Author Topic: Wikileaks:  (Read 127670 times)

Offline Met

  • rosexual?
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,114
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #200 on: December 8, 2010, 04:25:37 pm »
Haha, how could I forget.

Years in the trenches ;D

;D

How did you assist though? I'd love to help but I can barely google
Albert Riera yansanyusiza nyo, Mascherano muzanyi wamanyi ate Dirk Kuyt sirina Bigambo! Rafa Abeewo ! YWNWA

It's like watching the Dalai Lama snap and headbutt someone.

Offline scatman

  • Slutty enough to make Jordan blush - and hard enough to piss in the wrong bush! Missing a shift key.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,087
  • This is my world, you just WORK here :D
    • directions to football stadiums
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #201 on: December 8, 2010, 04:29:32 pm »
why dont they just release everything, fuck the americans especially considering how stupid c*nts like Palin are saying Assange is like Osama....
Would sacrifice Fordy in a sacred Mayan ritual to have him as the next Liverpool manager
Football stadiums in England

Offline johnybarnes

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,469
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #202 on: December 8, 2010, 04:32:47 pm »
;D

How did you assist though? I'd love to help but I can barely google

I'll PM you mate.

Offline OldCold

  • Lock 'em all up! A spell in the army would do 'em all good! Police State? Yes please! Has bookmarked the Daily Mail's editorial.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,611
  • OC - RAWK's Poser boy.
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #203 on: December 8, 2010, 04:46:12 pm »
Got the old LOIC up, /b/ had been excellent in all this.

Also, rules 1 & 2
OldCold has merked so many people over the last 5 hours. Awesome.
OldCold you are an enigma.

Online Ray K

  • Loves a shiny helmet. The new IndyKalia.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,618
  • Truthiness
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #204 on: December 8, 2010, 05:26:33 pm »
Just read this article in the New Yorker, posted a few months ago, but very relevant now.

It's about Assange and his efforts to get that military video called 'Collateral Damage' publicised. It's long (being a New Yorker article) but goes into detail on his background. Fascinating stuff.

link

Thought it was interesting that a PayPal Vice-President said this morning that they shut down the WikiLeaks account after pressure from the State Dept; later the State Dept said 'Not us, honest, guv'.
Hmmm, who to believe...

MasterCard now down due to attacks from 4chan et al.
This might just be the most fascinating news story of the past few years, with enormous implications for years to come.
"We have to change from doubters to believers"

Twitter: @rjkelly75

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #205 on: December 8, 2010, 05:32:11 pm »
i guess what we were saying yesterday that was labelled as conspiracy theories is being proved not to be conspiracy theories. The US is influencing these companies to act on their behalf.

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #206 on: December 8, 2010, 05:33:15 pm »
just going back to the conversations i had last night about the US gov influencing governments and companies to act in their interests... here is a comment from the beeb today further supporting what i said.

Nothing cloak and dagger to that mate.  A US based credit card company acknowledging a reasonable request from the US State Department to discontue their support of a site that publicizes classified US Government information.


Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #207 on: December 8, 2010, 05:39:36 pm »
Nothing cloak and dagger to that mate.  A US based credit card company acknowledging a reasonable request from the US State Department to discontue their support of a site that publicizes classified US Government information.


did you read what i was posting last night about the US Gov and the Swedish Gov in relation to the Pirate Bay?

This compares to Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Amazon... We dont know the ins and outs of it, we dont know if there has been US Gov threats to these companies, i would doubt it to be honest, but i would assume they were convinced that this is the only option they should be persuing. US Gov protecting their interests and not giving a damn about anyone else's, nothing new there i guess.

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #208 on: December 8, 2010, 05:47:38 pm »
Im not going to lie. I really dont like americans. 

All 311,000,000 of us?  Wow.  Seems a bit excessive.

I think that the truth remains they are snakes who try to use to the world. Lets face it they only invaded iraq so they could take the oil.

If we did, I sure didn't see any fruit from our toils.  Not only did it rack up billions upon billions in debt, which we'll get to pay off with increased taxes, but we also paid between $4.00 and $5.00 a gallon for gas during much of that time period.

The amount of people who lost there lives during the vietnam war. Shambolic.

I'm sure I'm the only one that finds the irony in someone from the UK criticizing the United States inflicting casualties, civilian or otherwise, to advance their own agenda and power in lands halfway around the world.

I guess that is just an extension of the Sky football didn't exist pre 1992 mentality?

--

Long story short, I guess, is that I understand why people hate our Government, but to hate an entire population because of the actions taken by the ruling elite, who, for various reasons, we have no ability to remove or replace, and particularly for the reasons you listed,  seems a bit shortsighted,


Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #209 on: December 8, 2010, 06:18:55 pm »
did you read what i was posting last night about the US Gov and the Swedish Gov in relation to the Pirate Bay?

This compares to Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Amazon... We dont know the ins and outs of it, we dont know if there has been US Gov threats to these companies, i would doubt it to be honest, but i would assume they were convinced that this is the only option they should be persuing. US Gov protecting their interests and not giving a damn about anyone else's, nothing new there i guess.

I just now looked through all of what you posted yesterday, and not to discount the veracity of your claim, which I'll research at my own convenience unless you want to send me some links so that I don't have to go looking, but don't you think the situation is a bit different than even you've described?

According to what you posted, the United States Department of State sent official correspondence to Master Card, which is a company organized in and under the laws of the United States, requesting that they discontinue support of a site which is known to publish United States' secrets.  I don't know; I just don't find that at all conspiratorial, certainly not like what you're saying about the United States Government, Sweden and The Pirate Bay.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #210 on: December 8, 2010, 06:30:24 pm »
I just now looked through all of what you posted yesterday, and not to discount the veracity of your claim, which I'll research at my own convenience unless you want to send me some links so that I don't have to go looking, but don't you think the situation is a bit different than even you've described?

According to what you posted, the United States Department of State sent official correspondence to Master Card, which is a company organized in and under the laws of the United States, requesting that they discontinue support of a site which is known to publish United States' secrets.  I don't know; I just don't find that at all conspiratorial, certainly not like what you're saying about the United States Government, Sweden and The Pirate Bay.
I never called anything conspirital, what most of us have been saying on this thread was deemed conspiratal. It depends on the viewpoint of each person as to whether you believe something is a conspiracy or not.

Here is a Swedish news crew reporting that the US has threatened their government:
http://wn.com/trade_sanctions

I said that the threatening of Sweden is not the same as asking Paypal, mastercard, visa, amazon to stop providing a service to Wikileaks, but the point of the argument last night was about the US Government and their involvment behind the scenes to smear Assange and pressurise him and wikileaks. Part of this point has been provent now, but virtue of Mastercard saying the US gov told them to stop supporting them. They didnt have to say the US gov told them, but they did. This could be a hint that they object to it, but have to proceed with this course of action. That last sentance is a vague hint, not anything im prepared to be sure about until we know further details.


Edit: and the entire rape case, or whatever it is not being labelled as is utterly bizarre.. from being accused of rape, from it being dropped (twice was it?), to being persued again, now its not even thought to be rape but if the article above is true, then carries at maximum a paltry fine.. I mean, its totally bizarre, its very suitably timed also. I find that judging by the events to date and the nature of the case, its hard to find any seriousness to the accusations. We could be proved wrong, but it at best seems far fetched, and idiotic.
« Last Edit: December 8, 2010, 06:33:48 pm by conman »

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #211 on: December 8, 2010, 07:14:59 pm »
I never called anything conspirital, what most of us have been saying on this thread was deemed conspiratal. It depends on the viewpoint of each person as to whether you believe something is a conspiracy or not.

Some of it has been unfounded and a bit silly on its face, which is why some of it can and is considered to be conspiracy theory material.  There's nothing wrong with that, but until there's additional info, some of the accusations seem a little batty.

Here is a Swedish news crew reporting that the US has threatened their government:
http://wn.com/trade_sanctions

Thanks!  I'll have a look when I'm on my own computer.

I said that the threatening of Sweden is not the same as asking Paypal, mastercard, visa, amazon to stop providing a service to Wikileaks, but the point of the argument last night was about the US Government and their involvment behind the scenes to smear Assange and pressurise him and wikileaks. Part of this point has been provent now, but virtue of Mastercard saying the US gov told them to stop supporting them. They didnt have to say the US gov told them, but they did. This could be a hint that they object to it, but have to proceed with this course of action. That last sentance is a vague hint, not anything im prepared to be sure about until we know further details.

I've seen nothing to prove that the United States Government is trying to smear Assange, but I'm not surprised they're trying to shut down wikileaks, and I understand why and support it wholeheartedly.  I realize that some are arguing for increased transparency, but what he's doing is irresponsible and will cost people their lives. 

In addition, thinking that the United States is the only country interested in shutting him down would be a little naive.  If he publishes the United States' secrets, what's to stop him from publishing the secrets of other countries?  While I don't know exactly what was in the stuff that he put out, I'm fairly confident that most of what he published (if any of it was true in the first place) was pretty well known withing the circles whose job it is to know such things.

Edit: and the entire rape case, or whatever it is not being labelled as is utterly bizarre.. from being accused of rape, from it being dropped (twice was it?), to being persued again, now its not even thought to be rape but if the article above is true, then carries at maximum a paltry fine.. I mean, its totally bizarre, its very suitably timed also. I find that judging by the events to date and the nature of the case, its hard to find any seriousness to the accusations. We could be proved wrong, but it at best seems far fetched, and idiotic.


I guess we'll have to wait and see as details make their way out.  It will certainly be an interesting next few weeks and months.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #212 on: December 8, 2010, 07:21:46 pm »
Some of it has been unfounded and a bit silly on its face, which is why some of it can and is considered to be conspiracy theory material.  There's nothing wrong with that, but until there's additional info, some of the accusations seem a little batty.

Thanks!  I'll have a look when I'm on my own computer.
some of the accusations, but i think what i have said is rather sensible by n large. :D

Quote
I realize that some are arguing for increased transparency, but what he's doing is irresponsible and will cost people their lives. 
Isn't it fair to say that the US's foreign influence is irresponsible and does cost people their lives?
I understand your concern, but again there are 2 sides to each view.

Quote
In addition, thinking that the United States is the only country interested in shutting him down would be a little naive.  If he publishes the United States' secrets, what's to stop him from publishing the secrets of other countries?  While I don't know exactly what was in the stuff that he put out, I'm fairly confident that most of what he published (if any of it was true in the first place) was pretty well known withing the circles whose job it is to know such things.
I'd encourage him to report leaks on our government here in ireland, I would love to see this happen. He also opened up a can of worms in one of the African countries, cannot quite remember which one, but it exposed a fraudulant election and the correctly voted party inturn got elected.. This was a direct result of Wikileaks involvement. It might not suit the USA, UK and many countries, but you have to respect that it is benificial to others, especially the people that are hard done by.

Edit: This is the reference to Kenya:
"A Kenyan politician also vowed to sue after Assange published a confidential report alleging that President Daniel arap Moi and his allies had siphoned billions of dollars out of the country. The site’s work in Kenya earned it an award from Amnesty International."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian#ixzz17YBamej1"

Quote
I guess we'll have to wait and see as details make their way out.  It will certainly be an interesting next few weeks and months.
yep
« Last Edit: December 8, 2010, 07:34:11 pm by conman »

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #213 on: December 8, 2010, 07:37:25 pm »
some of the accusations, but i think what i have said is rather sensible by n large. :D

I would imagine you wouldn't have said it otherwise! ;)

Isn't it fair to say that the US's foreign influence is irresponsible and does cost people their lives?

I would disagree that US foreign influence is wholly irresonsible.  Certainly, there are aspects that are irresponsible, and those aspects are typically the ones that cost people their lives.  That people would consider US involvement on the global scale to be on the whole, irresponsible is exactly why I'd like us to stop spending taxpayer dollars outside of the US and its territories.  I see no reason to waste the amount of money we do on foreign causes as it is; however, the fact that people don't even recognize the good makes me wonder how much and how quickly we could lower that defecit if we repurposed that money..

I understand your concern, but again there are 2 sides to each view.
I'd encourage him to report leaks on our government here in ireland, I would love to see this happen. He also opened up a can of worms in one of the African countries, cannot quite remember which one, but it exposed a fraudulant election and the correctly voted party inturn got elected.. This was a direct result of Wikileas involvement. It might not suit the USA, UK and many countries, but you have to respect that it is benificial to others, especially the people that are hard done by.

I certainly agree with you that transparency is great; however, I do believe that there are certain things that really shouldn't be published, like troop movements, for example.  I suppose the bottom line is that I don't trust the people who release such information to be able to be responsible about what they do and don't release.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #214 on: December 8, 2010, 07:43:45 pm »
I would imagine you wouldn't have said it otherwise! ;)

I would disagree that US foreign influence is wholly irresonsible.  Certainly, there are aspects that are irresponsible, and those aspects are typically the ones that cost people their lives.  That people would consider US involvement on the global scale to be on the whole, irresponsible is exactly why I'd like us to stop spending taxpayer dollars outside of the US and its territories.  I see no reason to waste the amount of money we do on foreign causes as it is; however, the fact that people don't even recognize the good makes me wonder how much and how quickly we could lower that defecit if we repurposed that money..

I certainly agree with you that transparency is great; however, I do believe that there are certain things that really shouldn't be published, like troop movements, for example.  I suppose the bottom line is that I don't trust the people who release such information to be able to be responsible about what they do and don't release.
I dont want to get sidetracked again, so ill end it on this note:
Would it be fair to say that the USA's involvement in overseas matters costs more lives than any other country in the world, and quite possibly the sum of all other countries in the world. ?

Furthermore, has the US Gov a right to do this?

Offline HelterSkelter

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #215 on: December 8, 2010, 07:49:16 pm »
Well who'd of thought it..  There is a cable that shows how the US lobbied the Russians on behalf of Mastercard and Visa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard




Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #216 on: December 8, 2010, 07:51:28 pm »
I dont want to get sidetracked again, so ill end it on this note:
Would it be fair to say that the USA's involvement in overseas matters costs more lives than any other country in the world, and quite possibly the sum of all other countries in the world. ?

I don't know the statistics.  If you find them, and that is what they indicated, then yes, it would be fair to say what you have.


Furthermore, has the US Gov a right to do this?


Of course not!  If it were up to me, we'd pull out of all foreign countries, drastically slash the Army and the Marine Corps and focus the lionshare of our military budget on the Navy and Air Force.  I also think we should let someone else host the UN, and cut all international aid at the same time.

It isn't up to me though..

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #217 on: December 8, 2010, 07:58:30 pm »
Of course not!  If it were up to me, we'd pull out of all foreign countries, drastically slash the Army and the Marine Corps and focus the lionshare of our military budget on the Navy and Air Force.  I also think we should let someone else host the UN, and cut all international aid at the same time.

It isn't up to me though..
Thats cool, you dont like the US Govs overly influencial and aggressive involvement overseas and you dont agree with Wikileaks, but Wikileaks wouldnt be as controversial as it is, and may not even exist if it wasnt for the US's controversial policies. So i guess Wikileaks in many ways has a root cause, which is overly aggressive regimes. It has a goal of exposing these overly agressive regimes. So as much as there is some bad that can come out of Wikileaks existance, there is also some good.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #218 on: December 8, 2010, 08:03:07 pm »
Just read this article in the New Yorker, posted a few months ago, but very relevant now.

It's about Assange and his efforts to get that military video called 'Collateral Damage' publicised. It's long (being a New Yorker article) but goes into detail on his background. Fascinating stuff.

link

Thought it was interesting that a PayPal Vice-President said this morning that they shut down the WikiLeaks account after pressure from the State Dept; later the State Dept said 'Not us, honest, guv'.
Hmmm, who to believe...

MasterCard now down due to attacks from 4chan et al.
This might just be the most fascinating news story of the past few years, with enormous implications for years to come.
Just about 1/3 of the way through this now, its very good and id advise everyone to read it..
thanks for the post.

Offline PJG

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,079
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #219 on: December 8, 2010, 08:24:11 pm »
Has anyone here downloaded, insurance.aes256?

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #220 on: December 8, 2010, 08:51:43 pm »
Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

by Michael Ellsberg on December 8, 2010

[Below is a news release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg]

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WASHINGTON – December 7 – The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.

How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent commentary in Pravda (that’s right, Russia’s Pravda): “What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …”

So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. … the American people should be outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

Odd, isn’t it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down — with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder. The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens put it, “There is nothing so strong … as the simple truth.”

As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

Motivation? WikiLeaks’ reported source, Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, having watched Iraqi police abuses, and having read of similar and worse incidents in official messages, reportedly concluded, “I was actively involved in something that I was completely against.” Rather than simply go with the flow, Manning wrote: “I want people to see the truth … because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public,” adding that he hoped to provoke worldwide discussion, debates, and reform.

There is nothing to suggest that WikiLeaks/Assange’s motives were any different. Granted, mothers are not the most impartial observers. Yet, given what we have seen of Assange’s behavior, there was the ring of truth in Assange’s mother’s recent remarks in an interview with an Australian newspaper. She put it this way: “Living by what you believe in and standing up for something is a good thing. … He sees what he is doing as a good thing in the world, fighting baddies, if you like.”

That may sound a bit quixotic, but Assange and his associates appear the opposite of benighted. Still, with the Pentagon PR man Geoff Morrell and even Attorney General Eric Holder making thinly disguised threats of extrajudicial steps, Assange may be in personal danger.

The media: again, the media is key. No one has said it better than Monseñor Romero of El Salvador, who just before he was assassinated 25 years ago warned, “The corruption of the press is part of our sad reality, and it reveals the complicity of the oligarchy.” Sadly, that is also true of the media situation in America today.

The big question is not whether Americans can “handle the truth.” We believe they can. The challenge is to make the truth available to them in a straightforward way so they can draw their own conclusions — an uphill battle given the dominance of the mainstream media, most of which have mounted a hateful campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks.

So far, the question of whether Americans can “handle the truth” has been an academic rather than an experience-based one, because Americans have had very little access to the truth. Now, however, with the WikiLeaks disclosures, they do. Indeed, the classified messages from the Army and the State Department released by WikiLeaks are, quite literally, “ground truth.”

How to inform American citizens? As a step in that direction, on October 23 we “Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence” (see below) presented our annual award for integrity to Julian Assange. He accepted the honor “on behalf of our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.” In presenting the award, we noted that many around the world are deeply indebted to truth-tellers like WikiLeaks and its sources.

Here is a brief footnote: Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) is a group of former CIA colleagues and other admirers of former intelligence analyst Sam Adams, who hold up his example as a model for those who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. (For more, please see here.)

Sam did speak truth to power on Vietnam, and in honoring his memory, SAAII confers an award each year to a truth-teller exemplifying Sam Adams’ courage, persistence, and devotion to truth — no matter the consequences. Previous recipients include:

-Coleen Rowley of the FBI
-Katharine Gun of British Intelligence
-Sibel Edmonds of the FBI
-Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan
-Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army
-Frank Grevil, Maj., Danish Army Intelligence
-Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret.)
-Julian Assange, WikiLeaks

“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.”
– Luke 12:2-3

The following former awardees and other associates have signed the above statement; some are available for interviews:

DANIEL ELLSBERG
A former government analyst, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a secret government history of the Vietnam War to the New York Times and other newspapers in 1971. He was an admirer of Sam Adams when they were both working on Vietnam and in March 1968 disclosed to the New York Times some of Adams’ accurate analysis, helping head off reinforcement of 206,000 additional troops into South Vietnam and a widening of the war at that time to neighboring countries.

FRANK GREVIL
Grevil, a former Danish intelligence analyst, was imprisoned for giving the Danish press documents showing that Denmark’s Prime Minister (now NATO Secretary General) disregarded warnings that there was no authentic evidence of WMD in Iraq; in Copenhagen, Denmark.

KATHARINE GUN
Gun is a former British government employee who faced two years imprisonment in England for leaking a U.S. intelligence memo before the invasion of Iraq. The memo indicated that the U.S. had mounted a spying “surge” against U.N. Security Council delegations in early 2003 in an effort to win approval for an Iraq war resolution. The leaked memo — published by the British newspaper The Observer on March 2, 2003 — was big news in parts of the world, but almost ignored in the United States. The U.S. government then failed to obtain a U.N. resolution approving war, but still proceeded with the invasion.

DAVID MacMICHAEL
MacMichael is a former CIA analyst. He resigned in the 1980s when he came to the conclusion that the CIA was slanting intelligence on Central America for political reasons. He is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

RAY McGOVERN
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, whose duties included preparing and briefing the President’s Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

CRAIG MURRAY
Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, was fired from his job when he objected to Uzbeks being tortured to gain “intelligence” on “terrorists.” Upon receiving his Sam Adams award, Murray said, “I would rather die than let someone be tortured in an attempt to give me some increment of security.” Observers have noted that Murray was subjected to similar character assassination techniques as Julian Assange is now encountering to discredit him.

COLEEN ROWLEY
Rowley, a former FBI Special Agent and Division Counsel whose May 2002 memo described some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 failures, was named one of Time Magazine’s “Persons of the Year” in 2002. She recently co-wrote a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.”

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #221 on: December 8, 2010, 08:59:22 pm »
“What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating"

Ok what evils exactly have been revealed in these leaks?
I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Online Ray K

  • Loves a shiny helmet. The new IndyKalia.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,618
  • Truthiness
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #222 on: December 8, 2010, 11:37:57 pm »
Thoughtful piece on Gizmondo here. (Edited for length)

The Reaction of Governments to Wikileaks Should Scare the Hell Out of You

Wikileaks is a flawed endeavor represented publicly by a smug egotist. But it deserves the respect and support of anyone who prioritizes the privacy of individuals over that of governments.

You don't have to like it or Assange in order to value the counterpoint they represent to the modern high-technology security state. Instead, it is best to assess the major issues hiding in the rhetoric on their merits, and realize as a result that the conversation America is currently having with the world about transparency is ultimately the most valuable achievement of this peculiar organization.

The contents of the leaks are not the main issue; in fact, they are at most an interesting bonus and occasionally a dangerous distraction. No less a personage than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, no admirer of Wikileaks, has stated that the practical impact of the leaks in terms of security and compromised diplomacy is negligible. He goes on to make the point that countries don't do business with the US on the basis of ideals but rather as a result of self interest. Your mileage may vary, but I believe it's safe to take his word as an intelligence veteran charged directly with national defense over the flatulent posturing of elected leaders whose need for a good target to harangue often takes precedence over the facts of the matter.

The main issue is the meta-discussion about the balance between public oversight and national security. Evgeny Morozov nailed it succinctly via a twitter comment early on (WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner), and it is precisely that which needs to be on the center stage. The Pentagon Papers are a logical point of comparison: they were every bit as far-reaching and classified (technically moreso, since they were top secret) and have been exonerated both legally and historically by their clear role in serving the public interest. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker in that instance, has his points of divergence from Assange but has no problem connecting the two leaks.

The difference between the two has to do with their targets: the Papers being released clearly constituted a criticism of Vietnam strategy and government dishonesty. The Wikileaks cables have less to do with individual decisions than with the broader approach the United States has accelerated since 9/11 towards aggressively invading the privacy of its citizens and foreign nationals, all the while shielding even its most mundane government functions from scrutiny under the aegis of national security. Uncomfortably for Assange, if he succeeds in his mission to any significant degree he is unlikely to match his hyperbole in damaging the US, and far more likely to drive it to renew its institutions into a more palatable and competent upgrade of the status quo. That's not a clear victory for anyone, but it's better than the current alternative and a goal that many Americans should be able to get behind.


Finally, the reaction of governments to these leaks should scare the hell out of you. The seemingly inevitable arrest (via Reddit) of Julian Assange by British authorities on Swedish sexual assault charges as encouraged by the American government likely represents a 21st century remix of the classic honeypot, and the willingness to use it on such a high profile individual should be worrisome irrespective of the veracity of the charges. It's just the tip of the iceberg, though. Apart from Facebook's notably understated position, the ease and rapidity with which corporations across the US and the world were reminded of where the fishes sleep should be of tremendous concern. If Amazon, credit card companies, Paypal, and Swiss banks are the big stories with their reliance on technicalities to wriggle out of their responsibilities in obvious response to government pressure, it is EveryDNS being brazenly strongarmed into abdicating its role as a neutral gatekeeper that should set the tone for future conversations about net neutrality.


The Chinese were criticized by the US for attacking Google, despite it not really being inconsistent with their stated policy priorities even with the Wikileaks bonus intel. It's now the United States' turn to reflect on what the last decade of enhanced government privacy has brought citizens of our nation as well as the world generally, and to do so in terms of the marginal benefits it has brought a tiny minority of bureaucrats, elected officials, and corporations relative to the general public. To paraphrase Machiavelli's views on the Roman republic into the American situation, it was when they were willing to learn from mistakes rather than simply condemn the messenger that institutions could be renewed in a manner that best maintained a balance between a functional government and individual liberty for citizens.

Source
"We have to change from doubters to believers"

Twitter: @rjkelly75

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #223 on: December 8, 2010, 11:52:42 pm »

Offline Kid Fitzer

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #224 on: December 9, 2010, 01:02:11 am »
“What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating"

Ok what evils exactly have been revealed in these leaks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaqY12VHFv4&feature=related

The tolerance of that, and although external of the leaks, the intolerance of the man responsible for exposing the likes of that.
Ok?
"It's not even about me anymore, it's about some nightmare these people are having, I'm still a survivor yeno, so I'm still gonna smile and sign autographs, but soon I'm gonna go crazy" - Tupac

Offline Endoe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,966
  • A liverbird on my chest
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #225 on: December 9, 2010, 01:36:09 am »
Just read this article in the New Yorker, posted a few months ago, but very relevant now.

It's about Assange and his efforts to get that military video called 'Collateral Damage' publicised. It's long (being a New Yorker article) but goes into detail on his background. Fascinating stuff.

link

Thought it was interesting that a PayPal Vice-President said this morning that they shut down the WikiLeaks account after pressure from the State Dept; later the State Dept said 'Not us, honest, guv'.
Hmmm, who to believe...

MasterCard now down due to attacks from 4chan et al.
This might just be the most fascinating news story of the past few years, with enormous implications for years to come.
Pretty sure I saw that video.
Yeah - it's pretty graphic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
« Last Edit: December 9, 2010, 01:43:54 am by Endoe »

Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #226 on: December 9, 2010, 05:40:38 am »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaqY12VHFv4&feature=related

The tolerance of that, and although external of the leaks, the intolerance of the man responsible for exposing the likes of that.
Ok?

That was a very legitimate leak, because it exposed direct evidence of abuse that America is responsible for. But, while horrific, is it really grounds for calling all of America's actions "evil"? Was deposing of a terrible dictator evil? Was sticking around to suppress a full scale civil war in which millions of Iraqis would have probably died "evil"? Do these things just not matter in the face of a video showing abuse that was at best a relatively isolated incident, and at worst, no where near in the scale of the violence that was committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis? Violence that it was the mission of the American soldiers to end?

But like I said that was a legitimate leak, in that it opened up a debate about how 'honerable' our soldiers actually were, and how widespread this kind of abuse was. Across America, there was a relatively large amount of talk on that subject. There was something deeply disturbing about the casual manner in which the helicopter pilots killed those people, was it a psychological defense mechanism? Were they evil? Did they deserve to be prosecuted (there is actually an ongoing investigation on the matter)? Was what we saw out of context? I personally don't have the answers to those questions but I am glad they were being asked.

Since then, however, Wikileaks has released mountains of information, a mixed bag of gossip and political wranglings. We've learned alot of interesting stuff, like what China thinks about North Korea, and what the Saudis think about Iran, and what the US thinks about Gaddaffi, etc etc, but considering how much secret information has been released, we haven't actually seen very much evidence backing up this preconception that America is evil at all. Thus the discussion has pretty much been limited to 'oh, this is interesting, I had no idea Kirchner has anxiety problems.' The only thing I can think of that is remotely close to evidence of abuse is that apparently US diplomats spy on other diplomats, but that seems hardly surprising, and apparently many countries do this. 

At the same time the two most recent leaks have had a couple very unpleasant consequences. The Afghanistan leak revealed the names of Afghani human rights workers and translators working with the Americans, putting their life in danger, and the most recent leak will gum up the channels of communication between nations as they strive to avoid future PR disasters. I think Julian Assange needs to take some responsibility for this. And not just act like a twat and shrug it off when someone brings up the point.

Now about the bank account freeze, I am on the fence. On the one hand, Assange was releasing information that was, rightfully in my opinion, private and there should be some consequences. On the other hand, did he do anything illegal? I don't think so, as he would qualify for the protections of a journalist under the espionage act. Also, while the rape stuff seems rather like a setup, but then again, it also seems to badly organized to be a setup.

I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Offline Umbarto

  • of the Red Dojo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,905
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #227 on: December 9, 2010, 06:27:10 am »
Scare tactics, anyone?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/wikileaks.students/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote
Will reading WikiLeaks cost students jobs with the federal government?

U.S. agencies have warned some employees that reading the classified State Department documents released by WikiLeaks puts them at risk of losing their jobs. But what about students considering jobs with the federal government? Do they jeopardize their chances by reading WikiLeaks?

It's a gray area, said law professors and national security experts who spoke with CNN. The topic has been debated intensely in the past week in legal and academic circles, ever since several U.S. universities sent e-mails to students with warnings about reading leaked documents.

They say students ought to be mindful of their future careers when commenting on or distributing the documents online -- especially those planning to seek jobs in national security or the intelligence community, which require a security clearance.

"The security clearance asks whether or not you're a risk when it comes to sensitive material. This could be one indicator that, when taken together with others, creates a broader pattern that might suggest you're not a person to be hired," said Pepperdine University law professor Gregory McNeal, who specializes in national security law.

"They may very well take into account your opinion, as a job candidate, whether or not you think WikiLeaks is a good thing or bad thing for the country," he said. "It's a small issue, but one to approach with caution if I were a student seeking a job in the national security field."

E-mails went out last week to students at several schools, including Boston University's School of Law, Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, cautioning students against commenting on or posting links to the documents on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.

Each message came from the schools' offices of career services, claiming to be sent at the recommendation of an alumnus.

In the eyes of the federal government, the documents remain classified, "thus, reading them, passing them on, commenting on them may be seen as a violation of Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information," said Maura Kelly, Boston University law assistant dean for career development and public services, in an e-mail to students.


"Two big factors in hiring for many federal government positions are determining if the applicants have good judgment and if they know how to deal with confidential/classified information," Kelly said in the memo, which was posted on the law blog "Above The Law" last week.

A Boston University spokeswoman confirmed that the e-mail had been sent, adding that students are "free to make their own choices."

"Our Dean of Career Development and Public Service thought it prudent to alert our students to the possible ramifications of dealing with classified information, especially in light of the fact that law graduates often apply for jobs that require security clearances," Mary K. Gallagher said in an e-mail.

So, can just reading about the leaked documents in the media jeopardize your chances of getting a job with the federal government?

Probably not, said McNeal. But commenting on them online or distributing them might create a pattern of behavior that raises red flags during screening for the highest levels of security clearance, which often require polygraph tests.

"I don't think looking at them alone could hurt anyone. The problem is when you're looking and then supporting and endorsing, then you start running into trouble. That's where you run the risk of jeopardizing the security clearance on character grounds," he said.

It also serves as a reminder to be mindful of your "online and personal profile," your virtual footprint of statements, comments and shared materials stored in the web's collective consciousness, the professor said.

"When you're up against so many others for the same competitive job, you don't want to stand out for this. Prudence would dictate, don't add another possible reason for them to ding you."

Nor should the school's warnings necessarily be construed as policy endorsement, said Harvard Law School professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

"I imagine the distribution of these warnings is less to endorse the policy and more just to say, 'Hey this is what we're hearing.' This is not like advising students to not smoke pot. It's not weighing in on a matter of policy. It's just telling them that it might affect them down the road," he said.

But to the government agency hiring you, there could be a big difference between just reading about the documents in the news and actively disseminating them or seeking them out in their full form on WikiLeaks' site.

"It's a new situation, and the documents are so ubiquitous right now that it seems weird to worry who on the margin has ever posted a link to them. But at the same time, the initial release was against the law, so I can't begrudge the government, when figuring out who to employ or trust with secrets, to ask if you helped to further spread documents that belonged to the government."

After the issue went viral last week on "Above The Law" and "the Arabist," which posted an e-mail to students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, the blogosphere lit up with comments from readers calling the practice unconstitutional and a violation of free speech rights.

Many suggested the warning was over the top and added another layer of anxiety for job-seekers in a weak job market. An unscientific survey on "Above The Law" asked readers what they thought: 55% said the warnings were needlessly scaring law students, 38% said a little over the top but a prudent thing to consider in a difficult job market and 9% said spot on, even reading the stuff could get you in trouble.

But would it be illegal for the State Department to deny anyone a job based on statements about WikiLeaks? The answer is unclear, but in the private sector, inquiries from prospective employers about your ability to handle confidential material would be considered "legitimate business concerns," labor lawyer Camille Olson said.

"The framework of the issue goes back to whether the employer has a legitimate concern about your fitness for the position," said Olson, a Chicago-based attorney who has represented large employers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The Society for Human Resource Management.

"I can understand how an employer in the federal government would believe that someone who once engaged in that kind of conduct, with the understanding that the information was confidential, how that reflects upon their potential for handling confidential info in the future."

The e-mail from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs told students that posting links or making comments about the documents online would "call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."

On Monday, the school issued a follow-up, saying that said it supported students' right to "discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens" without fear of consequences.

"OCS e-mailed this cautionary suggestion to students, as it has done many times with other information that could be helpful in seeking employment after graduation. We know that many students share a great deal about their lives online and that employers may use that information when evaluating their candidacy," Dean John H. Coatsworth said in a statement.

"Should the U.S. Department of State issue any guidelines relating to the WikiLeaks documents for prospective employees, SIPA will make them available immediately."

The U.S. government's position on WikiLeaks has been clear since November 28, when the site began posting anonymously leaked U.S. State Department documents. The Obama administration has condemned the disclosures, arguing that they harm U.S. diplomacy by exposing confidential communications. The site has been kicked off servers in the United States and France and lost a major revenue source on Friday when the U.S.-based PayPal cut off its account.

The White House Office of Management and Budget also sent a memo forbidding unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing the classified documents on the WikiLeaks site or other websites on government or personal computers.

The memo, sent to federal workers and contractors without official federal government authorization to read the documents, said that just because the documents have been published on the internet does not change their "classified status" or "automatically result in declassification."

"Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority," the memo said.

What's less clear is the government's official position on whether potential recruits should avoid WikiLeaks. A spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget would not comment on the issue. But a look at the Standard Form 86 -- the questionnaire all applicants for national security positions must fill out -- sheds light on the risks the government wants to avoid.

Questions related to past associations, such as have you ever "knowingly engaged in activities designed to overthrow the U.S. Government by force" or "engaged in acts of terrorism" are intended to evaluate whether you could pose a security risk, said McNeal, the Pepperdine law professor.

The big concern for universities, which are supposed to be incubators for lively debate and the exchange of ideas, is the chilling effect the warnings may have, said Zittrain, the Harvard professor.

"I would hate to see the policy extended so broadly that you have students scared to read newspapers," Zittrain said. "What I hope no one would want to do is ask if you read an article about the documents and hold that against you. They're out there so it might be quite natural to read something about them."


I wonder... if I print out a couple of these cables, which are confidential yet publicly available on just about any electronic device capable of connecting to the internet, or even have them in my temporary internet cache of a computer and get on a plane leaving the USA if I can be prosecuted for espionage?

God I can't wait to get out of this fucking country...

Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #228 on: December 9, 2010, 06:48:16 am »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and absurd'


The process of taking a rape allegation to court is notoriously hard for the victim. When the accused assailant is a high-profile campaigner with thousands of active and vocal supporters, it becomes acutely fraught.

Claes Borgström, the lawyer for the two women whose complaints of sexual assault triggered Julian Assange's arrest, said his clients had been assaulted twice: first physically, before being "sacrificed" to a malevolent online attack. The women were having "a very tough time", he said.

A wealth of hostile material attacking the two women has appeared on the internet since August, when they took their complaints to the police. Their right to anonymity has been abandoned online, where enraged bloggers have uploaded dossiers of personal photographs, raked through their CVs and tweets, and accused them of orchestrating a CIA-inspired honeytrap operation. These online rumours were a convenient way for Assange to divert suspicion from the actual allegations, the women's lawyer said.

Keen to set some of the more outlandish rumours to rest, Borgström, a highly respected Swedish lawyer with 30 years of experience, today rebutted the claims and counter-claims that Assange's arrest has unleashed. He said his clients were "the victims of a crime, but they are looked upon as the perpetrators and that is very unfortunate".

In an interview at his fifth-floor office in central Stockholm, he continued: "What is going on now is very, very unfair to them because they are being pointed at as if they have started a conspiracy against Assange and WikiLeaks, and that is not true. There is nothing wrong with their reputation and they have done nothing wrong in going to the police. What they are going through is unfair and absurd."

He questioned whether the women would have pressed charges had they known in advance how their reputations would be attacked. "If they had known what was going to happen, maybe they would not have gone to the police at all … I would not have done it," he said.

His own involvement in the case has not been without complications. On Monday night his firm's website was hacked and shut down. "We have never experienced anything like this before," he said.

In today's London Evening Standard, Assange's UK lawyer, Mark Stephens, repeated his conviction that the affair was politically motivated. "The honeytrap has been sprung. Dark forces are at work. After what we've seen so far you can reasonably conclude this is part of a greater plan," he said.

But Borgström rejected the notion that the rape case and the extradition demand form part of a conspiracy to damage the reputation of the WikiLeaks founder. "It has nothing whatsoever to do with WikiLeaks or the CIA and I regret very much that Julian Assange does not publicly say that himself. That would be a way of leaving all these rumours," he said. "There are no political ingredients in this at all, but I quite understand that there are rumours.

"WikiLeaks is headline news all over the world at this time and Assange is suspected of a sexual crime in Sweden, so of course people think there is connection. There is nothing, zero."

The women were "very credible" witnesses, he said. "They have given very detailed stories about what they have been through."

Assange's reputation is less the focus of scrutiny online, but an acquaintance who met him and both women in Stockholm around the time of the alleged assaults told the Guardian he had warned Assange that his behaviour towards women was going to get him into trouble.

"I don't think it was a conspiracy, but this provided a golden opportunity for the enemies of WikiLeaks to use the situation to neutralise him," said the man, who wanted to remain anonymous. "A personality like Assange, who is known throughout the world, in the media every day, has a huge attraction to women. A lot of women invited him to their beds and he took that opportunity too much … all the time.

"I spoke to him about this. I warned him that it was not a good way to behave ethically and also in terms of his security. His weakness was – is – women. I warned him it would cause him trouble."

He said women responded to him in the way they might respond to meeting Mick Jagger. "When you attract that many women you have to think about how you behave," he said.

The unusual circumstances surrounding the initial handling of the alleged assault have been used by Assange's online supporters to fan suspicions about the case. Why was an investigation launched by the Swedish prosecutors before being dropped and then revived? Why did the women, who had not previously known each other, go together to the police to report the assaults? Why was an extradition required when Assange had earlier been allowed to leave Sweden?

Borgström attempted to refute this speculation point by point today. He would not say where the women were, only that he was in daily contact with them. He had advised them not to read what was being said about them on the internet, he said. "But they do …"

There was nothing unusual about different prosecutors, of varying seniority, coming to different conclusions about whether a crime had occurred, he said. Rape was rarely a clear-cut case of an unknown man pouncing on a woman, he said, and this case, like most, was nuanced and complicated.

He refused to reveal sensitive details of the evidence provided to him by the women. "It is important for the future investigation that the suspect himself does not know more than necessary before he is interrogated by the Swedish police," he said.

But he gave a concise summary of the key allegations. "These two women were molested by Mr Julian Assange at two different times, independently of each other," he said. One of the two women, who met Assange at a lecture he gave in Stockholm in August, wanted to contact him after the alleged assault because she wanted him to take a test for sexually transmitted infections. She contacted the second woman, who had helped organise the lecture, to see if she could help her to find him. "When they spoke to each other they realised they had been through something very similar so they went to the police. That's not odd," he said.

"They decided to go to the police, to inform the police of what happened, to ask for advice; also they were interested in whether there was a risk that they could have got HIV. They were not sure whether they should make a police complaint, they wanted to have some advice. But when they told the police officer, she realised that what they were telling her was a crime and she reported that to the public prosecutor, who decided to arrest Assange."

Two days later a second prosecutor, who conducted a preliminary investigation, came to a different conclusion, judging that the evidence did not meet the criterion of a rape or sexual molestation charge. "She made another judgment, saying: 'No it's not. It's very close, but not quite,'" he claimed. "So she cancelled the arrest order and he was still suspected of molestation without sexual motives.

"When I read that decision, my own conclusion was and still is that it was a rape, so I asked for a reopening of the case, and then the investigation was reopened." There was nothing suspicious about this closing and reopening of the case, he said. "The law is not an exact science. You can always make different judgments. Different courts and different prosecutors make different decisions. I think that the prosecutor who cancelled the arrest warrant did not study the case well enough."

Assange was at that time free to leave the country, Borgström said. "He didn't have to ask anyone if he could." It was only later when it appeared that Assange was unwilling to return voluntarily for questioning that the extradition process was launched, he said.

"It turned out it was impossible to get him here for an interrogation, he wanted to be interrogated in the embassy, or wherever. Then the prosecutor decided to arrest him," he said.

Privately, Assange has suggested that he is being victimised because Sweden has a tougher approach to prosecuting rape than other countries. There are differences, not least the division of the charge of rape into three different subsections: severe, standard, and less severe. Assange is charged with the lesser charge, but still faces a maximum sentence of four years' imprisonment.

Lawyers are said to joke here that men in Sweden need written permission to have sex, but Borgström, who was for seven years the country's equal opportunities ombudsman, dismissed this today as an inaccurate, chauvinistic interpretation of the country's law.

"Men like to repeat that joke … no woman would say that. I think it is very unfair. There is not an equal situation for men and women in society as a whole, but especially not in this field."

Whether Assange will be prosecuted in Sweden on the four charges of rape, sexual molestation, and coercion against him depends on whether or not the Swedish director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, finds enough evidence to be confident that the case will stand up in court. Before she does that, she needs to question Assange further, and may also need to question the women again.

The probability of the prosecution going ahead is around 50-50, or perhaps a little more than that, Borgström said.

"In Sweden, like in other countries, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecutor. The prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a client is guilty of the crimes. Beyond reasonable doubt is very high – I don't know whether she can reach that level. And history tells you that you can reach different judgments on the same material depending on how you interpret that material."

The way the case has been handled in Sweden attracted criticism in the UK earlier this week, amid confusion over the opening and closing of the case. But Assange would get a fair trial, Borgström asserted: "The Swedish court system is one of the best and strongest in the world. The WikiLeaks affair will have no influence on the case if it goes to court.

For the sake of balance its worth posting.
I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Offline Umbarto

  • of the Red Dojo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,905
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #229 on: December 9, 2010, 07:07:40 am »
Hey, if O.J. Simpson could nearly cut his ex-wife's head off, I guess it's possible...


Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #230 on: December 9, 2010, 07:47:51 am »
"Scare tactics, anyone?"

More that some jobs require security clearance and if the Government can't trust you not to discuss or share protectively marked information (which most of this Wikileaks stuff is) then you're not going to pass the vetting and get your clearance.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline Endoe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,966
  • A liverbird on my chest
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #231 on: December 9, 2010, 08:34:42 am »
That was a very legitimate leak, because it exposed direct evidence of abuse that America is responsible for. But, while horrific, is it really grounds for calling all of America's actions "evil"? Was deposing of a terrible dictator evil? Was sticking around to suppress a full scale civil war in which millions of Iraqis would have probably died "evil"? Do these things just not matter in the face of a video showing abuse that was at best a relatively isolated incident, and at worst, no where near in the scale of the violence that was committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis? Violence that it was the mission of the American soldiers to end?

But like I said that was a legitimate leak, in that it opened up a debate about how 'honerable' our soldiers actually were, and how widespread this kind of abuse was. Across America, there was a relatively large amount of talk on that subject. There was something deeply disturbing about the casual manner in which the helicopter pilots killed those people, was it a psychological defense mechanism? Were they evil? Did they deserve to be prosecuted (there is actually an ongoing investigation on the matter)? Was what we saw out of context? I personally don't have the answers to those questions but I am glad they were being asked.

Since then, however, Wikileaks has released mountains of information, a mixed bag of gossip and political wranglings. We've learned alot of interesting stuff, like what China thinks about North Korea, and what the Saudis think about Iran, and what the US thinks about Gaddaffi, etc etc, but considering how much secret information has been released, we haven't actually seen very much evidence backing up this preconception that America is evil at all. Thus the discussion has pretty much been limited to 'oh, this is interesting, I had no idea Kirchner has anxiety problems.' The only thing I can think of that is remotely close to evidence of abuse is that apparently US diplomats spy on other diplomats, but that seems hardly surprising, and apparently many countries do this. 

At the same time the two most recent leaks have had a couple very unpleasant consequences. The Afghanistan leak revealed the names of Afghani human rights workers and translators working with the Americans, putting their life in danger, and the most recent leak will gum up the channels of communication between nations as they strive to avoid future PR disasters. I think Julian Assange needs to take some responsibility for this. And not just act like a twat and shrug it off when someone brings up the point.

Now about the bank account freeze, I am on the fence. On the one hand, Assange was releasing information that was, rightfully in my opinion, private and there should be some consequences. On the other hand, did he do anything illegal? I don't think so, as he would qualify for the protections of a journalist under the espionage act. Also, while the rape stuff seems rather like a setup, but then again, it also seems to badly organized to be a setup.


There we're Reuters journlist with cameras - not weapons killed in that video there.

Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #232 on: December 9, 2010, 08:45:51 am »
There we're Reuters journlist with cameras - not weapons killed in that video there.
First of all, no. There were also insurgents.

Second of all, when did I say anything about journalists with weapons?
I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Offline Sinos

  • itis
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,528
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #233 on: December 9, 2010, 09:15:28 am »
First of all, no. There were also insurgents.

and children.
My ass cheeks clapped together louder than an excited Latino man with maracas... I had just laid the mightiest fudge dragon ever known to mankind in its very own water bath.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tybuq/did_you_ever_think_you_were_going_to_die_from_a/

Offline classycarra

  • The Left Disonourable Chuntering Member For Scousepool.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,392
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #234 on: December 9, 2010, 09:35:07 am »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and absurd'


glad to see the guardian being sensible

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #235 on: December 9, 2010, 10:15:30 am »
That was a very legitimate leak, because it exposed direct evidence of abuse that America is responsible for. But, while horrific, is it really grounds for calling all of America's actions "evil"? Was deposing of a terrible dictator evil? Was sticking around to suppress a full scale civil war in which millions of Iraqis would have probably died "evil"? Do these things just not matter in the face of a video showing abuse that was at best a relatively isolated incident, and at worst, no where near in the scale of the violence that was committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis? Violence that it was the mission of the American soldiers to end?


I dont want to quote the entire thing and i agree with a lot of what you said.
I wouldnt call America Evil in all walks of life, but certainly some of the things that happen on a political and military level simply are, that vid is just one such case. America is in a war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but yet they are not in a war in Burma, nor have they invaded to such an extent African countries that have widespread tyranny. Sending a few token troops is one thing, but they only send their armies to places that are in their economic interests, and OIL certainly is in their economic interests, so was stopping communism, and so forth. So, i wont have any of this that America went to Iraq to free the people from an Evil dictator who they themselves put in power. They went to Iraq for reasons that suits themselves. ( i say themselves rather than yourselves, as i seperate the US Gov and military from the ordinary people ).

I do agree that the Iraqi people needed help, but surely surely it could have been done in a more civilised manner, surely it could be done in a way that doesn't put the people in such harm, doesn't pit the ethnic groups and tribes against each other. Surely if you are there in the best interests of the people then you would respect the people and not kill 100,000s and thousands and say they all are insurgents, they are not all insurgents, wikileaks exposed this well known viewpoint also. Surely if you are there with good intentions and respectful to the people you are freeing you wouldn't set up a military base on the absolutley historic site of Babalon, and you wouldnt riddle this hugely important, hugely significant site with Bulletholes as it was being used as pretty much a practice range.

Not that i condone or respect Al Queda in any sort of way, but weren't they always calling out America over their overly aggressive corporate and foreign policy in their region? Can there be any possible truth to this inlight of what Wikileaks has exposed. When all these documents have been viewed, the dust is allowed to settle and time takes its course, maybe it will be understood on a worldwide scale why there is such resentment to the USA from the middleeast. Something similar to the reasons Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Wasn't America antagonising the Japanese?

This is the sort of policy that irks the world, and not just the middleast Refo, It might not be so apparent from within your own borders, but it is quite obvious here, and almost everywhere else. But do understand that this is a recognition not of American people, but of American Elite, political and military. People worldwide don't recognise America's right to over extend their hands of influence. How is it that we can be so casual about our own countries defence, as can Canada, as can many many more places and America cannot...? They must know that they are pissing some serious people off to need to be so paranoid about defending the homeland. And why is it referred to as "homeland", surely that means that they recognise their right to their homeland as well as other lands?

Anyway, back onto Wikileaks. Wikileaks do not call themselves the Press, and dont want to be considered as such. They consider themselves as sources of transparent and correct information. They are not out to get America, they are infact more concerned with exposing these horrific regimes in Africa and the Middleast. America happens to be one entity that is everywhere, so therefore is in a greater position to be exposed. The information came to Wikileaks, they didnt go get it so to speak. Wikileaks as i stated are not the press, and don't see their existance as a means to provide slant, or direction to arguments, they see themselves as a databank of historical and factual information that will allow everyone to make up their own minds. Surely there must be some respect for this policy, equally so it is open to be criticised.

Jullian Assange started out by exposing problems in Australia, his home country. He can be relentless, he then moved on to expose places worldwide, as I said, Wikileaks is not out to get America, but they do indeed have their noses in everyones affairs, so they will get exposed more than others, and the world will be more critical as a result.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #236 on: December 9, 2010, 10:19:24 am »
First of all, no. There were also insurgents.

Second of all, when did I say anything about journalists with weapons?
There was no factual account to say they were insurgents. As far as i know no weapons were found. The attack helicopter was out to get insurgents in a group of similar size, but these don't appear to be the ones they were after. There was also 7 people in the building they missiled, 2 kids in a van and their father that got out to help the injured.

The US military listed them all as insurgents, Wikileaks exposed these documents at the same time as the hellfire video was brought before our eyes.

[Edit]: it is difficult to tell from tha vid that it was a camera on the reuters shoulder rather than an RPG, so we cannot be so critical from that perspective. But, I would imagine that the helicopter crew could see this more clearly with their own eyes rather than that grainy video.. I could be wrong however, this is just my understanding of it considering how poor the vid quality is.



Did you all read that huge New Yorker article?
It's worth reading...
« Last Edit: December 9, 2010, 10:21:06 am by conman »

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #237 on: December 9, 2010, 10:37:41 am »
That was a very legitimate leak, because it exposed direct evidence of abuse that America is responsible for. But, while horrific, is it really grounds for calling all of America's actions "evil"? Was deposing of a terrible dictator evil? Was sticking around to suppress a full scale civil war in which millions of Iraqis would have probably died "evil"?

Sorry but due to the repetition of 'evil' I couldn't help but read that in the same tone as Alan Partridge delivered this :

"Is this evil? Is that evil? " ;D

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/08Z-FmgbFK0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/08Z-FmgbFK0</a>
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline choi

  • of sex.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,782
  • Toto
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #238 on: December 9, 2010, 10:49:33 am »
Apparently Southport could be targeted by terrorists, according to secret WhiteHouse documents.




Sleepy Southport is ‘a terrorist target’, according to leaked US documents
Dec 8 2010 by John Siddle, Midweek Visiter


THE United States fears Southport could be targeted in terrorist attacks, secret Whitehouse documents reveal.
A $52m telecommunications hub in Kew, where trans-Atlantic cables link Europe with Canada and North America, is listed as a key site for the country’s homeland security.
Our sleepy town is one of 12 places in Britain listed in confidential documents released on whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks.
The 7,300-mile undersea fibre-optic cable makes landfall at a huge station based at Southport Business Park, on Wight Moss Way.
Owned by US firm Hibernia Atlantic, the state-of-the-art cables have the capacity to allow huge data exchanges, equivalent to 25 million simultaneous phone calls.
American embassies compiled the suspected ‘targets for terror' list in February 2009 to improve “protection of the nation's CI/KR [Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources] to prevent, deter, neutralize [sic] or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them".
The document includes several sites in Britain, including cable landings in Cornwall and a foot and mouth disease vaccine centre in Lancashire.
Southport MP John Pugh last night criticised the release of the documents but laughed off claims that the town could be a potential target.
He said: “In truth, the cable across the Atlantic to Southport puts us at the centre of world communications but hopefully well down the list of terrorist targets.
“Nevertheless, it is a well-kept secret we’d perhaps preferred to have kept secret.

“You would hope that in the corridors of power there is a recognition of Southport's significance, though in my experience the Sir Humphreys in Whitehall, unlike US intelligence, can't tell you the difference between Southport and Stockport.”
The leak has been condemned by British officials, who fear the targets could be noted by terrorist groups.
Former foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind called the attitude of Wikileaks, whose owner Julian Assange has faced death threats after releasing hundreds of thousands of confidential cables, "generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal".
He told the BBC: “This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing."
Downing Street also condemned the publication of the list.
A spokesman said: "We unequivocally condemn the unauthorised release of classified information.
"The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere.
Wikileaks said it had not given any precise locations, while Hibernia Atlantic was unavailable to comment.

http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2010/12/08/sleepy-southport-is-a-terrorist-target-according-to-leaked-us-documents-101022-27780730/2/



Scary as my house is a couple of minutes away from there!

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #239 on: December 9, 2010, 10:53:39 am »
Sleepy Southport is ‘a terrorist target’, according to leaked US documents

Scary as my house is a couple of minutes away from there!
I dont for one minute believe that terrorists would attack most of these places, thats media spin being played out.. How come suddenly the media's focus is on these sites that interest America being now targets for Terrorists?
Surely in the hundreds of thousands of documents, they should be inundated with information to tell us all.. no, they are stuck on one or 2 points. And this Rape case is taking away newstime from the material that has been released.

We have 2 sites here in Ireland that are on that list, but no one is talking of terrorists coming over here and attacking us or the sites.
I dont see why they would either.. Scare tactics and an attemtp at justifying why these documents should not be released.