Julian Assange arrested (merged)

[the_tyrant]

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2010/PR101.asp

LYON, France - INTERPOL has made public the Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the request of Swedish authorities who want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences.

[Dowly]

Isn't this like... third accusation already? :DL

[Oberon]

You annoy the US you expect things like this to start happening in your life :03:

[Catfish]

Hello,
well i have heard the next published leak in early 2011 will be how banks and governments steal money from the people, this sure adds some haters who want to skin him alive.

As for this accusation, nothing could be more obvious other than it is utter bull****.

"Before you kill someone you have to destroy him publicly."

What would be worse for a man than to accuse him to be a pedophile or molesting women, in the world of today ?
If there has been any doubt that the information is for real, it is now swept away. It is high time in our so-called democracies that this is made public.
This man has cojones, i wish him and his people the best.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

It's all just random events, like the server attack they are currently suffering. :88) Next charges to be expected include money laundering and drugs, I bet.

[SteamWake]

Well he has also managed to piss off the Russians as well so I wonder if he is even still alive at this point.

[AVGWarhawk]

You annoy the US you expect things like this to start happening in your life :03:

:yep:

[TLAM Strike]

You annoy the US you expect things like this to start happening in your life :03:

If you really annoy the US expect things like THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYDGMj3xJQU)to start happening in your life...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Assange will disappear like Jimmy Hoffa.

[August]

Assange will disappear like Jimmy Hoffa.

Posts like this is why the Usual Suspects tend to ignore you... :yep:

[darius359au]

Hello,
well i have heard the next published leak in early 2011 will be how banks and governments steal money from the people, this sure adds some haters who want to skin him alive.

As for this accusation, nothing could be more obvious other than it is utter bull****.

"Before you kill someone you have to destroy him publicly."

What would be worse for a man than to accuse him to be a pedophile or molesting women, in the world of today ?
If there has been any doubt that the information is for real, it is now swept away. It is high time in our so-called democracies that this is made public.
This man has cojones, i wish him and his people the best.

Greetings,
Catfish

Might want to read what the charges against him are first before calling BS - at the start it was consential between him and the women ,but when the condoms broke and they said stop he Kept going ,that's when it went over the line to sexual molestation at the least, rape at the worst, because No means No! ,it the same in all the western countries and thats what the warrants about ,not any conspiracy to destroy the guy ,just a guy with a huge ego that cant take being told no!

[Jimbuna]

Well I can't say I'm suprised.

[krashkart]

Well I can't say I'm suprised.

Stir the pot, bad bubbles come up. :DL

[Skybird]

Swiss paper Die Weltwoche gets it right (in Swiss/German):

here (http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2010-4800000/artikel-2010-48-editorial-wikileaks.html)

Plenty of sentences in there that usually all conservative Americans opposing a strong central government and taxes would love - and have said themselves so often.

[Madox58]

And the next thing we will see is the accusers on all the talk shows.
The Guy was bent on ticking people off.
Try that on the streets of Detroit, New York, etc?
You won't last long.
The U.S. Gov (and others) have less problems dealing with
people like this.

I'm actually surprised he has not died in a "Car" accident or some such thing yet.

[krashkart]

I'm actually surprised he has not died in a "Car" accident or some such thing yet.


^^ If 'legal' means do not succeed we will see that happen. Or not. Depends on how desperate our government is on looking like the "good guy". From a political standpoint, he should have disappeared long before Collateral Murder hit the net. US doesn't have the stranglehold that perhaps the Soviets had.

[Dowly]

Getting rid of Assange accomplishes nothing, someone else is going to continue but this time by keeping out of public. There's very little one can do about Wikileaks.

[Madox58]

Judgeing by the crack downs at key places in the U.S.?
:hmmm:
I predict a mass of charges against many in Gov positions before long.
Long Live Home Land Security!
:haha:
Sad part is, that sounds pretty much like pre/post WWII stuff.
Here We go again!
New players, same Game.
:nope:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Might want to read what the charges against him are first before calling BS - at the start it was consential between him and the women ,but when the condoms broke and they said stop he Kept going ,that's when it went over the line to sexual molestation at the least, rape at the worst, because No means No! ,it the same in all the western countries and thats what the warrants about ,not any conspiracy to destroy the guy ,just a guy with a huge ego that cant take being told no!

To be fair, we hadn't heard from the other guy yet.

On a tangent, I must say that the current standard is really too biased. Woman agrees to f*cking sex and then as soon as Woman say (or claims she said) stop and it doesn't it becomes rape? The moronic theorist who came up with this one, if not a feminist intent on tilting the deck towards females, must be a person who never so much as masturbated.

Remember, that you can get someone convicted on mere accusation is already a travesty of the theory of modern law and protection of the innocent, but is the way all too many sex-related crimes are handled AFAIK.

[Tribesman]

To be fair, we hadn't heard from the other guy yet.


To be even fairer they ain't even charges yet, so far they are just allegations which he is wanted for questioning over.

Getting rid of Assange accomplishes nothing
It does, currently with the events the US looks like it sometimes flys well outside the law and has a habit of picking very unsuitable "allies"...but that is really nothing new.
If however Assange has an "accident" to get rid of him then the US accomplishes the feat of looking rather like a crazy murdering regime that would normally be the realm of loony dictators and banana republics

[Skybird]

The Amazon server most likely bowed to poltiical pressure and shut down wikileaks on its servers. While it had to be expected that steps like this would be tried by the US government, I nevertheless see it as an strike against free press.

Assange is said to be in Southern England, Scotland Yard says they do not arrest him becasue of formal errors in the Swedish formula requesting his arrest. If I were Assange I would not trust in that status - the british government can be put un der prerssure by bthe US, too.

The Swedish imo have already illustrated that they will to serve as a US deputy, and that the charges against him are constructed, because it has been reported that after his arrest he should be put into isolation arrest and kept strictly away from lawyers or anyone else, being kept in a secret place that should not be disclosed to the press, the public, or lawyers. The interrogation request is just constructed - and the Swedes know it. Once he is in Swedish hands, it is just a question of time before he will be handed over to the Americans.

The world is getting smaller for Assange. But wikileaks imo is just a symptom of things to come. The ginie is out of the bottle. Whiöle I see the damage it can do, and the unneeded parts os sensationalsim as well, there is also a whole lot of stuff being released over the past 2 years that I welcome to have been publicated, because it helped to destroy quite some lies and would be a good argument for politicians to reconsider according policies. That they don't, just speaks against them - not against ripping off their masks.

The world becomes mroe and more digital and interconnected. Privacy and Data protection will be redefined in meaning. Has anyone really expected that sooner or later this would not happen? Does anyone seriously expect these things to stop now?

I just wish Wikileaks would become more discriminatory in filtering out unneeded, sensational yellow press stuff. The political attacks that the release of many of it's leaked data represent, I do welcome.

From a security standpoint, the problem is not wikileaks, but the sources that get their hands on the data they then hand over to wikileaks. I see little or no legal possibilities to prohibit wikileak'S activities (not to mention that prohibiting something is one thing, enfrocing that prohibition is something different). And Assange - well, I do not like him by his aura and way he presents himself, and I think he is not that important at all. He has founded wikileaks, but if he had not done it, sooner or later soembody else would have been successful in doing that. And soon there will be others, too - no matter what happens with wikileaks.

You wanted the digitally interconnected world - now live with it.

[Dowly]

It does, currently with the events the US looks like it sometimes flys well outside the law and has a habit of picking very unsuitable "allies"...but that is really nothing new.
If however Assange has an "accident" to get rid of him then the US accomplishes the feat of looking rather like a crazy murdering regime that would normally be the realm of loony dictators and banana republics

Well, there's that. :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Does anyone know where he is atm....last I heard he was in Jordan?

[Skybird]

Does anyone know where he is atm....last I heard he was in Jordan?

quote=Skybird
Assange is said to be in Southern England, Scotland Yard says they do not arrest him becasue of formal errors in the Swedish formula requesting his arrest.
/quote

--> posting #21

[Tribesman]

last I heard he was in Jordan?
Is Peter Andre jealous?

[Skybird]

This is a Google-Bot-Translation of the Swiss essay I linked yesterday, I worked over the bot- translation only roughly, so it is not perfect, but it should be good enough.


Do States have a privacy? Do powers have an intimate zone that must be protected, as we take for granted for individuals? These are the questions that arise after the cringe-inducing release of confidential diplomatic dispatches of the United States through the portal site Wikileaks. The documents, about a hundred thousand in number, already led to significant turbulence. Many journalists criticized the revelations. They believe that there is a space worthy of protection of state secrets, as the German daily Die Welt wrote pointedly in several comments. "Too much truth," called it the Süddeutsche in genuine concern for the United States.

Really? The Americans are terrified. They do not find it funny that the whole world suddenly knows what their top diplomats and ambassadors think about other statesmen. They want the Wikileaks founders Julian Assange, a somewhat obscure figure, held responsible with police state methods. If the Australian, who made his mark as a name hacker, falls into the hands of the superpower, his quick rise to the status of a national hero would be certain. The founder of the German news magazine Der Spiegel, Rudolf Augstein, owed his arrest by the German government in the early sixties journalistic immortal fame. The German Bundesbank Thilo Sarrazin scored with a naughty book about migration a tremendous sales success, after he had been declared by the federal government last September to be persona non grata. Nothing is better for the market value than persecution by the state.

The Wikileaks critics wrong. States are no humans. You have no privacy and therefore no undeserving protection thereof. States are highly problematic entities. They represent institutional, unrivaled power. States impose monopolies of violence, forced fees, citizens locked up, and they cause wars. They rule unchallenged in their territory, which makes them dangerous and threatening. Democracies and republics are more harmless bodies than as dictatorships. But it's enough already to look at Switzerland. Even in the sedate Alpine country, which occurs without "Machtallüre", there are cases of arbitrariness, of misguided justice, the consequences for citizens and bad are not irreparable.

It is bizarre, pleading to journalists for secrecy and obfuscation in the name of political expediency. People, citizens, private sector entrepreneurs and employees are active against the power of the state and the media, to protect [freedom] in case of doubt, but surely not the monopoly of power itself - keeping [the state] in check and to illuminate it, is the noblest task of the journalists.

Basically: More transparency in the state is good. The more we know what's going on behind the scenes, the better. That American diplomats of Wikileaks are stripped off their cloathes right down to their panties, allows a clear view on all too human facets and depths in the gears of a superpower. But above all, more transparency means: more control. The U.S. will have to behave cautiously in the future. Caution is good. Carelessness is the precursor of hubris and megalomania. The superpower breaks, at least a bit on the counter-power of the public.

Does it really matter what motives drive the Wikileaks founder Assange? Needs to find his publications reprehensible just because their sender a presumably anti-capitalist, anti-American left with an allegedly dubious biography? No. The journalistic singers of state secrecy make it too easy for themselves. The principle of public policy is a matter of value in itself. Why? Because it is mainly against charlatans, frauds and people exercising their power unfairly or in a questionable manner. Because it is a deeply democratic right of the citizen to know the state he gave himself up to, and that knows him and controls him. The able and strong must not fear transparency. Substance prevails even when it is illuminated by bright daylight. If it is Assange who is - as his envious critics and enemies say - a mistaken ideologues, then his methods will eventually turn against himself, and uncover new revelations why the revelations of the Australian are not to be trusted.

Transparency is the need of the hour. You can whine about it, but it is useless to resist that. The last years have brought wars and crises, but they also brought healing disillusionment and disenchantment. The Americans were cured in Iraq and Afghanistan from their military omnipotence fantasies. The images from the torture camp of Abu Ghraib brutally dismantled the carefully cultivated image of ever morally rightousness the superpower claims for itself. In Europe, the Euro almost collapsed. Whether the politically desired single currency will still be there in ten years, is still an open question. Here, too, a political megalomania-project threatens to fail in reality. Nobody believes the paroles from Brussels anymore.

More citizens now demand transparency from the governments of the U.S. and the EU, now that the debts of so many billions is no longer in control. This requires more transparency - also regarding the shareholders of large publicly listed companies and banks, because it has been found during in the financial crisis how carelessly the hyped media managers worked with their money. [...]

Democracy is the political form of institutionalized distrust. The transparency principle is the weapon of the citizen against the state. Wikileaks done well. What's missing: a Swiss arm, which at last makes the Federal Council [of Switzerland] transparent as well.


I couldn't have said it any better.

[frau kaleun]

On a tangent, I must say that the current standard is really too biased. Woman agrees to f*cking sex and then as soon as Woman say (or claims she said) stop and it doesn't it becomes rape? The moronic theorist who came up with this one, if not a feminist intent on tilting the deck towards females, must be a person who never so much as masturbated.

So, if you agree to give me fifty bucks, then change your mind and tell me no, and I just help myself to your money anyway despite your protests, that would be just fine with you? Somehow I don't think so.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So, if you agree to give me fifty bucks, then change your mind and tell me no, and I just help myself to your money anyway despite your protests, that would be just fine with you? Somehow I don't think so.

I cannot believe your sex / masturbation life is so poor that you seriously analogize the experience to handing over some money.

I see the entire process of consensual sex (even a "one night stand" type) as closer to a contract. In which case, a sudden withdrawal by one of the parties during execution is THEIR fault, and often requires the paying of some compensation. Certainly not making the party who was suddenly deprived of the benefits the bad guy.

[frau kaleun]

I cannot believe your sex / masturbation life is so poor that you seriously analogize the experience to handing over some money.

You misunderstand the analogy entirely.

The point is, your money is your money and no one else has a right to take it without your consent.

Your body is also yours - and what's more, one could say that it IS you, or at least an integral part of what constitutes "you." No one has a right to do anything to it or with it - to you, or with you - without your consent. In fact if your consent is not given or is withdrawn, then what is being done is not being done with you, but only to you and is an assault on your person.

If you consent to give someone your money, then withdraw your consent, and they ignore that and take your money anyway , they have committed a crime.

If you consent to engage in sexual activity with someone, then withdraw your consent, and they ignore that and continue with the activity anyway in spite of your stated unwillingness to do so, they have committed a crime.

It's not about sex being somehow analogous to money. The only common factor is that in both situations your right to have the final "say so" about what happens to something that is undeniably yours - your money, your property, your person, your self - has been violated by someone else who does not have that right but behaves as if s/he does.

I see the entire process of consensual sex (even a "one night stand" type) as closer to a contract. In which case, a sudden withdrawal by one of the parties during execution is THEIR fault, and often requires the paying of some compensation. Certainly not making the party who was suddenly deprived of the benefits the bad guy.

You know, if you're going to make snarky comments about my sex life based on a complete misunderstanding of my analogy, maybe talking about how sex to you is no different than any other business transaction is not the way to go.

[DarkFish]

You know, if you're going to make snarky comments about my sex life based on a complete misunderstanding of my analogy, maybe talking about how sex to you is no different than any other business transaction is not the way to go.:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

:up:

[Sailor Steve]

II see the entire process of consensual sex (even a "one night stand" type) as closer to a contract. In which case, a sudden withdrawal by one of the parties during execution is THEIR fault, and often requires the paying of some compensation. Certainly not making the party who was suddenly deprived of the benefits the bad guy.
You seem to ignore the meaning of the word "consensual". It means that both parties want it. If one party suddenly decides they don't want it, then it is no longer consensual. Period.

[Tchocky]

The conversation above is a solid reason why, if you want to smear somebody, a rape allegation works very well.
I've no idea if the allegations towards Assange are fictional or solid, but do Interpol usually get involved this quickly and to this level?

[Oberon]

The conversation above is a solid reason why, if you want to smear somebody, a rape allegation works very well.
I've no idea if the allegations towards Assange are fictional or solid, but do Interpol usually get involved this quickly and to this level?

Depends how much they're paid I guess... :haha:

[frau kaleun]

You seem to ignore the meaning of the word "consensual". It means that both parties want it. If one party suddenly decides they don't want it, then it is no longer consensual. Period.

Exactly. Perhaps a better analogy would be one that involved actual physical contact.

Say we both put on sparring headgear and pads and agree to spar for three rounds. We exchange a few punches after which I decide I don't want to continue. Maybe you hit me so hard that it knocks the headgear off and now you're landing punches on my unprotected face and head. I tell you to stop and you keep right on throwing punches anyway.

According to Kazuaki's reasoning, that would be perfectly fine, because I agreed to go the full three rounds and now (by his standards) I'm obligated to do so in order to satisfy the unwritten "contract" we made or else you're entitled to some kind of compensation.

The biggest problem there is that the compensation he feels you're entitled to is the freedom to continue hitting me. Uh, no. If we actually did have a contract and I broke it, fine. Take me to court. Or put whatever compensation you want in that situation into the contract before we agree to it, and if we agree to that and you don't get it, then take me to court.

[the_tyrant]

hey, if they rally wanted to get rid of him they should have done this:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/7/7/2/27772.jpg?v=1

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Exactly. Perhaps a better analogy would be one that involved actual physical contact.

Say we both put on sparring headgear and pads and agree to spar for three rounds. We exchange a few punches after which I decide I don't want to continue. Maybe you hit me so hard that it knocks the headgear off and now you're landing punches on my unprotected face and head. I tell you to stop and you keep right on throwing punches anyway.

After putting on an analogy where you downgrade the factors involved into handing over a relatively limited amount of money, now you try to upgrade it to a threat to life/limb situation in hopes the value of life factor will override the value and meaning of commitment?

If we must use a fighting analogy to represent the problem in general form, try this. We are members of rival gangs, and we agree to settle our differences by meeting in a dark alley. We meet & The streetfight starts, with no other witnesses. Just as it is getting "good", you suddenly say you wanna stop. Not "I surrender". Just you wanna stop. Fight continues anyway; it ends w/ neither of us getting any really serious injuries. Do you think it is very justified for you to charge me with attempted murder?

How about if the fight ended with us both being apparently satisfied, and you certainly didn't file any complaints immediately. Now, how justified is it for you to be able to charge me w/ attempted murder weeks/months/years after the event?

[frau kaleun]

If we must use a fighting analogy to represent the problem in general form, try this. We are members of rival gangs, and we agree to settle our differences by meeting in a dark alley. We meet & The streetfight starts, with no other witnesses. Just as it is getting "good", you suddenly say you wanna stop. Not "I surrender". Just you wanna stop. Fight continues anyway; it ends w/ neither of us getting any really serious injuries. Do you think it is very justified for you to charge me with attempted murder?

That's an easy one. If we were to get in a fight by some sort of "mutual consent" and then I stopped fighting and tried to walk away without doing you any more harm than had already been done, and you continued to physically assault me - not in self defense, not because "we" were still fighting - then, yes, you IMO would be guilty of assault whether I pressed charges or not. And so would I be, if our positions were reversed. Witnesses or no.

As Steve noted above, consent is the key. You cannot have mutually consensual anything with someone who has stopped consenting to it. For the life of me, I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

I am curious about your whole notion of being entitled to compensation if your unwritten sexual "contract" is broken by the other party who supposedly signed off on it before the terms have been met to your satisfaction. Do you specify what the compensation will be when you set up the contract before getting down to business? If not, how can it be part of the contract when it wasn't stipulated to and agreed on by both parties as part of the deal? Is a puzzlement.

[Molon Labe]

because No means No!

No, the safeword means no! :timeout:


Seriously though, this whole "consent cannot be withdrawn" theory is total horse**** and reeks of a false sense of entitlement. No way in hell is sex a "contract," and even if it was the result of breaking a contract is to receive compensation after the fact ("damages"), not to be entitled to take by force whatever was previously negotiated. I'd ask what the consideration (to use a legal term) in this "contract" would be if the potential answers (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/) weren't so idiotic or offensive.

[Sailor Steve]

If we must use a fighting analogy to represent the problem in general form, try this. We are members of rival gangs, and we agree to settle our differences by meeting in a dark alley. We meet & The streetfight starts, with no other witnesses. Just as it is getting "good", you suddenly say you wanna stop. Not "I surrender". Just you wanna stop. Fight continues anyway; it ends w/ neither of us getting any really serious injuries. Do you think it is very justified for you to charge me with attempted murder?
Your analogy is the one that's bad. If one party says "I want to stop" and the other continues anyway, it's no longer a fight. Then you say "neither party gets seriously hurt". Sorry, but gang fights don't happen for fun, the whole purpose is to cause as much damage as possible. Somebody does indeed get hurt. Frau's scenario is by far the better comparison.

This even includes sex between husband and wife. Is there a difference between saying "Not tonight, honey" and saying "You're scaring me. Please stop."? In either case, if it's not consensual it's rape. Period.

How about if the fight ended with us both being apparently satisfied, and you certainly didn't file any complaints immediately. Now, how justified is it for you to be able to charge me w/ attempted murder weeks/months/years after the event?
A slightly better analogy. If both parties consent and one later claims not to have consented, then it's a different story. Now you're talking about false accusation, which is not the same thing.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That's an easy one. If we were to get in a fight by some sort of "mutual consent" and then I stopped fighting and tried to walk away without doing you any more harm than had already been done, and you continued to physically assault me - not in self defense, not because "we" were still fighting - then, yes, you IMO would be guilty of assault whether I pressed charges or not. And so would I be, if our positions were reversed. Witnesses or no.

I notice that you have quietly tried to ignore the "attempted murder" thing, even though you should know that given the way our society works, the societal consequences and legal penalties of an attempted murder charge may actually be lighter than the rape charge. Assault or battery ain't on the same page.

On the legal front, whoever threw the first punch in the first place would probably be more vulnerable to a charge of battery, regardless of what happened afterwards.

On the moral front, I'll say that if I were the magistrate or procurator, I will take into account that you have agreed to the fight and are in a weak position to protest thereafter, and that you had just tried to walk away scot-free. And also that there are no witnesses to substantiate that you had indeed tried to walk away or whatever. If you have actually yielded or surrendered before stopping the fight, then it is a different story, but right now, my inclination would be very much towards throwing it out of court, or if I'm Procurator, to prevent it being taken to court in the first case. Any other decision would be to cheapen the value of commitment and to ignore the psychology of real fighting.

And also, I see you have completely ignored the last part. Which is that you didn't even file a complaint right afterwards, which you should be expected to do. Instead, you waited for weeks / months / years before doing so. Is that right? By that standard, any man who ever had sex with a woman is at risk for life, since the woman can wait for however long she likes, and then claim that the whole thing was in fact inconsensual.

As Steve noted above, consent is the key. You cannot have mutually consensual anything with someone who has stopped consenting to it. For the life of me, I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

I'm very much in favor of consent. What I don't understand is the undervaluation of commitment.

For all but the lightest, most inconsequential actions between two parties, when Party A agrees to something, Party B begins to make moves on the assumption that A will actually carry through. If A suddently recants, generally B gets hurt in some way. If you give him plenty of warning, B would have made fewer preparations and would be better able to adapt his plans so his damage is less, vice versa for a last minute cancellation. Thus the value of commitment - if you agree to something, even if there's a difficulty, you pull through anyway, the more so if it is last minute.

If I buy a plane ticket and I cancel it a month early, I can expect to get all my money back. If I wait till the day of flight before cancelling, I expect to lose my money even though I didn't get on the plane in either case (and in fact, it is likely the airline net-GAINED because my seat probably went to someone on the waiting list, and he'll pay up). Obviously, in either case, if the airline decides to take my money it won't be consensual on my part, but I think we can agree that I'm in a much weaker position to complain in the 2nd case, regardless of my emergency.

In the case of sex, I'll say a reasonable compromise b/w the needs to allow a back-out and commitment would be to say that it can be cancelled up until the point where you actually hit the bed (or equivalent). In street fighting, about when you showed up to the agreed fighting spot.

Finally, I suspect most people here who are so "pro-consent & anti-commitment" now will inverse their course if it came to a question of say a husband deciding to stop support payments to his wife (let's say there are no kids so as not to muddy the waters) because he "doesn't want to" anymore - instead, he'll have a commitment to support his wife (even if he may not have much to eat himself).

I am curious about your whole notion of being entitled to compensation if your unwritten sexual "contract" is broken by the other party who supposedly signed off on it before the terms have been met to your satisfaction. Do you specify what the compensation will be when you set up the contract before getting down to business? If not, how can it be part of the contract when it wasn't stipulated to and agreed on by both parties as part of the deal? Is a puzzlement.

Rather than a specific compensation (or rather than saying that sex is like a contract in every last way, just to answer Molon Labe), the point I was trying to make is that generally, the person breaking the commitment, even if he has a reason, is considered to be in the wrong, and is expected to make SOME kind of amend. The wronged party has a right to insist that the commitment be followed, despite difficulties. At the very least, I think we can agree he should not be filing a complaint (to say nothing of a life-killing rape charge) on the other party, which is generally considered the "wronged" party.

Your analogy is the one that's bad. If one party says "I want to stop" and the other continues anyway, it's no longer a fight.

OK, so my impressions of a gang fight may be different from an American - try substituting schoolyard fight for gang fight and see if it goes better. But I suppose it can't get more violent or lethal than actual war, so let me put your moral argument in another perspective:
Dear Islamic Resistance in Afghanistan / Iraq / Palestine,

When picking fights with Americans / Israelis, if things suddenly go bad for you, you don't even have to surrender. All you have to do is say "I don't want to fight", stop shooting, and leave the scene. The Americans / Israelis are obliged to let you go (even though you might pick a fight tomorrow). If they continue attacking, then they are wrong.

From Sailor Steve

A slightly better analogy. If both parties consent and one later claims not to have consented, then it's a different story. Now you're talking about false accusation, which is not the same thing.

Yet it seems to strongly represent the specific scenario, and it is also a problem about our current policy towards this general issue of sex and consent - woman can not only refuse at any point, she can also wait till almost any moment and then say that in fact at that time she didn't consent. This is backed by a serious reduced standard of evidence that often applies when handling sex cases - admittedly some of this is due to the realistic improbability of acquiring enough evidence to satisfy normal standards, but is nevertheless a travesty of the concept of modern protections for the accused.

No, the safeword means no! :timeout:

Seriously though, this whole "consent cannot be withdrawn" theory is total horse**** and reeks of a false sense of entitlement.

I'll contend that this is a strawman attack on my position, which only says that past a certain point, you are committed rather than an outright ban on withdrawing consent. Since you clearly object to my position, I must conclude that you are advocating that consent can be withdrawn at any time, commitment does not count and compliance must be immediate no matter what. Which leads to:

Man & woman are in bed having sex. It is going on pretty well. Until about 2 seconds before orgasm, when for some mysterious reason, woman has second thoughts:

W: "No"
M: (Huh, what?) Continues to move. "Aaaah." (Ejaculates)

(later)

W: (crying) He raped me. OK, I admit it was consensual until about 2 seconds b/f orgasm, but then I said no and yet he continued to reach orgasm and ejaculate. Look, judge, here's the semen he left in my vagina. Oh, my virginity!
J: Hmm, you are right ... I pronounce the Man, Guilty of Rape! 4 years imprisonment + Permanent Sex Offender Registration...

Is this what you advocate?

[Molon Labe]

I'm very much in favor of consent.
No, you're not. You are advocating a justification for rape.

You're even using war between the US and AQ as an analogy for sex while others use a mutually agreed to-fight. The difference: consent!


What I don't understand is the undervaluation of commitment.Sex isn't a committment. (Not every decision involves a commitment; for example, you can decide to date someone without marrying him/her. Either party can decide to terminate that relationship at any time.) No one is committed to anything unless they decide they're committed. You don't get to decide for the other person that they're committed.


For all but the lightest, most inconsequential actions between two parties, when Party A agrees to something, Party B begins to make moves on the assumption that A will actually carry through. If A suddently recants, generally B gets hurt in some way. If you give him plenty of warning, B would have made fewer preparations and would be better able to adapt his plans so his damage is less, vice versa for a last minute cancellation. Thus the value of commitment - if you agree to something, even if there's a difficulty, you pull through anyway, the more so if it is last minute.
Applying this example to sex, if party B recants, party A is harmed in the sense that he doesn't get his rocks off. If party A ignores B's recanting, party A GETS RAPED. To suggest that party A is the one that's really being wronged in this example is monstrous. Party A's injury is insignificant in comparison, to put it lightly.

Yet [a false accusation] seems to strongly represent the specific scenario, and it is also a problem about our current policy towards this general issue of sex and consent - woman can not only refuse at any point, she can also wait till almost any moment and then say that in fact at that time she didn't consent. This is backed by a serious reduced standard of evidence that often applies when handling sex cases - admittedly some of this is due to the realistic improbability of acquiring enough evidence to satisfy normal standards, but is nevertheless a travesty of the concept of modern protections for the accused. Any party can refuse at any point, not just a woman.

With any rape allegation, there is always a problem of proving the existence and scope (what acts are consented to, duration, etc.) of consent because of the lack of witnesses. Legalizing rape when consent is withdrawn doesn't solve that problem, it just changes the point in time that you look to to prove the existence and scope of consent. In a world where withdrawn-consent rape is legal, you have to look to the initial consent to determine the scope of consent. In our rape-unfriendly world, you can find evidence of consent or lack thereof throughout the act(s). The scope of consent is usually felt-out during the process rather than negotiated beforehand (i.e. "I'm not ready for that," "not there!" "stop, it hurts!" etc.)

It's really the exact same problem proof problem either way. But, in the world where some withdrawn-consent rape is legal, the incentives are all ****ed up. You really have to hit that initial consent nail on the head, since you have no legal right to change your mind or clarify your words/gestures/body language later. (And thanks to the proof problem, even if you thought you were clear and got raped anyway, unless you have a written contract and video, good luck proving anything!) You end up with a whole bunch of people too afraid to consent to any sex because they might get more than they bargained for and have no legal recourse. Also, you have a lot more rape, because some rape is legalized. It's a sad state of affairs when it needs to be said, but more rape is a bad thing.

I'll take the world with more sex and less rape, thanks.

[Molon Labe]

I'll contend that this is a strawman attack on my position, which only says that past a certain point, you are committed rather than an outright ban on withdrawing consent.

For reference: "Woman agrees to f*cking sex and then as soon as Woman say (or claims she said) stop and it doesn't it becomes rape?" This statement is an "outright ban," since the "certain point" is "agrees to f*ucking sex"---before the act rather than during. Hence, no withdrawing of consent is possible.

If you retreated a bit in your other posts, I apologize for not responding to that position instead. In any case, I am responding to what you said and it certainly is not a strawman argument.


Since you clearly object to my position, I must conclude that you are advocating that consent can be withdrawn at any time, commitment does not count and compliance must be immediate no matter what. So we don't end up talking past each other, I'll clarify my position.

1. Commitment does not exist unless a person commits him/herself. It is a conscious, voluntary decision.
2. Consent and commitment differ in that consent can be withdrawn at any time.
3. Sex needs to be consensual, but need not be committed to.
4. Compliance does need to be immediate, but this isn't as extreme a position as you seem to be implying. This will be clarified after the next quote...



Which leads to:

Man & woman are in bed having sex. It is going on pretty well. Until about 2 seconds before orgasm, when for some mysterious reason, woman has second thoughts:

W: "No"
M: (Huh, what?) Continues to move. "Aaaah." (Ejaculates)

(later)

W: (crying) He raped me. OK, I admit it was consensual until about 2 seconds b/f orgasm, but then I said no and yet he continued to reach orgasm and ejaculate. Look, judge, here's the semen he left in my vagina. Oh, my virginity!
J: Hmm, you are right ... I pronounce the Man, Guilty of Rape! 4 years imprisonment + Permanent Sex Offender Registration...

Is this what you advocate?This is a very implausible scenario. You're pretty much assuming a scenario where the woman is trying to set up the man... Yes, false accusations do happen (Duke LaCrosse comes to mind), but it's rare. A more realistic example might be that the woman is experiencing pain and wants her partner to stop for that reason, rather than malice.

Regardless, you're neglecting to consider that every crime has an actus reus and mens rea requirement. In your example here, the defendant does not meet the mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) requirement because he didn't hear or understand the withdrawal of consent ("Huh, what?").

In a similar example, the defendant might hear and understand the "stop" command during his orgasm, but because he is orgasming, he is unable to stop. This would fail the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) requirement because the act is not voluntary. (This is why "immediate compliance" isn't unreasonable, the concept as applied to criminal law automatically assumes voluntariness because of the actus reus requirement).


Now, a question for you: What is this point at which a person is committed and what is your basis for saying so, in the absence of that person expressly committing him/herself?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For reference: "Woman agrees to f*cking sex and then as soon as Woman say (or claims she said) stop and it doesn't it becomes rape?" This statement is an "outright ban," since the "certain point" is "agrees to f*ucking sex"---before the act rather than during. Hence, no withdrawing of consent is possible.

If you retreated a bit in your other posts, I apologize for not responding to that position instead. In any case, I am responding to what you said and it certainly is not a strawman argument.

Now, a question for you: What is this point at which a person is committed and what is your basis for saying so, in the absence of that person expressly committing him/herself?

Considering that the line was made in the context of 1) a very short throwaway post (so not everything is expanded on to the last detail) and 2) in response to a post where even as expressed by the accuser sex had clearly gone some distance before Accuser ostensibly tried to put in an abort, it is rather uncharitable for you to just assume the equivalent of "even if that agreement was made 10 years ago" was implied in my statement, is it not?

Anyway, once it became clear that I've got a fight on my hands, I've clarified on the position (it is on the last post of P.2) to say that a better position than a "No means No" party line is a compromise between commitment, momentum (forgot to write that explicitly last time so I add it here) and last but not least the need to allow for backouts, and that a good dividing line is about when you hit the bed. It is relatively late in the game (so IMO you can't say I've shafted the right to withdraw too severely), yet still early enough that you have time to think the issues through relatively rationally, and the point is clearly defined and easily recognizable.

If you pass that point deciding you want to go on, it is fair IMO to say you've committed nearly irreversibly, and also after that point, if we are talking successful sex, both sides' cognition will go down, and the effect of momentum will increase (as with any emotionally charged, rather physical event, but with the additional drag of all those hormones), so it is increasingly impractical to expect a rational decision to stop-on-request.

So we don't end up talking past each other, I'll clarify my position.

1. Commitment does not exist unless a person commits him/herself. It is a conscious, voluntary decision.

I don't think we use the term "commitment" exactly the same way (I think you use it only for "strategic" issues, while I use it for both tactical & strategic), but I agree.

2. Consent and commitment differ in that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

I'm glad athat you agree that commitments can't be withdrawn from so easily, but I'll actually argue that if we are talking about consent to joint actions (which of course includes sex), it is nearly impossible to separate consent and commitment - an explicit promise strengthens that commitment but is not essential for commitment to exist. When you agree / consent to do something, you are committed to it and obliged to carry it through.

Suppose I agree (I did not explicitly promise, let's say) to meet you at the park at 10AM. You will presumably adjust your life so you can be free to stand in the park at 10AM, waiting for me to show up. Unless you can honestly say that you won't be the least bit unhappy that I did not show up, or maybe I showed up for 5 minutes and then left, I think you see how consent and commitment are interlinked, even in the smallest things.

3. Sex needs to be consensual, but need not be committed to.

I agree that sex should be consensual in principle, however due to the reasons mentioned above, I don't agree it doesn't have to be committed to - it'll be an exception to the rule.

4. Compliance does need to be immediate, but this isn't as extreme a position as you seem to be implying. This will be clarified after the next quote...

This is a very implausible scenario. You're pretty much assuming a scenario where the woman is trying to set up the man... Yes, false accusations do happen (Duke LaCrosse comes to mind), but it's rare. A more realistic example might be that the woman is experiencing pain and wants her partner to stop for that reason, rather than malice.

For the setup of the scenario, I will note that:
1) Properly made law must be made with maximum possible measures to protect against misuse.
2) There's an old saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Since the current law, IMO, strongly favors players of this game, one must say the temptation is just about maximized.
3) My point is that if compliance has to be immediate, even such a scenario (whether you think it is a setup or the man is just particularly unfortunate), would likely end in the rather wrongful imprisonment of the man, something which you seem to agree to be wrong and thus you are bringing up the actus reus and mens rea stuff.

Regardless, you're neglecting to consider that every crime has an actus reus and mens rea requirement. In your example here, the defendant does not meet the mens rea requirement because he didn't hear or understand the withdrawal of consent ("Huh, what?").

In a similar example, the defendant might hear and understand the "stop" command during his orgasm, but because he is orgasming, he is unable to stop. This would fail the actus reus requirement because the act is not voluntary. (This is why "immediate compliance" isn't unreasonable, the concept as applied to criminal law automatically assumes voluntariness because of the actus reus requirement).

While I'm not familiar with the Latin or the specifics here, I am aware of the general concept, and if I wanted them to come into play with certainty, I'll have specified something like 0.5 seconds.

2 seconds, depending on your point of view, can be quite a long time. Certainly in normal conditions it'll be quite enough to react to a simple command like "Stop" or "No". So if the judge buys that the man should be acquitted on grounds that he doesn't qualify for mens rea, he'll have to accept that the man's mental faculties aren't at their best due to what he's doing. And the decline in mental faculties during sex is one of the reasons why I oppose the current setup. The Requester may shout "Stop" on instinct in response to pain or fear, but the Recipient would have to apply logical thought processes in addition to fighting his own wave of emotions, all of which become increasingly difficult and unlikely as we approach the end.

No, you're not. You are advocating a justification for rape.

While it fits the dictionary definition, may I take this opportunity to object to the common over-usage of the word rape? What happened to actually using fine gradations of diction. This overgeneralization makes the bottom end (like here) look worse than it is, and from overuse eventually suppresses the shock of the top end (like the stereotypical, violence filled variant) - neither effect is what we want.

You're even using war between the US and AQ as an analogy for sex while others use a mutually agreed to-fight. The difference: consent!

I would argue both the US (who are volunteer soldiers) and AQ (the enthusiasm it must take to pit wits and life against the best-equipped and one of the best trained armies in the world) are pretty voluntary. In any case, the main point in that analogy is to point out the practical flaw in a position that allows a person to just quit (rather than surrender in) a fight.

Sex isn't a committment. (Not every decision involves a commitment; for example, you can decide to date someone without marrying him/her. Either party can decide to terminate that relationship at any time.) No one is committed to anything unless they decide they're committed. You don't get to decide for the other person that they're committed.

As I said above, you seem to limit the use of "commitment" to strategic issues. Personally, I'll say that obviously you can decide to date someone without marrying him, but you are obliged to at least to arrive at the meeting spot on time and carry it through to the last. Those are also commitments.

Applying this example to sex, if party B recants, party A is harmed in the sense that he doesn't get his rocks off. If party A ignores B's recanting, party A GETS RAPED. To suggest that party A is the one that's really being wronged in this example is monstrous. Party A's injury is insignificant in comparison, to put it lightly.

First, do remember that the wrongfulness of "rape" is not in its letters, but in the actual amount of damage done, and quite frankly, it is hard to believe that a "rape" in this sense (emergency abort after consent) will have the same damage value as the typical damage done in the stereotypical high-violence variety - AFAIK, certainly the woman in Assange's example does not show signs of being severely damaged by the alleged experience.

Besides, your simplistic comparison fails to address the full consequence when law and society is factored. This law means that whenever Party A has sex with Party B, he runs the risk that he will fail to respond to a sudden, out of the blue request to stop while in a state of reduced mental capacity and thus have his life destroyed (between the prison sentence for rape, felony record and Sex Offender's registry & associated effect in societal status = effective destruction).

Yes, there is a disbalance, but are you looking at the right direction? Even with a full blown rapist, it might be argued that such effective destruction of his life will do more harm than good. With this?

With any rape allegation, there is always a problem of proving the existence and scope (what acts are consented to, duration, etc.) of consent because of the lack of witnesses. Legalizing rape when consent is withdrawn doesn't solve that problem, it just changes the point in time that you look to to prove the existence and scope of consent. In a world where withdrawn-consent rape is legal, you have to look to the initial consent to determine the scope of consent. In our rape-unfriendly world, you can find evidence of consent or lack thereof throughout the act(s). The scope of consent is usually felt-out during the process rather than negotiated beforehand (i.e. "I'm not ready for that," "not there!" "stop, it hurts!" etc.)

[quote]It's really the exact same problem proof problem either way. But, in the world where some withdrawn-consent rape is legal, the incentives are all ****ed up. You really have to hit that initial consent nail on the head, since you have no legal right to change your mind or clarify your words/gestures/body language later. (And thanks to the proof problem, even if you thought you were clear and got raped anyway, unless you have a written contract and video, good luck proving anything!) You end up with a whole bunch of people too afraid to consent to any sex because they might get more than they bargained for and have no legal recourse. Also, you have a lot more rape, because some rape is legalized. It's a sad state of affairs when it needs to be said, but more rape is a bad thing.

I'll take the world with more sex and less rape, thanks.

I don't think the main point of my reply here was to advocate changing the point of no return (that was the job of the other paragraphs),so I think that this answer quite misses the point. Nevertheless, I'll say it is one of the advantages of my solution as well. Instead of both sides' having to prove you did or you did not utter a No sometime during the sex process, it is relatively simple to figure out whether you entered the room voluntarily.

[Sailor Steve]

OK, so my impressions of a gang fight may be different from an American - try substituting schoolyard fight for gang fight and see if it goes better. But I suppose it can't get more violent or lethal than actual war, so let me put your moral argument in another perspective:
Dear Islamic Resistance in Afghanistan / Iraq / Palestine,

When picking fights with Americans / Israelis, if things suddenly go bad for you, you don't even have to surrender. All you have to do is say "I don't want to fight", stop shooting, and leave the scene. The Americans / Israelis are obliged to let you go (even though you might pick a fight tomorrow). If they continue attacking, then they are wrong.
Now we're comparing sex to war? Interesting. I took Frau K's 'fight' comparison to be more along the lines of a boxing match, in which two individuals agree to fight each other. The fight stops when one decides it stops. No one ever 'agrees' to fight a war. One side is always the agressor, and both sides believe they are in the right and the other is threatening their way of life.

But this whole thing started because you stated that one party (usually accepted to be the woman) changes her mind at the last moment and the other party (usually the man) forces her anyway, it's not rape. And you're wrong. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to is still force, no matter the previous state of the situation, and no matter when that situation changed. Comparing it to alimony is not valid, because alimony is not an agreement, it's a penalty assigned by a judge. It's accepted that sex is part of marriage, but if the wife refuses to sleep with her husband at all his recourse is a suit for Breach Of Contract divorce, since marriage is a contract, with both parties signing said contract. But forcing her is not part of the bargain, nor is it ever right.

Consensual sex is just that, and I agree with the others: You're looking for a reason to justify rape.

[Jimbuna]

quote=Skybird
Assange is said to be in Southern England, Scotland Yard says they do not arrest him becasue of formal errors in the Swedish formula requesting his arrest.
/quote

--> posting #21

Danke Sky :up:

[Capt. Morgan]

Getting rid of Assange accomplishes nothing, someone else is going to continue but this time by keeping out of public. There's very little one can do about Wikileaks.

I agree that getting rid of him in an "accident" or disappearance would probably accomplish nothing.

Getting rid of him in some very public and horrible manor - as was the case in Alexander Litvinenko, sends a much more understandable message to any successors that may survive him.

[DarkFish]

Getting rid of him in some very public and horrible manor - as was the case in Alexander Litvinenko, sends a much more understandable message to any successors that may survive him.And would be great PR to the US:yep:

:hmmm:

[Catfish]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html

Just read it :yep:

[Skybird]

It is a "scandal" when the Government conceals things it is doing without any legitimate basis for that secrecy. Each and every document that is revealed by WikiLeaks which has been improperly classified -- whether because it's innocuous or because it is designed to hide wrongdoing -- is itself an improper act, a serious abuse of government secrecy powers. Because we're supposed to have an open government -- a democracy -- everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling "consent of the governed."

But we have completely abandoned that principle; we've reversed it. Now, everything the Government does is presumptively secret; only the most ceremonial and empty gestures are made public. That abuse of secrecy powers is vast, deliberate, pervasive, dangerous and destructive. That's the abuse that WikiLeaks is devoted to destroying, and which its harshest critics -- whether intended or not -- are helping to preserve. There are people who eagerly want that secrecy regime to continue

Good find, Catfish, in consistency with the editorial from the Swiss Die Wochenschau that I linked and translated yesterday.

[Molon Labe]

...it is rather uncharitable for you to just assume the equivalent of "even if that agreement was made 10 years ago" was implied in my statement, is it not?

Anyway, once it became clear that I've got a fight on my hands, I've clarified on the position (it is on the last post of P.2) to say that a better position than a "No means No" party line is a compromise between commitment, momentum (forgot to write that explicitly last time so I add it here) and last but not least the need to allow for backouts, and that a good dividing line is about when you hit the bed. It is relatively late in the game (so IMO you can't say I've shafted the right to withdraw too severely), yet still early enough that you have time to think the issues through relatively rationally, and the point is clearly defined and easily recognizable.
My comments from the beginning have been aimed at something closer to consent being withdrawn sometime after "hitting the bed" than a situation where sex is agreed to 10 years before. So this clarification does not change my response.


If you pass that point deciding you want to go on, it is fair IMO to say you've committed nearly irreversibly, and also after that point, if we are talking successful sex, both sides' cognition will go down, and the effect of momentum will increase (as with any emotionally charged, rather physical event, but with the additional drag of all those hormones), so it is increasingly impractical to expect a rational decision to stop-on-request.
* * *
it is nearly impossible to separate consent and commitment - an explicit promise strengthens that commitment but is not essential for commitment to exist. When you agree / consent to do something, you are committed to it and obliged to carry it through.
* * *
Suppose I agree (I did not explicitly promise, let's say) to meet you at the park at 10AM. You will presumably adjust your life so you can be free to stand in the park at 10AM, waiting for me to show up. Unless you can honestly say that you won't be the least bit unhappy that I did not show up, or maybe I showed up for 5 minutes and then left, I think you see how consent and commitment are interlinked, even in the smallest things.
* * *
I agree that sex should be consensual in principle, however due to the reasons mentioned above, I don't agree it doesn't have to be committed to - it'll be an exception to the rule.
This is a key point so I want to dwell here for a moment.

It's this principle of "committment" that makes it seem to me (and probably Frau and Steve too) that you're on a different planet from the rest of us.

It's worth noting that committment, in particular when using the contract analogy, has a temporal component that consent does not have. Commitment means you have bound yourself to do something in the future; consent does not go past the here and now and does not involve any binding. Not only is it possible for a person consent to sex without committing him/herself to sex, but it is impossible to legally commit to sex because sex cannot be legally contracted for (not in most places, anyway).
So this legal/contractual concept of commitment obviously does not apply to sex.

Your argument about mental capacity could apply to a concept of commitment that is more physical than the legal concept--as one might say once you jump off a cliff you're committed to reaching the bottom. But this would only make sense if it was actually true that a person is physcially/mentally unable to stop once s/he "hits the bed." This is beyond absurd. To be clear, I'm allowing for common-sense reasons for a small delay, like reaction time, communication, involuntary motions at climax, etc. That's not what I'm talking about. Outside of a second or two for those, a person is most definitely still a person--not a machine or a falling rock--after s/he "hits the bed."

We can stop, we just don't want to. And once we "hit the bed," we really, really don't want to. And that brings me back to some of my very first remarks on this subject.

This isn't about "commitment," it's about "entitlement."

Substituting the concept of Entitlement for Commitment throughout your posts makes sense of what otherwise seems senseless:
1. (paraphrasing) After a pair hits the bed, they have momentum and are irreversibly committed to sex; a "right to withdraw" only exists before that point
--makes no sense because human beings can and do stop in the middle of sex
1a. After a pair hits the bed, stopping would leave them frustrated and unsatisfied, which may be intolerable for one of them because [he] feels [he] is entitled to [her] body/services and therefore ought not feel frustrated and unsatisfied.
--Immoral, but at least makes sense

Or take this example using a contracts analogy:
2. "In which case, a sudden withdrawal by one of the parties during execution is THEIR fault, and often requires the paying of some compensation. Certainly not making the party who was suddenly deprived of the benefits the bad guy."
--In this example (as applied to sex), [the male] has apparently acquired an entitlement, and is "wronged" by being denied sex. This entitlement is apparently so strong that not only is compensation due, but it can excuse the man for raping the woman, taking for himself what he is "entitled to" regardless of her pleas, and he is definitely not the "bad guy" for doing so!

3. "I'll say that if I were the magistrate or procurator, I will take into account that you have agreed to the fight and are in a weak position to protest thereafter, and that you had just tried to walk away scot-free....Any other decision would be to cheapen the value of commitment and to ignore the psychology of real fighting."
---In this example, though the person is physically capable of walking away and is therefore not committed to the fight, the person apparently has a moral obligation to see it through to the end. His adversary, because of the "psychology" of fighting, is capable of stopping but does not want to, and is entitled not to stop because his adversary has gone far enough to arouse those feelings in him.

It's much clearer now.



3) My point is that if compliance has to be immediate, even such a scenario (whether you think it is a setup or the man is just particularly unfortunate), would likely end in the rather wrongful imprisonment of the man, something which you seem to agree to be wrong and thus you are bringing up the actus reus and mens rea stuff.

While I'm not familiar with the Latin or the specifics here, I am aware of the general concept, and if I wanted them to come into play with certainty, I'll have specified something like 0.5 seconds.

2 seconds, depending on your point of view, can be quite a long time. Certainly in normal conditions it'll be quite enough to react to a simple command like "Stop" or "No". So if the judge buys that the man should be acquitted on grounds that he doesn't qualify for mens rea, he'll have to accept that the man's mental faculties aren't at their best due to what he's doing. And the decline in mental faculties during sex is one of the reasons why I oppose the current setup. The Requester may shout "Stop" on instinct in response to pain or fear, but the Recipient would have to apply logical thought processes in addition to fighting his own wave of emotions, all of which become increasingly difficult and unlikely as we approach the end.
* * *
Besides, your simplistic comparison fails to address the full consequence when law and society is factored. This law means that whenever Party A has sex with Party B, he runs the risk that he will fail to respond to a sudden, out of the blue request to stop while in a state of reduced mental capacity and thus have his life destroyed (between the prison sentence for rape, felony record and Sex Offender's registry & associated effect in societal status = effective destruction).You might have noticed I hyperlinked the Wiki on each of those terms. This argument is a red herring because, as I stated earlier, the concepts of mens rea and actus reus are implicit in all Western criminal law. There is no need to change rape laws to account for this; it's already there. You're going after something much bigger.

It's abundantly clear at this point that you're not trying to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted for doing something that they had no control over, but that you're trying to make it so that a man need not abide by his partner's wishes, entitling him to his partner's body under the guise is "mental capacity" which itself is nothing more than his own sense of entitlement to sexual satisfaction.



it might be argued that such effective destruction of his life will do more harm than good. With this?No, no, no.
Rapists have committed a severe offense and deserve to have their lives destroyed. As such, I consider the harm done to a rapist to be a good in itself. I'd even support moving rape+kidnapping into the realm of capital offenses, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.


For the setup of the scenario, I will note that:
1) Properly made law must be made with maximum possible measures to protect against misuse.
2) There's an old saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Since the current law, IMO, strongly favors players of this game, one must say the temptation is just about maximized.
* * *
With any rape allegation, there is always a problem of proving the existence and scope (what acts are consented to, duration, etc.) of consent because of the lack of witnesses. Legalizing rape when consent is withdrawn doesn't solve that problem, it just changes the point in time that you look to to prove the existence and scope of consent. In a world where withdrawn-consent rape is legal, you have to look to the initial consent to determine the scope of consent. In our rape-unfriendly world, you can find evidence of consent or lack thereof throughout the act(s). The scope of consent is usually felt-out during the process rather than negotiated beforehand (i.e. "I'm not ready for that," "not there!" "stop, it hurts!" etc.)

It's really the exact same problem proof problem either way. But, in the world where some withdrawn-consent rape is legal, the incentives are all ****ed up. You really have to hit that initial consent nail on the head, since you have no legal right to change your mind or clarify your words/gestures/body language later.
I don't think the main point of my reply here was to advocate changing the point of no return (that was the job of the other paragraphs),so I think that this answer quite misses the point. Nevertheless, I'll say it is one of the advantages of my solution as well. Instead of both sides' having to prove you did or you did not utter a No sometime during the sex process, it is relatively simple to figure out whether you entered the room voluntarily.That sound was my jaw hitting the floor.

First, I'll restate my point that in both "worlds," you need to determine the scope of consent. In other words, it's important to know what was consented to. In our world, the ongoing ability to say "No" will usually tell a person what the scope of consent is. In the consent-withdrawn rape world, scope apparently would be shown by the words and actions of the parties prior to "hitting the bed." Or so I thought.

Apparently I was horribly wrong, as it turns out that in your pro-rape world, consent to any sexual act creates a legal entitlement to every sexual act. Thus, once a person goes into a bedroom with another, either partner (or maybe just the man) has a blank check to do whatever [he] wants to the other. So a young woman "hits the bed" consenting to a make-out session and ends up being brutally raped in every orifice---and it's completely legal, because "it's relatively simple to figure out if [she] went into the room voluntarily."

Proof problem solved---by legalizing even more rape!

Since you're obviously fixated on the male point of view (being able to keep going when you feel like it, not having to worry about false accusations), maybe you could consider an "enlightened self-interest" argument. Assume for a moment, that the law is what you wish it to be, and once a woman goes into a bedroom with a man he can do whatever he pleases to her and she has no legal recourse. If you think the risk of a false accusation is so great that it gets you hopping mad, how bad would it be for women if they had absolutely no control aside from choosing a partner and a bedroom? Why would women in this world take the chance at all? Vibrators would seem like a much safer alternative... and all these "entitled" men would be getting laid a lot less!


While it fits the dictionary definition, may I take this opportunity to object to the common over-usage of the word rape? What happened to actually using fine gradations of diction. This overgeneralization makes the bottom end (like here) look worse than it is, and from overuse eventually suppresses the shock of the top end (like the stereotypical, violence filled variant) - neither effect is what we want.
* * *
First, do remember that the wrongfulness of "rape" is not in its letters, but in the actual amount of damage done, and quite frankly, it is hard to believe that a "rape" in this sense (emergency abort after consent) will have the same damage value as the typical damage done in the stereotypical high-violence variety - AFAIK, certainly the woman in Assange's example does not show signs of being severely damaged by the alleged experience.
It's not over-use! Forcibly having sex with someone who does not consent is rape! You think withdrawn consent means the rape is any less violent or any less a violation of her person and sovereignty?

In the instant case, it seems we're talking about a command to stop because the condom broke. Having an unwanted parasite growing inside you, using your body, feeding off your own blood, is about as extreme as a violation of personal sovereignty as possible.

In the case of pain being the reason for stopping, failure to obey the command to stop will result in ever-increasing pain, possibly physical damage. Inflicting this pain and damage in spite of desperate pleas to stop is incredibly violent.

Can you see past your own paranoia long enough to see that there are reasons to Safeword other than entrapment? Can you see past your own sense of entitlement far enough to see that everyone's body is their own property and they don't have to "give it away" to any extent that they don't want to, and by that virtue no matter what their reason, their right trumps your desire to keep going?

[frau kaleun]

That sound was my jaw hitting the floor.


Yours too, huh? :D

By that kind of reasoning, if I came to your home and you invited me in, I would have the right (by some kind of implied "contract" that exists only in my own imagination) to stay there as long as I wanted whether you continued to want me there or not. The fact that your home is undeniably yours, your personal space, your property, would be irrelevant. You consented to let me in, and now I'm entitled to stay there until the visit has been completed to my satisfaction.

And obviously that is nonsense. I'm not entitled to stay, because I was never entitled to be there in the first place. I have no right to be there, and you have every right not only to deny my initial entry but to request my immediate departure at any time thereafter. Having allowed the former does not negate your right to insist on the latter, nor does it give me the right to ignore it when you do. I am, and always was, there by your leave and your leave only. Once that has been withdrawn, I am a trespasser and nothing more. No amount of whining about implied "contracts" and "but you said I could come in!" is going to change that.

[Molon Labe]

And obviously that is nonsense. I'm not entitled to stay, because I was never entitled to be there in the first place. I have no right to be there, and you have every right not only to deny my initial entry but to request my immediate departure at any time thereafter. Having allowed the former does not negate your right to insist on the latter, nor does it give me the right to ignore it when you do. I am, and always was, there by your leave and your leave only. Once that has been withdrawn, I am a trespasser and nothing more. No amount of whining about implied "contracts" and "but you said I could come in!" is going to change that.

And what a dangerous world this is for those of us who might want to be guests on someone's property, that our hosts might ask us to leave and declare us to be trespassers before we are able to comply! The horror, that we might falsely be accused of being trespassers once having been caught in this trap!

Surely, it would be better for everyone if we abolished the right of the property owner to ask us to leave so that we would be safe in our knowledge that we could not be accused of trespassing once invited in, regardless of how we decided to use or abuse our hosts' hospitality once we're in!

[frau kaleun]

Surely, it would be better for everyone if we abolished the right of the property owner to ask us to leave so that we would be safe in our knowledge that we could not be accused of trespassing once invited in, regardless of how we decided to use or abuse our hosts' hospitality once we're in!

I'm kind of leaning in favor of the "contract" idea, as long as it's an actual contract - you know, one that is agreed to up front by both parties so that everybody (not just the party that the contract inevitably favors) knows how it's supposed to play out and what the consequences will be if it doesn't.

So when I showed up at your door and you opened it and invited me in, I'd let you know before I entered that I considered your invitation to constitute a binding agreement granting me access to your home for an indefinite period of time to be determined by me. And I'd also let you know what compensation I expected to receive should you decide to renege on that agreement at any time before I decided the indefinite period of time had expired. There, now that we're both clear on - if you'll just sign this - hey wait, what are you -

*slam*

:D

Actually I'm even more interested in how this contract thing would work out in sexual encounters. Especially the compensation part. I've been pretty lucky lately, but in my younger years... I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...

[Sailor Steve]

Actually I'm even more interested in how this contract thing would work out in sexual encounters. Especially the compensation part. I've been pretty lucky lately, but in my younger years... I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...
"Okay, I'll agree to number one, but number two is right out. Well, If you'll agree to try this, then I'll agree not to file suit if I don't like number four. Oh, and we have to be done by two-thirty, so I can get home in time to feed my cat. Okay, initial here and sign here."

[Madox58]

I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...

Euuuuu!!
:o
Now I'm completely shaken'!
I think I know what the definition of reslut is now.
:har:

[Tchocky]

Actually I'm even more interested in how this contract thing would work out in sexual encounters. Especially the compensation part. I've been pretty lucky lately, but in my younger years... I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...


Now pay particular attention to this first clause, because it's most important. There's the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. How do you like that, that's pretty neat eh?

[frau kaleun]

Euuuuu!!
:o
Now I'm completely shaken'!
I think I know what the definition of reslut is now.
:har:

:rotfl2:

To be fair it was really only one dude that didn't live up to the terms of the implied contract... there was just a whole lot of not living up to it (among other things) before I decided enough was enough. In fact I'm not even gonna add up all those nickels I missed out on, because the total would be far too depressing. :damn:

But it's okay, I iz much smarter now. S-M-R-T, smart! And at least I didn't marry the guy. So there's that.

"Okay, I'll agree to number one, but number two is right out. Well, If you'll agree to try this, then I'll agree not to file suit if I don't like number four. Oh, and we have to be done by two-thirty, so I can get home in time to feed my cat. Okay, initial here and sign here."

Well, aren't you a sweet-talking devil. I think you better dial down the romance a bit, I feel a swoon coming on.

That said, please notice the underlined, italicized, and bold-face section of the aforementioned document that stipulates absolutely NO AIR BASS PLAYING otherwise the whole deal is off. :O:

Now pay particular attention to this first clause, because it's most important. There's the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. How do you like that, that's pretty neat eh?

Pretty neat, although I think the sanity clause is going to put us all out of the running.

(Now if that's not a setup for a great comeback, I don't know what is. Aaaaand you're welcome.)

[Platapus]

if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...


My doctor asked me if I suffered from Premature Ejaculation.

I told him, I don't; but my wife does.

<rimshot>

Thank you, you have been a great thread. I will be here all weekend.

Be sure to tip the veal and try the waitress. :D

[frau kaleun]

A man went to the doctor for his annual checkup. The doctor asked him if he had any medical complaints, and the man - somewhat bashfully - answered in the affirmative.

"Well then, what seems to be the problem?" the doctor asked.

The man quietly explained that the problems were of a rather intimate nature, and after much prompting, finally elaborated on the exact nature of his complaint. After many "hmms" and "ahas" and a thorough physical, the doctor excused himself from the room. When he returned he handed the man a sheet of paper.

"I've written down my diagnosis and some suggestions that might help you out," he said. "Make a followup appointment for one month from now and if things haven't improved we'll try something else." The man took the paper, read it over carefully, thanked the doctor, and dutifully made another appointment on his way out of the office.

Late one Friday afternoon a month later the doctor opened the door of the exam room to find the same man sitting there in full fancy dress - starched white shirt, elegant walking stick, and a black tuxedo complete with bow tie, cummerbund, tails and even a top hat.

"Good morning," the doctor said, all cool professionalism. "Have you been following the suggestions I gave you?"

"Yes, I have," the man replied. "But they haven't helped a bit."

"Well, that's too bad. But don't worry, there are other things we can try... therapy, medications..." At this the doctor paused and smiled. "But I see it hasn't interfered with your social life," he continued. "Looks like you've got a very special evening planned."

"No, nothing special," the man answered. "And my social life is crap. But I finally decided that if I was gonna be impotent, I was sure as hell gonna look impotent."

[Platapus]

A pun at maturity is fully groan.

News Flash: A crate load of Viagra has been stolen from a distribution warehouse - police are looking for hardened criminals.

[krashkart]

News Flash: A crate load of Viagra has been stolen from a distribution warehouse - police are looking for hardened criminals.

Hospitals in the region have been asked to be on the lookout for unusual cases of priapism. If your erection lasts for more than four hours, please seek immediate medical help. :O:

[Molon Labe]

Actually I'm even more interested in how this contract thing would work out in sexual encounters. Especially the compensation part. I've been pretty lucky lately, but in my younger years... I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...

I knew I should have paid more attention to the lecture on 'liquidated damages clauses.':D

[Jimbuna]

Confucius say: "Man who confuse constipation pills for Viagra, crap in bed"

[frau kaleun]

@ ... well, everybody: :har:

[krashkart]

Any bets on if/when Assange gets the royal butt-kicking? I'll chip in a used Berg adaptor for "uhhh... i'unno"

[Capt. Morgan]

I figure he'll get it in spring of 2011, when he's planning to release several gigs worth of Bank of America e-mails. Messing with United States is one thing, but messing with a bank is really serious.

[heartc]

I figure he'll get it in spring of 2011, when he's planning to release several gigs worth of Bank of America e-mails. Messing with United States is one thing, but messing with a bank is really serious.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I heard the news a few days ago. And I'm not even sure if I was joking to myself or not. :88)

(BTW, afaik the bank has not yet been identified. Just for the record.)

[Skybird]

This German essay (http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article11392781/Wikileaks-offenbart-die-Einsamkeit-der-USA.html), entitled "The loneliness of a superpower", sees it slightly different, saying that although the leak is a diplomatic disaster, it reveals how much healthy reason the diplomatic service of the United States is revealing in its assessements, even if officially these assessements are lied about. It also shows how sensibly and carefully and often cleverly the US is acting in world policies, in the background, and that the world without the US's attempts without doubt would be a much worse place. Finally it is pointed out that the American diplomatic assessments often seem to collide with the much more self-decepting assessements by the Europeans, an example given in the form of Turkey that many Europeans tend to see as a great chance for the EU while the US already rates it as an islamistic regime falling into the realm of ultra-fundamentalists that do openly desire for the destruction of European value culture and takeover of Europe by Osman empire 2.0.

In general the essay says the reveleations by wikileaks for the most are a compliment for the healthy reason of the US diplomatic service. I have sympathy for that view, although there are obviously exceptions from the rule..


I do not have so much problems with most of the leaked revelations by content. I only wish and demand that official policies would be more in consistency with these. Transparency is what it is about. And if that sends a message of the US/ther West using tougher policies, then this would send a message to the international bullies. At least a more powerful message than the endless appeasement attempts of the Europeans who always talk soft and nice even when getting spit in their faces. No reliable principles, no spine, its own rules opportunistically manipulated whenever it sees fit
- that is the EU.

[TLAM Strike]

Actually I'm even more interested in how this contract thing would work out in sexual encounters. Especially the compensation part. I've been pretty lucky lately, but in my younger years... I mean, if I had a nickel for every time some dude decided we were done before I was completely satisfied...

I'm sure there is a clause: "What one head starts the other head must finish." :03:

[Jimbuna]

Following the latest publication of secret US government documents, the founder of Wikileaks has been given just 6 weeks to live.

Never mind Julian, they said that about Bin Laden nine years ago.

[the_tyrant]

Following the latest publication of secret US government documents, the founder of Wikileaks has been given just 6 weeks to live.

Never mind Julian, they said that about Bin Laden nine years ago.

Bin Laden lives in a cave, and only the US is after him
Julian needs the internet, and interpol is after him

I give him 6 months

[August]

Following the latest publication of secret US government documents, the founder of Wikileaks has been given just 6 weeks to live.

Never mind Julian, they said that about Bin Laden nine years ago.

He's got nothing to fear from the law ridden US government who can't even keep a presidential bj a secret.

Khadaffi and Putin on the other hand. Now those are guys I wouldn't want to give a reason to personally dislike me...

[Skybird]

He may not need to fear laws for his publishing (that alone is not illegal), but he needs to fear a hit order by any secret agency, he also needs to fear to get gagged over constructed charges, like those rape allegations. It is highly suspicious that the Swedish authorities have ordered thsat once they got him he is to be isolated, denied access to a lawyer, kept in a secret place - is that the usual Swedish procedure for interrogation a suspect (not a proven guilty man), while the two women meanwhile have published their boasting comments on how they sexually "conquerred" Assange? German media referred to such reports some days ago.

Meanwhile, a former German employee who separated from Assange in anger, has embarked on lauching his own leak website - and two other such projects are being prepared. I hope it will not only be the US being tragetted,m but the EU and Brussels as well. I am sure there is so much dirt to be found in the EU's inner procedures and backstage-events... :yep:

The website wikileaks has been mirrored on so far almost 80 different servers, after Wikileaks called for help to safe the data from being taken off the web via cyberwar-mass attacks and companies quitting contracts with Wikileaks. They called for at least 50 voluntary mirrors on Sunday morning, but in the late evening already had close to 80 voluntaries harboring the complete Wikileaks data now. So this side of the cyberwar seems to have been won by Wikileaks - by overwhelming masses. the only way to defeat the internet is - to switch it off completely.

[Capt. Morgan]

...Finally it is pointed out that the American diplomatic assessments often seem to collide with the much more self-decepting assessements by the Europeans, ...

It would be tremendously intersting to read some European diplomatic cables and see how well they conform to their nations public stance. I'm willing to bet that they privately agree on a great many more points than they do in public.

...I do not have so much problems with most of the leaked revelations by content. I only wish and demand that official policies would be more in consistency with these.....I have no problems with it either. It's kind of like having everyone stop and turn over their cards in the middle of an especially tense poker hand.

These revelations have certainly changed the game - and I'd say for the better - a dose of truth right now might help the NATO nations make some decisions based on expediency rather then political maneuvering back home.

It's also interesting that immediately after their release, Obama (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/03/obama-afghanistan.html) made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where he thanked Ambassador Karl Eikenberry for his work and cancelled a planned visit with Karzai.

I am sincerely hoping that the next le Carré (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Carr%C3%A9) is presently combing through these cables for material.

============


...
(BTW, afaik the bank has not yet been identified. Just for the record.)

Yes, you're right. Assange mentioned that he has a lot of Bank of America material, but has repeatedly refused to state that this material will be the content of his up-coming bank realease.

Personally I am looking forward to this release more than any other, and I was also half-joking about this release being the ultimate cause of his demise.



(http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/03/obama-afghanistan.html)

[Jimbuna]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape.

Thats one bit of news he wouldnt want leaked.

[Capt. Morgan]

...It is highly suspicious that the Swedish authorities have ordered thsat once they got him he is to be isolated, denied access to a lawyer, kept in a secret place - is that the usual Swedish procedure for interrogation a suspect ...

It's also highly unusual for INTERPOL to involve itself in a rape case (not that they shouldn't)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape.

Thats one bit of news he wouldnt want leaked.

:rotfl2:Bullseye:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

I've told the police where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hiding.

Well, I'm sure he would've done the same thing for anyone else.

[darius359au]

I've told the police where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hiding.

Well, I'm sure he would've done the same thing for anyone else.
As long as he could do it with cloak and dagger dramatics and paranoid ravings that everyones out to get him:03:

[Tchocky]

I've told the police where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hiding.

Well, I'm sure he would've done the same thing for anyone else.

*yoink*

[frau kaleun]

I'm sure there is a clause: "What one head starts the other head must finish." :03:

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, provided it can be delivered in plain brown wrapping addressed to "Occupant."

:O:

[Molon Labe]

What, you mean that sentiment isn't universal?

Who knew?

[the_tyrant]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

London (CNN) -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested Tuesday in London on a Swedish warrant, London's Metropolitan Police said.

Sweden first issued the arrest warrant for Assange in November, saying he is suspected of one count of rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion -- or illegal use of force -- allegedly committed in August.

What would they do to him now:hmmm:
maybe an accident in prison?

[Jimbuna]

I photoshopped a Wikileaks page, and left my laptop open.
Now my kids know there's no Santa Claus and will get bugga all.
Saved me a packet, and that pr!ck Julian Assange takes the blame.
Merry Christmas!

[Penguin]

how many more ****ing threads about Assange? :damn: There are already 2 on the front page. Seems like he becomes the new Obama of GT...

You don't have to answer to this, tyrant, I have you on ignore - can see thread titles though.

[TarJak]

Biggest risk to him right now would be extradition to the US or Gitmo. Unless the Russians get a piece of him somehow.

I heard his lawyer interviewed on radio this morning. This case has some very interesting angles. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3086480.htm

Remember this was before the arrest took place.

From this report he turned himself in. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/07/3087385.htm

[TarJak]

I've told the police where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hiding.

Well, I'm sure he would've done the same thing for anyone else.
You needn't have done that. Apparently he disclosed his own whereabouts on his website, then walked into a police station in London to make a complaint about i.:D

[onelifecrisis]

So, Assange has been arrested. Where's this poison pill decryption key then?

BTW this is good:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/

[danlisa]

From this report he turned himself in. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/07/3087385.htm

He did. The term is Arrest by Arrangement. Most US news sites are skipping over this fact in favour of "We got the bastard". ;) :har:

[TarJak]

So, Assange has been arrested. Where's this poison pill decryption key then?

BTW this is good:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/
Dunno.

Great article. Well thought out and informed and gives a balanced view of the issues surrounding wikileaks.

[McBeck]

He did. The term is Arrest by Arrangement. Most US news sites are skipping over this fact in favour of "We got the bastard". ;) :har:Thats one way to print the story

[TarJak]

Well his position in the UK would have become untenable. He wouldn't be allowed to leave with the warrant and hiding there was not a long term option.

[McBeck]

Well his position in the UK would have become untenable. He wouldn't be allowed to leave with the warrant and hiding there was not a long term option.¨From the interview, nobody have been able to produce the warrent for his arrest...they have just been told that there is one.

[TarJak]

Bail has been refused for Assange: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/08/3087441.htm

Cables from 2008 critical of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-condemns-rudd-20101207-18obr.html

Strangely these same criticisms were expressed by the Australian media in the same period which probably led to his dumping last year.

[krashkart]

I photoshopped a Wikileaks page, and left my laptop open.
Now my kids know there's no Santa Claus and will get bugga all.
Saved me a packet, and that pr!ck Julian Assange takes the blame.
Merry Christmas!

I'll have to remember that trick. :DL

[antikristuseke]

Just show them the following video and they wont want santa to come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv29p_w--4w

[Oberon]

Sarah Palin reacts via Twitter to an article by Julian Assange in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian (I think that sentence may win a prize in online news buzzword bingo).President Palin just Tweeted (http://twitter.com/#%21/SarahPalinUSA/status/12237036832432128):
Someone making things up again? Keep seeing this quote attributed to me. Huh? Wikileaks Assange on Sarah Palin's Criticism http://bit.ly/dXP9za (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/254703/traffic-nirvana-julian-assange-notices-sarah-palins-criticism)
We'll try and translate that into English but Palin links to a National Review Online piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/254703/traffic-nirvana-julian-assange-notices-sarah-palins-criticism) that quotes Assange's comment piece: "Sarah Palin says I should be 'hunted down like Osama bin Laden'."
As the NRO writer Jim Geraghty points out, Assange has misquoted Palin there. What she actually said was: "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" And I think we still count OBL as an al-Qaida leader.
To be fair, Palin did say that Assange should be "pursued with the same urgency" as OBL. So if she meant Assange should be "fruitlessly hunted for nine years without success," then yes, Assange did misquote her.


:har::har:

[The Third Man]

In British custody. Gitmo is his next residence. We don't want to be unfair to Muslims. All enemies of the US go to the same place.

[Tchocky]

Reading the Gruniard live feed, Oberon? I've been glued to it all day.

My favourite press release of the day was this delicious one from the State Department

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.

[Oberon]

It's a good feed, and yes, I lol'd heavily at that press release. :har: And the joke that was twittered later on it. :har:

[The Third Man]

If Assange is not intered in Gitmo I will object to Gitmo as a place of detention.

[Oberon]

If Assange is not intered in Gitmo I will object to Gitmo as a place of detention.

If he's going anywhere it will be most likely Sweden, not the US. :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

If Assange is not intered in Gitmo I will object to Gitmo as a place of detention.

And I am certain that many, many people will care.

[The Third Man]

If he's going anywhere it will be most likely Sweden, not the US. :03:

But Gitmo isn't the US, it is Cuba.

[antikristuseke]

But Gitmo isn't the US, it is Cuba.

Or irrelevant at this point.

[The Third Man]

And I am certain that many, many people will care.


Why You after me so much? Are my opinions so bad for your opinions?

[The Third Man]

Or irrelevant at this point.

Then Obama is contributing.

[Takeda Shingen]

Why You after me so much? Are my opinions so bad for your opinions?

No really, who the hell do you think you're making an ultimatum to? Oberon? Mookie? Tchocky?

If Assange is not intered in Gitmo I will object to Gitmo as a place of detention.

Well that's terribly exciting.

[antikristuseke]

Congradulations, your last post is even more irrelevant that the previous one. You are on a roll.

Edit: aimed at the third man

[Jimbuna]

Julian Assange... Proving that people in glass houses really shouldnt throw stones :hmmm:

[The Third Man]

No really, who the hell do you think you're making an ultimatum to? Oberon? Mookie? Tchocky?

If Assange is not intered in Gitmo I will object to Gitmo as a place of detention.

Well that's terribly exciting.

I dont make ultimatums to anyone. And i don't allow others to make that ultimatum on my behalf.

Try again. And your a moderator? poor form.

[Oberon]

But Gitmo isn't the US, it is Cuba.

Would explain some of the interrogation techniques used... :yep:

[Tchocky]

Wah, thread failure.

Regarding our favourite creepy-looking Australian (seriously, love him or hate him, the man looks odd), I'm not surprised he didn't make bail. The judge, to his credit, has requested to view the Swedish evidence, and has maintained that these proceedings have nothing to do with Wikileaks.
They might be in existence due to the activities of Wikileaks, but the to-and-fro of the courts should be based on solely the evidence and appropriate extradition laws.

Speaking of the charges, this piece in the Mail really got me curious, it's well worth a read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17PsSFVeE

As for Assange, he remains in *hiding in Britain, and his website continues to release classified American documents that are *daily embarrassing the U.S. government.

Clearly, he is responsible for an avalanche of political leaks. Whether he is also guilty of sexual offences remains to be seen.

But the more one learns about the case, the more one feels that, unlike the bell in Enkoping, the allegations simply don’t ring true

Although if you're like me you'll want to prepare for the "******* me, I've just given the Mail my attention" feeling :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

I dont make ultimatums to anyone. And i don't allow others to make that ultimatum on my behalf.

Try again.

Oh, okay, cool, cool. Your ultimatum was not an ultimatum. You were coining a term.

So listen up all. Listen good. If the Cowboys beat the Eagles, I will no longer consider Texas to be a state in the Union, and fully expect all future correspondences regarding Texas to be addressed in that manner. That is all.

EDIT: I am a moderator, but I don't moderate GT anymore. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. And you have no business lecturing anyone on decorum.

[The Third Man]

Would explain some of the interrogation techniques used... :yep:

Obama said as much.

[The Third Man]

Oh, okay, cool, cool. Your ultimatum was not an ultimatum. You were coining a term.

So listen up all. Listen good. If the Cowboys beat the Eagles, I will no longer consider Texas to be a state in the Union, and fully expect all future correspondences regarding Texas to be addressed in that manner. That is all.

EDIT: I am a moderator, but I don't moderate GT anymore. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. And you have no business lecturing anyone on decorum.

What is the problem? I thought you more smart than that. Am I wrong?

[Takeda Shingen]

What is the problem? I thought you more smart than that. Am I wrong?

Sorry. My limited intellect and low standing have rendered that as the best I could do.

[Oberon]

Well, it's not surprising since rape charges usually don't get bail due to the risk of re-offending, likewise he couldn't give an address and therefore poses the risk of doing a runner before he could be brought before a court.

As for the charges against him not 'ringing true', well, time will tell but I imagine they will stick, they've got a lot of money and power behind them and even if they didn't, it's a blemish on him and ammunition for his detractors. There's nothing easier to smear someones reputation than a rape allegation.

[Oberon]

So listen up all. Listen good. If the Cowboys beat the Eagles, I will no longer consider Texas to be a state in the Union, and fully expect all future correspondences regarding Texas to be addressed in that manner. That is all.



Does Texas actually consider itself to be a state in the union? :hmmm:

Obama said as much.

I see, and what about the guy before him?

[The Third Man]

Sorry. My limited intellect and low standing have rendered that as the best I could do.

Shrug. You are'n't very bright are you?

[Takeda Shingen]

Does Texas actually consider itself to be a state in the union? :hmmm:

Irrelevant. I no will no longer consider it so, and will then no longer answer any query or challenge, regardless of how factual, that may be posed.

EDIT: I knew what you were saying, you are right; Texans are reknowned for their independent spirit. It is almost another country down there.

[Takeda Shingen]

Shrug. You are'n't very bright are you?

Bright enough to be running circles around you since July. :D

[The Third Man]

Bright enough to be running circles around you since July. :D


didn't you say how derelect you were? U done.

[Takeda Shingen]

didn't you say how derelect you were? U done.

Done? I haven't even gotten started, sport.

[The Third Man]

Done? I haven't even gotten started, sport.

I laughed. thanx sport.

[onelifecrisis]

Guys!!!!

[Oberon]

EDIT: I knew what you were saying, you are right; Texans are reknowned for their independent spirit. It is almost another country down there.

Aye, that was the gist ;) All the power to them, like they say, you don't mess with Texas :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh good.

Kill teams not withstanding and back to topic, I think it is pretty clear that very little will happen to Assange, despite a whole lot of tough talk from a whole lot of sources. Reasons and motives for this will be varied, but the end result will be quite mild relative to the amount of information leaked.

[Solace]

You annoy the US you expect things like this to start happening in your life :03:
Unfortunate things.

[Oberon]

Oh good.

Kill teams not withstanding and back to topic, I think it is pretty clear that very little will happen to Assange, despite a whole lot of tough talk from a whole lot of sources. Reasons and motives for this will be varied, but the end result will be quite mild relative to the amount of information leaked.

He knows how to play the game, and he's got quite a few other players with him. Wikileaks is not one man.

[Takeda Shingen]

He knows how to play the game, and he's got quite a few other players with him. Wikileaks is not one man.

Absolutely, and I think that is finally dawning on many of the powers that be. For good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle.

[onelifecrisis]

The latest from the Guardian feed:

The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill has this bombshell revelation from the cables:

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

How's that "these cables are all old news" argument working out?

[onelifecrisis]

Damn, I somehow missed this awesome article yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

To steal a movie line: I think this guy just became my personal hero.

[Takeda Shingen]

I know that this has been said by people before in this thread, and I know that we are going around in circles here, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me that there are two wrongs here. The US government is clearly decieving the American people, and at the same time Assange's acts amount to international espionage, albeit without the sanction of a sovereign government. This is where the clear-cut ends with me, as I am conflicted over which I am more outraged: The theft and dissemination of sensitive information, or the blatent deception by the US government contained within the documents.

[Oberon]

I'm rather more disquieted by the reactions to this than its contents, a lot of it is, as some have said, things that we, the public, have suspected all along but the governments have not had the face to tell us, things like Afghanistan being an unwinnable quagmire, the Kharzai government being corrupt, although there have been some new and surprising statements, like the Arab alliance against Iran.

Obviously, this is going to have a knock-on effect, and it is having a knock-on effect, some diplomats are a bit more wary about dealing with the US now, and yes, it is a direct attack aimed at the US, because you'll note that wikileaks so far has leaked primarily US related documents, however whether this is because their primary source is American, or whether it is a hint towards the intentions of the people behind wikileaks. After all, there is a significant amount of dislike against America, as there is against any leading global superpower that has flexed its political, military and economic muscles, half the world hated the UK at one point, so it's the price you pay for the top slot.

However, there is a valid point as to whether Assange is a valid target, after all, he is the equivalent of a newspaper or news blogger which has had information given to them and who does not have any ties to the government. It is true free journalism, after all, if most UK newspapers got first dibs on this kind of information without any other sources appearing on the net or such, then they would go running to the government to ask them if it's alright to publish it, otherwise the government could give them severe trouble. On the internet, there is no such ties, no allegiances, wikileaks can release whatever it wants and there is nothing any government could do to stop them, it's like Anonymous, one could classify them as a terrorist organisation, but there's nothing that can be done to stop them unless you wish to turn the internet into a vision of 1984 which there has been a danger of being done for some time.

So, like the headline of the Guardian article says, You either have to live and adapt to the world of the internet, or shut the internet down.

[onelifecrisis]

I know that this has been said by people before in this thread, and I know that we are going around in circles here, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me that there are two wrongs here. The US government is clearly decieving the American people, and at the same time Assange's acts amount to international espionage, albeit without the sanction of a sovereign government. This is where the clear-cut ends with me, as I am conflicted over which I am more outraged: The theft and dissemination of sensitive information, or the blatent deception by the US government contained within the documents.

It's not just the US government that's being exposed by this. I know you guys feel targeted, but these leaks actually expose many governments of illegal activities and lies (including mine).

Also, as has been stated many times by various lawyers, it is certainly not clear whether Assange's actions amount to espionage. The only people saying they do are politicians, not lawyers.

[Takeda Shingen]

It's not just the US government that's being exposed by this. I know you guys feel targeted, but these leaks actually expose many governments of illegal activities and lies (including mine).

Also, as has been stated many times by various lawyers, it is certainly not clear whether Assange's actions amount to espionage. The only people saying they do are politicians, not lawyers.

You're right; it does include a number of other governments. As an American, I was speaking a bit too Amero-Centrically, for lack of a better term.

Regarding espionage, it is defined as the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company according to Merriam-Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/espionage

With that definition, I think it is a textbook case of espionage, but you are right that this may or may not be the case under the law.

[Skybird]

No matter what you think about him, Assange is no thief or spy, Takeda. He neither ordered nor organised the theft of data (cablegate or any other, American or non-American), nor has he or his subordinates conducted theft, he also did not commit any act of espionage, nor did Wikileaks. He has been approached by people who had according interesting file-sets, no matter how they obtained them. Wikileaks is no news magazine, but they behaved like any jpournaolist: they took the material, checked it as best as they can, even in case of Iraqgate and Cablegate gave the other site the oppportunity to show which names indeed would be in riak of getting killed if they would be released, which compares to a journalist giving the major figure of his research the opportunity to comment by his own views on the issue in question. And again, Wikileaks has cooparated with several newspapers with qualified journalists to scan the material, and Wikileaks has increasded this cooperation both regarding time, and numbers of papers.

If you want to talk abiout the violation of laws, you need to limit it to the people who obtained the original data, this Pr. Manning, for example. But for the reasons you already mentioned in faviour of Wikileaks, I am glad that Manning did what he did, no matter what his motives are.

The US still has not raised any charges against Assange, which makes it somewhat obscure that they demand his extradition, or plan to file in such a request. It is in dohbt that Assange can be held legally responsible for anytyhing regarding Wikileaks. If that would happen, then all newspapers and magazines and journalists would need to fear for their safety and freedom, for their insider reports and occasional revealing articles, or things like Watergate, base on material they get much the same way like Assange got his.

---

Wikileaks is now mirrored on around 800 sites, so that it is virtually impossible to silence them via technological means, access-denial-attacks or something like that.

Financially, over the past 12 months Wikileaks has collected four times the money it needs as a minimum to run for one year, and one must assume that the current events and the arrest will make sympoathsiers invest even more in Wikileaks. I think it is illusional that Wikileaks could be financially dried out.

The organisation is operational, and has obviously enough personnel to run it's business. One must assume that the bigger share of their personell is not even known. So: you cannot silence or intimidate them.

The arrest of Assange has already brought him and Wikileaks additonal sympathies and moral support. The longer the legal battle lasts, the more Wikileaks benefits from that. If it is given enough time, they sooner or later will be compoared to the way Putin tries to silence the former head of Yukos oil - bet!?

I have the impression that the political establishement has absolutely zero idea of how to deal with the situation. The rethoric amok runs of some people in the US tells it all. As Jefferson put it so nicely: "When the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people - it's freedom."

[Oberon]

Indeed so, but then again, so is Sir John Sawers, Leon Panetta, Meir Dagan, Alexsandr Bortnikov, Geng Huichang, and every other head of national intelligence agencies. The primary difference is, they don't tell the population of the countries they're working for what they find.

[onelifecrisis]

I agree with everything Skybird just wrote.

Wait... what did I just say!? :o

[Takeda Shingen]

No matter what you think about him, Assange is no thief or spy, Takeda. He neither ordered nor organised the theft of data (cablegate or any other, American or non-American), nor has he or his subordinates conducted theft, he also did not commit any act of espionage, nor did Wikileaks. He has been approached by people who had according interesting file-sets, no matter how they obtained them. Wikileaks is no news magazine, but they behaved like any jpournaolist: they took the material, checked it as best as they can, even in case of Iraqgate and Cablegate gave the other site the oppportunity to show which names indeed would be in riak of getting killed if they would be released, which compares to a journalist giving the major figure of his research the opportunity to comment by his own views on the issue in question. And again, Wikileaks has cooparated with several newspapers with qualified journalists to scan the material, and Wikileaks has increasded this cooperation both regarding time, and numbers of papers.

If you want to talk abiout the violation of laws, you need to limit it to the people who obtained the original data, this Pr. Manning, for example. But for the reasons you already mentioned in faviour of Wikileaks, I am glad that Manning did what he did, no matter what his motives are.

The US still has not raised any charges against Assange, which makes it somewhat obscure that they demand his extradition, or plan to file in such a request. It is in dohbt that Assange can be held legally responsible for anytyhing regarding Wikileaks. If that would happen, then all newspapers and magazines and journalists would need to fear for their safety and freedom, for their insider reports and occasional revealing articles, or things like Watergate, base on material they get much the same way like Assange got his.

---

Wikileaks is now mirrored on around 800 sites, so that it is virtually impossible to silence them via technological means, access-denial-attacks or something like that.

Financially, over the past 12 months Wikileaks has collected four times the money it needs as a minimum to run for one year, and one must assume that the current events and the arrest will make sympoathsiers invest even more in Wikileaks. I think it is illusional that Wikileaks could be financially dried out.

The organisation is operational, and has obviously enough personnel to run it's business. One must assume that the bigger share of their personell is not even known. So: you cannot silence or intimidate them.

The arrest of Assange has already brought him and Wikileaks additonal sympathies and moral support. The longer the legal battle lasts, the more Wikileaks benefits from that. If it is given enough time, they sooner or later will be compoared to the way Putin tries to silence the former head of Yukos oil - bet!?

I have the impression that the political establishement has absolutely zero idea of how to deal with the situation. The rethoric amok runs of some people in the US tells it all. As Jefferson put it so nicely: "When the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people - it's freedom."

I suppose that I had not considered this in the stark terms that you laid out. As a citizen of the US, I am often influenced by a sort of American hypernationalism that you see from time to time on this forum. While I read and agree with your quote from Jefferson, the heart ultimately bucks at this sort of blow to the establishment due to an inherent belief that the US government couldn't possibly be too deceptive in it's aims. This is where I believe that you [Europeans] may hold the advantage. You have learned through experience about the finer points of government corruption, whereas I and many of my fellow countrymen, tend to have an attitude that 'it couldn't possibly happen here'. That, of course, is hogwash [meaning nonsense], as it can, and has, clearly happened here. Still, I just can't seem to shake irritation at having my 'team', if you will, shaken, regarless of how justified. I know that it may or may not serve to strengthen the nation in the long run, but it becomes a hard pill to swallow.

The virtriol from many Americans stems from the same sentiments, even if they are not willing to admit it.

[Madox58]

I'm not going to go back through all the post in this thread.
Just say a few things that you can take or leave as you wish.

I was in the U.S. Army in the early '80's
I was what was called a 'Strack Trooper' with the 82nd AirBorne.
I would have done ANYTHING I was asked to do in those days.
And in some cases?
I did.
One thing I would never have done is to betray my fellow Troopers,
no matter the cost to me.
The Mission was the goal.
Those that served in an AirBorne Unit understand this concept.
I became frustrated with the Military after several things happened.
I was to be awarded the Medal of Achivement for something in the Middle East.
On Award Day?
I was told it was being withheld because a Sargent needed it to get him to re-enlist and only so many were alloted to any given Unit.
OK. I could live with that.
Shortly after I saw and experienced harasment from other people with Rank over me and others for thier own advancement.
I left the Service totally discuraged over the fate of future Soldiers.
And what they would face one day.
And this is the SHORT story!

By all means, expose this kind of stuff!
The betrayal is not those that have leaked documents.
The betrayal is those that try to hide things that should not be hidden.

Lincoln said......
that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When did we forego that concept?

[Platapus]

I was in the U.S. Army in the early '80's



I honour your service to our country. I am sorry to hear you had such an experience.

However, I can't agree with your conclusion. There is a right way to bring issues to light and the wrong way. Wikeleaks has chosen the wrong way.

Little good will come of this.

I too have served and I too have observed many things that were not right and things our nation should not have done. But I would never have betrayed an oath of honour by leaking sensitive information to unauthorized people. It is simply the wrong thing to do.

The criminals leaking this information to wikileaks and other sites had multiple paths they could have used to bring issues to light. Both intra, inter, and extra service venues are available. There are venues outside the Executive Branch entirely as both the Legislative and Judicial Branches have cleared IG like offices.

These criminals choose to betray their oaths of honour. Their choice. They chose unwisely and dishonorably. And for that, I can't forgive them.

Just an old guy's opinion.

But thank you for your service to our country. It is appreciated and honoured.

[Madox58]

Remember the Oath.....

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Note that it states "foreign and domestic".
If the U.S. Government themselves are ignoreing or abuseing Laws?
They are infact the Domestic Enemy!
I still live by that Oath!
But I will NOT blindly accept what I'm told when it is proven time and time again that We are being lied to and misguided.
I respect all who have served at anytime.
I also respect those who did not or could not for whatever reason.

[Platapus]

Good point. Except that I, as an individual in the military, do not have the right to unilaterally determine whether there is or is not a domestic enemy, nor do I, as an individual in the military, have the right to take unauthorized action with respect to my perception.

Think about it. What state would the military be if any individual, at their whim could decide that someone/some office is a domestic enemy and start taking unilateral action? :nope: I believe the term is anarchy and is generally thought to be a bad thing in the military.

The appropriate action is that if an individual suspects that there is a "domestic enemy" is to report it up the chain of command, or if the individual suspects the chain of command, up through another chain of command, or refer it to another agency, or another branch of the government.

This is my point. There are multiple authorized venues for reporting "domestic issues" . Leaking the information to unauthorized people aint one of them. :nope:

[onelifecrisis]

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables. They're not one and the same; you can't apply the same logic to both (Assange is not in the US military).

[Madox58]

I agree with you to a point.
One must follow all protocal as stated certainly.
But there may be reasons one CAN NOT do so.
I am not in a position to know if the accussed followed protocal.
Or if he had a reason to do what he did.
Those in power above him will ALWAYS say he was wrong AND have the power to prove it.
Remember, they can alter documents as they wish!
I don't agree that mass dumping of documents is right,
nor do I agree that releaseing them to the whole world is right all the time.

But even you must realise that We,
as U.S. citizens,
are being lied to and used in a way that breaks many Laws!!
So we punish those that object?
That demands extraordinary actions by someone.

[Platapus]

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables. They're not one and the same; you can't apply the same logic to both (Assange is not in the US military).

I never claimed they were the same person.

There are two separate issues that were being discussed here. I am sorry if I did not make the segue clearer.

[onelifecrisis]

I never claimed they were the same person.

There are two separate issues that were being discussed here. I am sorry if I did not make the segue clearer.

Maybe I misunderstood your line of reasoning. It's late here. I'll come back tomorrow. :)

[Oberon]

That brings up a very interesting and oft debated point, which Privateer and Platapus have together made, and one that I too will close on for the day because it's late here too, and I ramble when it's late.

When does it become right to question the chain of command?

[Platapus]

Just to be clear: I have never posted that Assange can be convicted of any crime. Only the people with access to the sensitive information who choose to violate the law by transferring the sensitive information to an unauthorized person could be convicted of a crime.

Perhaps we need two threads one on Assange and the other on the scumbags who broke their oaths :D

[Madox58]

I believe Platapus and I went off an a tangent of those who released the documents and the side issues of that.

[August]

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables

Could you provide an example of this? As far as I can tell Platapus' last few posts have been exclusively about the servicemen that leaked the information to wikileaks. Not wikileaks itself.

[Platapus]

I think it was just a misunderstanding.

When I post about worthless dishonourable scum of the earth loser criminals, I need to be more specific on what specific one I am writing about. :D

[Skybird]

As a citizen of the US, I am often influenced by a sort of American hypernationalism that you see from time to time on this forum. While I read and agree with your quote from Jefferson, the heart ultimately bucks at this sort of blow to the establishment due to an inherent belief that the US government couldn't possibly be too deceptive in it's aims.

Well, you may have sent your last one to hell, but you American guys, deeply hidden in your hearts, still have a soft spot for the fair and noble king to whom you want to swear loyalty. :) I consider that to be a sympathetic and typically American feature, but it is also a feature that could sting back at yourself. The balance between good will and naivety can be lost easily.

In fact, that is something I have often heared from other people being critical of the US. Most did not say that Americans are "evil" or "dumb", but it is ver often said that they are "naive", and "too uncritical". It is hard to judge whether that is more good or more bad. The proverbial "American optimism" and the attitude that if you have been thrown down by events you simply stand up and start new again, maybe would not be possible without this good will/naivety-combination.
This is where I believe that you [Europeans] may hold the advantage. You have learned through experience about the finer points of government corruption, whereas I and many of my fellow countrymen, tend to have an attitude that 'it couldn't possibly happen here'.

See my reply above.

The virtriol from many Americans stems from the same sentiments, even if they are not willing to admit it.

Don't worry, I am aware of that. ;)

[TarJak]

The US government is clearly decieving the American people, and at the same time Assange's acts amount to international espionage, albeit without the sanction of a sovereign government. This is where the clear-cut ends with me, as I am conflicted over which I am more outraged: The theft and dissemination of sensitive information, or the blatent deception by the US government contained within the documents.
I agree that the US Government is deceitful both to it's allies and enemies as well as it's people.

I can't agree that what Assange has done is espionage. The material was provided to him by a "public servant", (I categorise soldiers as servants of the public of their country), Assange's organisation is diseminating the material as are other media outlets.

If Assange has any case to answer then the US courts needs to revoke the judgement made in New York Times v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States). The Pentagon Papers case set a precedent which also protected Woodward and Bernstein with their publication of the Watergate tapes.

I don't give a rats clacker what the US politicians (remember these are the ones doing a lot of the lying that is at issue here, WMD's anyone?), bleat about bringing Wikileaks down and extraditing Assange to either the US or Gitmo.

Unless a US prosecutor can bring a case leading to a warrant for his arrest to the British or Swedish courts AND get that warrant accepted as an offence for which Assange should be extradited to the US to stand trial for, then he's going to Sweden only to stand trial for the sexual assault charges.

I won't be surprised if the US attempts it, however I have doubts over whether they will succeed in bringing him to trial or convicting him based on the fact that as the US law currently stands, he's not actually committed a crime. You can't have it both ways, either you get freedom of speech or you get speech control ala China. Which would you prefer?

Interesting comments from KRudd: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/assange-security-breaches-kevin-rudd

[Jimbuna]

I agree that the US Government is deceitful both to it's allies and enemies as well as it's people.

I can't agree that what Assange has done is espionage. The material was provided to him by a "public servant", (I categorise soldiers as servants of the public of their country), Assange's organisation is diseminating the material as are other media outlets.

If Assange has any case to answer then the US courts needs to revoke the judgement made in New York Times v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States). The Pentagon Papers case set a precedent which also protected Woodward and Bernstein with their publication of the Watergate tapes.

I don't give a rats clacker what the US politicians (remember these are the ones doing a lot of the lying that is at issue here, WMD's anyone?), bleat about bringing Wikileaks down and extraditing Assange to either the US or Gitmo.

Unless a US prosecutor can bring a case leading to a warrant for his arrest to the British or Swedish courts AND get that warrant accepted as an offence for which Assange should be extradited to the US to stand trial for, then he's going to Sweden only to stand trial for the sexual assault charges.

I won't be surprised if the US attempts it, however I have doubts over whether they will succeed in bringing him to trial or convicting him based on the fact that as the US law currently stands, he's not actually committed a crime. You can't have it both ways, either you get freedom of speech or you get speech control ala China. Which would you prefer?

Interesting comments from KRudd: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/assange-security-breaches-kevin-rudd

Good post :up:

[onelifecrisis]

According to the news the US are indeed going to try to execute... I mean prosecute Assange for espionage.

[Skybird]

The media echo in Germany is rather diverse, from accusing Assange of law-bending and espionage again, to stressing the need for platforms like Wikipedia.


The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"The reputation of the United States has been damaged by the WikiLeaks-controlled release of secret documents. That is true… But the United States' reputation is being damaged much more right now as they attempt -- with all of their means -- to muzzle WikiLeaks and its head, Julian Assange. By doing so, the US is betraying one of its founding myths: Freedom of information. And they are doing so now, because for the first time since the end of the Cold War, they are threatened with losing worldwide control of information."

"'The first real information war has begun,' writes US civil rights activist John-Perry Barlow. 'The battlefield is WikiLeaks.' He is right. With the doctrine 'Free Flow of Information' the US has dominated the flow of information and most of its content for decades. They said that every person had the right, everywhere, and without limitations, to collect information and to broadcast and disseminate it. That was a tremendous doctrine, as long as only American companies had the power, the means, and the logisitical capabilities, to make use of this freedom. That changed somewhat with the Internet, but companies like Apple, Windows, Google, Facebook and Amazon advance US-domination in the supposedly democratic Internet. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the first who have used the power of the Internet against the United States. That is why they are being mercilessly pursued. That is why the government is betraying one of the principles of democracy."


The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"The Swedish public prosecutor's office merely wants to question the Australian Assange about the serious accusations that have been made about him. So far, Assange has balked at this explanation of the facts. His supporters sense that the fix is in, and that the rape charges have been faked to harm the WikiLeaks project."

"If that were true, both of the Swedes, who Assange doesn't deny knowing, and the Swedish prosecutor must be following a secret agenda dictated to them by the United States. Until now, there has not been a single form of proof for that, to make one take it seriously. In Sweden, it is explicitly not about the political damage that the WikiLeaks-activist has caused."

"Obviously, he assumed that the elasticity of law and order in the Internet also applies to real life. But that is where he was wrong. His arrest is proof that in real life the rule of law can have harsher consequences. Even still."


The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The arrest is as potentially scandalous and it is superfluous. The operation has produced a martyr, and he has asked if it is all really about the legally offered explanation of the rape charges. Or, if instead it is more about getting a man out of the way, who, in the opinion of numerous US politicians, is Public Enemy No.1."

"And that is the case, even though no one can explain what crimes Assange allegedly committed with the publication of the secret documents, or why publication by WikiLeaks was an offense, and in the New York Times, it was not."

"The already damaged reputation of the United States will only be further tattered with Assange's new martyr status. And whether or not the openly embraced hope of the US government that along with Assange, WikiLeaks will disappear from the scene, is questionable. A platform like WikiLeaks should be able to survive without a frontman, who was just as glamorous as he was polarizing, and whose autocratic leadership style cost him important employees even months ago."


The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"In the so-called 'war on terror' the democracies of the US and Europe have not only instigated wars without satisfactory reasons but have also tried to reduce the privacy, civil rights and liberties of their citizens. More power for the state but less transparency for the people -- this asymmetrical conflict is self-inflicted by countries like the US and it has created a need for a platform like Wikileaks."

"The new anti-terror powers have made it difficult to bring criticism into the public domain. But now it is much easier to understand 'when who has talked to whom about what'. It doesn't matter if the threat was more imagined than real - it still gave rise to the need for a trustworthy channel. Classic media could not fill this need: It doesn't have a clear awareness of the new, general feeling of being threatened, nor the technical know-how. Wikileaks had both."

"Julian Assange is the star of Wikileaks but the need for his website is bigger than the need for him. If Wikileaks doesn't survive the current attacks then similar sites will take its place, as long as there is a need for them."


The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel writes:

"'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter': this Anglo-Saxon saying still holds true in the Internet age. To the US, Assange is a terrorist; to the Internet community, he is a pioneer of freedom. The favourable view of Assange seems to have more sympathy here in Germany -- in any case, discussions use the words 'platform for exposure' and not 'espionage.' However this perception is based on the unproven assumption that Assange was driven by pure motives -- a desire to enlighten."

"One doesn't need a conspiracy theory to have doubts. The mass production of secret documents on WikiLeaks exhibits no particular strategy apart from the exposure of powerful institutions. Assange clearly wants to destabilize the system -- or all the systems. The content as well as the sheer mass of data should ensure that. Many people's clandestine joy over this anarchic strategy of obstruction is a political signal. This is why the conflict with Assange cannot be won through political or economic means. The institutions that Wikileaks attacks must demonstrate the legitimacy of their actions. If that happens, then Assange really will have achieved something for democracy."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733512,00.html

[Skybird]

PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875)

Anonymous Mastercard attack 'hits payments' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539)

[Molon Labe]

This is the case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html)of precedent in the US for prosecution of a media publisher for the publication of information illegally obtained by a 3rd party. It doesn't end well for the government.

I suppose it's possible that a Wikileaks followup to Bartnicki might have a different outcome if the nature of the information being published is important. The Bartnicki court protected the publication of an intercepted phone call where a union boss conspiring to intimidate; publication of this helped the public interest. I suppose you could argue what Wikileaks is doing is likely to get people killed and harm national policy and that makes it different. Child porn is illegally obtained true information too--you can't publish it the Court wants to eliminate demand for the underlying illegal activity. There's an argument to be made there... just not a very good one.

The Pentagon Papers case isn't especially relevant because it dealt with the government trying to prevent publication. So-called "prior restraints" are dealt with more hostility than prosecution after the fact for some reason (as if threat of prosecution isn't a prior restraint) so it leaves the possibility of prosecution open.

[goldorak]

You're right; it does include a number of other governments. As an American, I was speaking a bit too Amero-Centrically, for lack of a better term.

Regarding espionage, it is defined as the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company according to Merriam-Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/espionage

With that definition, I think it is a textbook case of espionage, but you are right that this may or may not be the case under the law.


It is not a textbook case of espionnage. First of all Assange personally didn't spy on the american government. He was not the one downloading the secret cables from sirpnet and burning them on his personal cds.
Secondly, it was Manning that spied (or stole pick the term that best suits the situation) on the government and then giving the cables to wikileak. He did that out of sense of justice as he himself said (He could just as easily have given them to the Washington Post or the New York Times or the LA Times etc...). He was not employed, or payed by wikileaks to provide that information so how can you possibily come to the conclusion that Assange has spied on the US government is simply mind boggling.

If you think so, then according to your definition it doesn't matter the organization, Wikileaks, Medecins sans Frontiere, Greenpeace, Newspapers, etc... anytime they are given "secrets" to publicly display they are in effect spying on the government. You are making them responsabile for a third party deeds.
Believe it or not its a very slippery slope that will bring you closer to a fascist state.
You're getting there more rapidly that you can imagine. Just take a look at the TSA.

Americans are like little kids, as Skybird justly wrote. Your idealism trumps everything. Your country has never had to deal with poltical diversity (and no democrats and republicans are more or less the same). Political diversity means having a comunist party, it means having a green party, it means having a whole range of political expression and that spectrum being represented at the government level. You simply don't have this plurality in the US, and you are the poorer for it. As a country you need to grow up, and shed a little bit of that idealism that is being used continously against you (the civil society) right now by your government. If you don't do something your praised constitution will be nothing but mere words on a sheet of paper. Ignored by everyone that counts.

Wikileaks has not been condemed, and according to the Rule of Law only the courts can determine wether Wikileaks has done something illegal. Seeing as Corporations such as Visa/Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal are taking arbitrarily the law in their own hands (under pressure from the executive branch of the US government) just shows that the US doens't want a critical free thinking press. You're right there with the kinds of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations.

Think about it, the next time you want to organise a meeting to defend the rights of journalists in oppressed regimes.

[Takeda Shingen]

It is not a textbook case of espionnage. First of all Assange personally didn't spy on the american government. He was not the one downloading the secret cables from sirpnet and burning them on his personal cds.
Secondly, it was Manning that spied (or stole pick the term that best suits the situation) on the government and then giving the cables to wikileak. He did that out of sense of justice as he himself said (He could just as easily have given them to the Washington Post or the New York Times or the LA Times etc...). He was not employed, or payed by wikileaks to provide that information so how can you possibily come to the conclusion that Assange has spied on the US government is simply mind boggling.

If you think so, then according to your definition it doesn't matter the organization, Wikileaks, Medecins sans Frontiere, Greenpeace, Newspapers, etc... anytime they are given "secrets" to publicly display they are in effect spying on the government. You are making them responsabile for a third party deeds.
Believe it or not its a very slippery slope that will bring you closer to a fascist state.
You're getting there more rapidly that you can imagine. Just take a look at the TSA.

Americans are like little kids, as Skybird justly wrote. Your idealism trumps everything. Your country has never had to deal with poltical diversity (and no democrats and republicans are more or less the same). Political diversity means having a comunist party, it means having a green party, it means having a whole range of political expression and that spectrum being represented at the government level. You simply don't have this plurality in the US, and you are the poorer for it. As a country you need to grow up, and shed a little bit of that idealism that is being used continously against you (the civil society) right now by your government. If you don't do something your praised constitution will be nothing but mere words on a sheet of paper. Ignored by everyone that counts.

Wikileaks has not been condemed, and according to the Rule of Law only the courts can determine wether Wikileaks has done something illegal. Seeing as Corporations such as Visa/Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal are taking arbitrarily the law in their own hands (under pressure from the executive branch of the US government) just shows that the US doens't want a critical free thinking press. You're right there with the kinds of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations.

Think about it, the next time you want to organise a meeting to defend the rights of journalists in oppressed regimes.

This little kid asks that you read post No. 140 before donning your boxing gloves, please.

[goldorak]

Damn, I somehow missed this awesome article yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

To steal a movie line: I think this guy just became my personal hero.

Yes :yep: its an awesome article, an eye opener indeed.

[goldorak]

This little kid asks that you read post No. 140 before donning your boxing gloves, please.

Sorry I didn't read the entire thread before answering to the different critics.
I hope you don't consider "little kid" as an insult. Kids are know to be idealistic, they view the world in terms of black and white. Its a metaphor nothing bad really.
But as I said idealism should not trump everything else, otherwise you can be taken advantage of. For pete's sake, we (as in europeans) got taken advantage of although we certainly were much more critical of our governments than you were.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sorry I didn't read the entire thread before answering to the different critics.
I hope you don't consider "little kid" as an insult. Kids are know to be idealistic, they view the world in terms of black and white. Its a metaphor nothing bad really.
But as I said idealism should not trump everything else, otherwise you can be taken advantage of. For pete's sake, we (as in europeans) got taken advantage of although we certainly were much more critical of our governments than you were.

No, we're okay. I understand the European perspective. Your governments have been around a whole lot longer than ours. You have been there and back, so to speak. There is a lot that America can learn from Europe, and we shouldn't so carelessly cast aside the advice and knowledge of people that do not wish us harm. A strong Europe is good for America, and a strong America is good for Europe. Decades of 'cowboy politics', mostly on the part of the US, have strained that relationship.

More to the point, I know that America, meaning the American government, has taken an odd stance in this issue. My mind knows that what the US government has been doing is wrong, but my heart wishes it was not so.

[Platapus]

Can Assange be tried for Espionage?

Well, first lets look at the law

Title 18 section 978

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
...

<List of specific types of information>

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.The significant term is "whoever". It is not limited to US citizens only.

Title 18 Section 2

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.Assange would be considered a principal in this case. To be a principal does not require Assange to be a US citizen nor does it require him to have been physically in the US.

He could also be charged under Title 18 Section 794 "Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government"

And Section 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

Now charging and convicting are two separate matters. But he can be charged with these and other crimes. Personally, I think getting a conviction would be difficult... not impossible though.

[Krauter]

The only problem I see with the espionage clause is that he did not explicitly gather this information to deal to foreign governments, according to him, he's simply doing it to enlighten the public.

[Platapus]

The only problem I see with the espionage clause is that he did not explicitly gather this information to deal to foreign governments, according to him, he's simply doing it to enlighten the public.


"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information"

The general public, which includes the entire internets tubes community was not authorized access to this information.

[Krauter]

:hmmm: Hmmm.. You may have it there

However (devils advocate, I'd rather he rot in prison) can't he just say it's for the knowledge of the public and there was no intent to do any harm to the national interests of the U.S or its citizens?

[Platapus]

Like I posted, I think getting a conviction might be difficult. :yep:

[onelifecrisis]

By that definition most journalists are also guilty of espionage.

In any case, I think the relevant question is whether or not the US can get him on their soil. If they can then I suspect the rest of the world will never see him again, regardless of whether they can prove he's guilty of anything.

[Platapus]

By that definition most journalists are also guilty of espionage.

That has been argued ever since 1917 with the passage of the espionage act.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government does have the right to prevent the publication of national security information by the press, but that the government has to first demonstrate a "heavy burden of proof" that the release of this information would cause sufficient damage as to provide justification for overriding the First Amendment Rights. Court decisions on similar cases have indicated that the level of proof will be very high.

In the case of New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that in this specific case, the government failed to demonstrate the "heavy burden of proof" and the government's case failed.

What is commonly misunderstood about NYT v US is that it pertained to that one case and did not set a precedent against all similar cases. It just established (re-established actually) the requirement of the government's "heavy burden of proof".

If there is ever a case where the government can make its "heavy burden of proof" the government's power to restrict may be upheld.

It should also be recognized that NYT v. US was a case of prior restraint. The government wanted to prevent the NYT from publishing the information.

The Assange case would not be a case of prior restraint as the information has already been published. I don't think NYT v. US will apply to any Assange case. :nope:

In any case, I think the relevant question is whether or not the US can get him on their soil. If they can then I suspect the rest of the world will never see him again, regardless of whether they can prove he's guilty of anything.

A distinct possibility that can not be immediately ignored. But it would not accomplish anything.

The hitch is that wikileaks is "owned" by "The Sunshine Press" which despite the term is not a news media but a Non-Profit Organization that operates Wikileaks.

As has been posted before, Assange is the "just" the editor of Wikileaks, not the owner. Assange does not even own wikileaks.org. The website is owned by John Shipton acting as an agent of Dynadot Privacy.

Assange is a smelly fish, but only one of many fish, in that slimy pond, that needs to be caught.

Whacking Assange, while providing emotional satisfaction, will have little effect on wikileaks. :nope:

[Krauter]

So then wouldn't it be easier and more effective to go after the true owner of Wikileaks rather then one of the "small-fry" like Assange and Manning?

[onelifecrisis]

But it would not accomplish anything.

That reason has never stopped the US government before!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Platapus]

So then wouldn't it be easier and more effective to go after the true owner of Wikileaks rather then one of the "small-fry" like Assange and Manning?


Well Manning is not part of wikileaks. Manning, if the charges against him are true, is a US criminal who violated a cubic-buttload of federal laws by betraying his oath of honour and illegally transferred sensitive information with out authorization. Manning, if the charges against him are true is hardly small-fry.

As was rightly pointed out earlier in this thread, we need to keep our scumbags separate.

The United States should continue its investigation of Manning and its investigation to find other leakers to prosecute.

But, I do agree that "going after" Assange won't amount to much other than giving the public someone to hate (the public likes its soundbytes clean and short".

I am sure there are investigations against Dynadot Privacy and The Sunshine Press. :yep:

[Platapus]

That reason has never stopped the US government before!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Well, good point. :salute:

[Krauter]

Please don't mistake me that I'm putting Assange and Manning in the same basket.

I realize that Manning, a soldier in the U.S Army betrayed his country by illegally stealing the cables and distributing them to media sources (in this case wiki-leaks).

I also realize that Assange is in no way connected to Manning except for publishing and being chief editor of the cables he received from Manning.

What I meant by "small-fry" was that Manning, as someone who steals secrets, and Assange who merely distributes what he deems will make the largest splash, have no real bearing on where wiki-leaks will go. However, the owner, who thus has the final say in whats going on, is should be more of a "target" if you will, for that sole reason then no?

[Platapus]

An excellent point. Who should "we" "go after"?

The owner of the website?
The officers of the NPO The Sunshine Press
Wikileaks advisory board?
Wikileaks Board of Directors?

Not an easy question to answer. But an excellent question to consider. :yep:

[Krauter]

:hmmm:

Also, please don't think when I say "we" it is solely the U.S, or the entire world, or whatever generalisations may be made from that statement, but rather the group who would "profit" from something being done to said target (<--- me trying to be politically correct :haha:)

Also, by saying "target" what exactly should be done to said target? Or rather, what do you think will be done to said target?

Internment (Guantanamo Bay would be ironic to me)? Extradition to the U.S and facing espionage charges? Quiet disappearance? Nothing?

[onelifecrisis]

Assange is the public face of Wikileaks, and this is politics. The US government are sending a public message: don't f*ck with us. I had some hope that the totalitarian nature of the message would backfire on them, but it seems most of the US public are right behind them.

[Krauter]

Can you blame them? With most Americans readily eating what they are spoon-fed by the media I'm surprised they're not crying out for bloody murder

[the_tyrant]

Assange is the public face of Wikileaks, and this is politics. The US government are sending a public message: don't f*ck with us. I had some hope that the totalitarian nature of the message would backfire on them, but it seems most of the US public are right behind them.

I think with Wikileaks the governments are standing together against this one
even chinese state media(that is usually anti-us) is anti wikileaks this time

[Krauter]

All governments fear the release of their secrets to the public

[Tribesman]

An excellent point. Who should "we" "go after"?

The politicians and the military command, after all these "disturbing" actions are spread through the highest levels of the set up and have been for decades, so if people want to get serious about kicking the butt of some small fry breaking his oath of honour and acting illegally then get serious all the way to the top.
After all in that field there wouldn't be your problem of keeping scumbags seperate as those would all be under one clear local jurisdiction.

[Capt. Morgan]

An excellent point. Who should "we" "go after"?

The owner of the website?
The officers of the NPO The Sunshine Press
Wikileaks advisory board?
Wikileaks Board of Directors?...

None of the above.

America should be going after the people who made it possible for a mere P.F.C. to simply walk out the door with a quarter-million diplomatic cables (as well as the P.F.C. in question, of course). Seriously, I've seen bicycle shops with better security than where ever it was that P.F.C Manning was employed.

All governments fear the release of their secrets to the public

True, and no government would come out looking any better than America does now if it was their diplomatic communications that had been published.

[Skybird]

On Espionage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817)


Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case.

US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets.

But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil.

Proof of harm

No single US law makes it a crime specifically to disclose classified government documents, but legal experts say the government would most likely prosecute under the Espionage Act of 1917, although Mr Holder cited "other tools at our disposal".

Under the Espionage Act, prosecutors would have to prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security, or show he had a hand in improperly obtaining them from the government.

"That act is a difficult act to prosecute people under, especially someone who might be considered a journalist, as he would argue he is," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law.

In only one known instance has the US prosecuted for espionage individuals who were neither in a position of trust with the government nor agents of a foreign power. That effort ended in failure.


On absurd Swedish sex laws (http://www.faz.net/s/RubFC06D389EE76479E9E76425072B196C3/Doc~E87EEE82032EB4D1785FF2CA29EE4814D~ATpl~Ecommon ~Scontent.html), and what really happened (German)


Sie hob hervor, dass nach schwedischem Recht Nötigung oder Vergewaltigung in einem minder schweren Fall vorliegen kann, wenn sich eine Frau nach dem Sex unwohl fühlt oder sich ausgenutzt vorkommt.

Von der Sozialdemokratin ist bekannt, dass sie am 12. Januar 2010 eine Übersetzung von „7 Steps to Legal Revenge“ - einem Ratgeber, wie man es schafft, dass gegen einen Mann Anklage erhoben wird - in ihren Blog einstellte.

A feminist activist, a women regretting to have agreed to unprotected sex, and a female state attorney with a personal anti-male-agenda. Voila: ready is your rape-case.

With laws like that I wonder if Swedish males even dare to try to reproduce, or if the Swedes are simply going extinct.

[Tchocky]

Listening to media coverage, I'm reminded of this bit of South Park

Priest Maxi: Fathers, I want to thank you all for coming.

Priest 1: No, thank you for finally organizing an all-priests meeting, Father Maxi. I think we all agree something has to be done, quickly. [the other priests concur]

Elderly Priest: Well, I don't know how it's been for all of you, but attendance at my church in Fort Rawlins is down sixty-three precent! [pounds on the table for emphasis]

Priest 2: I'm down almost seventy in Greenleaf.

Priest Maxi: Uh-yes, uh, I'm afraid if things keep going the way they are, we could lose our entire religion.

Elderly Priest: Yes, we've gotta stop these boys from goin' to the public!

Fat Priest: They've gotta know to keep their mouths shut! Other priests: That right, yeah.

Priest Maxi: Right, and so... wa- wait a minute. What?

Priest 1: Yes, but we've got to find out why these children are suddenly finding it necessary to report that they're being molested. Stop the problem at its source.

Priest 2: Yes, but how?

Priest 3: [amid discussion] Somethng has to be done.

Priest 4: We've got to stop this-

[Skybird]

And here is by what hidden poath the US ogovernment may have a hand in the sex allegations against Assange:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/5432-are-the-sex-charges-against-assange-bogus


As the facts do not seem to add up, it’s also worth noting that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may have connections (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/39394/julian-assanges-accuser-supposedly-tied-to-the-cia/) to the United States' Central Intelligence Agency. Raw Story explains (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/), “Anna Ardin, may have ‘ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,’ according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett.... While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.”

Shamir and Bennett also describe Ardin as both “leftist” and “anti-Castro.”
Also, Shamir and Bennett explain that Las damas de blanco is funded in part by the U.S. government, and is supported by Luis Posada Camiles, a man revealed to be a CIA agent in a declassified 1976 document.

[Dowly]

or if the Swedes are simply going extinct.

We can only hope.... sigh..

[Tribesman]

and is supported by Luis Posada Camiles, a man revealed to be a CIA agent in a declassified 1976 document.
Is that the same fella that a certain country is refusing to extradite in relation to little things like blowing up civilian airliners and bombing hotels?

[frau kaleun]

We can only hope.... sigh..

You shut yo' mouth.

You do not want to know what happens if my supply of Kakor Havreflarn gets cut off.

[Dowly]

You shut yo' mouth.

You do not want to know what happens if my supply of Kakor Havreflarn gets cut off.

You could try making them yourself too. :O:

[Platapus]

None of the above.

America should be going after the people who made it possible for a mere P.F.C. to simply walk out the door with a quarter-million diplomatic cables (as well as the P.F.C. in question, of course). Seriously, I've seen bicycle shops with better security than where ever it was that P.F.C Manning was employed.



The weakness of any security system is the human. People are given background investigations and sign NDAs. A great deal of our security is reliant on the honour of the people.

After 911 there was this clamor about the need to share information and to get rid of the compartmentalization of data. Changes were made and some of them were not very well thought through.

The easier it is for the good guys to get the information, the easier it is for the bad guys to get it also.

I remember back in the dark ages when I was in the military, we still had the "Two man concept" for access to some forms of data. That has gone by the wayside in the interests of "collaboration".

What I don't understand is how this creep could access classified data on a machine with active USB ports?

I am sure that is also part of the investigations.

[Dowly]

Just heard in the finnish "Radio Rock" news that some or all of the Wikileaks (didn't really listen, it's 7:30Am and I thikn I'm still a tad drunk) crew are breaking off and are going to make their own site that releases leaked documents to only few chosen news sites. It should be coming online on Monday under the name of "openleaks". :hmmm:

EDIT: Then again, the morning show is just about making fun of everything and everyone. So... maybe better to wait for Monday and wait and see. :O:

EDIT2: Here be something about it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025254-281.html

[Jimbuna]

A fine example of 'jumping on the bandwagon'

[Skybird]

Just heard in the finnish "Radio Rock" news that some or all of the Wikileaks (didn't really listen, it's 7:30Am and I thikn I'm still a tad drunk) crew are breaking off and are going to make their own site that releases leaked documents to only few chosen news sites. It should be coming online on Monday under the name of "openleaks". :hmmm:

EDIT: Then again, the morning show is just about making fun of everything and everyone. So... maybe better to wait for Monday and wait and see. :O:

EDIT2: Here be something about it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025254-281.html

Saw it confirmed on a British and German news site as well. Although they said "some" co-wokers abandon Wikileaks over Assange treating them "like slave workers" - so not all staff is leaving, said these news.

Anyhow, I think what we see in general is a new media format and a new "phase" in public politics. Seeing how intensely the power-monopoles and secrecy-m onopoles has been absued by governments, political parties, lobby groups, and the network these three formed in the hidden, I cannot different then in general welcoming this trend, although I also see that it will make some businesses of dsealing with totalitarian regimes and powerful business lobbies running in hidden dirty-mode much more difficult. Our politcs are so deeply corrupted and an abuse of the terms "transparency" and "democracy" and "freedom", that the gains of many more Wikileaks-clones seem to outweigh the losses.

At least as long as we do not volkuntariuly wish to turn ourselves into totalitarian regimes. Nobody of us lives in a real democracy currently. It all is mixtures of oligarchies and plutocracies and lobby-Mafias.

[MH]

At least as long as we do not volkuntariuly wish to turn ourselves into totalitarian regimes. Nobody of us lives in a real democracy currently. It all is mixtures of oligarchies and plutocracies and lobby-Mafias.

Do you really belive that totally transparent goverment could function at all in todays world without turning its country to anarchy.
Its like with comunizm as some said it could work if all world turnd to it. Same with utopian democracy.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm getting tired of people talking about full transparency.

Even if Wikileaks carries on with it's operation we still won't have full transparency, we'll just have a way for people to leak things. Things still have to get leaked, and people tend not to leak things (which is treason) except when they are in strong disagreement with what their government is doing.

[onelifecrisis]

It's official: the US are moving to indict Assange.

[antikristuseke]

mroe from the leaks http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt

[DarkFish]

mroe from the leaks http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txtI hate you:stare:

[Jimbuna]

It's official: the US are moving to indict Assange.

This gets more complicated by the day.

I wonder how long the whole process will take? :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

This gets more complicated by the day.

I wonder how long the whole process will take? :hmmm:

Knowing the efficiency of our civil and military legal systems, we should see some closure before summer 2031.

[onelifecrisis]

This gets more complicated by the day.

I wonder how long the whole process will take? :hmmm:

I don't know, but I'm curious to see what's in Assange's "poison pill" a.k.a. "digital thermo-nuclear device" which, according his solicitor, will be released if Assange is arrested by the US.

[tater]

Funny the NYT was happy to publish this wikileaks stuff (damning to the US), yet they stood on principle, and did not publish the "private" "climategate" emails (even when the people in question were doing work for the UN and government with tax payer money).

[Tribesman]

Funny the NYT was happy to publish this wikileaks stuff (damning to the US),
Did you miss the news about them printing US "favourable" leaks from the wikileaks stuff at the request of the govt.?

yet they stood on principle, and did not publish the "private" "climategate" emails
Ah yes "climategate", despite the media frenzy and the conspiracy theories that story turned out to be 99.9% total rubbish.

[Catfish]

Hello,
i don't get it.

Assange was being accused of having had voluntarily sexual intercourse without using condomes, which may be "rape" in Sweden.
May it be that or not, he was absolved, but then accused again now, which is why Assange himself let himself be arrested, voluntarily, in England.

Now he may be delivered to Sweden for accusation before court, or maybe to Australia, because he is an Australian.

Anyway i do not get how he could EVER be sent to the United States ? He is no traitor, he was never a member of the US armed forces, he is nothing more than a journalist.

So if i as a german say that Mr Putin is a brutal dictator who has nothing to do with democracy, any country of the world can send me to Russia because of having said what everyone knows, maybe with some evidence ?
What about China ? Their government is abunch of liars ! I even have proof. Here, i said it.
Has anyone ever heard about international law ? WTF ?! :stare:

Greetings,
Catfish

[August]

I don't know, but I'm curious to see what's in Assange's "poison pill" a.k.a. "digital thermo-nuclear device" which, according his solicitor, will be released if Assange is arrested by the US.

I think it's all a bluff.

Given what we know of his source whatever he has is probably not much, if any, worse than what has been released already.

Besides like any blackmailer, and blackmail is exactly what this is, you just know that he's going to eventually release everything he's got anyways. If not now then just as soon as he can no longer profit from holding it back.

I say call his bluff and weather whatever storm results now while everyone is already prepared for the worst instead of letting him keep hitting us with "bombshells" timed to impact whenever we're most vulnerable.

Oh I expect that they'll also nail that little traitor Manning good for stealing the information in the first place. I understand he's facing (at the moment) 52 years. If Assange drops his poison pill and someone gets killed as a direct result of that he'll see those charges get upgraded to murder.

[onelifecrisis]

August, how do you know the source for the poison pill (assuming there is one) given that nobody knows what's in it?

[August]

August, how do you know the source for the poison pill (assuming there is one) given that nobody knows what's in it?

AFAIK his source is an Army Pfc named Bradley Manning. Everything released so far has been from him. I guess we can't rule out a second source but so far I haven't heard of any evidence that one exists.

[Madox58]

Why doesn't the U.S. Gov just do what they did when a UFO was 'found' at Roswell?
First an Army Guy says 'Yes we found one!'
:rock:
Then they say 'No we dian't. It was a balloon.'
:88)

Then Deny, Deny, Deny!
:03:
To take the approach in process only lends to the belivability of the released stuff.
:doh:

Then again, I don't work for the Unwittingly Stupid Gov.
So what would I know.
:haha:

[August]

So what would I know.

Indeed.

[Catfish]

Quote:

"LYING IS NOT PATRIOTIC
by Ron Paul

WikiLeaks’ release of classified information has generated a lot of attention world-wide in the past few weeks.

The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news.

Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neo-conservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principle supporter and financier of Al Qaeda and this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government.

This emphasizes even more the fact that no Al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did.

It has been charged, by self-proclaimed experts, that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information, that he did not steal?

And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn’t the Washington Post, New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.

The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any National Security laws.

Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam War and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by Weapons of Mass Destruction or Al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information.

Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal for our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

1. Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

2. Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4. Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths; lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war – which is treason – and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised: “Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.”

[goldorak]

Ron Paul asks the right questions. :up:
And yes, lying to your constituents is not patriotic. :salute:

[Skybird]

I do not have a complete impression of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel and what they stand for, but on the few opportunities I stumbled over a transcription of something they said, or a short video snippet, I was listening to healthy reason and a very sane mind. I now stop and listen first when I realise they are commenting on something of international importance. I don't do that for many politicians, for most politicians are not worth the time being wasted.

[Sailor Steve]

I respect Ron Paul more than any politician out there, which is why I voted for him in the last election. Thomas Jefferson also said

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
-Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

On the other hand, the charges against the accused refer to "sexual offenses". Is this real, or just an excuse?

[the_tyrant]

you know, Julian Assange and wikileaks is the new KGB

back than if you weren't satisfied with your government, you would leak information to the KGB. Now you would leak it to Wikileaks

Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm:

[joegrundman]

On the other hand, the charges against the accused refer to "sexual offenses". Is this real, or just an excuse?

the charges are real in so far that there is a complainant, but in reality it is an excuse. There has been a complaint of the sort that in itself under normal circumstances would be unlikely to get as far as court. But it is my opinion that US pressure has resulted in:
- the swedish police are making very strong efforts to indict and extradite him from the UK
- the UK denying substantial bail
- the US preparing to extradite him from Sweden.

How can i say this?

the timing of the Swedish charge was first brought just after the Afghan war logs were released, but very soon afterwards were dropped. Then the charges were brought up again with the diplomatic cable release and this time pursued more vigorously. A factor here could be that the Afghan war logs were released in one phase, and no action could halt the process, but the diplomatic cable release is an ongoing process. The timing to me indicates very clear political influence.

-The British judge denied bail claiming he was a serious risk of absconding!! This despite the fact that he turned himself in even though he probably knew personally dozens of people prepared to offer safe houses. It defies logic to assume that someone who turns themselves in and thereby declaring their intention to follow legal procedure, should then be expected to abscond after posting bail. This simple logical failure indicates the judge was given the appropriate decision to hand down from political superiors

-Just before warrant for extradition was completed a senior US legal figure involved in the pursuit of Assange (sadly i forget who exactly it was) was on British television saying that it is a normal procedure to arrest someone on an existing charge in order to have them in custody while preparing the main charge against them. (N.B. A british person in such a position would never show such candour!). This was in short an admission that as far as he was concerned Assange would not be staying in Sweden long enough to actually answer a sexual offense charge.

[TLAM Strike]

you know, Julian Assange and wikileaks is the new KGB

back than if you weren't satisfied with your government, you would leak information to the KGB. Now you would leak it to Wikileaks
Right because John Walker and Ron Pelton were dissatisfied with the US Government. :roll:

[antikristuseke]

you know, Julian Assange and wikileaks is the new KGB

back than if you weren't satisfied with your government, you would leak information to the KGB. Now you would leak it to Wikileaks

Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm:

No, not really.

[Platapus]

Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm:


I assume you meant people at wikileaks

Yes they can. Now getting a conviction will be tough. But there is nothing preventing the US government from charging them with the crime

[Jimbuna]

I assume you meant people at wikileaks

Yes they can. Now getting a conviction will be tough. But there is nothing preventing the US government from charging them with the crime

Getting them over to the US could be a whole lot more difficult though.

[Platapus]

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.





No one has ever said that Dr. Paul is overly burned with facts or history. :nope:

The New York Times was not found "not guilty" of anything as they were never charged with any crime. The Supreme Court case dealt with whether the government could restrict publication. The court ruled that no the government, in this specific case, could not. But the New York Times was not charged with any crime and therefore could not be found "not guilty".

Daniel Ellsberg did not serve any time in jail because charges were dropped in his trial due to misconduct on the part of the government. We will never know whether a court would have convicted Ellsberg or not. Based on the evidence known at the time, a conviction of Dr. Ellsberg and Russo would be probable. Dr. Paul's comment about Ellsberg not serving a day in jail can be misleading.

Dr. Paul is enjoyable to read, but his credibility leaves much to be desired

[Madox58]

The U.S. would have to wave the Death Sentence for the Crime.
I can't recall the last time any Nation turned someone over that might face Death.
:hmmm:

[Skybird]

It must be feared that the US tries to create a new law "on the fly" for the simple purpose of finding an excuse to demand extradiction of Assange and suing him over something. The fixiation on Assange is already driven by nothing more than "shooting the messenger for the bad news".

That would equal a frontal assault on the free press and it'S function of counter-control and monitoring of the government. The media are not called for no reason the fourth power in a state.

One also must remember that Wikileaks has won valuable merits in publishing once hidden information in the past 3 years that helped to shed light on unacceptable issues, and to demask lies in national politics and misleading of the public in many other countries, not just the US. In times of political parties and governments having won massive influence over the public media (Berlusconi in Italy, the Rundfunkrat in Germany, the agitation platform FOX in the US), turning them into propaganda tools for their own personal power intewrests, the media is failing its function as the fourth power in the state/society. That'S why I argue that there is a vital, essential need for platforms like Wikileaks - they serve i the function to help the citizens protecting themselves against the conspiracies of their governments.

Wikileaks has done nothing criminal. Governments and politicians have. And they want the lies they tell their people to stay in the dark.

It was claimed that the Iraq release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the war itself - based on and excused with lies - has caused? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Iraq release?

It was claimed that the Afghanistan release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the war itself - based on and excused with lies - has caused? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Afghanistan release?

It was claimed that the Cablegate release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the American support for autocratic tyrannies and barbarian regimes is causing? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Cablegate release so far?

What I see is a falling empire willing to defend its claims for absolute power even by using the methods of the Chinese regime. Is that really a compliment for that power? Does that do justice to the moral claims it states for itself?

No.

Meanwhile:

Manipulating the Political Dwarfes of Europe (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,733991,00.html)

So depressing true.

[Platapus]

Crikey, now we have Openleaks.org. They will be coming out of the woodwork soon. :nope:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/12/wikileaks.rival/index.html

The founders of Openleaks.org say they are former WikiLeaks members unhappy with the way WikiLeaks is being run under Assange.

Swell, just swell. :nope:

[Skybird]

Good!

There need to be a wide variety of platforms working independent from each other, because governments will try to crack down on them and to shut them down. But the more options informants have, the better the chances that they and publishing platforms as well will survive and will not become intimidated.

Governments will also try to remain even more stealöth and secretive and conspiratory than they already are, in order to avoid further leaks. But governments should not feel safe from the people, but they should fear them.

[Jimbuna]

The U.S. would have to wave the Death Sentence for the Crime.
I can't recall the last time any Nation turned someone over that might face Death.
:hmmm:

Actually.....that is an excellent point :hmmm:

[goldorak]

Meanwhile:

Manipulating the Political Dwarfes of Europe (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,733991,00.html)

So depressing true.

What a surprise not. :down:
Europe wants to play in world affairs on the same level as the US, but it doesn't have unity. Political unity. And political unity cannot come without a common defense strategy, and that means basically shutting down NATO which has long outserved its purpose. And now its only role is that of keeping an american beachhead in the european palaces of power.
De Gaulle was so right on so many issues and yet so widly misurderstood. And now Sarkozy l'americain wants France to reintegrate fully into NATO. What a waste of a man. Europeans have to put european interests before american interests, our politicians fail to understand this simple concept.

[goldorak]

The U.S. would have to wave the Death Sentence for the Crime.
I can't recall the last time any Nation turned someone over that might face Death.
:hmmm:

Europe doesn't have the death penalty, and no european country is going to turn over a man to the US authorities so that he can be executed in the US.

[Skybird]

The point of it all. That'S why in case of doubt I line up with Wikileaks and similar organisations and demand journalists being not threatened by laws to make them reveal their sources. You cannot form a personal qualified opinion, you cannot have something like "public opinion", without free speech and free media.

The free press serves a constitutional service of absolutely essential importance for democracy (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-734321,00.html)

Is Treason a Civic Duty?

A Commentary by Thomas Darnstädt (Thomas_Darnstädt@spiegel.de)

Since 9/11, press freedom in the West has come under attack as governments argue that national security is more important than transparency. But the hunt for WikiLeaks is a greater danger to democracy than any information that WikiLeaks might reveal.

Why do we need freedom of the press? The framers of the United States Constitution believed that such a guarantee would be unnecessary -- if not dangerous. There are freedoms that we don't secure through promises, but which we take for ourselves. They are like the air we breathe in a democracy, whose authority is built on public opinion. The democracy that was founded on the basis of such insights is the American democracy. It is an indication of the American revolutionaries' healthy mistrust in the power of this insight that they would later incorporate freedom of the press into the US Constitution after all.

Today, more than 200 years later, this old idea seems naïve to all too many people in the Western world. Since becoming embroiled in the war against terrorism, the US government has transformed itself into a huge security apparatus. The Washington Post recently reported (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/) that 854,000 people in the US government, or more than one-and-a-half times the population of Washington, DC, hold top-secret security clearances -- and this under a president who came into office promising a new era of openness in government. An estimated 16 million government documents a year are stamped "top secret," or not intended for the eyes of ordinary citizens.

In the crisis, the countries of Old Europe are also putting up the barricades. Germany's constitution, known as the Basic Law, has a far-reaching guarantee of press freedom and was created after World War II on behalf of the US liberators and in the spirit of the American and French revolutions. But in the 10th year after the 9/11 attacks, one German conservative politician has even pondered whether it might not be a good idea to prohibit journalists from reporting on terrorism in too much detail.

Such people would have been beheaded in revolutionary Paris and probably locked up in Philadelphia. When citizens were revolutionaries, the act of demanding freedom of speech was a revolutionary act. Today, in more peaceful times, we would characterize freedom of speech as a civic virtue.

Playing with Fire

But then along comes someone who is still playing the part of the revolutionary. Julian Assange (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733154,00.html), the founder of the whistleblowing platform WikiLeaks (http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/wikileaks/), is playing with the fire of anarchy. He is constantly threatening new, increasingly dangerous disclosures, which should indeed be of great concern to those affected. But the hatred he reaps in return is beneath all democracies.

In countries that have enshrined the right to free speech in their constitutions, it has until now been taken for granted that disclosures of confidential government information must be measured by the yardstick of the law. Disseminating real government secrets has always been against the law, including in Germany. The journalist Rudolf Augstein, SPIEGEL's founding father, paid for the mere suspicion of having exposed state secrets by spending 103 days in custody in 1962, in relation to a SPIEGEL cover story on the defense capabilities of the German military. But because the courts abided by the law, and freedom of the press was ultimately considered to be worth more than politicians' outrage, it wasn't the press but the government that felt the heat.

But for those who have it in for Assange, it's more a matter of principle than of enforcing the law. The loudmouth from Australia offers a welcome opportunity to finally cast off the old ideas of press freedom as a right that we grant ourselves instead of allowing others to grant it to us. Aren't we all at war? Isn't it the case that citizens must, in fact, protect the state instead of spying on it?

The trans-Atlantic coalition of protectors of the state includes such diverse participants as the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Joe Lieberman, who accuses anyone who publishes secret US diplomatic cables of "bad citizenship," and German Green Party Chairman Cem Özdemir, who says that WikiLeaks has "crossed a line that isn't good for our democracy." The need to portray oneself as a good citizen is particularly strong among certain journalists. Even the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which normally takes civil rights very seriously, chides that the WikiLeaks disclosures "destroy politics, endanger people and can influence economies." American journalist Steve Coll, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his own exposés, rages against the activities of WikiLeaks, calling them "vandalism" and "subversion." The Washington Post, whose reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein once exposed the Watergate affair, describes WikiLeaks as a "criminal organization."

Dark Time for Freedom

To critics, the most threatening aspect of WikiLeaks' "criminal" activities must be the fact that, so far, no one has managed to find a law that these whistleblowers have actually broken. The US Justice Department's attempt to invoke the controversial Espionage Act of 1917 shows how helpless the protectors of the law are as they flip through their tomes. The period of World War I was a dark time for constitutional freedoms in the US. In its practically hysterical fear of communists and all other critics, the judiciary even prosecuted people who distributed flyers critical of military service, and in doing so ignored all constitutional guarantees.

Even the post 9/11 period wasn't quite as bad. In 2005, when the New York Times planned to publish a story about an illegal global wire-tapping program operated by the US National Security Agency (NSA), the paper's senior editors were summoned to the White House to meet with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The most powerful government in the world was forced to resort to moral pressure. Apparently no one knew of any legal justification for the government to bar the Times from going to press. Of course, the newspaper did ultimately publish what it had learned. Nevertheless, America survived.

Or was it the other way around? Did America survive precisely because the New York Times published what it knew?

The Importance of Ethics

A few days ago, Congressional legal experts issued a report warning against dusting off the Espionage Act, arguing that it isn't quite that easy to apply the prohibition on disclosing secret government information to hostile powers to disclosures in the press.

The only remaining option is to challenge the right of Assange and his much-feared organization to claim protection under the Constitution as members of the press. Should every hurler of data be afforded the same political status as the New York Times or SPIEGEL? Isn't it true that what legitimizes the work of the press is the responsible handling of data, as well as the acts of considering the consequences, applying emphasis and explaining the material?

That's the way it should be. The ethics of journalism is what makes the products of the press credible to readers. This is just as applicable to SPIEGEL as it is to its counterparts in New York and Washington. In fact, it should apply to anyone who deals with sensitive data. However, a look at the beginning of the story shows that no one but citizens themselves -- that is, the readers -- can answer the question of whether the standards were adhered to. The worst penalty they can impose is to simply not read a newspaper or a collection of data on the Internet.


Are Citizens Permitted to Disclose State Secrets?

WikiLeaks is as much an intermediary for the public sphere as every newspaper and every website. For Berlin constitutional law expert Dieter Grimm, it is clear that the whistleblower website enjoys "the protections for freedom of the press under Germany's Basic Law." As a judge on the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, Grimm played a very important role in shaping the current interpretation of freedom of opinion and freedom of the press in Germany. The Constitutional Court itself has consistently emphasized that the task of disseminating information in an unimpeded manner is "clearly essential" to the functioning of a democracy.

There is no good or bad public sphere, just as there is no such thing as a bit of a public sphere. According to the German Constitutional Court, it is only the full- fledged ability of all citizens to have access to all information, at least in principle, which makes the formation of public opinion possible. And it is the unobstructed formation of public opinion that makes it possible to view the outcome of elections as being representative of the will of the people.

Is the state permitted to keep secrets from its citizens? Are citizens permitted to disclose such secrets?

The answer to both questions is very simple: Yes.

State Has No Private Sphere

Naturally the government is permitted to have secrets. It is part of the prudent behavior of every civil servant to prepare decisions in confidence, so as to prevent unauthorized individuals from thwarting the desired outcome in advance. This is no less applicable to the planning of foreign ministers' conferences than to plans to apprehend terrorists.

That's why it is also part of the responsibility of all politicians, civil servants and judges to keep an eye on sensitive information, as the case arises. This is all the more important because the government cannot depend on being able to operate in legally protected darkness. The state's privacy, as such, is not legally protected, and the state, unlike its citizens, has no private sphere. The rights of citizens deserve protection, but the government's internal affairs do not.

Only one politician in Berlin, Christian Ahrendt, the legal policy spokesman for the liberal Free Democratic Party's parliamentary group, had the courage to put the unpopular truth into words: "If government agencies don't keep a close eye on their data, they can't hold the press responsible after the event."

This is the answer to the second question: Just as it is legitimate for the state to keep information secret, it is legitimate for the press to publish information it has succeeded in obtaining from the belly of the state.

The Quality of a Democracy

This is difficult to comprehend, even for interior ministers, which is why Germany needed, once again, a decision from the Constitutional Court explaining the difference between breach of secrecy and disclosure. When the editorial offices of the magazine Cicero were searched in 2005, with the approval of then Interior Minister Otto Schily, because the magazine had reported on a confidential Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) dossier, the investigators used a complicated argument to justify their charge against the editor responsible for the story. They argued that, although there is no specific law banning the publication of confidential official documents, it is a punishable offence for the BKA agents responsible for taking care of such documents to leak them. This meant that the journalist in question was an "accessory" to a punishable offence, if only by accepting the documents. And being an accessory to an offence is also an offence.

The Constitutional Court rejected this argument, noting once again the "absolutely essential importance" of press freedom for democracy. The press is allowed to print what it has obtained. With the very narrow exceptions in the realm of treason, this rule must apply in the press's handling of government secrets.

The case of Valerie Plame, the wife of an American diplomat who was exposed as a CIA agent by the syndicated columnist Robert Novak, shows that it is also firmly applied in the United States. It is a crime in both the United States and Germany to expose an agent of one's own government. But in the Plame case, reporters were only called to testify as witnesses. It was the government source, and not the reporters themselves, that was being prosecuted. Nevertheless, a journalist, Judith Miller, was arrested and spent three months in jail for refusing to reveal her sources. Even this sanction would be unthinkable in Germany, where journalists have the right to refuse to give evidence. Under the Basic Law, journalists, in the interest of the free disclosure of secrets, must even have the right to protect government sources.

In Germany, it was former Constitutional Court Judge Grimm who declared that a free press serves a constitutional purpose. This is not meant in a restrictive way, but entirely within the meaning of the framers of the US Constitution. If the state derives its democratic authority from citizens having comprehensive information, then providing information becomes a civic duty. And breach of secrecy becomes a mark of the quality of a democracy.

[Catfish]

"Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm: "

I assume you meant people at wikileaks

Yes they can. Now getting a conviction will be tough. But there is nothing preventing the US government from charging them with the crime

No they can not.

How can Assange be charged for "treason" when he is not even a US citizen, let alone someone who never swore an oath in the US military, or other services ? If an US non-governmental or non-military citizen publishes material of how illegal troops or the govenment acted, would or even could he be indicted with no oath sworn, being just an american journalist feeling bound to uncover lies ?
Why is there no reaction to what came to light, but just how to silence the messenger ??!!

First they would have to invent an indictment, for they have nothing they can accuse a foreign national like Assange with.

Second since when can any country demand from another, to deliver the citizen of another nation ? Assange is Australian.

Third if they want to re-invent the death penalty in the US as they had in WW1 against people who just said they did not like the war and demonstrated against it, no country with a democracy that takes itself serious will deliver anyone who might be executed, to said country.


Imagine Russia demanding the delivery of an australian spy, from Sweden and if Sweden would not bow kill him right there, or bring him over by a "Nacht und Nebel" action ?
And Assange is not the spy, he is a foreign journalist.
As said before people who publish atrocities have to be silenced ? This does tell more about the people who want to have him delivered than anything else.
:nope:

Thanks for your correction regarding this one point made by Ron Paul, and what about his other points ? This is a man who is concerned about democracy and the conduct of informing the citizens, as Jefferson saw it. This is a general question which also applies for Germany and other nations, with troops in Kosovo, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S: b.t.w. those ddos attacks are no "attacks" but propaganda, by people who feel to have been fooled and belied.

[Skybird]

Just to call back to mind some Wikileaks-Highlights of the past years.

2009, the Minton-Report. Wikileaks revealed an internal study of the company Trafigura which had successfully silenced The Guardian before (by legal means) to not publish it. The revelations showed how the company illegally shipped toxic waste to Africa and by that caused health harms to over 100,000 people, with around 20 people killed.

The same year, Wikileaks revealed an internal calculation of the German health ministry that showed that the Germasn were belied by the government over the costs of maintaining private insurance for healthcare, and switching to a new model of general health insurance. The real costs for this "reform", which translate into profit raises for private health insurrance companies, are much higher than being told to the public - and the ministry knew it. It lied to the peoplke: intentionally, and by pressure of lobby groups.

2008 Wikileaks revealed internal documents of Scientology which revealed the unscrupellous policies and idiotic teachings of this money-craving, people-abusing criminal commercial business company that tries to avoid persecution by the law by claiming to be a "religion".

2007, the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta were published, showing practices at camp Delta which are in violation of the Geneva Convention and the International Human Rights.

2008, the publication of Palin's emails showed that she was using her private email accounts to avoid the duty to document any official communication traffic in her role as a public office holder, so that she could not be held legally responsible for any orders she gave via these "private" mails.

Wikileaks last year published the Climategate emails which are controversial but seemed to show some inconsitencies in the argument-forming of pro-Global Warming scientists.

2008 Wikileaks published the memberlist of the fascist British National party - and how much the British police is being infiltrated with BNP members. Illegal in Britain.

Add to this many dozens of publishings regarding other countries' internal issues which just did not get that ammount of international attention, and the infamous warlogs from Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

Organisations as Wikileaks are about much more than just Cablegate, or "Anti-Americanism".

[onelifecrisis]

Assange was just granted bail.

[onelifecrisis]

Can someone please explain to Mr. Dumbass here why - ostensibly - Sweden need to extradite Assange? So far as I can ascertain Assange is not actually being charged with anything (yet) and the Swedish authorities just want him "for questioning". Why do they need to extradite him for that? Don't they have phones in Sweden?

[SteamWake]

Assange was just granted bail.

Heh did you see who offered to pay it :har:

[onelifecrisis]

Heh did you see who offered to pay it :har:

Various people, including one female friend of his who offered £150,000 ("all the money she has" apparently).

[MaddogK]

Heh did you see who offered to pay it :har:
That Pinko Michael Moore.
:haha::haha::haha:

[Oberon]

Assange was just granted bail.

Apparently he's answering to an address somewhere up my way. I wonder where in this county he is... :hmmm:

[onelifecrisis]

Apparently he's answering to an address somewhere up my way. I wonder where in this county he is... :hmmm:

Heh, could be right out in the hills somewhere!
Edit: Oh, Suffolk? Oops, for some reason I thought you lived in Derbyshire.

Something is well fishy here. He's agree to an electronic tag, his passport locked down, his location locked down, daily visits to the police, and over 200k in security/bail/whatever it's called, and yet the Swedish prosecution are challenging the decision?

[Oberon]

Heh, could be right out in the hills somewhere!
Edit: Oh, Suffolk? Oops, for some reason I thought you lived in Derbyshire.

Something is well fishy here. He's agree to an electronic tag, his passport locked down, his location locked down, daily visits to the police, and over 200k in security/bail/whatever it's called, and yet the Swedish prosecution are challenging the decision?

Think you might have got me mixed up with papa_smurf, he lives in Derbyshire ;)

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye I'd say, a lot more, but until it gets leaked on wikileaks, we won't know. :03:

[onelifecrisis]

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye I'd say, a lot more, but until it gets leaked on wikileaks, we won't know. :03:

LOL

[Dowly]

Sweden is now complaining about th bail, which only goes to show that they're doing this under US' boot.

Wouldn't be the first time swedish authorities are pressured to act by someone from US (MPAA & co. in Piratebay raid comes to mind).

[Capt. Morgan]

Can someone please explain ...why - ostensibly - Sweden needs to extradite Assange? ...

Well, Paragraph 6 of this (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/05/07STOCKHOLM506.html) leaked cable from the Stockholm embassy states that Sweden is strong intelligence partner with the U.S. (stronger than is generally known - even within the Swedish Government, and to an extent that would disturb ordinary Swedish citizens), and it is also notably reliable in matters of counter-terrorism.

Maybe extradition to the U.S.A. from Sweden on a flimsy pretext will go a lot smoother than from Britain, more so than most would consider possible. I'm guessing you guessed that though

[onelifecrisis]

Well, Paragraph 6 of this (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/05/07STOCKHOLM506.html) leaked cable from the Stockholm embassy states that Sweden is strong intelligence partner with the U.S. (stronger than is generally known - even within the Swedish Government, and to an extent that would disturb ordinary Swedish citizens), and it is also notably reliable in matters of counter-terrorism.

Maybe extradition to the U.S.A. from Sweden on a flimsy pretext will go a lot smoother than from Britain, more so than most would consider possible. I'm guessing you guessed that though

Yeah I get all that. Note my use of the word "ostensibly" - I want to know what the "official" reason is as to why they can't just pick up the phone and ask him the questions.

[Diopos]

...
I want to know what the "official" reason is as to why they can't just pick up the phone and ask him the questions.

The phone connection in the prosecutor's office doesn't allow international calls? :hmmm:

:D

.

[the_tyrant]

Yeah I get all that. Note my use of the word "ostensibly" - I want to know what the "official" reason is as to why they can't just pick up the phone and ask him the questions.

you just can't create the feeling of Jack Bauer breathing down your neck over the phone:D

[darius359au]

Yeah I get all that. Note my use of the word "ostensibly" - I want to know what the "official" reason is as to why they can't just pick up the phone and ask him the questions.

Other than the fact that police interviews are done in person ,and that he did a runner from Sweden before the police had finished investigating?

[onelifecrisis]

darius, the previous charges against him were dropped, and you can't extradite someone just for an interview. Wikipedia says:

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

Assange has not been charged, so how is this EAW legal? I just don't get it.

[darius359au]

Despite all the noise ,as far as I know no-one other than the Swedish police/prosecutors ,the UK Police ,Interpol and assanges defence team actually know what's in the arrest warrant and his own lawyers are only fighting the extradition - the problem is there's more noise than actual facts out there about this whole thing and it's not helped by all the conspiracy theory's out there either.