Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wikileaks

Archibald Nixon

Archibald Nixon

anti-life coach
I'll just get a ball rolling with a quick question (sans any research whatsoever, so forgive me if there's a quick & obvious answer right under my nose,) that's been nagging at me since this all became a thing: Are there any actual, verifiable examples where the information released has led directly or even indirectly to soldiers, agents, etc. being put in harms way?

And as a sidebar: vote what you think of the rape charge against Assante.
 
Julian-assange-nyp.png
 
I remember reading a news report on CNN where the military confirmed that thus far there have been no deaths related to the release of the documents, and nothing beyond the threat of the Taliban to take revenge on the people named in them to indicate the possibility.
 
"Could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act." - Time Magazine

JulianA.jpg
 
He's not even being accused of 'rape' in the conventional sense. The two women involved admit that they had consensual sex with Assange, but sans condom, and that he later refused to have an STD test. The charges were dismissed and reopened (probably at the urging of the US) so no, Julian Assange is not a rapist, and the persistence of the bullshit charges is due entirely to the meddling of the Great Satan.
 
yes becoz consentual secks when the condom breaks = raeps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@ least in switzerland or whatever
 
Item A:
Private Manning: guilty of treason for copying and distributing classified information. He's a member of the military, they lecture you Ad Nasium about what will happen to you if you pass this information on. Guilty. Shoot him.

Item B:
US State Department (and other assorted agencies): Stupid enough to allow single-user copying of this information by a PRIVATE in the US ARMY! Guilty of sloppy procedures, insufficient oversight of sensitive materials, laziness. Those agencies will get what they deserve in the form of a lack of trust from their equivalents in other countries. The heads of security and the overall heads of those departments (i.e. Hillary) should resign over the lapses. Possible criminal prosecution (negligence) for their predecessors too.

Item C:
Assange, the publisher. Knew he had dynamite. Published anyway. I admire his courage, but feel he was indiscriminate in what he published. I wonder if he fact-checked any of it OR considered the other damage. Guilty of Editorial laziness. Possible civil prosecution for this. However, He didn't steal the information or hack it out of any government computer.
As for the "rape", it's a technicality from a VERY liberal legal system in this regard. Hell, he lived at one of the woman's apartment for a WEEK after the incident happened! Clumsy nuisance harassment. They should have found some other way to sue him and take his money/property and trash his PROFESSIONAL reputation, not his personal one.

IMHO.
 
Are we this far gone? Basically, this guy has done something not done for awhile, that being journalism. What with "free speech zones", ever deepening privacy invasion by governments, news outlets bought and pumping out right or left propaganda depending on what sells, truth still buried and blurred despite Obama's promise of hope....now this. They have nothing on Assange, because he has done nothing illegal. The very fact they have dug up some odd flippant charge from Sweden reeks of desperation.

Awesome piece from Laurie Oakes, one of the few journalists left in Oz:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...-on-a-knife-edge/story-e6frfhqf-1225965449505
 
Damn, Rob Stary is Assange's local lawyer...


Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
 
WikiLeaks: catalyst for transparency or lockdown?

By Craig McMurtrie
Updated Wed Dec 1, 2010 7:42am AEDT

The very act of improving intelligence sharing after the September 11 attacks made it easier for someone to steal hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight US analysts and politicians are condemning the Pentagon's management of the Secret Internet Protocol Network. It's estimated that since 2001 access to Siprnet has ballooned to 2 million users, including military personnel, civil servants and contractors.

One such user was a disillusioned US army intelligence analyst based near Baghdad who liked to download confidential material while pretending to listen to Lady Gaga. Once again suspicion is falling on Private Bradley Manning. He's now on suicide watch as he awaits a court martial.

Reacting to the gargantuan WikiLeaks dump of documents, the Pentagon will make it much harder to copy classified material from its computers and will improve monitoring of unusual data access. A new protocol will require two people to transfer material from classified to unclassified systems and the Obama administration is promising a 9/11-type review of intelligence procedures.

Governments have always liked to keep secrets, but after this embarrassing leak there may also be a reassessment of what actually needs to be classified, or even written down.

Thanks to WikiLeaks we now know that Gadhafi doesn't like to climb more than 35 steps and likes to have his voluptuous Ukranian nurse on hand, US diplomats considered Sarkozy thin-skinned, Berlusconi feckless and Prince Andrew rude.

The problem with a document dump on this scale is that in amongst the scuttlebutt is also some important material, like potentially dangerous details about Arab leaders encouraging the US to attack Iran, North Korea shipping advanced missiles to that country and the Yemeni government covering up US drone strikes against Al Qaeda.

WikiLeaks plans to unveil more in the weeks and months ahead.

The release reveals again how containing the internet is beyond even the most powerful government but that hasn't stopped a furious reaction from Washington.

Former vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman is calling for the WikiLeaks website to be shutdown, while Republican congressman Peter King wants founder Julian Assange prosecuted for espionage and has suggested that WikiLeaks might be designated a terrorist organisation.

The US Attorney General Eric Holder is promising a criminal investigation saying some members of the media haven't acted responsibly and will face "real consequences."

He says it isn't sabre rattling.

The WikiLeaks dump has also led to another collision between the realities of web world and old media values.

As it has done before WikiLeaks reached out in advance to a small group of leading newspapers. The New York Times explained to its readers that it was given access to thousands of cables weeks ago. The paper described how it excluded information that would endanger informants or compromise national security.

It also sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post online, ahead of publication.

The Guardian newspaper was also in the loop, editor Alan Rusbridger says "It's not the job of the media to worry about the embarrassment of world leaders."

The British paper also withheld sensitive material - much to the annoyance of some online readers.

Julian Assange wrote to the US ambassador in Britain ahead of publication offering to negotiate for 'limited' redactions but the State Department instead demanded that all the material be returned, asserting that the whistleblower website was violating US law.

According to Assange the release reveals the contradictions between the US's public persona, and what it says behind closed doors. On its website WikiLeaks vows to bring "truth to the world" and the Australian says every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington could not tell a lie.

The problem here is that his main target so far has been the pluralist though, of course, flawed US democracy. Is he so naive to hold Washington to a transparency standard unmatched anywhere else? Does that really make our world safer?

It is a terrible responsibility he takes on himself.

In the aftermath of the WikiLeaks dump Hillary Clinton told reporters that there was nothing laudable about it and confidential communication is essential to government business.

An inevitable consequence of this episode is a security crackdown, which according to some diplomats will mean less transparency, not more, in global affairs.

*The New York Times in fact received the leaked cables from the Guardian newspaper and not WikiLeaks. Executive editor Bill Keller says Julian Assange withheld the latest material from the paper because he was offended by reporting of his legal and organisational problems. The New York Times has previously received advanced access to WikiLeaks content and collaborated with other media organisations in coordinating the release on this occasion.

Craig McMurtrie works for ABC News in the Washington bureau
 
Sho feels good to be an aussie atm ;)

The Time cover is my new laundry pr0n poster...
 
'Protect my work': Assange issues plea from jail via mother

Kieran Campbell in London
December 14, 2010

The founder of WikiLeaks has issued a plea from jail for his supporters to keep fighting, accusing Visa, Mastercard and Paypal of being instruments of US foreign policy.

In an exclusive statement provided to the Sunshine Coast Daily via his mother, Julian Assange said he was determined to fight for the future of WikiLeaks.

“My convictions are unfaltering. I remain true to the ideals I have always expressed," he said from Wandsworth Prison in London.
“We now know that Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are instruments of US foreign policy. It's not something we knew before.

“I am calling on the world to protect my work and my people from these illegal and immoral acts.”

“My convictions are unfaltering. I remain true to the ideals I have always expressed.

“These circumstances shall not shake them. If anything, this process has increased my determination that they are true and correct.

The statement, which was also made available to the Daily, came after Mr Duffy posed the question through his mother: “Was it all worth it?”

Julian Assange’s Sunshine Coast mother Christine has flown to London to visit her son and support him in his bail hearing, expected tonight (AEST).

Mrs Assange was not able to see her son face-to-face on Monday but a 10-minute phone call reunited the duo.

It was the first time the Noosa woman spoke to her son since he was arrested.

Mr Assange told his mum there were CCTV cameras monitoring his cell because of fears he could be assassinated for his role in releasing 250,000 confidential US government documents.
 
"You may tie my hands with chains and my feet with shackles, and put me in the dark prison, but you shall not enslave my thinking, for it is free."
Gibran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top