Wikileaks

[River]

Yeah, seriously. As reassuring as I find China's attitude about North Korea and entertaining as I find the idea of Berlusconi and Putin having a bromance, publishing private mail is never cool.

[Alatar]

I love the last line of this News story!


[quote]The cables included frank and unflattering characterizations of world leaders by American diplomats.

For example, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was characterized in the cables as “risk averse and rarely creative,â€

[Hachimitsu]

Sorry, I am still backreading.
I should say my initial reactions to the first leak. As long as there were no names said, I totally agreed with it. I truly think it's something the public should know, because transparency is a part of a healthy democracy. As we can see some democracies appear pretty unhealthy.

Knowing what the military is really doing in foreign lands needs to be exposed in black and white. Even though, many of us here knew much of what was revealed, many people don't. (Most of my RL don't, I think I could only discuss this with my sister and in the past my mother, which is where we got our politics fandom from I did discuss it a bit in University with some buddies there. ) A true exposure of foreign policy had to bust up that propaganda machine since many people believed it

For this current leak, while it does reveal some interesting things, it does name names, which I do not like. Although the bombs in Yemen issue demonstrates something. I think it's important for a Yemeni to know that.

I guess transparency is a double edged sword.

Who is this Assange guy? What do we know about him? Why is he doing this? How does he get people to give this organization these secret files?
I do know a smear campaign was run against him, trying to orchestrate rape charges so, someone with power is afraid of him. Why has he decided to be the face of wikileaks? Who is funding this? I do know that Wikileaks used newspaper organizations as a go between to the US government to find out what names should be deleted. Also to warn them that it is coming out which I think is fair.

Another thing that gets me is why does wikileaks do this, shouldn't journalists be breaking these stories? Obviously people within the US government wanted to expose these things. Why weren't domestic journalists picking it up? So wikileaks does expose some failures within the current state of journalism.

I truly would like to see the hidden material behind orchestrating the invasion of Iraq. Obviously the government has known that Al queda has Saudi roots and Saudi funding. (Which didn't need to be put in black and white for me.) Which brings up the question again, why the heck they were focusing on Iraq?

Also I would like to how corporations have been involved with the US government (and other governments). That would be an eyeopener.

Concerning the current leak I have heard it will take a few more days be released.

I will say I cautiously think what wikileaks have done is a good thing, as long as no lives are put at risk, but I want to know their motivations for it. Also, some of the latest stuff was unnecessary gossip that didn't need to be exposed, that was just plain humiliation and could affect how countries work together. Also it will change drastically how government employees communicate with each other which I think could be a bad thing, since there would be no historical record, and that would be terrible.


Nerdanel, criticizing the US is the rest of the world's extra curricular activity

Edit: Needed to add a point.
Edit again: Smileys are hard to fix.

[Hachimitsu]

Just thought I would bump this up. I tried reading some headlines (no tv at home). It seems either Assange has been arrested or surrendered and he is now held in custody and bail is being denied. The charges are based on the same encounters that were used for rape charges earlier that were dismissed.

Regarding the political motivations of a lot of politicians wanting to shut him up, does anyone think, British or Swedish courts will actually look at evidence and try the case fairly, or are they going to be used as conduits to attempt to shut down Wikileaks even further? ( I am noticed that with the Valerie Plame incident which was a domestic US issue, wasn't the leaker only fined? *eyebrow raise* )

[Alatar]

Certainly looks like a stitch up.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

He might be safer In Sweden now he's in custody. The UK has a ridiculously unequal extradition agreement with the US.

[River]

He might be generally safer in custody. Not all the people pissed off about the cables are nice.

[Dave_LF]

Indeed. I'd say the fact that this guy is still alive and publishing disproves a bunch of conspiracy theories all by itself.

[nerdanel]

I'm not clear on exactly what the allegations are. Some versions make the women look downright petty - i.e., they had consensual sex to which the women agreed despite perhaps a stated (?) preference for condoms that wasn't honored (or was honored but the condom inadvertently broke). On this theory, the women are essentially jilted lovers, whose behavior is rendered even more problematic by the fact that they went to the police only after meeting each other and discovering that they had both slept with the same guy within a short period of time.

Other versions sound like the women were allegedly subject to nonconsensual sex - I've read elsewhere that Assange allegedly had sex with one woman without a condom while she was sleeping, for instance. That'd be a much more problematic issue.

Whatever the nature of the charges, the motivation for pursuing them in this way CLEARLY is not because the international community has suddenly been struck with a burning desire to ensure that sexual crimes against women are properly punished. Nor am I naive enough to think that Sweden and the UK are the two countries who are most anxious to, hmm, avenge these alleged victims. But it'd nonetheless be helpful to be clear on exactly what Assange allegedly did. Can anyone clarify?

[Hachimitsu]

That I think is the difficult thing. The reports you have mentioned I have heard those same things. I also read that the women met each other and claimed they went to the police to force him to get an STD test, and these events happened in August. (Read that in today's issue of the Toronto star for those who want to find it). Considering these two women clearly know who he is and how much governments don't like him, I think it's quite strange they went to the police to get a guy they slept with to get an STD test. (But then I do not know the laws in Sweden. I do know in some parts of the world, It's illegal to knowingly have HIV not use a condom and not tell your partner). Not to mention they have some info at the very least could be extremely humiliating that many governments could have ummm... rewarded them for. So I find it quite interesting they went to the police after they met up and talked together.

Also I find their identities so well protected interesting. If rape victims all over the world were this well protected rape would not be so under reported and a lot more rapists would be in jail..

I think your assessment Nerdanel is spot on about the motivation for pursuing the charges. I think the charges being very very unclear is a part of the smear campaign so the public just gets the sound bite or headline with "Julian Assange" and "sex crimes/charges" in the same sentence. Court of public opinion does not care about details. Best way to discredit Wikileaks is to lead the world to believe their head/founder or spokesperson is a rapist.

On the subject of his arrest, I found out he wasn't on the run. Once a fully legal arrest warrant in the UK was out he went to police and turned himself in. I am sort of thinking this is a major test for the impartiality UK court system now in light of the fact that we know other countries can influence domestic court decisions. Denial of bail because he could be a flight risk seems kind of strange considering the man turned himself in. Again the news was pretty unclear about the conditions under which he went into custody, which I think again was leading the public. Fro the initial reports I thought he was a fugitive on the run. After I did some deeper research I found out he wasn't.

With the very unclear reporting of the arrest, and charges, I am highly suspicious. As Alatar said it looks like a stitch up.


I have some opinions on Visa, Mastercard and Paypal blocking donations to wikileaks through them. They make pretty good money off their customers and companies like Visa, Mastercard etc.. should not be deciding for customers who they are allowed to pay. Wikileaks as far as I know is not an illegal organization. Also if they are busy blocking transactions they don't like why not blocking transactions to child porn sites or child sex tourism or donations to terrorist organizations like AlQueda, and women hating groups like the Taliban. While I know in those cases there could be a bit of money laundering going on, Visa, Mastercard etc, most certainly aware of where some of that money is going. I am highly disappointed in Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, for basically quaking in their boots and being a handmaid to embarrassed governments.

[Aravar]

. I am sort of thinking this is a major test for the impartiality UK court system now in light of the fact that we know other countries can influence domestic court decisions.

What, exactly, are you referring to?

[vison]

I'm not clear on exactly what the allegations are. Some versions make the women look downright petty - i.e., they had consensual sex to which the women agreed despite perhaps a stated (?) preference for condoms that wasn't honored (or was honored but the condom inadvertently broke). On this theory, the women are essentially jilted lovers, whose behavior is rendered even more problematic by the fact that they went to the police only after meeting each other and discovering that they had both slept with the same guy within a short period of time.

Other versions sound like the women were allegedly subject to nonconsensual sex - I've read elsewhere that Assange allegedly had sex with one woman without a condom while she was sleeping, for instance. That'd be a much more problematic issue.

Whatever the nature of the charges, the motivation for pursuing them in this way CLEARLY is not because the international community has suddenly been struck with a burning desire to ensure that sexual crimes against women are properly punished. Nor am I naive enough to think that Sweden and the UK are the two countries who are most anxious to, hmm, avenge these alleged victims. But it'd nonetheless be helpful to be clear on exactly what Assange allegedly did. Can anyone clarify?

She must be a very sound sleeper.

[nerdanel]

I think that the allegation would be that the act was begun, but not completed, while the woman was sleeping. I'm given to understand that some people like to initiate sex in this fashion; I had to make clear to an ex-boyfriend of mine that that would never be a consensual act with me, because allegedly an ex-girlfriend of his had enjoyed being woken up in that very way. So that's what I understood the allegation to mean.

[vison]

I was being snarky.

This is all so fishy it stinks. All of it.

I believe nothing.

[Túrin Turambar]

I understand the exact nature of the changes against Assange have changed a few times. I imagine that when (if?) he actually faces a court we'll know for sure.

[River]

. I am sort of thinking this is a major test for the impartiality UK court system now in light of the fact that we know other countries can influence domestic court decisions.

What, exactly, are you referring to?

My impression is that there is a basic and general assumption that Assange's legal woes (the Swedish charges, the Interpol warrant, and the subsequent arrest) happened because of pressure from the US State Department.

There is something fishy going on here - the Swedish charges reek of b.s. - but if we're going to dance around speculating, I'm going to submit an alternative: they're trying to keep him from falling into the hands of some really nasty types. The Swedish charges are an excuse. They hype of him being a fugitive, the denial of bail, all of that was a smokescreen. Why would they do it? Well, maybe they're that afraid of his alleged poison pill (1 million style points to Assange if that turns out to be an epic Trojan Horse). Or maybe no one wants to deal with the fuss and embarrassment if he turns up dead.

[Hachimitsu]

Aravar, River prety much pointed out what I was thinking. To clarify a bit more, basically these charges are B.S. and if the English court finds they are enough of a basis to extradite him to Sweden, which would then make it really easy to extradite him to the U.S. Then it would seem pretty clear the U.K. court was pressured by the U.S. to aid the U.S. in getting custody of Assange rather then acting as an independent body and deciding the case on the strength of the evidence. Which we all know is extremely weak.

Now that the have him in custody, if "new" DNA and hair evidence came to light, I would be extremely suspicious.
As L_M have said, from more reading it seems the charges against him have changed or are changing. The Charges the first time in Sweden didn't stick and now, they are working on new charges. According to an interview with one of his lawyers, he actually hasn't been charged with anything yet and the police and court just had wanted him for questioning. This seems to be why he was "wanted". It was just for questioning.

According to one podcasts I listen to, they said he offered electronic means of questioning so he could stay in hiding to protect himself from death threats. That offer was not enough and there was extreme insistence that he be physically present for questioning. At least according to that podcast.

I don't have access to much TV and I only get to news papers through the internet so I don't have to too many sources for the information. Heck sometimes I only know to look for headlines on "breaking news" if someone mentions it in their Facebook status.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That simply isn't true, Wilma. From everything that I have seen, these charges are quite serious, and I think it insults the women who were apparently victims of his assauts to call them bogus. If they had made these accusations against someone else, many of the people dismissing them would have been completely outraged. I find that quite distressing and unfair to these victims. If it had been your sister who had been forced to have non-consensual, unprotected sex, would you be so quick to dismiss it?

[Hachimitsu]

I am sorry if it appears I was dismissive.
The thing that gets me is that everyone says including the women that there was consensual sex in the begining. Seeing that the initial charges were looked at close to the times when the incidents happened does help. Also if there were some definitive charges maybe it would help.

I even mentioned the STD stuff because that does give credence to the women because I know people in certain parts of the world people can be charged for knowingly infecting partners.

I honestly do not know what is happening and stuff being reported is unclear.
I am frankly suspicious of everything. Including stuff on Assanges side.

Considering everything else going on around this case I have to admit the legal case side of this seems very convenient. If this all happened before before the Military reports were leaked I probably would almost automatically sided with the victims. At least until the case was properly tried.
But doing that now would be pretty naive of me.

[Holbytla]

Call me an idiot, but are people really surprised by this?
Most people have skeletons in their closet somewhere. Some are more abundant than others, but they are there.

If you are bold enough to endanger people's lives with stolen/leaked information, even if the intent is to do good, and to go chest to chest with a behemoth like the US government, how is it a surprise that somewhere somehow some bone in your closet is going to bite you in the ass?

If the charges weren't sexual misconduct (and he very well may be guilty as charged for all I know), then it would have been something else.

The bottom line is he pissed off people who have a lot of pull and he will be put through the mill and the leaks will stop.