish it; they released it to news outlets who then chose to publish themselves. Without the newspapers agreement to publish, none of the cables would have come to light.

While I do appreciate your response, I will have to note that you and everyone in your position is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10
ke18sb:
eokpar02:

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

This illogical response on two levels.

First, the news papers did not actively solicit the stolen material nor do they harbor it on their servers. They are merely reporting what is already publicly available information. Had the news papers been the ones to obtain the info that would be a different story.

Second, and although this could be debatable, Wiki Leaks is not a news paper, and thus it shouldn't be able to hide behind the same 1st amendment protection. They aren't reporting, they are merely housing stolen information. That is not journalism.

Not to mention he isn't a US citizen and has no 1st amendment right to freedom of anything.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/10/10
cphbravo96:
ke18sb:
eokpar02:

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

This illogical response on two levels.

First, the news papers did not actively solicit the stolen material nor do they harbor it on their servers. They are merely reporting what is already publicly available information. Had the news papers been the ones to obtain the info that would be a different story.

Second, and although this could be debatable, Wiki Leaks is not a news paper, and thus it shouldn't be able to hide behind the same 1st amendment protection. They aren't reporting, they are merely housing stolen information. That is not journalism.

Not to mention he isn't a US citizen and has no 1st amendment right to freedom of anything.

Regards

So are you saying only US citizens have the right to freedom of anything? Which is hypocrisy, as Americans are in no means 'free'. Also, how does America's bill of rights come into play? I understand Australia doesn't (currently) have a bill of rights.

12/10/10
Nachos:
cphbravo96:
ke18sb:
eokpar02:

So, by extension, you would have no problem throwing the staffs of newspapers in jail?

This illogical response on two levels.

First, the news papers did not actively solicit the stolen material nor do they harbor it on their servers. They are merely reporting what is already publicly available information. Had the news papers been the ones to obtain the info that would be a different story.

Second, and although this could be debatable, Wiki Leaks is not a news paper, and thus it shouldn't be able to hide behind the same 1st amendment protection. They aren't reporting, they are merely housing stolen information. That is not journalism.

Not to mention he isn't a US citizen and has no 1st amendment right to freedom of anything.

Regards

So are you saying only US citizens have the right to freedom of anything? Which is hypocrisy, as Americans are in no means 'free'. Also, how does America's bill of rights come into play? I understand Australia doesn't (currently) have a bill of rights.

I'm just saying that the concept of "basic human rights" only exist for citizens of countries in which that country's government is wiling and capable to enforce and support them. Not everyone has the right to free speech much the same way murdering someone is only illegal if there is a law against it that is enforced by a governing body that has the means and ability to enforce it. That's not to say it's right, but that is just the way it is.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/11/10
cphbravo96:

Not to mention he isn't a US citizen and has no 1st amendment right to freedom of anything.

Regards

Citizen or noncitzen, you can not be tried in an American court for doing something covered by the first amendment. There is no noncitizen court in America.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

He has every right to release that info.

We have every right to eliminate him.

12/10/10

See, here is the issue.

1) You either say that Julian is not a US citizen and therefore has no rights or has done nothing wrong since he isn't a citizen. I am 100% cool with that.

Kill him.

He is a clear and present threat to US security. This guy brokers in stolen classified information. He is using a "secret" key as leverage to stop us from harming him. He doesn't seek truth because if he did he would focus on revealing Iranian political prisons, Russian corruption or Chinese cruelty. He just wants to attack the United States. He might be just the figure head of Wikileaks, but he chose that role. Now enjoy the punishment.

2) You say he has rights and then you prosecute him. He is knowingly dealing with classified, stolen information. This isn't an accident, he received this info and is using his fame and network to maximize the damage.

If someone sent me a stolen file of US military info showing stuff that could compromise military security I would report the person to the government and delete that crap. Not because I am a mindless drone, but because I and all of you have given the government the responsibility to keep us safe. Not in a nanny state sense, but in the truest form of government sense.

I feel that terrorism is a clear threat to this country and the world. I might go about fighting it a different way, but being pacifist is not going to warm Bin Ladens heart. The wars might be a waste, but that isn't the point. Young men and woman, American and foreign, are putting their lives on the line for freedom. Julian could care less. He wants fame, he wants to make America look bad, to hurt us.

He is an enemy of the state.

I don't feel unsafe or un-free because diplomats think Putin is a bully. I feel unsafe because some Aussie is running around trying to give everyone in the world a look at our game plan. What next? Will Julian post nuclear missile codes? Detailed movements of the president? Company research that could bankrupt a firm and its investors?

All the internet kids are cheering this guy on until their brother dies in Afghanistan because the enemy downloads Wikileak documents.

All fun and games until someones parents loses everything because Wikileaks posts confidential company info.

Accountability is key here. If I get info and throw it up on the internet I can be sued and punished. Julian just laughs and runs away. Anarchy is real fun until people get hurt. We are not children anymore. Rules help more than they hurt. This is not an advocacy for Orwell's 1984, but common sense.

12/10/10

lol, I find it funny he's in trouble for spying - which is exactly what he showed the US was doing.

12/10/10

Anthony- the reaction you suggest sounds a lot more like one we'd get from Russia than America. It also has the potential to create a lot of angry people and perhaps a few terrorists in the western world.

I'm sorry, but you don't want to ####ing scare and piss off a bunch of engineers, chemists, physicists, and other folks. Instead of crashing planes into buildings, we will see much, much worse stuff if the US government starts going around violating the law.

The best thing we can hope for right now is for evidence to come out proving beyond *all* doubt that Assange is guilty. An assassination will open the floodgates and IMHO, cause the US to be overtaken by anarchy within 10 years, notwithstanding our $14 Trillion debt which most neoconservatives want to continue growing.

You and I are both fiscal conservatives, but I honestly think that you have a very narrow focus on both this issue and on the country's short-term interests. The country is going bankrupt and you are supporting tax cuts. At the same time, there are 2 billion people in the Western world outside the US, and you are saying that this guy has no right to free speech even though it's pretty universally guaranteed throughout the west. Assange is a hero to a lot of folks out their and his own Australian government is backing him up.

If Assange gets assassinated, there will be 100 people to take his place and the US's diplomatic standing will be diminished. Freedom of information isn't something we could stop even if we wanted to. It just happens and is the natural course of entropy in this world.

By focusing on a few small details, you're losing sight of the big picture. Both on the pending US Bankruptcy and on freedom of speech.

12/10/10
IlliniProgrammer:

The best thing we can hope for right now is for evidence to come out proving beyond *all* doubt that Assange is guilty.

Of what?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

Ack, proof that he is guilty of rape.

He obviously deserves a fair trial, but if he is truly guilty of something else, all of this hubbub is moot.

12/10/10
IlliniProgrammer:

Ack, proof that he is guilty of rape.

He obviously deserves a fair trial, but if he is truly guilty of something else, all of this hubbub is moot.

Rape by surprise.

Did you read the supposed victims twitter posts after having sex with Assange. I don't think rape victims are known to brag about rape afterwards. And one actually threw him a party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Rock_Brasilia...

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10
eokpar02:
IlliniProgrammer:

Ack, proof that he is guilty of rape.

He obviously deserves a fair trial, but if he is truly guilty of something else, all of this hubbub is moot.

Rape by surprise.

Did you read the supposed victims twitter posts after having sex with Assange. I don't think rape victims are known to brag about rape afterwards. And one actually threw him a party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Rock_Brasilia...

I've also read about rape victims never telling anyone they've been raped...so I guess it never happened. Grow up and stop being/playing dumb, there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/10/10
cphbravo96:
eokpar02:
IlliniProgrammer:

Ack, proof that he is guilty of rape.

He obviously deserves a fair trial, but if he is truly guilty of something else, all of this hubbub is moot.

Rape by surprise.

Did you read the supposed victims twitter posts after having sex with Assange. I don't think rape victims are known to brag about rape afterwards. And one actually threw him a party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Rock_Brasilia...

I've also read about rape victims never telling anyone they've been raped...so I guess it never happened. Grow up and stop being/playing dumb, there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Regards

Firstly, it wasn't rape. While it started off as consensual sex, the female partner withdrew her consent.

washington post:

"The United States has relatively regressive rape laws; in most states, there's a requirement of force in order to prove rape, rather than just demonstrating lack of consent," feminist lawyer Jill Filipovic wrote last week.

There is no evidence of the rape. It's not a crime in the US, but this withdrawal of consent is a crime in Sweden.

Secondly, how stupid must you be not to notice the (lack of) a condom?

Thirdly, one of accusers - Anna Ardin - is a militant feminist who views even consensual sex as tantamount to rape and has published blogs encouraging women to seek "revenge" on their ex-lovers by making them "suffer".
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t... <-- that's her blog.

Now, the most important fact - none of this has been confirmed.

washington post:

Everyone from Fox News's Glenn Beck to feminist writer Naomi Wolf is getting in swipes. Beck told viewers that Assange is being investigated for "sex by surprise" (again, not a real law) because of a "radical" feminist bent on revenge. Wolf wrote a snarking letter to Interpol in the Huffington Post, arguing that the accusers are using feminism to "assuage . . . personal injured feelings." And AOL News writer Dana Kennedy dismissed the incidents as a simple "condom malfunction."
....
The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

12/11/10
Nachos:

Firstly, it wasn't rape. While it started off as consensual sex, the female partner withdrew her consent.

That's rape bro. Chick says No, shit stops. Period.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

12/11/10
happypantsmcgee:
Nachos:

Firstly, it wasn't rape. While it started off as consensual sex, the female partner withdrew her consent.

That's rape bro. Chick says No, shit stops. Period.

Not according to American law, apparently.

Washington Post:

In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

12/11/10
cphbravo96:

I've also read about rape victims never telling anyone they've been raped...so I guess it never happened. Grow up and stop being/playing dumb, there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Regards

Haha, these girls did the opposite. They bragged about their escapade on twitter and threw him a party.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/10/10

I am quite shocked at some member's radial opinions here... but hey, freedom of speech is the greatest thing in the world right ? Oh wait a minute... most of the members here posting radical opinions are actually implying freedom of speech is not really an option under "national security measures". Some dude two posts above mine even dared to suggest in assassinating Mr Assange !!.To me that sounds more like a sort of dictatorship rather that freedom of speech, but maybe I had different history and ethics books at school....

Guys, please make up your minds. You CANNOT claim that America is the most free country in the world in terms of freedom of speech and then change the rules of the game just because some person embarrassed american foreign diplomacy. Yes, some people where under a certain risk of being discovered while performing their jobs but do we have any tangible proof that anybody has been a victim of the release of this information ?

Ps: To all the people that potentially think I remotely could be anti-american: Me arguing about an certain event doest not make me a hater of a country, I am just expressing my point of view. Furthermore, I love the states, I lived there during months and I had one of the best times of my life so please don't give me all this "Why do you hate America" crap.

12/10/10
16rl:

I am quite shocked at some member's radial opinions here... but hey, freedom of speech is the greatest thing in the world right ? Oh wait a minute... most of the members here posting radical opinions are actually implying freedom of speech is not really an option under "national security measures". Some dude two posts above mine even dared to suggest in assassinating Mr Assange !!.To me that sounds more like a sort of dictatorship rather that freedom of speech, but maybe I had different history and ethics books at school....

Guys, please make up your minds. You CANNOT claim that America is the most free country in the world in terms of freedom of speech and then change the rules of the game just because some person embarrassed american foreign diplomacy. Yes, some people where under a certain risk of being discovered while performing their jobs but do we have any tangible proof that anybody has been a victim of the release of this information ?

Ps: To all the people that potentially think I remotely could be anti-american: Me arguing about an certain event doest not make me a hater of a country, I am just expressing my point of view. Furthermore, I love the states, I lived there during months and I had one of the best times of my life so please don't give me all this "Why do you hate America" crap.

I don't think anyone honestly thinks you or eokpark are anti-American. We lived through the stupidity of Iraq and I think anyone that has the ability to learn from even recent history can agree that dissent is sometimes healthy. Anthony has the right to suggest there are non-legal ways for the government to handle the whole Assange problem; eokpark has the right to support the release of classified information. Regardless, though, assuming the recent SCOTUS appointees vote the way the former justices would have, this should be an open-and-shut rehashing of the Pentagon Papers.

Freedom of information and economic freedoms go hand in hand. Giving everyone more information results in more efficient decisions. And the irony is that this leak is a huge long-term boon to US foreign relations. All those third world dictators who've been running around for the past 40 years claiming that Americans are evil colonialists have seen their position completely undermined. The cables reveal that the US has been a country that stands for freedom on an international level since at least the mid-70s. And despite Bush's foolishness, the Iraq war was genuinely about WMDs, not oil. (If only the dissenters hadn't been shouted down as anti-American- maybe we could have figured out Saddam didn't have any WMDs and we'd actually be able to afford these tax cut extensions.)

12/10/10

America is by no means the most free country in the world. Quick examples:
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-12-09/news/jeremy-mar...

Recording an officer gets you jail time. Meanwhile the officer who broke the law on several counts walks away. Awesome.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2...

Also, the crimes he (Assange) commited are, under Swedish law, penalized by a 1000 bucks fine. No jail.

Lastly, I'm not sure how legit this news source is, but this - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-ac...

12/10/10

K maybe it's not illegal

but what does releasing information about those locations that the "government believes to be very important for our infrastructure" (or something like that) do? I never understood that... you wanna give us documents about the government doing unconstitutional shit? go ahead. You wanna give out a list of sites for terrorists... fuck off. There's obviously alternative motives for this guy. If people can't see that then I just don't know what to say.

I didn't read about those sites but from what I've read about them, his motives =/= what he says

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

12/10/10
scottj19x89:

K maybe it's not illegal

but what does releasing information about those locations that the "government believes to be very important for our infrastructure" (or something like that) do? I never understood that... you wanna give us documents about the government doing unconstitutional shit? go ahead. You wanna give out a list of sites for terrorists... fuck off. There's obviously alternative motives for this guy. If people can't see that then I just don't know what to say.

I didn't read about those sites but from what I've read about them, his motives =/= what he says

Assange is a former hacker and I'm guessing either a current or former conspiracy theorist. I'm sure that in the early '90s, he was watching the X-files like everyone else and wondered what was really going on at Area 51 and what the federal government was really up to.

Wikileaks is his opportunity to figure out if the lights at Area 51 are UFOs or something more mundane. If Saddam was really a US puppet or just a scumball who didn't even have WMDs.

12/10/10

IMO whatever Assange's motives are, some of the stuff he's getting out into the public domain is pretty important/relevant.

For example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Specific examples are at the bottom of this post.

IlliniProgrammer:

Wikileaks is his opportunity to figure out if the lights at Area 51 are UFOs or something more mundane. If Saddam was really a US puppet or just a scumball who didn't even have WMDs.

Assange has claimed some of the wikileaks documents are related to UFOs.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70...

_____________

Here are some of the illegal/ethically questionable actions committed by the US government as revealed by Wikileaks:

The Chinese Poliburo (instead of petty hackers) directed the intrusion into Google's gmail systems, something which all gmail users needed to know. As a gmail user, I was under attack by a foreign power and my government didn't tell me.

The US is still doing business with Saudi businessmen who turn around and use our payments to finance militants. The US is sponsoring its own terrorist threat.

Cables from the Saudi embassy indicate that the Saudis are attempting to gain access to government backchannels so they can wield the US as a tool against Iran. Why should we let anyone manipulate us in such a matter? Aren't we capable of making our own decisions?

The US is unwisely continuing to give our tax dollars to Afghani officials who, the cables reveal, are smuggling it out of Afghanistan in suitcases.

The US has been violating international law by spying on UN officials. The US stole everything from credit card numbers to DNA samples.

There are details about plans to deceive the British parliament over the storage of internationally banned weapons such as cluster bombs on British soil.

The US is bombing Yemen without congressional approval. The War Powers act does not legitimize such action after 90 days.

In a case of "mistaken identity", the CIA kidnapped Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, and tortured him for months. The CIA had mistaken El-Masri for the terrorist Al-Masri. When Germany demanded the US charge the agents responsible, the US threatened Germany, forcing them to back down and allowing the CIA agents responsible to go free.

There are details about UK discomfort with US black planes flown from UK airbases. These unmarked missions have traditionally been used for extraordinary rendition to Syria for torture and spying on US allies.

The US was in contact with Shell about Shell's extensive monitoring of the Nigerian government and their subsequent political manipulation to acquire more favorable drilling contracts.

Obama killed an international Bush torture probe undertaken by Spain.

US wants to spy on German citizens and why Security trumps Internet Privacy
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/09/09BERLIN1167.html

Fission, biometrics, and quantum teleportation research at Chinese Academy of Sciences
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/02/10BEIJING263.html

"He repeatedly referred to Maliki as a "dog," although the embarrassed interpreter substituted the word 'he.'"
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/10/07SANAA1989.html

Burmese civilian offers to sell purported uranium.
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/09/08RANGOON749.html

Arms transfer to Venezuela, one for Madrid and one for Stockholm.
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/08/09STATE83014.html

Al Qaeda steal $500k from Arab Limited Bank truck in Aden, Yemen. August 17, 2009
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/09/09SANAA1632.html

African embassies suspicious of US-China development cooperation (prefer China to the West)
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/02/10BEIJING367.html

There's a ton more.

1/31/16

deleted

12/10/10
CDM820:

The biggest crime that is happening here is that we are all so wrapped up in this drama. If anyone actually spent the time to read wikileaks, they would realize how bad of shape our government really is in. Coming from a corporate culture, we are taught to streamline processes and be efficient with our time; reading over wikileaks made me sick. (This is nothing of a surprise)...

This is also why private corporations make profits and the government just burns through it.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

12/10/10

This is BS, he can't even meet with his lawyer.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-lawyer-indictment-imminent/

12/10/10

GWB wouldn't stand for this!

Cheney 2012

12/10/10
MSFHQ:

GWB wouldn't stand for this!

Realistically, he would.

The article is cited.
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/250/the-bush-...

12/10/10

Dude, neoconservativism is worse for this country than liberalism. You can't have a limited government unless you've got a limited debt. That means limited wars and limited foreign intervention.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you really believe in limited government and limited taxes, you've got to believe in less scope when it comes to foreign policy as well.

12/10/10
12/13/10
12/13/10

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hug It Out

Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling