| 6:45 am on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Gramps, everything is a red herring.
| 8:00 am on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Question is: Who is sitting in the glass house here?
Assange who's likes to leak information about others and has now information about himself leaked? Or governments who cry foul when information about them is leaked but happily will leak information themselves when it suites their purpose and can be used to to spread unpleasant information about political opponents or other disliked persons.
Well, probably both.
Looks like one of those cases where the prosecutors know they don't have enough evidence for a conviction in court, so they pronounce the sencentce themselves and execute it immediately. The sentence being: Destruction of reputation.
| 11:52 am on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Assange and Wikileaks typically publish evidence purported to be relevant to ongoing criminal investigations. Furthermore, in most countries, leaking such information most definitely is a criminal offence.
|It said having been given access to the official papers, it had a duty to present a "brief summary" of the sex allegations against Mr Assange, together with his response. |
If that's accurate it may be unprecedented. Since when are newspapers given access to "official papers" in matters such as these? I would have thought that if true, it would be grounds to throw out the extradition request on the basis of not being able to gurantee a fair trial.
That said, if I was in Assange's position, I would go back to Sweden and say, "Ok let's get on with it." Frankly it's the only way otherwise, even if he wins the extradition case in this country, it could follow him everywhere he goes. Nor would I fight an extradition to the US if one was sought - where will the government find a jury ready to convict him, answer - nowhere.
The US Government would simply end up putting a magnifying glass over their own incompetence - are they really dumb enough to do that knowing that they are almost certain to loose a) in front of a jury and b) in front of a judge by virtue of constitutional arguments related to the rights of a free press. And even if they did win, it would go to appeal and appeal and it would just never end. And then, even if the US Government won all those appeals, they would be handing a big stick to countries like China and Burma that regularly lock up their political opponents. Again, is the US Government really dumb enough to do that? If I was Assange I would say, "Go ahead, make my day."
In fact, I think I would just try entering the country. When asked what the purpose of my visit was, I would say, "To make your Government look stupid" - there's no way they would let me in so there's no way they could later make an extradition request - they really would look super-dumb!
| 1:48 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|My favorite quote from this article |
This is mine.
|Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. |
| 2:56 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I suppose those who support whatever laws Sweden has against leaking police reports also support its sometimes weird sex crimes laws.
| 4:06 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|In fact, I think I would just try entering the country. When asked what the purpose of my visit was, I would say, "To make your Government look stupid" |
Absolutely, I bet they're cringing and wishing the entire thing would go away since no matter what they do and how it ends up they'll be seen to be in the wrong by 50% of the people...either way.
| 4:13 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Let's try to stay on topic fellow foo-ites. To refresh, the topic is about a leaker becoming a leakee.
| 4:52 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't see how this is the same thing. Assange has been leaking documents that are true. This is leaking a document that is or is not true. I could make up a story right now about him saying he #$@&^%# a %^#*%#&* and it wouldn't be me leaking a story, just telling a story.
| 6:41 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Assange has been leaking documents that are true. |
A boy repeatedly pokes a vicious dog with a sharp stick. The vicious dog bites the boy.
The news report says...
"Vicious dog bites boy!"
That's a true statement, albeit somewhat sensationalist, but it hardly tells the whole story.
At this point that may be about what we are getting from Wikileaks for all we know. They post whatever selected files they choose, and we are left to wonder if there is a counterpoint file containing the rest of the story.
| 6:24 pm on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Interesting that they're concerned about his defense, when that's a major part of what various governments have cited as damage being caused by Wikileaks.
|"It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague. |
Just collateral damage in the pursuit of a greater good, Julian old boy. ;)
I'd gladly sit on that jury to convict him, and would be happy to hang the jury if it appeared the others were inclined to let him go.
|where will the government find a jury ready to convict him, answer - nowhere. |
| 7:04 pm on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I'd gladly sit on that jury to convict him, and would be happy to hang the jury if it appeared the others were inclined to let him go. |
Wow, you aren't biased at all! Hopefully you will never be in a jury, anywhere.
All that matters is the innocent or guilt of the sex crime. WikiLeaks has nothing to do with this case.
| 7:13 pm on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
...that is probably the exact opposite of what his lawyers will argue. they will say that WikiLeaks has everything to do with the case.
| 1:01 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I'd gladly sit on that jury to convict him, and would be happy to hang the jury if it appeared the others were inclined to let him go. |
How exactly would you get pas jury selection - lie?
How exactly would you hang a jury that was about to let him go? Eventually a verdict has to be returned otherwise a mistrial is declared. A majority in favour of acquittal will usually be sufficient to ensure no retrial takes place unless substantial new evidence is uncovered.
| 1:33 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
My favorite quote from this article
This is mine.
Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.
Good find. That would get my vote for quote of the year.
| 5:50 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Bias against crime is necessary for a juror, which is the only bias I have in this case. I would contend that people with no regard for law and order, which is the position you seem to espouse, are actually the dangerous ones to have on a jury.
|Wow, you aren't biased at all! Hopefully you will never be in a jury, anywhere. |
No, and I've said enough about Assange publicly to disqualify myself from ever being on a jury trying him for anything. I just meant that if I were qualified, and had the opportunity to sit on a jury trying Assange as a terrorist/extortionist, I'd gladly vote "guilty" if the evidence presented was anything like what I've read in the news.
|How exactly would you get pas jury selection - lie? |
The same way a single (bought/threatened?) jury member was able to hang the Blagojevich trial, despite his clear guilt - just hold out against the majority. Sure, Blago is going back to trial, and so would Assange, but I would never cast my vote to clear the man. He's clearly engaging in cyber terrorism and is trying to blackmail the government to boot.
|How exactly would you hang a jury that was about to let him go? |
[edited by: lawman at 7:00 am (utc) on Dec 23, 2010]
| 7:25 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
That has not been proven.... With much respect, you are ignorant of what is at hand (and so am I). Assange has not been charged of any crimes relating to his 'work' - apparently he might have committed a faux pas while being intimate with two women. -that will "maybe" be decided. Yet, he has not even been charged of that.
I'll wager that whatever game is starting to be played out is not anywhere close to what the average WebmasterWorld member can grasp. If you want to get an idea, look for the obvious red herrings: Guardian, NYT, HuffPo. Also monitor the international press and figure out what they are NOT saying...
| 8:55 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Fuggitaboutit... the FCC is in charge these days... :) [webmasterworld.com...]
Meanwhile, I am not a fan of weakileeks (sic) I like my leeks fresh and washed before inserting in the culinary process.
And just in case somebody doesn't realize it, the above (short of the links shown) is tongue in cheek.
| 10:06 am on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|He's clearly engaging in cyber terrorism and is trying to blackmail the government to boot. |
What definition of cyber terrorism are you working to?
What definition of blackmail are you working to?
In order to be guilty of cyber terrorism, Assange and/or Wikileaks would have had to engage in some form of computer hacking.
In order to be guilty of blackmail, Assange and/or Wikileaks would have had to make demands for money or policy changes and said "do what we say or we'll publish".
So, since it is clear to you that he is guilty of both, please illuminate us with your superior knowledge of the facts and if you are unable to cite sources, please tell us how you came by them (cash in brown envelopes, dead drops, dreams, voices in your head, etc.)
| 12:45 pm on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>>"do what we say or we'll publish"
Not taking sides, but it was reported prior to his arrest that if arrested, there'd be a doomsday dump of info. Of course everyone knew that wouldn't happen.
[edited by: lawman at 5:56 pm (utc) on Dec 23, 2010]
| 4:49 pm on Dec 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Assange injected himself into a place where character and literal assassination are expected and accepted. There are a lot more than two sides and he has pissed off most of them. I hope he was not naive enough to believe that he will have an easy time of things. His intention may be to change the world into something else, but the consequences come from the world we have today.
Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I am making out the report now. We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape."
I am guessing that he will come out of all of this with his life, but in a manner that will greatly deter any future wikileaks contributors.
| 9:07 am on Dec 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The warning, "If you attack me, I'll retaliate" is not normally considered to be blackmail in the same way that "Do what I say or else..." is. Assange and Wikileaks may be guilty of the former but I am not aware of any statements that would make them guilty of the latter.
As for cyber terrorism, Wikileaks itself has been the victim and many people consider it likely that the US Government is at least one of the perpetrators. Wikileaks is also the victim of behind-the-scenes arm-bending by the US Government - one wonders what sort of blackmail threats were used to cut off Wikileaks financially. I for one hope some of those conversations have been recorded.
The current US administration seems to be guilty of petulance and abuse of power - if the republicans were smart, they would exploit that rather than indicate they would be even worse. I'm not just talking about Wikileaks but other affairs such as the BP Oil debacle. For instance, BP agreed to set up a 20+ billion dollar fund for cleanup and compensation and then a couple of months later they are cited with others in a law suit seeking unlimited damages. The only winners in that will be the lawyers - remind me, what was the President's profession again...
From now on, no oil company will go anywhere near deep water drilling - the US Government won't be able to give licenses away in the future - that's not smart government and I would certainly like to hear as many leaks as possible on the way that's been handled. Plenty of warnings will have been given about creating long-term problems for short-term political gain - I'm sure those warnings would make fascinating reading.
In court, witnesses are required to tell the whole truth in order to allow a jury to come to the right decision. If politicians are allowed to bury the truth because it is embarrassing, how is the public expected to come to the right decision when choosing how to vote?
| 11:28 am on Dec 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Politics and philosophy aside, Assange is a big crybaby who stamped his foot and announced that he "has enough anger to last [him] a hundred years." He's been able to extend his 15 minutes of fame by dribbling out leaks. His prima donna status will evaporate about 10 seconds after he releases the entirety of his present cache, which, unless he comes into possession of more documents, will probably be about a hundred years from now.
| 8:51 am on Dec 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How long do you think it would take to read and digest 250,000 cables?
99% or more are likely to be utterly boring and many of the interesting ones will look boring at first and many of boring ones might look interesting at first. Whilst it is likely that Wikileaks is guilty of "drawing out" the story, simply dumping the whole lot in one go would be silly. Also, you can hardly blame them for doing exactly what the Telegraph did in the UK when breaking the MPs Expenses story.
The subject of this thread is "People who live in glass houses". Unless someone can come up with an example of Wikileaks and/or Assange undermining a ongoing criminal trial/investigation then it's hardly an accurate metaphor.
However, on the subject of hypocrisy...
Barack Obama was a human rights lawyer - but as soon as he becomes president all that is forgotten [bbc.co.uk...] - I wonder if the Red Cross will ask to visit Bradley Manning - that will look good considering the country's leader is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. All that's left after that will be for his lawyer to quit due to intimidation and the US will have more or less torn up its own constitution.
If any petulant foot-stamping is going on, it's in the corridors of power.
| 11:35 am on Dec 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
He threatened the dump. I, along with everyone else in the world including you, knew it wouldn't happen. If an independent observer were able to follow the hero around for a couple of weeks and report Mr. Assanges words and deeds during that time, I suspect his shining armor would take on an interesting patina.
| 12:25 pm on Dec 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't subscribe to the view Assange is any sort of hero, but, as I have pointed out, he is not the worst hypocrite involved in this story - not even close. He has exposed "the patina" of others and no one on the US side is looking good right now and the more strong-arm tactics they use, the worse they look.
The reality of the situation is the the US Government is using intimidation to isolate Wikileaks/Assange and to dissuade others from following the same path and/or offering succour to those that do.
Frankly, it is absurd that a country whose president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and who was formerly a human rights lawyer - i.e. someone who would have spoken up in favour of Bradley Manning, is now using such tactics to cover up stupidity, lies, two-faced hypocrisy and gross incompetence. It is particularly absurd since the information is already out there and a new organisation - OpenLeaks - will be going live soon.
The US Government would be far wiser to take it on the chin and improve security because the more they make of this the longer it will drag on. Bill Clinton would understand that even if his wife and his current successor do not.
| 1:31 pm on Dec 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The only two nations that we know are using tactics against Assange are Sweden and England, and those procedings, flimsy as they appear to be, are specific to his judgment about when to exercise zipper control.
The topic of this thread is about various leaks, not how rotten the U.S. or any other government is. Since all positions have been staked out and we're starting to repeat ourselves, this thread is closed.