[Archived] Julian Assange- Wikileaks

[neekoy]

The most interesting thing is the first ammendment issues the prosecution is going to face, they will essentially have to prove that the inforamtion he released is more important to be kept secret then his rights under the first ammendment.

[Commondore]

The rape charge is not what it seems, it is actually a "surprise sex" charge which is all about having sex without a condom and is an obscure Swedish law. All people involved were consenual adults. Apparently it is a fine of around $70.

Didn't think interpol really worried about these kinds of things.

As a Swedish citizen I can safely say that there are no laws here regarding the use of condoms, not even when concerning rape.

I'm not sure about the British legislation, but from what I gather the accusations are about non-consensual sex, which in Swedish legislature equals rape. There are no fines for this (except reparations), instead he would be looking at a year or so in prison.

[neekoy]

As a Swedish citizen I can safely say that there are no laws here regarding the use of condoms, not even when concerning rape.

I'm not sure about the British legislation, but from what I gather the accusations are about non-consensual sex, which in Swedish legislature equals rape. There are no fines for this (except reparations), instead he would be looking at a year or so in prison.

Yes, the BBc did a good run down. Apprently the sex was consensual however he is being questioned as unlawful coercion which is not rape how we would understand it in Australia. It is hard how to understand how you can still have consensual sex but then still be charged with rape but apparently you guys have some pretty strict laws over there.

The sexual allegations

'Unlawful coercion' against Miss A - pinning her down

'Sexual molestation' by refusing to wear a condom with Miss A

'Deliberate molestation' of Miss A

'Rape' of Miss W: had sex with her while she was sleeping and without a condom

Source: Gemma Lindfield, lawyer acting for the Swedish authorities

[philipl]

Philip, there's an article on the abc (www.abc.net.au/unleashed) website about an open letter to our prime minister requesting that the Australian Government look after Assange.

It's been signed by (at the time of posting) by over 400 people, including me.

Now, I'm not in total agreement with what he has done, but, for some in the US, including high profile people, to call for his assassination, is despicable.

Like I said, the US should be looking in their own backyard, and be thanking Assange for pointing out their own shortcomings.

Totally agree with you Dave- it is a sad state of affairs that the Australian Government is failing to honour their own passport obligations to its citizens.

But one of the great successes of the terrorist head jobs is they have done far more damage to Western liberty and values than a few bombs have. This wikileaks episode was utterly essential as there appears no other way to roll back the security industry interests.

[BuckyRover]

Yes, the BBc did a good run down. Apprently the sex was consensual however he is being questioned as unlawful coercion which is not rape how we would understand it in Australia. It is hard how to understand how you can still have consensual sex but then still be charged with rape but apparently you guys have some pretty strict laws over there.

The sexual allegations

'Unlawful coercion' against Miss A - pinning her down

'Sexual molestation' by refusing to wear a condom with Miss A

'Deliberate molestation' of Miss A

'Rape' of Miss W: had sex with her while she was sleeping and without a condom

Source: Gemma Lindfield, lawyer acting for the Swedish authorities

They both talked about their "conquest" on twitter after the event. Both in good spirits apparently. I wonder what changed afterwards.

[USRoverME]

The most interesting thing is the first ammendment issues the prosecution is going to face, they will essentially have to prove that the inforamtion he released is more important to be kept secret then his rights under the first ammendment.

Agree totally, which is why the coverage here seems to be leaning or hinting at the fact that if the US can try to arrect/convict him, its going to be on how he or wikileaks in general obtained the information, not specifically on his publishing it. The only way they could charge him with anything for publishing the data is if they could shoe-horn it into a treason type charge, which, goes to the comparison you mentioned above.

Whish is why he is likely in jail for a bit of time until these swedish charges are dropped. They are hoping that Assanges sources change patterns and trip themselves up as wikileaks has to adjust its day to day operations.

I also get irritated when people abuse the meaning of the first amendment. The attacks on Visa and the like sicken me. Sure, Assange and his folks have a right to say what they want. And the same way Visa et al have a right to not do busniess with you (credit and access to money transfers being a privledge not a right), so to on one hand claim you are championing free speech, and on the other hand trampling someone else's right to do business is immature at best. If any one business was the sole means of your acquiring finds to survive, maybe that arguement changes, but certainly there are still ways for anyone wishing to fund wikileaks, I cna think of a handful myself, if I were so inclined.

But then again, the wikileaks supports are not the only ones abusing and misunderstanding rights these days, as we all know.

[Steve Moss]

Assange is a loon. But whether he deserve jail time or not is up in the air.

The Swedish thing looks iffy to me, but I suppose the Swedish leagal system will work it out.

As to the release of information, the issues would be: 1) how he acquired the information; and, 2) whether he's posting sensitive military and/or intelligence information. If he's clean on both, I doubt they could get him for espionage.

As for the embarassing information about politicians, does this truly surprise anyone? Regardless of nationality, they are highly self-absorbed and nowhere near as bright as they think they are.

Calls to kill him are out of line. Unless, of course, he was posts sensitive military and/or intelligence information. If he is, don't cry about it when you try to play with the big boys and get burned.

[Glenn]

On my phone, so this can't get the long reply it deserves. I've been a long time support of wikileaks and despite him recently taking the role of public figurehead, it's much more than Assage's baby. It was initially pitched as a way for people leaving under oppressive regimes to get information safely out (to organisations like Amnesty) I best those that backed it in the beginning, never expected it to become famous for exposing the US military.

The "anonymous/4chan" attacks on PayPal/Visa/Sarah Palin* are just childish, thankfully anonymous/4chan have now changed their tactic to hijacking any online discussion with inaccuracies about the wikileaks cabelgate data and correcting them (power through truth) . Which is much more useful (* I was following the twitter feed being used to co-ordinate the attacks and saw no mention of Palin, but she made a lot of fuss about being "cyber attacked", personally I think she was crying wolf).

I was sat in a bar in Grenwhich village last week when I couldn't believe what I read in the New York Post, a statement effective saying "we know he's done nothing legaly wrong, but we should be working hard to find something to pin on him" http://twitpic.com/3e6181 So, along with freedom of speech, it seems innocent until proven guilty is now something some people want to give up. However, seems they have succeeded http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-us-espionage-act

As for where did the data come from, probably Bradley Manning http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025724-503543.html

I'll no doubt be posting a LOT more in this thread when I'm back in the UK

[dave birch]

Steve, congratulations for using your real name, rather than some vague "nom de plume".

However, I feel your description of someone you know little of as a "loon" is a little over the top.

Here is a guy with a mission, he's a guy with something to say (albeit information that others want to get out without being found out).

A lot of the info that is getting out is stuff we should know. It's stuff that politicians are keeping quiet, because it suits their purpose.

Remember, he's not the one that "got" the information, it was given to him. All he is doing is disseminating the info, as any journo and any newspaper would, (and are doing).

So given that he's throwing the info out into the world, along with all the newspapers around the globe, will you call for the same "burning" of editors of national newspapers when they present as news issues that have been provided by wikileaks.

After all, they could have refused to print the info in "the National Interest".

Finally, "Calls to kill him are out of line. Unless....!" Mate, calls to kill him ARE OUT OF LINE, full stop! Think about it. Who is giving him the information. It's not him that's getting it, it's people within organisations with access to this stuff, and they are giving it to him, it's not him getting into some file and copying it.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, congratulations for using your real name, rather than some vague "nom de plume".

However, I feel your description of someone you know little of as a "loon" is a little over the top.

Don't worry yourself over much about it. I think the vast majority of rock stars, politicians, and similiar attention seekers are loons. Assange may (or may not) be doing noble things, but he defintely has a "look at me look at me" complex. Hence loon.

Finally, "Calls to kill him are out of line. Unless....!" Mate, calls to kill him ARE OUT OF LINE, full stop! Think about it. Who is giving him the information. It's not him that's getting it, it's people within organisations with access to this stuff, and they are giving it to him, it's not him getting into some file and copying it.

It's him distributing it. IF he distributes information that puts troops in the cross hairs, he should be put in the cross hairs himself. He'll effectively be serving as fire control for the enemy. And that makes him a legitimate target.

As a former Marine, perhaps I'm biased. But I believe I am right and would not shed a tear if he copped it, under the above circumstances. And if that becomes the policy of the US government, then I'm not going to complain.

On the other hand, if he's only airing politicians dirty laundry, then he's little different than the newspapers and he should be left to his hobby (with one or two exceptions).

[dave birch]

Steve, all Assange has done is give whistle blowers an outlet that protects them.

He's done nothing more than many reporters before him have done. He's just used modern technology to accumulate the information and to protect his informants.

I'd suggest the real problem for government is their security (or lack of it). It has been said that much of the problem the US is experiencing is of its own making.

So rather than shoot the messenger, they should be looking internally at their own procedures, and, more importantly, at the reasons behind the whistle blowers need to get the information out.

[USRoverME]

Dave,

You are loving to use that term "whistle blower," and I'm not sure why. Sure every government does some shady stuff that, if and when it comes to light, is a black mark. But much of the stuff that is being released isn't really "whistle blowing" as I think of it.

And Moss's point which you avoided adeptly about the military is a valid one. Personally, I don't bother spending any time with the wikileaks info. I don't really care about political infighting, or the like. If this is airing out the USA State Department's dirty laundry (ugh, who wants Hilary's dirty panties, anyways) then essentially, you and Moss agree, for different terms.

The military question becomes one of morals and ethics. If Assange wants to protray himself as a journo, shouldn't he then be bound to journalistic ethics. In that case, releasing information that could get innocent people killed (ie the soliders who don't deal with policies), aren't there better ways of handling the info than simply dumping it to the world to see?

If you want to think og wikileaks as a journalistic entity, then Assange and his group present the most polarizing figure of the new media era. We all can see and understand that journalistic quality is in a freefall, this just seems to be the most encompassing situation where many tenets of the journalistic trade have been tossed out the window (rightly or wrongly, who is to say) in the interest of expediency, access, etc... but at what cost?

[Steve Moss]

Steve, all Assange has done is give whistle blowers an outlet that protects them.

As USRoverME states, if he is really only doing the Watergate stuff, airing policiticans dirty laundry, then you, I and he all agree. Wikileaks is merely an anonymous source, or the conduit used by an anonymous source.

On the other hand, if he is putting our troops at risk or putting our intelligence sources in harm's way, what you call an "outlet" and what I might otherwise call a conduit for anonymous sources, I will now call modern version of a Cold War spy's "drop box".

I'd suggest the real problem for government is their security (or lack of it). It has been said that much of the problem the US is experiencing is of its own making.

So rather than shoot the messenger, they should be looking internally at their own procedures, and, more importantly, at the reasons behind the whistle blowers need to get the information out.

I have to disagree with this, at least in part. If I leave my front door unlocked and I get burglarized, I'm a fool. On the other hand, it in no way exculpates the burglar or minimizes his actions. He's still on the hook, 100%, or should be. Ditto the receiver of stolen goods.

However I agree that security procedures should be beefed up, as a matter of principal. The first order of business in strenthening security should be to stop stamping information which merely embarassess politicians "secret". Stamping every other piece of paper "secret" creates such a volume of information that it becomes incredibly hard to protect it all. And, in my opinion, it distorts beyond reality the type of information which should be considered vital to national security and labeled "secret".

For example, our informants in Tehran, if any, should be protected at all costs. And by that I mean inclusive of doing terrible things to people who expose them. By contrast, what Hillary thinks of foreign Politicians A, B or C, or their mistresses, pets, etc., should not be treated in the same fashion. If nothing else, I believe the odds are high that foreign politicians A, B or C are not saints and have an equally poor opinion of Hillary (though they probably want to party with Bill). So let's call it even and get back to the football match.

[neekoy]

Just a question, if Assange was leaking Chinese or North Korean "national security" details would we still have a problem?

If he was actually Iranian and getting this information, how would he be classed?

Steve and USRover, what has actually been released that is a threat to "national security"?

Don't you think that Hillary Clinton auhtorised US diplomats to steal information from the UN, US "contractors" hired "boys" to take care of corrupt Afghan police or communications from the Saudi leader to invade Iran are critical details that should be exposed for greater public scrutiny?

Has anyone actually read what has been released or you just listening to what Barack "full transparency" Obama is saying?

[Steve Moss]

Just a question, if Assange was leaking Chinese or North Korean "national security" details would we still have a problem? I wouldn't. I'd be pleased. As I suspect would the English and US governments. Of course, China and North Korea might take a dim view. Assange would have to take his chances with them.

If he was actually Iranian and getting this information, how would he be classed? If true US national security information was be leaked by an Iranian national I suspect that he would be classified as a target. If it were diplomatic gossip, I suspect he would be classified as a pest and ignored. Or should be.

Steve and USRover, what has actually been released that is a threat to "national security"? I don't know. Which is why I've been careful to distinguish between one class of information as compared to another

Don't you think that Hillary Clinton auhtorised US diplomats to steal information from the UN, US "contractors" hired "boys" to take care of corrupt Afghan police or communications from the Saudi leader to invade Iran are critical details that should be exposed for greater public scrutiny? I disagree that they are "critical details". Anyone with half a brain already knows that type of activity was going on or the individuals involved had those beliefs. If you're surprised you haven't been reading the papers for the last two decades. And I suspect that other governments are up to deals which are just as bad, if not worse.

Has anyone actually read what has been released or you just listening to what Barack "full transparency" Obama is saying?I stopped listening to BO about a year ago, give or take.

Again, if it is just Watergate level stuff, give Assange a prize and send him home. If is true national security secrets, then I have no sympathy for the man.

[dave birch]

Again, if it is just Watergate level stuff, give Assange a prize and send him home. If is true national security secrets, then I have no sympathy for the man.

I believe that all he is doing is providing a forum for people who want (for whatever reason)information to be put in the public domain.

Would you, Steve, have the same reservations if the information came through your local media? After all, much has been published in the press following the release though wikileaks.

In your eyes, where does the responsibility end?

In the general scheme of things, not many would trawl through thousands of pages to fish out a bit of information, but reporters have been doing it by the truckload, and yet, no calls for them to be subject to the same as Assange.

Remember too, that wikileaks has released info from other sources other than the US, including the UK, but no one there seems to be calling for his blood.

[Steve Moss]

Would you, Steve, have the same reservations if the information came through your local media? After all, much has been published in the press following the release though wikileaks.

In your eyes, where does the responsibility end?

In the general scheme of things, not many would trawl through thousands of pages to fish out a bit of information, but reporters have been doing it by the truckload, and yet, no calls for them to be subject to the same as Assange.

Remember too, that wikileaks has released info from other sources other than the US, including the UK, but no one there seems to be calling for his blood.

If American media released national secrets I would consider them traitors, engaged in espionage, etc. There is a legal process for Americans who release that kind of information.

The process is being followed, as I understand it, in the case of Pfc Bradley Manning. If American media used as a source Pfc Manning to release national secrets, then I suspect they would (or should) be charged as accessories or co-conspirators. Free speech is not a limitless right.

Also as I understand it, there is no legal process for a foreign national doing the same thing.[1] It's ridiculous to claim that an Australian can committ treason against the US. Just as its ridiculous for a foriegn national living outside the US to claim protection from the US under the Bill of Rights.

Again, however, if he is merely airing politicians dirty laundry, there is nothing wrong with what he has done. Woodward, Bernstein and Christopher Hitchens have all done similar things and have earned deserved accolades as a result. Pfc Manning might have (and probably does) face criminal consequences as his oath and the UCMJ gives the Army far more leeway in dealing with this situation than the civilian courts might possess.

[1] I may be mistaken about this, as I understand that conspiracy and other theories are being explored by supposed legal gurus in the Justice Department. I'm dubious, however. Assange has no loyalty to the US and no obligation to follow its laws. Of course the flip side is that he should expect no protection from the US if it decides that he has crossed not to be crossed lines (doubtful, based on what has been discussed so far).

[neekoy]

If it is true that the US are looking to bring back the Espionage Act then it is truely a sad time for the beacon of democracy in the world.

There has been nothing I have seen that would demonstrate and "national security" both from the wikileaks releases and the other journalism outlets breakdowns of the releases.

Steve, I know it goes on, you know it goes on, but what about the 50% of the US that can't even find themselves on a map? (and I do apologise if that number is incorrect) You can't assume that because some people read and try and understand as much as possible about foreign policy and actions that others do.

These revelations may come as an absolute shock for some, should we not release them because it is their own fault for not knowing or finding this out for themselves?

I don't care if they released information saying that North Korea is trying to develop nuclear weapons, it would still be news for a majority of people.

[Steve Moss]

If it is true that the US are looking to bring back the Espionage Act then it is truely a sad time for the beacon of democracy in the world.

I never thought it went away, but I don't keep up on those issues enough. So far as I am concerned, the Act is too broad and has mostly been used to jail persons exercising genuine free speech rights.

Regardless, it seems we mostly agree with possible differences of opinion on what would be an appropriate response if 'true' national security information were released, as opposed to the Assange items. Now I am off to deal with items of great importance, namely a glass of wine.

[philipl]

Many many open questions on all this.

250,000 documents of which about 1,000 are in the public domain. The Guardian releasing this stuff drip drip each day. gold old journalism/flogging newspapers etc etc.

Everything pre-vetted by the Wikileakers before it reached the privileged 5 newspapers and they in turn are checking and censoring. Big issue of the leakers themselves taking it upon themselves to censor and editorialise.

That said, it is probably healthy that this stuff is coming out.

If it were really "putting people in the cross-hairs" for sure we would have heard specifics about it from the paranoia industry in the USA by now.

Most of the stuff I have read thus far has been very re-assuring. There are clearly an awful lot of intelligent astute men and women in the State Department asking a lot of correct questions which need to be asked. The picture which emerges is of servants of the USA who are vastly superior to the sort of cowboy political masters W, Cheney and Rumsfeld turned out to be. Those clowns are the guys who prematurely ended American supreme power and exceptionalism, not these leaks.

Will be interesting when the promised stuff about Bank of America etc comes out- now that might be explosive.

[Glenn]

I was with you on "not putting anyone in the cross hairs" until the one mentioning that the Red Cross had been briefing the US government on state sponsored torture in Kashmir. That's got to have made the Red Cross' job 1000 times harder. One of the reason places let them in is they are supposed to be impartial and not working with any of the involved factions.