Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 07/12/2010 11:38:32
"Ladies and gentlemen, We've got him!"

I couldn't resist

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2010 11:58:27

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/296/062/Assanges_Interpol_Warrant_Is_for_Having_Sex_Without_a_Condom.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

"It turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom."
"While the ''consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors'', as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. "
"Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom."

---

Originally by: Cmdr Baxter

---

Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 07/12/2010 11:38:32
"Ladies and gentlemen, We've got him!"

I couldn't resist

---

+1 to the good guys. Way to go Scotland Yard!

---

Originally by: Allestin Villimar

---

Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.

Originally by: Torothanax

---

Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.

Originally by: Mag's

---

Originally by: Cmdr Baxter

---

Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 07/12/2010 11:38:32
"Ladies and gentlemen, We've got him!"

I couldn't resist

---

+1 to the good guys. Way to go Scotland Yard!

---

---

Originally by: Sazkyen

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2010 11:58:27

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/296/062/Assanges_Interpol_Warrant_Is_for_Having_Sex_Without_a_Condom.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

"It turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom."
"While the ''consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors'', as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. "
"Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom."

---

They needed something, anything, to catch him, discredit him and - possibly - have him sentenced if possible. Meanwhile, US prosecutors must be working hard to somehow press charges against him for espionage. I'm sure there are ongoing negotiations in the background. I bet the US would be willign to give very nice things in exchange for Assange.

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

so this means that Assange will be the first person in history to recieve life in prison because he had sex without a condom?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

... as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. "

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

Whatever respect I had towards the swedes pretty much went down the drain.

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

Whatever respect I had towards the swedes pretty much went down the drain.

---

Originally by: Allestin Villimar

---

Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.

Originally by: Torothanax

---

Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.

Originally by: Klown Walk

---

I have never heard of that law and I live in Sweden.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2010 11:58:27

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/296/062/Assanges_Interpol_Warrant_Is_for_Having_Sex_Without_a_Condom.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

"It turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom."
"While the ''consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors'', as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. "
"Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom."

---

Originally by: GM Horse

---

Remember kids, both meth and macro use are Really Quite Bad Things.

---

Originally by: CCP Shadow

---

Tragic smelting accidents.

---

Originally by: Heimdal Galplen

---

I am disappointed in my nation's intelligence services.

---

Originally by: Caleidascope

---

He will be released on bail. There is nothing so far to hold him in prison while waiting for trial.

---

Originally by: Verone

---

Bull**** allegations no doubt, as a reason to detain him and try to silence him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

Sad day for freedom of speech and transparency of leadership.

---

Originally by: RaTTuS

---

Visa now

---

Originally by: Dianabolic

---

Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.

Originally by: Mashie Saldana

---

Unless Assange carry HIV/AIDS I can't see how he could get a prison sentence in Sweden for not using a condom. I mean even beasteality is permitted there.

---

Originally by: Dianabolic

---

Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.

Originally by: Mashie Saldana

---

Unless Assange carry HIV/AIDS I can't see how he could get a prison sentence in Sweden for not using a condom. I mean even beasteality is permitted there.

---

Originally by: Scorpyn

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2010 11:58:27

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/296/062/Assanges_Interpol_Warrant_Is_for_Having_Sex_Without_a_Condom.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

"It turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom."
"While the ''consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors'', as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. "
"Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom."

---

Are those links actually credible sources? Because I'm the 3rd swede in this thread who has never heard of that law.

---

Quote:

---

The first complainant, a Miss A, said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange was alleged to have "forcefully" held her arms and parted her legs and used his bodyweight to hold her down. The second charge alleged he "sexually molested" her by having sex without using a condom, when it was her "express wish" that one should be used. A third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August by "pressing his naked erect ***** against her body". A fourth charge, relating to a Miss W, alleged that on 17 August, he "improperly exploited" the fact she was asleep to have sex with her without a condom.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Because that's not what he's been accused of. The actual crime he is being accused of is having sex without consent. Let me make this very simple: consent can be conditional.

Let's say I consent to have sex with you only if you run my mining barge while you're doing it (after all, I can't afford to lose any income). If you stop running my mining barge and lie about it, my consent is no longer valid, and you'd better not have sex anyway or you're going to prison. The crime is {censored legal defintion of 'sex without consent'}, not lack of mining barge income.

The accusations against Assange are no different: (supposedly) he obtained consent to sex under certain conditions, lied about meeting those conditions, and had sex anyway. There's no obscure Swedish law involved, it's just very basic consent.

Now, did he actually do it? Who knows. But that doesn't at all change the fact that he is accused of a serious crime, not just some technicality that is only being enforced for political reasons.

---

Originally by: Othran

---

LOL the USA has just totally lost the plot.

State Dept Press Release :

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.

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. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.


Uhuh. Tossers.

---

Quote:

---

Latest news: Julian Assange died this morning due to heart problems. Officials say that they consider the event "Very Tragic".

---

Originally by: Scorpyn

---

Are those links actually credible sources?

---

Originally by: Kool StoryBro

---

<---

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Spam post removed.

---

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Can they do that? I tought only a court order can do that?

---

Originally by: Pastrami Onrye

---

PLEX for Wikileaks please CCP!

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 07/12/2010 17:15:27

Originally by: Mashie Saldana

---

Unless Assange carry HIV/AIDS I can't see how he could get a prison sentence in Sweden for not using a condom. I mean even beasteality is permitted there.

---

Because that's not what he's been accused of. The actual crime he is being accused of is having sex without consent. Let me make this very simple: consent can be conditional.

Let's say I consent to have sex with you only if you run my mining barge while you're doing it (after all, I can't afford to lose any income). If you stop running my mining barge and lie about it, my consent is no longer valid, and you'd better not have sex anyway or you're going to prison. The crime is {censored legal defintion of 'sex without consent'}, not lack of mining barge income.


The accusations against Assange are no different: (supposedly) he obtained consent to sex under certain conditions, lied about meeting those conditions, and had sex anyway. There's no obscure Swedish law involved, it's just very basic consent.




Now, did he actually do it? Who knows. But that doesn't at all change the fact that he is accused of a serious crime, not just some technicality that is only being enforced for political reasons.

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

Originally by: Kool StoryBro

---

<---

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Spam post removed.

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

Originally by: Vogue

---

Or the USA will use its economic leverage to coerce Sweeden to get to Assange. Something along the lines of creating a disadvantage to Sweeden though a trade deal. With one hand the USA giveth and with the other hand taketh.

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

"One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom."

Ermm what?, holy crap I tthought Sweden was cool but to be arrested for that

---

Originally by: Danton Marcellus

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

"One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom."

Ermm what?, holy crap I tthought Sweden was cool but to be arrested for that

---

What is this ****? She did still consent to the sex, it's a negotiation process you go through, we've all done it, let's turn ourselves in.

I've talked nearly all woman into having unprotected sex with me, I confess.

I'd like to see if any of the national press has the balls to out anyone over this smelly affair. I'd suspect not even though there is a huge credibility prize to claim.

---

Originally by: Kool StoryBro

---

<---

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Spam post removed.

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

So whats the punishment for having sex with someone?

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

So whats the punishment for having sex with someone?

---

Children.

---

Originally by: Blane Xero

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

So whats the punishment for having sex with someone?

---

Children.

---

Nah. Teenagers.

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

---

Originally by: Dianabolic

---

Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.

Originally by: Kool StoryBro

---

<---

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Spam post removed.

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

Why did paypal ban wikileaks?

---

Originally by: Shalkto

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

Don't be ridiculous did you even look at the list of threats. Some of them are ridiculous the list of ones here in canada are laughable hell one of them isn't even a functional site at the moment and that had nothing to do with terrorists. And the US is still running. Ask anyone who lives in any of these areas what are important institutions and they can list them off for you.

I can list a whole whack of Hydro Electric dams that ship electricity to the US and i'm not even employed in the energy industry. Hell i bet you I can google all of those sites. Seriously this idea that islamic terrorists are ignorant of targets of importance is ridiculous it's the government and media outlets fearmongering.

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

"One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom."

Ermm what?, holy crap I tthought Sweden was cool but to be arrested for that

---

Originally by: vulnevia

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

"One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom."

Ermm what?, holy crap I tthought Sweden was cool but to be arrested for that

---

Well, at least he wont be put in jail for 18 months like this arabic dude . And I bet my Thanatos on that if Assange was a guy nobody had heard of, he would get a small fine and he wouldn't have to run all around the globe to hide. Had he been a pop idol or similar, and had been caught with drugs he'd get a slap on his fingers and maybe a small fine.

It's also one thing to be arrested for something and actually go to court for something. You can get arrested for taking a leak on a building here in Sweden, but hardly go to jail for it(you'd have to pay like... Ç100 or something).

---

Originally by: Verone

---

Sad day for freedom of speech and transparency of leadership.

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

BooHoo, we're not allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a movie theater anymore for lols

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

Pit latrine ?

---

Originally by: Othran

---

Originally by: Billy Kidd

---

Man some of those cables contain info that pose a security risk, like which assets are of important interest to national security. I wouldn't want that kind of info to be leaked out, regardless of the country to which it belongs to.

---

That'll be why there are over 3 million US govt employees who are cleared to see them?

NB - do note that its govt employees, not US citizens. Its a rather important distinction.

Oh and bollox they contain security risks. The unredacted Iraq/Afghan stuff undoubtably does but oh look they DIDN'T RELEASE THAT. Not even the USA can come up with a single instance where an individual was named and put at risk. These cables just show up the way the USA does "business" and thats way more damaging than any losses to people on the line.

If/when Assange gets extradited/kidnapped (sorry that'd be "special/extraordinary rendition" to US readers) to the USA we'll see whats damaging because insurance.aes256 will be in the wild.

Can't wait.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2010 11:58:27

"sex by surprise,"

---

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

---

Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 08/12/2010 03:53:13
Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 08/12/2010 03:49:03
Americans are now what cruel Germans were in 1933, or Soviets in 1917.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: FOl2TY8

---

I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.

---

Yeah, I use that excuse too.

---

Originally by: Ava Starfire

---

The fact that there are other Americans calling for this guy's death scares me. He airs the government's dirty laundry, and instead of being angry with the people DOING the dirty deeds (IE, the US govt) you rant about how much you hope he dies.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: FOl2TY8

---

I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.

---

Yeah, I use that excuse too.

---

Originally by: Ai Mei

---

spreading secrets is not a good idea right now all it will do is hurt relations. Its like taking all your siblings and friends journals and reading them outloud over the intercom at high school

---

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

---

Another interesting take..

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: FOl2TY8

---

I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.

---

Yeah, I use that excuse too.

---

Originally by: Umega

---

Well, atleast it is reassuring to see that some people get it.

Posting secret documents/info a country/government has can cause conflict. How many people really want a war(s)? It shouldn't matter what country the 'leaks' are on. We're all human.

I think people have had their minds warped by biased media that exists in every country. No.. your country is NOT special and does not have unbiased journalism, no one does. Quit that crap. This isn't some Real World drama **** that plays out for people to be entertained.. which is sadly the case with a lot of you. Admit it or not, idc.

Since people like conspiracy theories. Here is one.. Assange has contacts or is upto his old hacking tricks. Paid by corp or government that wants to see **** go down, and by that.. I mean boom boom fighting. He potentially now has the means to make such happen.. and his employeer is pleased. Before he hands over the 'Golden Chalice of Truth' to his employeer or made released.. he needs to be made to disappear. Sent to Prison.. on a nice tropical island.

I can come up with crap out of my ass too that actually sounds legit.

Doesn't make the **** you read true.

Freedom of speech is wonderful.. gives people the freedom to lie out of their ass, remember that.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be a tool that esculates the world landscape into warfare and the death of people. That's simply ****ED UP.

Some of you really need to get your head's checked.

---

Originally by: Umega

---

Well, atleast it is reassuring to see that some people get it.

Posting secret documents/info a country/government has can cause conflict. How many people really want a war(s)? It shouldn't matter what country the 'leaks' are on. We're all human.

I think people have had their minds warped by biased media that exists in every country. No.. your country is NOT special and does not have unbiased journalism, no one does. Quit that crap. This isn't some Real World drama **** that plays out for people to be entertained.. which is sadly the case with a lot of you. Admit it or not, idc.

Since people like conspiracy theories. Here is one.. Assange has contacts or is upto his old hacking tricks. Paid by corp or government that wants to see **** go down, and by that.. I mean boom boom fighting. He potentially now has the means to make such happen.. and his employeer is pleased. Before he hands over the 'Golden Chalice of Truth' to his employeer or made released.. he needs to be made to disappear. Sent to Prison.. on a nice tropical island.

I can come up with crap out of my ass too that actually sounds legit.

Doesn't make the **** you read true.

Freedom of speech is wonderful.. gives people the freedom to lie out of their ass, remember that.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be a tool that esculates the world landscape into warfare and the death of people. That's simply ****ED UP.

Some of you really need to get your head's checked.

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Originally by: Umega

---

Well, atleast it is reassuring to see that some people get it.

Posting secret documents/info a country/government has can cause conflict. How many people really want a war(s)? It shouldn't matter what country the 'leaks' are on. We're all human.

I think people have had their minds warped by biased media that exists in every country. No.. your country is NOT special and does not have unbiased journalism, no one does. Quit that crap. This isn't some Real World drama **** that plays out for people to be entertained.. which is sadly the case with a lot of you. Admit it or not, idc.

Since people like conspiracy theories. Here is one.. Assange has contacts or is upto his old hacking tricks. Paid by corp or government that wants to see **** go down, and by that.. I mean boom boom fighting. He potentially now has the means to make such happen.. and his employeer is pleased. Before he hands over the 'Golden Chalice of Truth' to his employeer or made released.. he needs to be made to disappear. Sent to Prison.. on a nice tropical island.

I can come up with crap out of my ass too that actually sounds legit.

Doesn't make the **** you read true.

Freedom of speech is wonderful.. gives people the freedom to lie out of their ass, remember that.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be a tool that esculates the world landscape into warfare and the death of people. That's simply ****ED UP.

Some of you really need to get your head's checked.

---

Woodward and Bernstein destabilized the US government by taking out the credibility of the President of the USA. This surely would have equated to endangering the US during the cold war right? Why were they allowed to expunge the top secret and illegal dealings of the presidency, yet today if a journalist exposes a government as liers and cheats it is espionage and should be treated by death?



Slade

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Also, everyone calling this a matter of freedom of speech is a hypocritical douchebag. This is NOT freedom of speech because it's CLASSIFIED material. Every government has a right to keep certain information away from the public in the interest of national security. If you don't get that, you're either 12 years old or you're an idiot or both.

---

Originally by: Noun Verber

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Also, everyone calling this a matter of freedom of speech is a hypocritical douchebag. This is NOT freedom of speech because it's CLASSIFIED material. Every government has a right to keep certain information away from the public in the interest of national security. If you don't get that, you're either 12 years old or you're an idiot or both.

---

I think that the point of all of this is that inane rubbish like what's being shared should not have been made classified in the first place and/or should not be shared with those that don't need to know. Really, why was the source able to get this volume of information?

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

I think the Watergate scandal was much less damaging to the US and its interests...it was mainly about Nixon and his covering up of the break-in. These papers compromise an entire network of intelligence gathering all over the world and the repercussions will be far, far more damaging. Watergate was about Nixon's presidency and an election, not about national security.

It's the exact same thing that happened in the Valerie Plame case, yet the Bush administration intervened and gave Scooter Libby a suspended sentence, which is a travesty. Everyone involved in the outing of Plame should be tried and sent to prison, yet they made Libby take the fall and Bush protected him when the courts found him guilty by keeping him out of jail.

---

Originally by: Vogue

---

But with wikileaks we are getting political information that is hot straight from the oven.

---

Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks

---

Hope some swedes here can provide better link/translation :-)

---

Originally by: Wendat Huron

---

A feminist, thinking empowering women is all about playing the victim card every chance they get.

---

Quote:

---

Assange reported August 20, 2010 for the **** and molestation.

He was arrested the same evening in absentia by an on-call prosecutors in Stockholm, on suspicion of **** and molestation.

Application of Assange featured at 17 o'clock the next day by the chief prosecutor Eva FinnT at City public prosecution office in Stockholm, since she considered that there was no longer reason to pursue it then "suspicion of **** no longer exists". The suspicion of molestation remains.

Prosecutors in New Marianne Prosecution development center in Gothenburg is re-opening the inquiry a week later, on September 1. The case, which is grouped under molestation, now classified as sexual assault and sexual molestation. The decision of the Appellate case writes New: "In my study of the case, I note that there is reason to believe that an offense subject to public prosecution has been committed."

On November 18 arrested Julian Assange in absentia for a case of duress on 13-14 August in Stockholm, sexual assault on 13-14 August in Stockholm, sexual molestation August 18 or thereabouts days in Stockholm, sexual assault, 16 -17 August in Enk÷ping and **** on 17 August Enk÷ping. In deciding on the detention, decides that also call Assange internationally.

Detention appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal. The Court of Appeal, however, adjust the classification of offenses. A case of sexual molestation is rejected and removed while the Court of Appeal should grade down degree of suspicion for the **** of a minor felony.

On 30 November, an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the HD does not address the detention of the Wikileaks founders Julian Assange. Thus he continued international wanted list.

A European arrest warrant issued, but it appears to lack a specification of the maximum sentence for each of the four offenses Assange is suspected. The Swedish arrest warrant contains only a specification of the maximum sentence. Therefore, the British police did not arrest Assange.

The European arrest warrant is complemented by the Swedish authorities in early December with the information requested and sent again to the UK where Assange located.

Julian Assange take voluntarily contacted the police and arrested on Tuesday 7 December. On the same day Wikileaksgrundaren heard in a court in central London. He does not agree to be extradited to Sweden. Decision is made to bring Julian Assange in custody in Wandsworth Prison. He remains in custody until December 14 when negotiations for his release.

Tommy Kangas Vieri, deputy director of the IPO (Rikskrim unit for international police cooperation), told TT that it could take "up to 90 days' prior Assange extradited if he opposes extradition because Assange has the right to appeal the decision.

---

Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks

---

Ad-hoc translation: she thinks that if a woman accuses a not convicted man, this man should go to jail. While the man is jailed, the woman has some room to think about the situation.
"Only when the man is jailed and the woman has time to think about their existence/being(dasein,hard to translate), she will get the chance to discover how she was treated."

---

Originally by: CCP Incognito

---

PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 08/12/2010 13:48:43
Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 08/12/2010 13:35:44

Originally by: Astenion

---

I think the Watergate scandal was much less damaging to the US and its interests...it was mainly about Nixon and his covering up of the break-in. These papers compromise an entire network of intelligence gathering all over the world and the repercussions will be far, far more damaging. Watergate was about Nixon's presidency and an election, not about national security.

It's the exact same thing that happened in the Valerie Plame case, yet the Bush administration intervened and gave Scooter Libby a suspended sentence, which is a travesty. Everyone involved in the outing of Plame should be tried and sent to prison, yet they made Libby take the fall and Bush protected him when the courts found him guilty by keeping him out of jail.

---

So information should not be released just because it is damaging to those that committed the acts. How very Machiavellian of you

Trust me, I know that governments do bad things and that they do not want them getting out, and that sometimes these dirty little secrets can cause massive upheaval when they get out, but we can not sit around and let other governments get trounced for their corrupt natures and then turn a blind eye when our own governments get caught with their pants down. We should always continue to strive for governments that will do less damaging things in the name of their people then their predecessors. And quite honestly if one is unable to look their general populace in their eyes and take account for a specific decision then one should think about that decision a little longer and think "if this gets out what could it do to the country."

EDIT: But unfortunately most politicians, across the board, are in it for themselves and not "their people."

EDIT 2: In the long run this type of thing is only going to become more prevelant. The hackers are the same people that build the security systems and add in the fact that all it takes is one person with a consciousness and who is qualified with access to sensitive information to create a leak. So no matter how much a government tries to hide their dirty laundry, there is ever increasing chances for information to leak, therefore even more reason to be more tactful when dealing with other countries.


Slade

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

I love how so many people here think that the US is the only country lying to its citizens and doing illegal activities behind closed doors, like this is some revelation.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Also, everyone calling this a matter of freedom of speech is a hypocritical douchebag. This is NOT freedom of speech because it's CLASSIFIED material. Every government has a right to keep certain information away from the public in the interest of national security. If you don't get that, you're either 12 years old or you're an idiot or both.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Just be honest; you want to see the skeletons in the US's closet. Don't make some bull**** statement how it's the right of the people to know this information because IT'S NOT. Just be honest and say you're curious and want to know, just like the rest of us.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Furthermore, people calling for his death should be sterilized. Stop breathing my air. He should be tried for espionage, simple as that. Also, THIS IS NOT TREASON. People saying he is treasonous should also be sterilized. You can't be tried for treason if you aren't a citizen of said country. Idiots.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

No, I think information should be released even if it highlights some people in a way unbecoming to them. My only problem is that people say this is freedom of speech, as if John Q. Public has a RIGHT to read classified material simply because he's curious. No, classified material exists for a reason, and that's to protect the public as well as our national security.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Originally by: Noun Verber

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Also, everyone calling this a matter of freedom of speech is a hypocritical douchebag. This is NOT freedom of speech because it's CLASSIFIED material. Every government has a right to keep certain information away from the public in the interest of national security. If you don't get that, you're either 12 years old or you're an idiot or both.

---

I think that the point of all of this is that inane rubbish like what's being shared should not have been made classified in the first place and/or should not be shared with those that don't need to know. Really, why was the source able to get this volume of information?

---

That's a whole different story altogether. The source of the leak was an intel troop who had access to all this info.

In classified documents, one single word can change the entire classification. So while some of these cables may seem quite harmless, and most of them really are, there are names, dates, events, etc. that render them classified.

Contrary to popular belief, most classified documents are of little interest to the public. The entire reason they're classified is to protect their sources and their content. You're not going to find out who shot Kennedy or what's in Area 51 in a SECRET or SECRET NOFORN document. People are anxiously awaiting some big revelation or explosive discovery and it's just not going to happen. These types of documents just aren't that interesting...they read more along the lines of a gossip magazine than anything else.

The big deal in all of this is the source and the fact that WE KNOW what's detailed in the documents, not actually what is there. We don't really care about the Saudi Prince having lavish parties with prostitutes and liquor (something strictly forbidden in the Saudi kingdom), but we don't want the rest of the world to find out that we know about it, and THAT'S why it's classified.

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Probably worth noting at this point these leaked documents are pretty much just US diplomats trash talking other diplomats and countries, and don't really endanger national security, unless you count people getting upset that US diplomats are two-faced, which they probably knew already.

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Probably worth noting at this point these leaked documents are pretty much just US diplomats trash talking other diplomats and countries, and don't really endanger national security, unless you count people getting upset that US diplomats are two-faced, which they probably knew already.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Have they endangered national security? No, not likely.
Have they damanged the USA? undoubtedly.
How? They have disclosed a lot of people in war zones that are friendly to the US and western interests. The enemy can read and take action and this will make it much harder to recruit CI's in the future.

That's why things stay classified. No one has the RIGHT to read this stuff. It's classified to protect the USA's national interest the same reason that every other country on earth classifies certain things. Anyone saying this is a freedom of speech issue needs to have their head checked - STAT. Freedom of speech, like all other rights is NOT absolute - and I'm saying that as a HUGE fan of freedom of speach. Every country in the world has classified information. That doesn't mean that's it's covering up some nefarious crimes or anything.

But yes Tarantula most of this stuff is just boring banter but there is no doubt that Assange WANTS to damage the USA. What he is really doing is exposing people to vengeance from the Taliban and/or Al Quaeda. That's the nexus of it.

Apparently Assange doesn't care.

It's also apparent that a lot of people's political leanings are preventing them from seeing what is blindingly obvious.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

It's also apparent that a lot of people's political leanings are preventing them from seeing what is blindingly obvious.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

It's also apparent that a lot of people's political leanings are preventing them from seeing what is blindingly obvious.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing given out so far will result in world war three, or terrorist attacks.

---

Quote:

---

Also the leaks are not just digging out dirt on the USA.

---

Quote:

---

It turns out that Blair decided to go to war in Iraq 18 months before the parliment vote which blows everything he said at the inquest out of the water. Now we hear he has been ordered back to the inquest to answer further questions.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Quote:

---

It turns out that Blair decided to go to war in Iraq 18 months before the parliment vote which blows everything he said at the inquest out of the water. Now we hear he has been ordered back to the inquest to answer further questions.

---

lol who cares?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

It's also apparent that a lot of people's political leanings are preventing them from seeing what is blindingly obvious.

---

sorry but

---

Quote:

---

Scott Gilmore
WikiLeaks just made the world more repressive
Scott Gilmore
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010 5:00AM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010 7:35AM EST
298 comments Email Print Decrease text size Increase text size I am an aid worker, the kind who rants about transparency, open governments and reforming the United Nations. But, I used to be a diplomat and I used to write secret cables, like the ones being released by WikiLeaks. And I said some very frank and nasty things in those cables.

Why? I was posted to Jakarta. My job was to find out as much as I could about the human rights abuses being committed by the Indonesian military, and to help apply whatever pressure we could to make them stop. I wrote cables back to Ottawa that would raise the hair on the back of your neck, describing abuses that still make me sick years later. These cables gave the Canadian government the ammunition it needed to lean heavily on the Indonesian leadership at the UN and at summits like APEC.


Allow me to illustrate with an example. Every few months, I would visit a little whitewashed school in the hills of Indonesian-occupied East Timor. The young teacher who ran the school would cheerfully bring me into her office, and we would chat about small things while her uniformed students would serve us homemade buns and strong coffee in chipped porcelain. Once the students left and the office door closed, the teacher would open her desk drawer and with a shaking hand give me horrifying photos of disinterred bodies. The Timorese resistance would dig up the fresh graves of torture victims, take photos for evidence, and pass them through their underground networks to this teacher, who would then get them out of the country through me and other diplomats. With that information we knew what the Indonesian military was doing in secret. We could better confront Jakarta, and we could assert more pressure on them to stop.

When we sent the reporting cables back to the Department of Foreign Affairs, they were secret for a reason. If they were published in The Globe and Mail instead, I would have been thrown out of the country in 24 hours and the Indonesian officials would not have permitted a replacement. The local politicians would have hired a rent-a-mob to stone the Canadian embassy. Their leaders would have told the Jakarta media I was a liar and would have blamed the Timorese for feeding me calumny. And the police would have arrested and killed the young teacher before the week was out.

The third most common topic in the WikiLeaks cables is human rights, with American diplomats doing the same thing we were trying to do in Indonesia: Make the world a little better.

ThatÆs hard to swallow for the cyber mob that is celebrating the embarrassment being inflicted on the U.S. government this week. But the damage done to Washington is nothing compared to the pain that is about to be inflicted on the confidential sources in Russia, China and Sudan.

cont'd next post

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

lol who cares?

---

Quote:

---

ItÆs not just the militant activist in Guelph, Ont., reading the cables. ItÆs the military dictatorships and the secret police in capitals all around the world. In the days and weeks ahead, people who dared to share information with U.S. diplomats will be rounded up. And thousands more who may have been willing to pass on pictures of tortured bodies will keep them in the desk drawer instead.

Ironically, WikiLeaks is inflicting the same collateral damage it so loudly abhors. The ôCablegateö release is not a real victory for a more open world. It will lead to a more closed world, where repressive governments will be more free to commit atrocities against their own people and the people who try to stop them will have even less information to help prevent this. Thankfully, for the Timorese at least, WikiLeaks did not exist in the 1990s.

Scott Gilmore is a former Canadian diplomat and the founder of Peace Dividend Trust, a New York-based charity that finds, tests and implements new ideas for improving aid and peacekeeping.

---

Originally by: Wendat Huron

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

lol who cares?

---

This, to all your posts.

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

Isnt sex without consent ****?

Oh and dont give me that crap that "he had sex with someone when they were asleep", if you have ever had sex you would know how it would literally be impossible (without drugs / medical issues) to have sex with someone while their asleep.

Example, so I am at a friends and we have fun and after we are talking dirty and im like "you know what would be a funny way to wake up" and he is like "what" and im like "if you ****ed me awake", anyway he never did, but a few days after he did and GUESS WHAT, I woke up literally straight away.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Have they damanged the USA? undoubtedly.
How? They have disclosed a lot of people in war zones that are friendly to the US and western interests. The enemy can read and take action and this will make it much harder to recruit CI's in the future.

...yes Tarantula most of this stuff is just boring banter but there is no doubt that Assange WANTS to damage the USA. What he is really doing is exposing people to vengeance from the Taliban and/or Al Quaeda. That's the nexus of it.

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Have they damanged the USA? undoubtedly.
How? They have disclosed a lot of people in war zones that are friendly to the US and western interests. The enemy can read and take action and this will make it much harder to recruit CI's in the future.

...yes Tarantula most of this stuff is just boring banter but there is no doubt that Assange WANTS to damage the USA. What he is really doing is exposing people to vengeance from the Taliban and/or Al Quaeda. That's the nexus of it.

---

The TV likes to say it's put operatives and CIs in danager, but there is zero evidence of that. Something the media isn't very keen to repeat is that the US government got an advance copy and did request certain things be omitted before it was released, and wikileaks obliged them with some things, but not everything.

And it's not just boring banter, it's very embarassing to certain people because it's so unprofessional. With some luck, exposing it to the light of day will cause them to strive to be more professional in the future. But as it stands right now, they're just shifting all the blame to the messenger, wikileaks, and pretending they don't like the release because it endangers the US.

---

Quote:

---

The TV likes to say it's put operatives and CIs in danger, but there is zero evidence of that. Something the media isn't very keen to repeat is that the US government got an advance copy and did request certain things be omitted before it was released, and wikileaks obliged them with some things, but not everything.

---

Quote:

---

And it's not just boring banter, it's very embarassing to certain people because it's so unprofessional in its arbitrarily demeaning nature towards any and all groups they deal with. With some luck, exposing it to the light of day will cause them to strive to be more professional in the future. But as it stands right now, they're just shifting all the anger off themselves and onto the messenger, wikileaks, and pretending they don't like the release because it endangers the US.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

I just posted evidence of it - see my story above from a peace envoy. People are not going to open up to anyonw that has ties to the USA. This is problematic and dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

don't see much that the USA needs be embarassed about and I didn't see anything unprofessional either for that matter. How people talk outwardly and inwardly to allies is different. This would be the same for any country.

---

Originally by: Professor Tarantula

---

Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 08/12/2010 20:34:47

Originally by: Riedle

---

I just posted evidence of it - see my story above from a peace envoy. People are not going to open up to anyonw that has ties to the USA. This is problematic and dangerous.

---

They don't mention anything in the documents which does what they're afraid of, its just a hypothetical. Maybe even 'concern trolling'.

Quote:

---

don't see much that the USA needs be embarassed about and I didn't see anything unprofessional either for that matter. How people talk outwardly and inwardly to allies is different. This would be the same for any country.

---

This is US diplomats trashing their supposed 'allies' on official channels. Any and all people they deal with are roundly mocked and insulted. Has nothing to do with the tasks at hand, it's completely pointless. Of course it's embarassing and unprofessional. And contrary to what you seem to think, it's not something every country does. It is possible for countries and the diplomats to respect one another without it just being an act.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

It so happens to be that 'my' country is one of the US' most loyal allies.

I believe that truth is more important than comfort, and the fact that so many things have been swept under the rug and that the public has been actively misled on so many issues has convince just makes me say 'bring them down'.

I wasn't laughing because just another conservative tool like you is defending the opposite. That sort of thing is more deserving of pity.

---

Originally by: Othran

---

You know the thing that REALLY annoys me?

Its morons saying he should be tried for espionage.

OK lets look at this in your (US) legal system :

1) Did he induce or coerce anyone to provide the info - no;
2) Did the transfer of info take place on US territory (includes embassies/bases/etc) - no.

So how in the hell is it espionage or as some of your more illiterate journos/bloggers are calling it "Treason"?

Get a grip. Have you any idea how you look to the rest of the world?

---

Originally by: Malaclypse Muscaria

---

Edited by: Malaclypse Muscaria on 08/12/2010 18:39:09

Originally by: Astenion

---

No, I think information should be released even if it highlights some people in a way unbecoming to them. My only problem is that people say this is freedom of speech, as if John Q. Public has a RIGHT to read classified material simply because he's curious. No, classified material exists for a reason, and that's to protect the public as well as our national security.

---

Astenion, WTF are you trying to get at?

You seem to be engaged in some sort sterile mental fap about "rights". Well, here's the thing: all "rights" are a human convention, an invention. They don't exist out there in some sort of objetive and absolute form and they don't have some sort of divine origin.

We generally agree on upholding them because it's "nice". Some are pretty obvious and very few people would disagree on them, but many go into gray areas, and depending on the jurisdiction / context / situation / who's involved, etc... they may vary wildly.

So what we have here is an organization claiming they have a "right" to keep their secret stuff secret, versus citizens claiming they have a "right" to publish and read those secrets, particularly since the former organization has many powers over them and is prone to abuse these.

No side is right by "divine right". Period. You simply pick your side, what you yourself believe is "right", and defend that position. Do you support what Wikileaks is doing? Do you side with the US government in shutting them down and arresting Assange? Or you just don't give a f*ck about any of it all, and they could all go diaf for all you care?

That's what matters. Those abstract discussions about "rights" you are going into is just that, masturbation, particularly since we are talking here about many different countries with many different jurisdictions and understandings of "rights".

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

On top of that, the flow of information will dry up

---

Originally by: dr doooo

---

Are you trolling here? Freedom of speech only applies to things a government doesn't deem CLASSIFIED? Even a 12 year old idiot could see the problem with that. If a government or nation wants to keep some things classified, then that's up to them to manage their own security and keep that information safe within their own jurisdiction. Outside of that jurisdiction, people have no obligation to honour their interpretation of 'classified in the interest of national security', be that Mugabee's police death squads, or the duplicity of diplomats.

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

On top of that, the flow of information will dry up

---

Maybe it's intentional ?

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

ABSO****INGLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.

---

You are right. Its to do with a free media.

---

Quote:

---

ItÆs not just the militant activist in Guelph, Ont., reading the cables. ItÆs the military dictatorships and the secret police in capitals all around the world. In the days and weeks ahead, people who dared to share information with U.S. diplomats will be rounded up. And thousands more who may have been willing to pass on pictures of tortured bodies will keep them in the desk drawer instead.

---

Originally by: Jordan Stancil

---

It was clear in these cases that NGOs, on their own, never could have achieved the outcomes we did because they never could duplicate what embassies already have: an information-gathering network that works seamlessly with state power, has direct access to leaders of other states and doesn't have to rely on the slow mechanisms of public pressure. Secrecy is one of the state's tools that can help in some human rights cases, so to the extent that WikiLeaks succeeds in taking that tool away, it will reduce the likelihood of helpful intervention.

But reducing our ability to keep secrets might also reduce the likelihood of counterproductive or aggressive intervention. What we are talking about here is the ability to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries and the extent to which secrecy makes us more or less able to do that. The secrecy issue WikiLeaks raises is not about striking the right balance between openness and safety. That is a false debate, because in cases where safety is truly threatened, it's obvious that openness must be curtailed, as it always has been ever since the First Continental Congress met in secret in 1774. The right debate is between differing definitions of the national interest. Is our national interest better served by engaging in the kinds of interference in foreign countries that secrecy permits, or is it better served by requiring openness that might restrain our ability to interfere?

---

Originally by: Bhaal

---

Edited by: Bhaal on 08/12/2010 21:26:54
Wow, so many of you just HATE the USA you'll support anything that hurts us in any way shape or form (even if it hurts other countruies now and in the future), no matter how absurd it is.

So many of you want us to fall/fail/die.

We're not going to. We can get off the mat better than anyone.

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Sorry about you calling me names though - I'd expect more from a CSM deligate than to call someone with whom you disagree childish names.

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Edited by: Reiisha on 08/12/2010 22:36:07

Quote:

---

ItÆs not just the militant activist in Guelph, Ont., reading the cables. ItÆs the military dictatorships and the secret police in capitals all around the world. In the days and weeks ahead, people who dared to share information with U.S. diplomats will be rounded up. And thousands more who may have been willing to pass on pictures of tortured bodies will keep them in the desk drawer instead.

---

So. Ehm. Maybe i'm missing something, but aren't informants in the US who pass up information to other countries also rounded up? And (*cough Guantanamo cough*) having pictures of tortured bodies in your desk isn't limited to China and North Korea? Why can the US spy on everyone but no one is allowed to spy back?

Double standards anyone? Which seems to be the entire point of this excercise. 'Leaking' stuff from regimes and governments which blatantly admit to not being perfectly Westernized is kinda... Pointless, so the focus shifted to lifting the curtain in other places. The US would be the easiest Western target given it's massive bureaucracy, i'd argue it's easier to come by secret documents there than most smaller nations simply because there's more possible people to obtain them from.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Now THAT is a whole different can of worms. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Now THAT is a whole different can of worms. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing.

---

Maby not over in the USA but it is out there.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Edited by: Astenion on 08/12/2010 22:51:32
Edited by: Astenion on 08/12/2010 22:50:44

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Now THAT is a whole different can of worms. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing.

---

Maby not over in the USA but it is out there.

---

Ha! Where? Twitter? Blogs? Facebook? Not the press, my friend.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Edited by: Astenion on 08/12/2010 22:51:32
Edited by: Astenion on 08/12/2010 22:50:44

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Now THAT is a whole different can of worms. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing.

---

Maby not over in the USA but it is out there.

---

Ha! Where? Twitter? Blogs? Facebook? Not the press, my friend.

---

BBC, Dispatures, several UK newspapers have done some very good investigations, then there are the indipendent reporters. Just recently there has been the rory peck awards which once again had some very good reporting.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Don't even mention the BBC. They are a good source of news and less corrupt than the others, but that by no means means they aren't biased, and they're incredibly biased against the US.

Linkage

You see, I'm American but I live in Europe. Our news agencies here are no more balanced than American news agencies, you just happen to agree with what they have to say.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Don't even mention the BBC. They are a good source of news and less corrupt than the others, but that by no means means they aren't biased, and they're incredibly biased against the US.

Linkage

You see, I'm American but I live in Europe. Our news agencies here are no more balanced than American news agencies, you just happen to agree with what they have to say.

---

If America doesnt want bad press then it shouldnt do bad things.

Also linking CBS doesnt give you much of a leg to stand on. Its like linking the mirror to get your news on a tory government.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Oh no, not the tinfoil hats...

---

Quote:

---

You obviously don't know me but that's ok, forum newbies do exist after all. I have a special sig for that..ah, here it is:

---

Originally by: nahtoh

---

Originally by: Kalle Demos

---

Isnt sex without consent ****?

Oh and dont give me that crap that "he had sex with someone when they were asleep", if you have ever had sex you would know how it would literally be impossible (without drugs / medical issues) to have sex with someone while their asleep.

Example, so I am at a friends and we have fun and after we are talking dirty and im like "you know what would be a funny way to wake up" and he is like "what" and im like "if you ****ed me awake", anyway he never did, but a few days after he did and GUESS WHAT, I woke up literally straight away.

---

Actualy a new law in Scotland thats just about to be enacted makes starting to have sex when your partner is sleeping can now lead to crimial charges. I think the resoning goes if your sleeping theres no way to give consent.

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

Edited by: Nyu Shin on 08/12/2010 23:30:12

Originally by: Astenion

---

Oh no, not the tinfoil hats...

---

I see , you even didn't tried. Assange was blogging in 2006 . You can extract some of his thoughts there.

Tinfoils ? Yes you are right, they really exist.

damn ninja edit :-)

---

Originally by: Nyu Shin

---

I'm not deluded too. Some things are happening, people are watching, thinking and doing things. Even with full containment strategy, lot damage is done already. The momentum has still not changed the direction.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Yes, you are missing something. Obviously you don't realize that everyone already collects on everyone. It's an unwritten rule in the intelligence world. In fact, one of the US's staunchest allies is the biggest collector of intel coming from the US, and not only does the US know about it, they only seek to minimize it, not even eradicate it. You see, when one person collects on another, that leaves a channel open for the ones doing the collecting. Think of it as a siphon: you can siphon liquid from one place but you can just as easily siphon it back. This is where "disinformation" comes from.

The difference is that it's in a controlled environment; think of it as "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The reason Wikileaks is in such trouble is they are a rogue element, completely unpredictable and there's no way to track where the gathering intelligence is going.

So no, most definitely NOT double standards.

---

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

---

This is an interesting take that I pretty much wonder about myself. My problem with the entire topic is it seems too "made to order" . From the actual "leaks" to Julian Assange himself, there is too much cliche, stereotype, and from those who call for his head, too much of exactly what anyone who is aware of things could expect. It's like a script, and the leaks themselves are lame.

---

Originally by: Headerman

---

(and before u ask, i knew Julian irl)

---

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

---

This is why I don't jump on the Kill Julian bandwagon. It's also why I don't go thinking Wikileaks is saving the world either.

---

Originally by: Headerman

---

It is my opinion that Julian is VERY unbiased when it comes to putting up doccos like these. There is no agenda, no mandate, and no goal.

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Originally by: Headerman

---

It is my opinion that Julian is VERY unbiased when it comes to putting up doccos like these. There is no agenda, no mandate, and no goal.

---

Time to wake up!

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

This is what I was trying to link Baltec.

Linkage

Everyone knows the Bush administration deserves every bit of derision it gets, but derision shouldn't be coming from any news source, and the BBC dished it out daily. Again, I watch the BBC but I am not blind to its political leanings and neither should you be.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Again thats not something I would base an arguement on. He goes on about how the beeb supported the kosovo war over the iraq war because a blue was in charge of the white house. He skips the fact that kosovo was the sight of a gonocide while the second iraq war was proven to be based upon lies at worst or bad intel at best before the war even started.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

You're not going to get a gay person out of the closet by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is gay. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

---

Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

You're not going to get a gay person out of the closet by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is gay. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

---

WTF ? That's a pretty bizarre analogy.

Let me try my hand at this...

You're not going to get a criminal to change his ways by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is a criminal. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

Now if my neighbour was that unrepentant criminal I would have been glad to have been told.

Maybe something else...

You're not going to get a superhero to change his ways by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is a superhero. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

Oooooh, my neighbour is a superhero ! I always suspected !

Not going anywhere with this, just wanting to point a spotlight at the most bizarre analogy so far.

Posting in the "week in jail without bail or evidence for a one night stand" thread...

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

---

Quote:

---

Julian Assange, the boss of WikiLeaks, gave himself the online nickname Mendax. It means liar in Latin. It's a good fit for him.

Take the word WikiLeaks itself. Wiki is a Hawaiian word that means quick. But its meaning on the Internet is different. A wiki is a website that allows many people to collaborate on something quickly - like Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone in the world can edit.

So it doesn't just mean quick. It means quick and democratic.

Which is the opposite of WikiLeaks.

Only Assange, the unelected boss of WikiLeaks, gets to decide what's published.

Wikileaks' original mandate was to expose repressive countries such as China, Russia and Iran. But Assange vetoed that. He's all about being anti-American.

But wiki is only half the name. The other half is leaks. A leak implies someone on the inside of an institution voluntarily releases information.

The thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents WikiLeaks has published were not leaked by someone with lawful access to them. They were stolen. One of the alleged thieves, a U.S. soldier named Bradley Manning, told a fellow hacker he was feeling sad and conflicted because of his sexuality, and "no one took any notice of me," and his theft might change that. He was about to be kicked out of the Army for assault, so he had to act fast.

ThatÆs not a leak on principle. That's an act of sabotage by an emotional infant.

Does WikiLeaks distance itself from Manning's alleged theft? The opposite: Its logo now has the words "Free Bradley" added to it.

Is stealing secret information justifiable if it blows the whistle on wrongdoing? Perhaps. But that's not what WikiLeaks does. It doesnÆt embarrass wrongdoers. It exposes and endangers real whistleblowers.

WikiLeaks published a document that named an Algerian activist covertly aiding the democracy movement there. It identified a Venezuelan reporter secretly exposing the appalling conditions of hospitals for the poor. Both are real whistleblowers. Both were outed by Assange.

Assange admits WikiLeaks will probably end up with "blood on our hands." But he's not too worried.

Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can't believe their good luck.

So itÆs not wiki. It's not leaks. It's not whistleblowing. It's not even journalism. Assange got his hands on e-mails sent by Venezuela's ambassador to Argentina. He tried to auction them to the highest bidder - presumably to Chavez, too. That's not journalism. That's a shakedown. Maybe even a willingness to keep secrets, for the right price.

Then there's Assange's threat that if he's treated improperly - say, if he's forced to stand trial for **** in Sweden - he'll release another batch of secrets, he has labelled "insurance."

If a real journalist had real news, he'd publish it for its own sake. But by using his "news" as a bargaining chip, he gives away his game. It's not journalism. It's espionage. It's a weapon of war. And if police try to hold him accountable to the law, he'll use his weapon.

Assange revealed secret U.S. counterterrorism work in Yemen. That will likely end now, and Yemen may fall to al-Qaida.

Do you doubt if WikiLeaks was around in the 1940s it would have tipped off the ****s to D-Day or leaked Anne Frank's hiding place too?

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Teabag rant

---

Originally by: Riedle

---

Originally by:

---

If a real journalist had real news, he'd publish it for its own sake. But by using his "news" as a bargaining chip, he gives away his game. It's not journalism. It's espionage. It's a weapon of war. And if police try to hold him accountable to the law, he'll use his weapon.

---

---

Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks

---

C&P from Toronto Sun.

---

Originally by: Ezra Levant

---

Do you doubt if WikiLeaks was around in the 1940s it would have tipped off the ****s to D-Day or leaked Anne Frank's hiding place too?

---

Originally by: Verone

---

Bull**** allegations no doubt, as a reason to detain him and try to silence him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

Sad day for freedom of speech and transparency of leadership.

---

Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

You're not going to get a gay person out of the closet by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is gay. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

---

WTF ? That's a pretty bizarre analogy.

Let me try my hand at this...

You're not going to get a criminal to change his ways by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is a criminal. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

Now if my neighbour was that unrepentant criminal I would have been glad to have been told.

Maybe something else...

You're not going to get a superhero to change his ways by telling everyone behind his/her back that he/she is a superhero. That's only going to make that person resent you and never trust you again, even though you may have had only the best intentions and feel it was right for him/her.

Oooooh, my neighbour is a superhero ! I always suspected !

Not going anywhere with this, just wanting to point a spotlight at the most bizarre analogy so far.

Posting in the "week in jail without bail or evidence for a one night stand" thread...

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

---

Originally by: Dav Varan

---

If the answer to either of the above questions was yes then I'd say go away and come back to these forums once you have finished going through puberty.

---

Originally by: Astenion

---

Haha very nice! I used the gay analogy because I thought the most helpless feeling in the world would be to be publicly outed before one was ready, and would breed resentment and anger towards those who did the deed. It had nothing to do with what I think of gay people, don't be silly. To have all your secrets exposed for all the world to see would be probably the most humiliating thing for a person to go through, and for it to happen to a gay person would be that much more due to the stereotypes and prejudices. The US is probably feeling just as helpless right now because it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

---