More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[The Dark Lord]

He was arrested today.

 

 

 

....So the plot thickens!

[Cacmypants]

OH [bleep] 'em with a tuna!

[Shiny]

But not for leaking the documents, apparently. Charged for rape, sexual coercion and molestation, I think. I'm glad he was charged for that, as opposed to legally putting documents on the web.

[Cacmypants]

Yes, but that is just an excuse, it was (unprotected) consentual sex. Of course, if the lady decides that he's a rapist then he's screwed. Wouldn't surprise me if she's paid off.

[obfuscator]

Yes, but that is just an excuse, it was (unprotected) consentual sex. Of course, if the lady decides that he's a rapist then he's screwed. Wouldn't surprise me if she's paid off.

And your source on this is? I agree it is a possibility it's just a smear campaign but it is possible it's legitimate as well.

[EarthySun]

Yes, but that is just an excuse, it was (unprotected) consentual sex. Of course, if the lady decides that he's a rapist then he's screwed. Wouldn't surprise me if she's paid off.

And your source on this is? I agree it is a possibility it's just a smear campaign but it is possible it's legitimate as well.

It would all really depend on how long ago the supposed rape occurred. If it was a long time ago (a month or more), then I'd take my chances and say that they were paid off. (That, and how reliable their story is.)

[magekillr]

On the rape charges:

 

During a business trip to Stockholm last August, Assange had unprotected sex with two women (a bizarre and painfully detailed account is available on the Daily Mail's Web site) who upon realizing that they had both slept with him—and that he had blown them both off—jointly approached police about his refusal to take an STD test. At the time, Assange's Swedish lawyer confirmed that "the principal concern the women had about Assange's behavior … related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women's request, for sexually transmitted disease."

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom

 

As has been stated, Sweden apparently has laws against unprotected sex, which is what this all relates to.

 

That said, I have seen a bizarre and disgusting number of rape apologists regarding this specific case when the charges were less than clear (although they're still partially unclear, imo). I've seen many say that because they already consented, then it's a done deal; they can't give up consent if they tell him to "stop" in the middle of it. This is rape apologia beyond the pale. If someone says "stop" while you're having sex and you don't stop, it's rape, period, no questions asked. If your condom breaks and they say "stop" to put on a new one and you don't, it's rape just the same. So if Assange had a condom on with the one woman and it broke, and she asked him to stop and he didn't, then he raped her, period.

 

Anyway, Assange has an op-ed out today:

Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

[sees_all1]

Unfortunately Assange has made it impossible to separate him from wikileaks. If Bill Gates or Steve Jobs was arrested for one of these charges, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't use "You hate Windows/Macs" as a defense.

[Racheya]

I saw this on the news earlier and raged.

 

This is total bull, an obvious smear campaign. Trumped up charges as a way to get him into the American's hands. I don't believe that someone as high profile and paranoid as Assange would risk everything he's worked for by raping women, just before going head to head with the American government in the cable release. It just smells of crap to me.

[Alg]

Kind of wondering how being arrested in Sweden for rape will get him into American hands. It does seem like a way to link two unrelated events in some kind of conspiracy theory.

 

Either way Assange's sex life shouldn't have anything to do with his career choice. If he's guilty of rape, he's guilty of rape and should be punished for that, but being guilty doesn't make the leaks any less relevant or important.

 

On the other hand I'm also wondering about how this applies to freedom of speech.

[nine naked men]

So has he released the Doomsday file password thing then? It sounds like it'd be a funny read.

[Bloodstain]

LOL, man oh man

5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:

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

Ironic? Read the next paragraph from the press release:

The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and

innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

 

Shameless. You really could not make it up.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

[obfuscator]

I don't think he'd do that unless it was a directly related threat against wl. Since apparently he was arrested for something unrelated I don't believe it's been released yet.

[Skeptical]

Kind of wondering how being arrested in Sweden for rape will get him into American hands. It does seem like a way to link two unrelated events in some kind of conspiracy theory.

 

Either way Assange's sex life shouldn't have anything to do with his career choice. If he's guilty of rape, he's guilty of rape and should be punished for that, but being guilty doesn't make the leaks any less relevant or important.

 

On the other hand I'm also wondering about how this applies to freedom of speech.

 

Well said. I do doubt the timing, credentials, and motivation behind the charges, but even when after Assange is arrested (or killed), WIkileaks will continue.

[Alg]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/07/MNBV1GMJLF.DTL

In a disclosure of some of the most sensitive information yet revealed by WikiLeaks, the website has put out a secret cable listing sites worldwide that the United States considers critical to its national security. U.S. officials said the leak amounts to giving a hit list to terrorists.

 

Among the locations cited in the diplomatic cable from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are undersea communications lines, mines, antivenin factories, and suppliers of food and manufacturing materials.

 

The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on the details of what it called "stolen" documents containing classified information. But spokesman Col. David Lapan called the disclosure damaging and said it gives valuable information to adversaries.

 

The State Department echoed the Pentagon's statement. "Releasing such information amounts to giving a targeting list to groups like al Qaeda," agency spokesman P.J. Crowley said. British Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the disclosure, telling the BBC it was a "reprehensible" act committed "without regard to wider concerns of security, the security of millions of people."

 

WikiLeaks released the 2009 Clinton cable on Sunday.

More in the link, of course.

[Danqazmlp]

For once I agree with William Hague (never thought this day would come).

[Racheya]

For once I agree with William Hague (never thought this day would come).

What 'millions' of people is he talking about? Has anyone died yet from these cables being released? No. Has there been a security breach? No.

 

To quote Julian Assange in an article he wrote today:

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

[obfuscator]

I think many people haven't fully thought through the consequences overall. Wait and see if one of those sites get bombed, then a lot of people will be singing a different tune.

 

@Rach: Overall it's a combination of both - some sensitive, but not critical information has been released - likely to pose some, but not a large amount of danger to certain people.

[krimi]

Anna Ardin has ties to the cia? hmm...

[Dupin]

I think many people haven't fully thought through the consequences overall. Wait and see if one of those sites get bombed, then a lot of people will be singing a different tune.

 

@Rach: Overall it's a combination of both - some sensitive, but not critical information has been released - likely to pose some, but not a large amount of danger to certain people.

Either you think that A) Terrorists don't have the brains to think of a place to bomb that would be damaging, or B) They bomb so often they have need for a list of targets. Neither is correct. If terrorists want to attack somewhere, they will, and it will be bad. They managed to pick out the WTC and the Pentagon without help from Wikileaks.

[magekillr]

As greater clarity is brought to these charges, it sounds like it was a lot more than they agreed he would wear a condom and he didnt. According to the Press Association, The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

 

More: Some thoughts on sex by surprise

[Bloodstain]

As greater clarity is brought to these charges, it sounds like it was a lot more than they agreed he would wear a condom and he didnt. According to the Press Association, The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

 

More: Some thoughts on sex by surprise

 

I'm going to avoid any news articles about this until it's all been hashed out and ruled on

[das1330]

For once I agree with William Hague (never thought this day would come).thi

What 'millions' of people is he talking about? Has anyone died yet from these cables being released? No. Has there been a security breach? No.

 

To quote Julian Assange in an article he wrote today:

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

 

Both can absolutely be true. Revealing common, day-to-day activities can easily put intelligence assets and informants in danger, while those very common-sense reports do nothing whatsoever to break news of dishonesty in government.

 

The reason these leaks are so stupid is simply that they reveal nothing significant about the government while risking peoples' lives.

[Alg]

There could be both categories:

Diplomats gossiping (Useless in every possible regard)

Vs

Stuff like locations and informants. (Horrifyingly dangerous in the wrong hands)

 

Or stuff that everyone knows (OHNOZ THE WAR IS GOING BADLY!)

 

 

Either way, it depends on the beholder. Information could be censored to the point of uselessness or reveal just a bit too much as well. It could even be that both have happened at different times: the former early on and the latter more recently.

[Skeptical]

For once I agree with William Hague (never thought this day would come).thi

What 'millions' of people is he talking about? Has anyone died yet from these cables being released? No. Has there been a security breach? No.

 

To quote Julian Assange in an article he wrote today:

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

 

Both can absolutely be true. Revealing common, day-to-day activities can easily put intelligence assets and informants in danger, while those very common-sense reports do nothing whatsoever to break news of dishonesty in government.

 

The reason these leaks are so stupid is simply that they reveal nothing significant about the government while risking peoples' lives.

 

Please, provide one scrap or shred of evidence to support that statement.

 

EDIT: Interesting letter = http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html

 

And, from Julian himself: Article

 

 

Interestingly enough, the information seems to not support that statement at all: most would consider it a fairly complete refutation:

 

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

 

The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

 

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

 

Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

 

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

 

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

 

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

 

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

 

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

 

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.