Julian Assange arrested (merged)

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

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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. 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...hes-kevin-rudd

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TarJak

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. 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...hes-kevin-rudd

Good post

[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/...733512,00.html

[Skybird]

PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments

Anonymous Mastercard attack 'hits payments'

[Molon Labe]

This is the case 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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Damn, I somehow missed this awesome article yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ive-with-leaks

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

Yes its an awesome article, an eye opener indeed.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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.