Sweden seeks Wikileaks boss arrest over rape claim

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Mr. Assange should probably learn the rules of the game. If you are going to play stickball in Brooklyn, you best know the rules. If Mr. Assange wants a history lesson, he should look at the outcome of Soviet Diplomats being taken hostage in the Middles East a long time ago.

After one of their diplomats was killed, the Soviets sent a very clear message. The Soviets also captured a few people who belonged to the terrorist group who claimed responsibility. The first message that was sent by the Soviet Union included a few severed fingers with a letter that demanded the immidiately release of the hostages.

The message went on to say that failure to release the diplomats would result in the people the Soviets kidnapped being sent back to the group.... piece by piece.

The Diplomats were released, and you never heard about any Soviet Diplomat or citizen being harmed in the Middle East.

go figure...




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


He isn't a criminal in any sense when it comes to whistleblowing. That's just pure BS on your post.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


He isn't a criminal in any sense when it comes to whistleblowing. That's just pure BS on your post.


Actually its not BS, but denial of a crime on your half to support a position you happen to agree with in terms of the actions of the US Government. If this is not the case then please explain why in your mind you think he did not break the law.

The possession and release of classified information is a Felony in this country. He illegaly obtained classfiied information from a person who was not authorized to have it. He is a criminal for possessing, and then releasing the information.

He should be arrested and tried for his crimes, just liek the person who leaked the info. If Mr. Assange wants to hide behind the media card, he should of thought about that before breaking the law.

He has a choice, be charged and tried by Sweden for the rape stuff, the US for the possession and release of classified information, or be assasinated by the Russians.

To answer your next question:
18 USC 798


Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Now this is really a consipracy theory; Wikileaks starts leaking and the head of the project is now a rapist? Considering he doesn't even have a rap sheet and he's in his mid-thirties, I find this rather hard to believe.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Mess with the bull, get the horns...



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You state it as a fact that he is a criminal. Show me where he is charged and convicted? He did not steal or illegally obtain classified information. Wikileaks only publishes the leaks. Not to mention that whistleblowing is legally protected.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You state it as a fact that he is a criminal. Show me where he is charged and convicted? He did not steal or illegally obtain classified information. Wikileaks only publishes the leaks. Not to mention that whistleblowing is legally protected.


OK, we will use the term suspect then. As far as your last sentence, you need to find a better reason that that man. Standing in a room and watching someone kill another person, even though you did not actively participate, does not mean you are innocent of any crimes.

Enough evidence exists for the PC arrest of Mr. Assange. Enough evidence exists to have him extradited back to the US to face those charges. Enough info exists, based in part by Mr. Assanges own statements to the media, that he knew his actions were in violation of US Law.

He made his bed.

He is suspected of Criminal actions by releasing classified information he was not authorized to have, making his actions criminal by releasing classified information he was not authorized to release.

He comitted criminal acts. He broke the law, making him a criminal. Spin it how you want, but splitting hairs on the use of terms is an obfuscation tactic.

The information he obtained is classified. Mr. Assange knows this, and has stated as much before during his interviews. This is not the first time he has done this, and specifically talking about the mass release of classified information this is round 2 for him. Its not like he rleased a few pages, but over 400 thousand pages of classified documents, that impacts the US effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other critical national security areas.

He has placed foriegn nationals in danger, as is evident by the Talivan talking about retribution to the people named in the documents. Mr. Assange, nor anyone else from wikilease, scoured all of the documents to redact identifying information.

As a matter of fact hey went through approximately 2k pages out of the 400k released.

Mr. Assange should be arrested and extradited to the US and face the charges. Fair is Fair in terms of Mr. Assange releasing this information to prevent death and destruction. By not redacting identifing information in the released documents, he personally has signed the death sentences of the people named.

Mr. Assange wants someone to be held accountible, which is a valid point of view. However, he is now just as guilty as those he went after in terms of causing innocent people to be killed, simply by not taking the time to take names out.

His actions were not those of a person attempting to stop an injustice. His actions show a man with an ego issue who has a personal vendetta against the US and its actions. Had this not been the case, he would of gone through the documents in their entirety and released the most damaging records first, which he did not do.

So yeah, in addition to charging him for being in possession and the release of classified documents, he should be held accountible for the innocent people he killed by not removing their names.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If people want Bush held accoutible for the same accusations, Mr. Assange should share that boat with him.

As far as the charges in Sweden, people are to quick to dismiss it based on a paranoid and conspiracy driven paranoia. Sweden has the rule of law, why not let it takes its course and see what comes of it before going down the road of the US must be behind it.

His own co workers have gone on record saying Assange is a narccisist and ego maniac concenred with nothing more than his own image. Its entirely possible he acted innapropriately, so why not let the swedish investigation takes its course.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You state it as a fact that he is a criminal. Show me where he is charged and convicted? He did not steal or illegally obtain classified information. Wikileaks only publishes the leaks. Not to mention that whistleblowing is legally protected.


Whistelblower status will not pertain to this case.

A Whistelblower by staute is an individual who reports criminal activity to a "competent" body who has lawful jurisdiciton.

Meaning if MR. Assange wanted to claim whiteblower status, he is required to submit his information to the US Federal Government. Instead, he printed the information and released it to the public with absolutely no intention of using the whistel blower statutes.

There are a few law firms in the US where their lawyers have top secret clearence specifically to deal with the whistle blowers of lassified information. The Department of Justice supports these law firms in terms of getting top secret clearance to perorm a service by protecting individuals who have access to Top Secret, or State Secret, clearance.

Mr. Assange has not contactede any of these entities, instead making his argument in the media, which can be used against him since his statements are not of a confidential nature, or with any type of attorney client protection.

He is not a whisteloblower, and has not taken any actions that are required of WhistleBlowers. What Mr. Assange needs is qualified immunity from prosecution by turning over the names of the people who gave him that information, with the hopes there is a bigger fish to fry other than himself.

Mr. Assange does not work for the Federal Government, nor does he have Top Secret clearance, which also means he is not a whistelbower by statutes, because he does not meet even the basic criteria.

This is nothing new in terms of media reporting classified information. Media people have been ordered to reveal their sources, and have refused. It does not prevent the media from going to jail for refusing to name their sources.

A free media allows them to print almost anything they want. It does not protect them from printing information and not being held accountible for that action.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


so, what knowledge did you obtain from the 1st set of released documents??

classified is just a cover for 95% of what the government does not want us to know, it is of no intristic value.

have you yourself ever been involved with classified information??

now, before you answer this post i want to inform you that it may be classified, so be very careful, you might be arrested.LOL



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Yes I have seen and have had access to classified information, and acknowledging that is not a violation of any law, since I am not telling you what that information is or what it is in regards to.

If I were to take that information, and give it to you, and you print that information, then we are both violating Federal Law. Me for releasing classified information to people not authorized to have it, and you for being in possession of and releasing that information.

As for nothing of value in the first release... Even if the information contained in the files is already known, its revealing the manner in which that information was obtained, including the sources that provided that information. It revelas methods and operational procedures, possibly jeopradizing National Security operations, which again is prohibited under US Code I noted in my last post.

Making an argument that because you were given the information from someone else does not mean its not illegal to print it.

If someone robs a bank, comes to your house, and gives you 10k dollars of his haul, does not mean you get to kepp it, nor be charged with being in possession. Its called receiving stolen property. If you take the money, and fail to notify the police, you just assisted in the crime as well as failing to report a crime, obstruction of justice and hindering prosecution.

The ends dont justify the means.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So where are those charges you keep talking about? Also whistleblower protection extents to media too. It doesn't say you have to submit your info to US government. Also wikileaks isn't US only exclusive site that only publishes US leaked documents in 'vendetta' against the government. Besides that whole line about taliban going after people named in the documents, you got any source for that?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Meaning if MR. Assange wanted to claim whiteblower status, he is required to submit his information to the US Federal Government. Instead, he printed the information and released it to the public with absolutely no intention of using the whistel blower statutes.


Lol doesn’t that defeat the point. HA could just imagine, JA "here is your classified info, just wanting to run it by you if it’s cool that I publish it... GOV "yeah sweet mate thanks for the heads up, just give us what you have and we will make sure it is published for you" JA "awesome"

My 2c I personally have some suspicions that wiki leaks is a controlled leak and JA is an actor of sorts, or a media bunny, but im reserving that thought. The whole situation is playing out like a Hollywood movie. However he has been a thorn in the side of the US for a few years now, and has made threats to release info on Russia and China, he applies for residency and the right to run his business out of Sweden and then goes and rapes 2 woman??????, as another post already mentioned how intense it is to get residency and he doesn’t seem that stupid. The first woman sounds fishy(prob not the right word) with her background and especially so with her collaborations with woman #2, + the charges were dropped and now we have round two of this saga published by the worlds media. Objectively looking at the whole situation it seems dodgy and that he is being played. It’s a great conspiracy being played out for us all to watch...



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So where are those charges you keep talking about? Also whistleblower protection extents to media too. It doesn't say you have to submit your info to US government. Also wikileaks isn't US only exclusive site that only publishes US leaked documents in 'vendetta' against the government. Besides that whole line about taliban going after people named in the documents, you got any source for that?


The argument was did he commit a crime or not. In reference to the issue in Sweden, their prosecutor feels, and a judge agrees, there is enough information to issue an international arrest warrant for Mr. Assange - which does not make him guilty. Also under US Federal Law a person who has clearence to see top secret information, is restricted on a need to know basis. Once you hit Top Secret Clearence, you do not get access to all top secret information.

The possession and release of calssfified information is a Federal Felony, at the Department of Justice has been discussing filing charges. The decision to do that is up to them, not me, but if wishing made it so.... The argument people have made is Assange did not break any laws by being in possession of, and then releasing the information, because someone else gave it to him. I am arguining that it does not matter how he obtained the files, he is still in possession of, and illegally released those files. It does not matter where this occured, as the information is classified US Property, and did not authorize him to have it.

Prosecutors Eye WikiLeaks Charges - WSJ Aug 21,2010
Feds eye charges vs. WikiLeaks - NYPost
Soldier Faces Charges in Leak

Charges are still being reviewed, so until they decide, he is a suspect in the case.

Whistleblower Protection - Source


Definition
Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.[2] There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality.[3]


This is the part you are referring to - External Whistleblower


External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.[4]


This is where Mr. Assange is running into trouble -


Under most U.S. federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.


This is the other area he runs into trouble -


In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.[5] However, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.


An exception exists for Military personell becoming whistleblowers (The Military Whistleblower Protection Act), however the reporting of such information, and to be covered under the act, requires the disclosure to Congress.

Mr. Assange is not a Federal Employee, the information was classified so any whistleblower situation is required to go to Congress, and Mr. Assange is not media.

Even media personalities, as you stated, are covered under the act. However, some have gone to jail for printing classified information, and others have gone to jail for contempt by not nameing their sources. Since the leak occured outside of the established whistelblower statute specifically pertaining to items covered under statute and Federal Employees, in this case classified military information, their is no protection under the law.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The possession and release of classified information is a Felony in this country. He illegaly obtained classfiied information from a person who was not authorized to have it. He is a criminal for possessing, and then releasing the information.


American law does not apply to Mr. Assange as he isn't an american citizen ...



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Uhm... Right now on Twitter, folks are talking about how the next leak will redefine world history...

Of course they want him arrested



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Assagne and Wikileaks is not whistleblowers. They are media and the whistleblower is the guy who already is in jail. Wrongfully I might add. There is no charges and never will be. If they could press charges they would've done so already long ago.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Obviously you prefer to write your own stories about Assange and Wikileaks instead to follow the case itself. The Government has put up a special work group of 120 persons to find anything they could do against Wikileaks. I bet, they could need someone like you, especially since they still don't have a grip against it.

As for the "blood on their hands" argument, an internal report denied already that their was any harm from the diaries.

The "rape" cases are such a joke, that even one of the women said, she did not feel raped. Her lawyer simply said: "But she is not a lawyer!" Indeed Assange is accused for being suspect of having "done something" with the condom in one case and not having used one in the other case. Obviously the prosecutors need months to discuss this difficult case.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Assagne and Wikileaks is not whistleblowers. They are media and the whistleblower is the guy who already is in jail. Wrongfully I might add. There is no charges and never will be. If they could press charges they would've done so already long ago.


Yeah, in jail; no thanks to Adrian Lamo (Or should I say Lame-O), the narc!

Adrian Lamo use to talk very fast and was very intelligent, now he talks like hes drugged up on meth and had his brain flushed with fluoride; not to mention government brainwashing techniques.

I use to admire Adrian Lamo until he became a narc, he even had the cheeck to host an informant talk at H.O.P.E. he is a joke and he should be ashamed of himself.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


I'm actually very proud of Lamo...


Go check out project Vigilant



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Assagne and Wikileaks is not whistleblowers. They are media and the whistleblower is the guy who already is in jail. Wrongfully I might add. There is no charges and never will be. If they could press charges they would've done so already long ago.



Lets clear this up. A whistleblower is someone who release information in an effort to stop wrong doing by a coverup. We all agree on that point.

US Federal Law prohibits the possession and release of classified information to those who are not authorized to have it. The source who turned over the documents is military, which means he does not fall under normal whistleblower statutes. Becase the information was classified, he is required to make his disclosure to Congress, not the media.

Also, whistleblowers report activity they think is ilegal, a policy violation etc. Since this military guy transfered classified information, over 400k pages worth, the intent of being a whistelblower is out the _ The military source did not read all 400k + documents, and had no idea what they contained, which means he had no intention of being a whistelblower.

Mr. Assange knew the documents he was receiving were illegally obtained, and without due regard for the information contained, wrecklessly released the documents. Its irrelevant if he is a foreign national, as he broke US law and can be charged and extradited back to the US.

As far as media goes, you need to look up what constitutes and is accepted as a media organization before making that claim. The Federal Government, specifically the DOJ, moves at the speed of smell when it comes to investigating a conspiracy (and im not referring to the alien type conspiracy, but the more than 2 people involved conspiracy).


@ Torre -

This is no different than the British national, who from his house in England, breached pentagon computers. Charges were filed, and international arrest warrant was issued, British authorities arrested him on the warrant, he was allowed to appeal the extradition and lost his argument. He is now going through the US criminal courts.

Based on your argument you could stand at the US Mexican border and shoot someone on the Mexican side, and nothing could be done to you since you were not in mexico at the time. As with the leak argument, its not going to work that way. You still violated Mexican Law, in addition to US law.

@ Siddharta
I have not written my own story about Assange. I am using the infomation that he released, in addition to the interviews he has given where he openly talks about what was obtained, what country it was obtained from, and why he is doing what he is doing.

Taliban hunt Wikileaks outed Afghan informers
Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"
Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks


Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.



The violence may just be beginning. According to Agha Lali, the deputy head of Kandahar’s provincial council, threatening letters have been delivered to 70 elders in Panjwaii district.



Taliban deals harshly with those it suspects of working against it: the ruthless guerrillas have assassinated scores, if not hundreds, of tribal elders and Afghans of all ages for their alleged cooperation with the coalition. In one particularly gruesome case a few months ago, according to the intelligence officer, the Taliban discovered that a group of recent high-school graduates in Ghazni province had been feeding information to the Americans. The youths were arrested, and around 10 of them were hanged. The Taliban is also shutting down cell-phone networks after dark in an effort to prevent villagers from alerting coalition forces to the insurgents’ locations.


To those who argue Manning was a valid whistleblower:

Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Sets the Record Straight on Why He Turned in U.S. Military Specialist

What prompted the initial release of classified documents?


Lamo, who currently works as a journalist and security expert, says that the situation was anything but ordinary. He states, "People confess federal crimes to me every day and I don't turn them in. But those cases didn't have this kind of national security risk."

He says that Manning's initial leaks might have been justified. He says, "Certainly, releasing the gun cam footage would have been something I would have done in his place."


Where did it end up going from there? Mr. Manning was in the process of being discharged from the military -


This discharge was in no way related to his leaking activities, but Lamo did not wish to divulge the reason, out of respect for Manning's family.


Where did the wheels come of the wagon for using a whistleblower statute in an attempt to justify actions?


He says that Manning basically was "disillusioned with the system, had internet access, and saw a solution that was far easier" than pursuing channels within the government.

Lamo says the point where Manning crossed the line was when he leaked the diplomatic cables. According to Lamo, "He described them as not particularly damning, but he just wanted to release it regardless. He talked about creating chaos in the U.S. foreign policy."

As much as Lamo says he hates the abuse and overuse of the word "nation security", he says that the leak constituted a real threat. He points out that the diplomatic cable contained conversations that would likely be taken out of context, much like what would happen if your full email record was leaked and all your friends, family, and coworkers found out what you were really saying about them. Lamo states, "On a scale of nations [the creation of] a hostile environment can cost lives."


Lamo says he has repeatedly likened Manning's activities to "a kid playing with a rifle, shooting shells in the air", commenting "sooner or later someone is going to get hurt"


The release of 400k plus documents without knowing what they contain is not whistleblowing. Releasing information because someone is upset with a system that was drumming him out of the military is not whistleblowing.

Purposely releasing this type of information with no other intent but to cause problems is criminal.

Taking that information (wikileaks) and releasing this information knowing full well the persons {manning} mindset
and his reason for passing the files on, is criminal.

Manning and Assange should be held accountible for their stupidity. The Pentagon wanted Assange to go through the documents to redact names. Mr. Assanges response was if the Pentagon paid for it and supplied the staff, he would comply.

Both of these peple are cowards. Mr. Assange will get his choice of a Swedish Jail, and American Prison, or, if he follows through on his threat to relase classified Russian information, a Russian cemetary.


As far as the Swedish charges go, why do you say they are a joke? To dismiss this ladies accusations out of hand are innapropriate at best. She made a claim, and has followed through with that claim. The least she deserves is an investigation into the allegations to determine truth / no truth to the accusations.

To dismiss it out of hand by going paranoid and linking it to the US is ridiculous, even more so since it occured in Sweden, the lady filed a complaint in Sweden, the legal system of Sweden took action.

Quit combing the seperate situations to make an argument as it holds no water and screams of desperation at any cost to justify this guys actions.








edit on 22-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join