Of course, those jealously protective of the privileges of unaccountable state power will tell us that people will die if we can read their email, but so what? Different people, maybe more people, will die if we can't
Manning is in the brig for allegedly disclosing a classified video depicting U.S. troops shooting civilians from an Apache helicopter in Iraq in July 2007. The video, available at www.collateralmurder.com, was published by WikiLeaks on April 5, 2010. Manning faces 52 years in prison. No charges have been filed against the soldiers in the video.
b/w
Statements about leaks costing lives are true - they're calling it treason and want to murder those responsible.
Everyone already knows full well that North Korea and Iran are mad faulty. Dude is obviously addressing those who still, despite tons of evidence that hardly needs to come from a sneaky leak, buy into the facade of a superior United States.
I think that there still remain potentially shocking verities that a literally religious following within Iran (and, really, North Korea, in a manner of speaking) would be quite interested to learn. Stuff that might take down literal dictatorships and not simply aggrandized, red-tape be-crippled representative republics.
This is not an accurate depiction of the Iranian people.
I invite you to look at what happened in the 2009 elections. Do you honestly believe opening secret documents is going to overthrow the present regime?
This is a country with public executions.
Iranian people are very aware of what the government and religious leaders are about.
I am in favour of worldwide leaks - let the people know.
But I do not agree at all with your reasoning for why they need to happen in Iran.
(edit - that is to say, why it would have been more useful - "first things first"...)
Of course, those jealously protective of the privileges of unaccountable state power will tell us that people will die if we can read their email, but so what? Different people, maybe more people, will die if we can't
The UK kept quiet about a loophole allowing the US to continue storing banned cluster bombs on its territory, a leaked US diplomatic cable suggests.
A senior Foreign Office official is quoted in the message, sent in May 2009 and published by the Wikileaks website.
It suggested not formally agreeing an exception for "specific missions" until after the UK Parliament ratified the ban - thus avoiding debate among MPs.
The Foreign Office insists it never deliberately failed to inform MPs.
Dropped from the air or fired from the ground, cluster munitions release small bomblets over a wide area. Critics say they have a devastating humanitarian impact - most victims are civilians; a third are children.
Britain was among more than 90 countries which signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) in December 2008. The treaty bans the use of cluster bombs and prohibits signatories from assisting other countries to use, stockpile or transfer them.
The then prime minister, Gordon Brown, hailed the treaty as a "major breakthrough".
Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.
Sweden???s Public Prosecutor???s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was ???no evidence???. The damage to Assange???s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.
For three months Assange had been waiting in vain to hear whether media statements by and for the two female ???victims??? that there was no fear or violence were going to be embellished so the charges might be carried forward due to greater seriousness. Such statements would stop a rape charge in any Western country dead in its tracks. Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. You can rape someone by deluding them into thinking you are someone else or by drugging them or by reason of their young age but essentially it???s a crime of violence.
The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Far from it. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.
That further evidence hasn???t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wil??n boasting of their respective conquests after the ???crimes???.
In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange???s honour at her flat after the ???crime??? and tweeted to her followers that she is with the ???the world???s coolest smartest people, it???s amazing!???. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wil??n???s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wil??n???s nor Ardin???s texts complain of rape.
But then neither Arden nor Wil??n complained to the police but rather ???sought advice???, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints. They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other???s evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them. You can see Wil??n on the YouTube video of the event even now.
Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes Borgstr??m was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. Borgstr??m???s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. ???They (the women) are not jurists???. You need a law degree to know whether you have been r-ped or not in Sweden. In the context of such double think, the question of how the Swedish authorities propose to deal with victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You???re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn???t understand anyway. The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange???s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution ???Development Unit??? could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange???s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn???t exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for it. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.
A great deal more damning evidence is yet to be revealed about what passes for legal process in Sweden, such as Assange???s lawyers having not received a single official document until November 18, 2010 (and then in Swedish language contrary to European Law) and having to learn about the status of investigations through prosecution media announcements but make no mistake: it is not Julian Assange that is on trial here but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law.
Luck, do citizens of other countries have the right or not to know what the US (Or any country for that matter) is potential up to in their countries? Yes or no?
Your question is far too general to answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Shame he chose to dodge the only awkward question that was put in front of him.
Looks like you're with those evil Diplomats. Wait until I post your hacked, dirty e-mails later tomorrow night so the free-thinkers can decide if you broke any social mores.
Luck, do citizens of other countries have the right or not to know what the US (Or any country for that matter) is potential up to in their countries? Yes or no?
Your question is far too general to answer with a simple "yes" or "no."
Could you handle the rest of the stuff I wrote after that? I spent a good 15-20 minutes writing and editing that. Heh.
It might be a poor use of my time to have a nuanced argument pro-whistleblowers and anti-self-policing espionage movers.
assange likely to be Time's person of the year 2010. !!!!!
I read that some US politician "best known for his ferocious hatered of homosexuality" has called for Assange to be killed on grounds of treason.
Anybody that can piss-off a piece of shit like that gets my vote.
As Jon Stewart would point out, how can Assange be guilty of treason when he's not American?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
luck said:
DocMcCoy said:
Shame he chose to dodge the only awkward question that was put in front of him.
Looks like you're with those evil Diplomats. Wait until I post your hacked, dirty e-mails later tomorrow night so the free-thinkers can decide if you broke any social mores.
Heh.
I'm kind of on both sides, to a degree. It's just that he tells ex-diplomat dude he needs to edit down his question before it can be answered. But the actual, very straightforward question itself is there at the end of all that explanatory background stuff, and Assange chooses to swerve it. Yet further down the page, he happily gives an answer to a far more complicated question which, coincidentally, doesn't involve him having to justify the more dubious aspects of this exercise. If he's asking awkward questions of governments, he ought to be willing to at least attempt an answer to that one.
Shame he chose to dodge the only awkward question that was put in front of him.
Looks like you're with those evil Diplomats. Wait until I post your hacked, dirty e-mails later tomorrow night so the free-thinkers can decide if you broke any social mores.
Heh.
I'm kind of on both sides, to a degree. It's just that he tells ex-diplomat dude he needs to edit down his question before it can be answered. But the actual, very straightforward question itself is there at the end of all that explanatory background stuff, and Assange chooses to swerve it. Yet further down the page, he happily gives an answer to a far more complicated question which, coincidentally, doesn't involve him having to justify the more dubious aspects of this exercise. If he's asking awkward questions of governments, he ought to be willing to at least attempt an answer to that one.
Shame he chose to dodge the only awkward question that was put in front of him.
There are perfectly reasonable rebuttals to diplomat dude's arguments which have been made many times before. His 'question' does contain a lot of opinion and editorializing, rather than fact. You can't even answer his 'question' if you believe his whole premise underlying it to be faulty. I assume that was what Assange was trying to pithily get at.
Not to be an Assange apologist. Dude's clearly creepy and sweaty. But in this instance I thought his reply was funny.
Comments
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_state_secrecy
Damn.
What he did was treason right?
If Wikileaks is being championed, shouldnt the whistleblower recieve the same praise?
B/W Dude is FUCKED.
b/w
Statements about leaks costing lives are true - they're calling it treason and want to murder those responsible.
This is not an accurate depiction of the Iranian people.
I invite you to look at what happened in the 2009 elections. Do you honestly believe opening secret documents is going to overthrow the present regime?
This is a country with public executions.
Iranian people are very aware of what the government and religious leaders are about.
I am in favour of worldwide leaks - let the people know.
But I do not agree at all with your reasoning for why they need to happen in Iran.
(edit - that is to say, why it would have been more useful - "first things first"...)
LIKE THIS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11894759
The UK kept quiet about a loophole allowing the US to continue storing banned cluster bombs on its territory, a leaked US diplomatic cable suggests.
A senior Foreign Office official is quoted in the message, sent in May 2009 and published by the Wikileaks website.
It suggested not formally agreeing an exception for "specific missions" until after the UK Parliament ratified the ban - thus avoiding debate among MPs.
The Foreign Office insists it never deliberately failed to inform MPs.
Dropped from the air or fired from the ground, cluster munitions release small bomblets over a wide area. Critics say they have a devastating humanitarian impact - most victims are civilians; a third are children.
Britain was among more than 90 countries which signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) in December 2008. The treaty bans the use of cluster bombs and prohibits signatories from assisting other countries to use, stockpile or transfer them.
The then prime minister, Gordon Brown, hailed the treaty as a "major breakthrough".
Couldn't make this shit up!
btw - I think what he did was very patriotic.
Unfortunately for him he is also subject to military law.
WikiLeaks founder: Netanyahu believes expos?? will aid Mideast peace
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-founder-netanyahu-believes-expose-will-aid-mideast-peace-1.328380
Senior Turkey official says Israel behind WikiLeaks release
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senior-turkey-official-says-israel-behind-wikileaks-release-1.328373
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/
Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.
Sweden???s Public Prosecutor???s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was ???no evidence???. The damage to Assange???s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.
For three months Assange had been waiting in vain to hear whether media statements by and for the two female ???victims??? that there was no fear or violence were going to be embellished so the charges might be carried forward due to greater seriousness. Such statements would stop a rape charge in any Western country dead in its tracks. Rape is a crime of violence, duress or deception. You can rape someone by deluding them into thinking you are someone else or by drugging them or by reason of their young age but essentially it???s a crime of violence.
The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Far from it. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.
That further evidence hasn???t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wil??n boasting of their respective conquests after the ???crimes???.
In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange???s honour at her flat after the ???crime??? and tweeted to her followers that she is with the ???the world???s coolest smartest people, it???s amazing!???. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wil??n???s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wil??n???s nor Ardin???s texts complain of rape.
But then neither Arden nor Wil??n complained to the police but rather ???sought advice???, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints. They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other???s evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them. You can see Wil??n on the YouTube video of the event even now.
Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes Borgstr??m was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. Borgstr??m???s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. ???They (the women) are not jurists???. You need a law degree to know whether you have been r-ped or not in Sweden. In the context of such double think, the question of how the Swedish authorities propose to deal with victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You???re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn???t understand anyway. The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange???s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution ???Development Unit??? could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange???s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn???t exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for it. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.
A great deal more damning evidence is yet to be revealed about what passes for legal process in Sweden, such as Assange???s lawyers having not received a single official document until November 18, 2010 (and then in Swedish language contrary to European Law) and having to learn about the status of investigations through prosecution media announcements but make no mistake: it is not Julian Assange that is on trial here but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law.
That 'land of the free' crap just gets funnier and funnier everyday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
Paging Harvey Canal.
http://comedians.jokes.com/jake-johannsen/videos/jake-johannsen---stealth-bomber
Sorry, this video is not available in your country
:smirk:
:lol:
They don't want the Brits to see what real comedy is like....it would put lots of folks out of work.
Somebody be a hero and leak that shit to the UK.
That's ok, it's all here.
So this Gordon Brown chap....he's a well known comedian across the pond??
Looks like you're with those evil Diplomats. Wait until I post your hacked, dirty e-mails later tomorrow night so the free-thinkers can decide if you broke any social mores.
Could you handle the rest of the stuff I wrote after that? I spent a good 15-20 minutes writing and editing that. Heh.
It might be a poor use of my time to have a nuanced argument pro-whistleblowers and anti-self-policing espionage movers.
As Jon Stewart would point out, how can Assange be guilty of treason when he's not American?
Heh.
I'm kind of on both sides, to a degree. It's just that he tells ex-diplomat dude he needs to edit down his question before it can be answered. But the actual, very straightforward question itself is there at the end of all that explanatory background stuff, and Assange chooses to swerve it. Yet further down the page, he happily gives an answer to a far more complicated question which, coincidentally, doesn't involve him having to justify the more dubious aspects of this exercise. If he's asking awkward questions of governments, he ought to be willing to at least attempt an answer to that one.
THIS.
A massivly weak move on Assange's part.
Not to be an Assange apologist. Dude's clearly creepy and sweaty. But in this instance I thought his reply was funny.
I'm liking the more current look:
Here's another view. I've seen it described as 'beaver chewed':
But these are all compelling too:
;blap: