WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

Shoal07 wrote:

The US can (and has at times) take the death penalty off the table for a particular case to facilitate extradition. Besides, we haven't executed anyone for Espionage for a long time.

That's interesting. Explain that to the people calling for his execution or assassination though.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

The US can (and has at times) take the death penalty off the table for a particular case to facilitate extradition. Besides, we haven't executed anyone for Espionage for a long time.

That's interesting. Explain that to the people calling for his execution or assassination though. ;)

Plenty of people called for the execution of many previous spies (Hansen, Montez, Ames) - we still didn't do it. Not that I am equating Assange to those spies, just the charge of Espionage. In fact, our Federal government isn't big on execution. The last executed inmate, I believe, was Timothy McVeigh in 2001 (lethal injection), and before that it was Victor Feguer in 1963 (hanging).

Oh yeah, that's something easy for me to forget from over here. States may seem to execute with glee, but the Federal government is a very different thing.

I guess this is a similar situation to The Pirate Bay, what laws has Assagne/Wikileaks broken in the United States? Unless they're going to go invading more countries and installing favorable governments, the US doesn't have direct power over what happens in other countries. If they want to extradite him, he needs to break some laws within the US borders first to have a valid reason for extradition. They've already got the guy who actually leaked.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Oh yeah, that's something easy for me to forget from over here. States may seem to execute with glee, but the Federal government is a very different thing.

Oddly (IMO), yes.

Scratched wrote:

I guess this is a similar situation to The Pirate Bay, what laws has Assagne/Wikileaks broken in the United States? Unless they're going to go invading more countries and installing favorable governments, the US doesn't have direct power over what happens in other countries. If they want to extradite him, he needs to break some laws within the US borders first to have a valid reason for extradition. They've already got the guy who actually leaked.

Not necessarily. The information he published was still the rightful property of the US Government. Even if he was not within US borders, he may still have violated US law and be subject to US Jurisdiction. Especially considering Assange's rampage seems almost solely directed against the US, both in his speeches and actions.

The New York Times and foreign news organizations have published the materials. Why are they not being prosecuted? Because the government tried that before and got beat on, and it knows that the moment it does there will be an army of lawyers to oppose it. But some Australian guy heading a group of filthy hippies? They know that he's got no big money backing him.

Funkenpants wrote:

The New York Times and foreign news organizations have published the materials. Why are they not being prosecuted? Because the government tried that before and got beat on, and it knows that the moment it does there will be an army of lawyers to oppose it. But some Australian guy heading a group of filthy hippies? They know that he's got no big money backing him.

True, the government may just be targeting the "easy target". Still, Assange is the one who colluded with Manning, where as the traditional press is 2-removed - for what that's worth.

I like how Visa and Mastercard won't process payments to Wikileaks but the KKK is totally fine.

Shoal07 wrote:

True, the government may just be targeting the "easy target". Still, Assange is the one who colluded with Manning, where as the traditional press is 2-removed - for what that's worth.

It's a smart strategy and one the NY Times and other news outlets will not oppose, because they don't particularly like internet-based reporting. They know that they will continue to get leaks and publish them, but they continue to believe that they are somehow superior to the ordinary blogger or website operator because they have close working relationships to the people in authority.

I love all of these media outlets coming forward with outrage. I can just add them to my list of companies to boycott. Visa will be harder.

Whats funny about it the NY Times is this is their approach. I saw this on their Times Topics web section:

It was yet another twist in the drama swirling around the anti-secrecy group, but his associates said his detention would not alter plans for further disclosures like those it has made in recent months. The defiant tone drew ever clearer battle-lines by supporters of Mr. Assange who cast him as a crusader, and foes, including the Obama administration, infuriated by revelations of sensitive material whose publication, his critics say, could threaten American security interests, alliances and lives.

They say this as though they hadn't published any of the documents. Doesn't that put them in the ranks of supporters? If wikileaks is an "anti-secrecy group," why isn't the Times also an anti-secrecy group?

Edwin wrote:

I like how Visa and Mastercard won't process payments to Wikileaks but the KKK is totally fine.

If that doesn't scream politically driven hypocrisy, I don't know what does.

Funkenpants wrote:

The New York Times and foreign news organizations have published the materials. Why are they not being prosecuted? Because the government tried that before and got beat on, and it knows that the moment it does there will be an army of lawyers to oppose it. But some Australian guy heading a group of filthy hippies? They know that he's got no big money backing him.

Lieberman (again) has called for an investigation into the Times.

Edwin wrote:

I like how Visa and Mastercard won't process payments to Wikileaks but the KKK is totally fine.

I get your sentiment but this is the dark side of freedom of speech. The KKK has the right to say what it says. It does not have the right to kill people and if it tries there are consequences. The argument is that what Assange has done will get people killed. That's always been the basis of our country. America is the land where you can say whatever you like to whoever you like, so long as no blood gets spilled. That's why it's been Americans who have said some of the most beautiful and profound things of the last few hundred years, as well as some of the stupidest and angriest things.

Edwin wrote:

I like how Visa and Mastercard won't process payments to Wikileaks but the KKK is totally fine.

Well, one is a terrorist organization. The other just commits terrorist acts.

LobsterMobster wrote:

The argument is that what Assange has done will get people killed.

And according to the op-ed in the other thread, in the four years of it's operations there have been no deaths linked to wikileaks. Unless the US has a Philip K. Dick pre-crime facility, it's just an argument.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I get your sentiment but this is the dark side of freedom of speech. The KKK has the right to say what it says. It does not have the right to kill people and if it tries there are consequences. The argument is that what Assange has done will get people killed. That's always been the basis of our country. America is the land where you can say whatever you like to whoever you like, so long as no blood gets spilled. That's why it's been Americans who have said some of the most beautiful and profound things of the last few hundred years, as well as some of the stupidest and angriest things.

As I understand it, the KKK has repeatedly advocated violence against various groups of people. The assertion that WikiLeaks will get people killed is also theoretical at best and even if it happens, they won't be the ones doing it. Much like how "Guns don't kill, people kill people." If that's the argument Visa/Mastercard/PayPal/Amazon are making, I don't buy it.

Given the possible dirt that wikileaks has on Bank Of America, I can think of a few non-politically motivated reasons for other financial institutions to drop them.

Scratched wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

The argument is that what Assange has done will get people killed.

And according to the op-ed in the other thread, in the four years of it's operations there have been no deaths linked to wikileaks. Unless the US has a Philip K. Dick pre-crime facility, it's just an argument.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I get your sentiment but this is the dark side of freedom of speech. The KKK has the right to say what it says. It does not have the right to kill people and if it tries there are consequences. The argument is that what Assange has done will get people killed. That's always been the basis of our country. America is the land where you can say whatever you like to whoever you like, so long as no blood gets spilled. That's why it's been Americans who have said some of the most beautiful and profound things of the last few hundred years, as well as some of the stupidest and angriest things.

As I understand it, the KKK has repeatedly advocated violence against various groups of people. The assertion that WikiLeaks will get people killed is also theoretical at best and even if it happens, they won't be the ones doing it. Much like how "Guns don't kill, people kill people." If that's the argument Visa/Mastercard/PayPal/Amazon are making, I don't buy it.

The Taliban has been quoted as finding the information useful to find and kill "American sympathizers". People have provided examples (right here in one of the dozen threads we have on this topic) of how American sources in foreign countries can be identified and potentially killed based on the information. Do you expect the US government to post a dead source on the front page of the NYT? It will never happen, we don't work like that, and it's likely classified anyway.

So, I guess Assange wins, since deaths due to the leaks he's published will likely never be proven or disclosed. If it ever is, it will be in time, and you'll likely see something along the lines of "US confirms X deaths due to wikileaks in 2010 - We told you so!"

Shoal07 wrote:

The Taliban has been quoted as finding the information useful to find and kill "American sympathizers". People have provided examples (right here in one of the dozen threads we have on this topic) of how American sources in foreign countries can be identified and potentially killed based on the information. Do you expect the US government to post a dead source on the front page of the NYT? It will never happen, we don't work like that, and it's likely classified anyway.

For anyone interested:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Zabihullah Mujahid, who frequently contacts news organizations, including The Times on behalf of the Taliban, said, “We are studying the report.” He added:

We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces. We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them.

In a war-torn and lawless place, why wouldn't they do this?

I think there's a difference between the KKK saying, "let's go beat up the first n***** we see" and getting arrested for assault and/or murder and a terrorist organization saying, "here are some high-value targets in what our enemy is calling a war against us" and getting shot for trying it.

Look, I'm not saying that I ADORE the KKK here. They're total bastards and if someone with a pillowcase on his head asked me for the time of day I would exercise my right to tell him to go f*** himself. All I'm saying is that, while I disagree with the US assertion that Assange can't open his mouth without directly causing the death of a US soldier, I do think that it's legitimate to wonder if maybe revealing classified information about military assets could have a negative effect on an ongoing military campaign. Maybe.

I'm sorry guys but there is a bit of a gray area here. It is possible that the government has a point, even if that point isn't nearly as strong as it would like. I'm not prepared to make a judgment on whether or not it was worth it. I do maintain that while a lot of the information contained in the leak is stuff that should not have been kept from the American people and that it's good that we now know about it, I really don't need to know about valuable military targets. Till we find out that the US is storing ammo in orphanages, it just doesn't matter to me at all.

Cost versus benefit, guys. The cost is small but not zero. The benefit is zero.

Shoal07 wrote:

The Taliban has been quoted as finding the information useful to find and kill "American sympathizers". People have provided examples (right here in one of the dozen threads we have on this topic) of how American sources in foreign countries can be identified and potentially killed based on the information. Do you expect the US government to post a dead source on the front page of the NYT? It will never happen, we don't work like that, and it's likely classified anyway.

So, I guess Assange wins, since deaths due to the leaks he's published will likely never be proven or disclosed. If it ever is, it will be in time, and you'll likely see something along the lines of "US confirms X deaths due to wikileaks in 2010 - We told you so!"

But that's all potentiality here. There's nothing solid.

I know I look like a huge apologist here, fact is I'm pretty conflicted. But I haven't yet seen a solid argument for dangers posed by Wikileaks.

If the US government is serious about discrediting Wikileaks, then yes, I would expect them to trumpet the fact in the mainstream media, even if they have to declassify the information. The US government keeps saying simultaneously that the information is dangerous, yet unimportant. They need to pick a message and run with it.

sh*t, as I've said before, I'm amazed they haven't tried to fabricate information. It's like Minarchist said earlier with these silly charges in Sweden. 'It's like no one knows how to plant a dead hooker in a hotel room anymore.'

Well, one thing to remeber, I think - sooner or later Wikileaks WILL leak information that will put someone in danger. I`m talking inevitable statistical probability here. High enough info flow/ given enough time.. it`s just inevitable. You can`t sieve out every dangerous bit, especially, keeping in mind the amount of raw data.
On the other hand, I dont see how it`s only governments` priviledge to put people in harm`s way. They get to talk about greater good but no one else does? Dunno, perhaps it`s some kind of anarchistic side of me talking but I just can`t help myself. Political power structures have gone really secretive thanks to couple of undergraduate plane pilots by now. This environment of secrecy is breeding lots of wrongdoing and personally I have absolutely no faith in those wielding the power. It`s not Captain Americas and Batmans who nobly use this shroud of secrecy, it`s lots of oridinary people, some dumb, some smart, some unimaginative clerks, some selfish bastards, all swimming in their little cubicle worlds full of office drama and backstabbings and dreams of promotion. There`s no need for Illuminati conspiracies because hundred clerks unchecked can do just as much harm.
In this environment, fear of something like Wikileaks is a blessing.

All this rethoric coming out of all the governments (and trust me, there are hundreds of small government crisis around the world, my tiny speck of a country of two million has had two mini-scandals so far due to leaked cables, about info that`s not relevant enough for something like CNN to even pay attention) and I see it as a GOOD thing. Government should be afraid of its people. Not panic-stricken but continuously uneasy, asking itself time to time questions like "what will happen to us if this info goes public". Because with Wikileaks there is that sword of Damocles always hanging over their heads. Good for us.

Australia's Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister, current Foreign Minister, weighs in. And I'm a little surprised.

Australia's foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange.

Kevin Rudd said the release raised questions about US security.

Mr Rudd said he did not "give a damn" about criticism of him in the cables.

In an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Rudd said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that."

Mr Rudd, the former prime minister who was replaced by Julia Gillard in June, added: "I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material.

"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."

In cables published by the Sydney Morning Herald former US ambassador Robert McCallum said Mr Rudd made "snap announcements without consulting other countries or within the Australian government".

The US was also angered at what it called Mr Rudd's "self-serving and inaccurate leaking" of a phone call with then US President George W Bush in which Mr Rudd was reported as saying: "Stunned to hear Bush say, 'What's the G20?'"

Mr Rudd shrugged off the criticism, saying: "I'm sure much worse has been written about me in the past and probably much worse will be written about me in the future but frankly, mate, I don't care.

And a funny, yet totally biased perspective from a local writer.

I kiss the feet of St Julian of Wiki

As I write, Google returns 56 million results for my search on “Assange”. Pretty intimidating for anyone trying to join the discourse on Julian the Terrible.

Here’s my contribution: f*cking ace, Julian. Make those mothers sweat and sh*t themselves.

OK, that hardly qualifies as thoughtful input into the debate on media freedom and the right to diplomatic privacy versus the duplicity and venality of the powerful that WikiLeaks has vomited up by the bucketful, but the WikiLeaks saga goes deeper than that. I know I am not alone in feeling a visceral joy at the sheer chutzpah of it all, in the rising — like a surge of searing heartburn — of the inner anarchist within, repressed for so long and finally released.

I know too that I am not the only one who thinks the rape charges against Assange are very likely a desperate deceit given a veneer of cred because they’re coming from the “ethical” Swedes whom, lest we forget, are thick as thieves in arms deal bribery in SA.

Assange has given balls back to a castrated global citizenry, smashing down the closed doors of the mighty and letting some fresh air breeze through the fetid corridors of power. How sweet it smells to hear SA’s foreign minister describe Mugabe as a crazy old man, or the despot of Saudi Arabia call on America to cut off the head of the Iranian snake.

Assange is a rightful heir to the legacy of John Lennon, who understood the need for WikiLeaks decades ago …

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites

All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

Go Julian, go.

So I guess MasterCard.com is down now due to DDOS attacks. I wonder if it's possible to quantify the cost of something like this?

Also, will costs for additional network security to defend against cyberwarfare be passed down to us?

Yes -- just like the cost of additional airport security.

Most is right, with a caveat. It might not be WikiLeaks who eventually leaks information that is both justifiable and directly dangerous to our troops, but someone will. No matter what people like Lieberman say, WikiLeaks at least claims to try to withhold that sort of information. Our government has no choice but to try to shut WikiLeaks down, though whoever moves in to fill that void may be far less discreet.

I quoted an article (in the other thread, I think) that suggested that these sort of leaks are good for revitalizing democracy but that we really shouldn't make a habit of it, as they do have a cost. I guess the question is, now that the spigot's been turned on, who gets to turn it off again?

Some of the information released disclosed high value targets in the US that are poorly protected (Damns, power plants, etc). What sort of value does this have to the average American? What sort of value does this have to our enemies, to include foreign and domestic terrorists?

Shoal07 wrote:

Some of the information released disclosed high value targets in the US that are poorly protected (Damns, power plants, etc). What sort of value does this have to the average American? What sort of value does this have to our enemies, to include foreign and domestic terrorists?

I didn't say WikiLeaks withholds sensitive and justifiable information, only that it claims to do so. If that means there is stuff they didn't release, then it's worth something. Not much, but something.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Some of the information released disclosed high value targets in the US that are poorly protected (Damns, power plants, etc). What sort of value does this have to the average American? What sort of value does this have to our enemies, to include foreign and domestic terrorists?

I didn't say WikiLeaks withholds sensitive and justifiable information, only that it claims to do so. If that means there is stuff they didn't release, then it's worth something. Not much, but something.

Not really. The word of a man who's actions and words are pure anti-American government get's little trust from me that he's looking out for any American interests.