Sweden seeks Wikileaks boss arrest over rape claim

reply to post by the_denv


...and pointed out that I edited your post, both in text, as well as bold faced, underlines and italicised which does speak to my character. I released your information, with changes, and with an explanation that placed it into proper context so as not to be misunderstood by people who read it. It took 2 seconds to do, so I fail to understand why Mr. Assange doesn't grasp that concept. Its good to know though that you dissaprove of such behavior, because it proves my point that if its done by someone you distrust, you point it out and take exception to it, yet when its done by someone whose viewpoint you agree with, its not an issue at all.

Double standard would be just one of the terms you are looking for btw. Loss of credibility would be another. I guess as long as you are seeking the truth, the half, truth and whatever helps your cause, more power to you. I mean why should we release all the facts, when you only want the portions to support an agenda that is based in paranoia.

I could have just changed it and not pointed it out, but I chose not to so my character speaks for itself, which is more than I can say about Mr. Assange's actions, and the blind support he gets from people who view this issue through blinders.

Conspiracy theories in a conspiracy forum is one thing. Extreme paranoia and the ability to ignore facts that dont support your claims is quite another, moving it from the realm of conspiracy to extreme paranoia and the inability to distinguish between fact and fairytale land.

As I said before, Assange is doing a leap of logic, which is dangerous and will result in people being killed.

Mr. Assange is a stupid person... Just how stupid will be revealed in terms of how he deals with Russia.

Here is the front page of tomorrow's edition of DER SPIEGEL.

SPIEGEL

reply to post by Siddharta


Can you translate what the cover says? For reasons passing understanding I took 4 years of French....

Also going back a few pages when we were debating the legal ramifications. The State Department lawyer sent Assange and his Lawyer a letter asking to not release the diplomatic cables in addition to notification the release of the cables is illegal.

I know you have your argument and thats cool.. Keep in mind the above is State, and not DOJ, who still are researching whats possible.

Also, if its ok with you and the 2 others, lets attempt to drag the conversation back down to civil levels and debate the new info that comes out. Im not looking to change your opinions, but am curious as to your view as this plays itself out.

Also, I appologize to you guys for the rhetoric.. Its uncalled for and only derails the topic so my bad.

It's out already:

Guardian

reply to post by Siddharta


And what I have been saying all along is occuring. They are looking at legal action against him for espionage.

...as they did before. I wonder, how they will treat the New York Times, the Guardian, der Spiegel, el Pais and le Monde. Maybe they set up a special NATO anti truth team and start a razzia.

O wait, New York Times belongs to the good guys. They did not get any material from Wikileaks this time, but got it from the Guardian and ran to the White House to tell everything to the teacher. So the Anti Truth Team can limit their actions to Europe.

They should take it a little cooler. One commentator writes this morning:
"U.S. diplomats seem to have common sense and know little scruples. The revelation is not a scandal, but political subject matter of the best quality."

Hey, that's a compliment!

reply to post by Siddharta


Goof ball...

Hey check out this thead and lend your thoughts please. I made the attempt to see things from another angle and am curious about what you guys think.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I took a look over there, but you don't really expect me to waste more time on that nonsense, do you?

There is enough material to read now, from Wikileaks and about Wikileaks. Your Chinese theory is as derailing from what we are witnessing as your posts here.

I guess, Daniel Schmitt was originally a Chinese agent, but went through some plastic surgery and became a German, so he decided to leave the Chinese gang.

reply to post by Siddharta


I was thinking about how to respond to your post and could not come up with any possible way to answer without violating the site rules.

You make an argument that Julian Assange has done nothing wrong. The basis of your position is not based on personal knowledge of Mr. Assange (unless you to hang out but I doubt it) but on an apparent defense of Assange because of his attatude and actions towards the US.

You have consistantly argued Assange is a whistleblower and the info he obtains was voluntary by the people who provided it with no help from wikileaks.

If this is the case, how do you explain this:
Wikileak investigation - Chinese English Paper

They believe that Manning exploited a loophole in Pentagon's computer network to download and burn secret data on compact discs over six months.

Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker who kept touches with the Private by sending instant messages this year, turned him in to the Army investigators to seek cooperation with them.

He said on Friday that WikiLeaks provided Manning with technical backing so that he could send these downloaded data through specially encrypted e-mails to avoid detection, adding that, though without direct evidence proving the connection between Manning and WikiLeaks, Manning was "manipulated" by the website.

There is no response either from the military or WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange, an Australian national, to Lamo's words.

One of the inquired persons said he refused to be the Army's WikiLeaks watcher as he had nothing to do with the website, while another said the military is trying to set up a team encompassing Manning's friends and classmates to "infiltrate" WikiLeaks, according to the article.

The U.S. Army authorities continue to chastise the leaks as dangerous and harmful.

Its no longer whistleblowing when an "independant media outlet" provides assistance to the person in order to assist him in stealing documents and smuggeling them out.

What it does do is cast a cloud over the intentions of wikileaks and questions their impartiality

I will grant you an if:

If wikileaks provided technical assistance to Mr. Manning to assist in stealing classified information, then yes, it would be stupid to go after him for possesion of classified information.

It would bring the charge up to the level of espionage.

If Assange is capable of participating in espionage and theft all the while liying to the media to cover the actions, then its logical to assume he is lying about the incident in Sweden to again, cover his actions.

An International arrest warrant has been issued for him. Here is to hoping he is caught and sent to prison for his crimes in Sweden.

then do you think everyone from US embassies revealed to be spying should also be charged for espionage?

In your zeal to push your agenda you dont even seem to care for basic human rights such as being innocent until proven guilty, it's pretty obvious what side you're on

Originally posted by Valdestine
then do you think everyone from US embassies revealed to be spying should also be charged for espionage?

In your zeal to push your agenda you dont even seem to care for basic human rights such as being innocent until proven guilty, it's pretty obvious what side you're on

The answer to your first question would be no since Diplomats have whats called Diplomatic immunity. This is not just a US thing but a world standard extended to most embassy officals. To take your question one step farther the US has arrested, charged and tried Americans for espionage when they got caught working for another Government. Just as foriegn nationals are treated when they are caught spying for the United States

I have stated multiple times now Assange should get his day in court, either from US charges, Sweden's charges and possibly Russian provided their security services dont just assasinate him for leaking their files.

I have no problem with innocent until proven guilty. However Assange himself is violating that point. Assange is trying to hold the US accountible through a trial in the media and not a court of law. Assange made no effort to turn info over to any entity to investigate or bring charges.

I find it funny that the people who support Assange scream bloody murder anytime people talk about charging this guy. Assange comiited a crime and should be held liable for that, just as ALL of you guys demand action be taken against the US Government, and the people within, who in your opinions broke the wall as well.

So since you demand human rights, due process and innocent until proven guilty, then you need to use the exact same standard when looking at US actions. As I said before any evidence gleaned from the document release cannot be used to charge anyone since the manner in which the info was aquired is ILLEGAL, meaning under US Law its considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

Assange is a moron but hes not and knows that is the case. This is why he is dumping as much info as he can, because he wants to cause as many problems with our firiegn policy as he can. This is where he is the liar. Explain to me how Diplomatic Cables are relevant to his stated position? Explain how the business documents he is going to release have anything to do with Iraq or Afghanistan?

Some people in these forums view this guy as a God, not because of his stated goal of trying to end the wars, but because they feel they are entitled to seeing all of this classified information. This is one of the main reasons people like this guy. They want to be in the know in terms of whats going on.

Personally if you want that setup and access, then join the damn military and go into the intelligence field.

Even the supporters are all over the place with this guy. If you read some of the posts from the begining of this debate its stated a few times that the war in Iraq was illegal because it was based off intelligence that people felt was a lie.

When it was shown in some released documents that there was a WMD program present and active up to the 2003 invasion, people back track and say you cant beleive all of the releases, arguing the US or Mossad must be behind that leaked info.

Anytime info pops up that counters the worn out arguments defending Assange, its discounted and moved aside.

Why? Because people are so fricking paranoid and have so much hatred for what they perceive as wrongs committed by the US that they want to beleive someone else for the sole purpose its not coming from the US Government.

So yeah you have a few options.
* - If you want US leadership held accountible for their actions, the Assange should be held liable for his illegal actions.

* - If you dont want to see Assange charged and prosecuted, then you dont get to make the argument that the US should charged and prosecuted.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Siddharta

 

You make an argument that Julian Assange has done nothing wrong. The basis of your position is not based on personal knowledge of Mr. Assange (unless you to hang out but I doubt it) but on an apparent defense of Assange because of his attatude and actions towards the US.

I did not say, Assange has not done any wrong, but obviously the US did not find any law yet to charge him for anything. I am also not sure, if Assange really has attitudes against the US or if it is just because of the realities as they are, that there is so much stuff leaked from there. As I said before, I would like to read more about my own country and thus wished, Daniel Schmitt could have convinced Assange to publish some smaller cases in between.

You have consistantly argued Assange is a whistleblower and the info he obtains was voluntary by the people who provided it with no help from wikileaks.

I did not call him a whistleblower at any time. Are you confusing different discussions or is it simply, that you rather fantasize than discuss?

If this is the case, how do you explain this:

As I told you, this is not the case. But that litlle article is easy to explain anyway. As you, Adrian Lamo fantasized a lot. He only THOUGHT that Manning could not have done it alone. Take a look at the words: "...though without direct evidence proving the connection between Manning and Wikileaks..." and further:
"There is no response either from the military or WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange, an Australian national, to Lamo's words."

You really should start to read the quotes you use. Since your "if" is based on this misinterpretation of a short resume of what Lamo dreamed what could have happened, it makes no sense to talk about that at all.

An International arrest warrant has been issued for him. Here is to hoping he is caught and sent to prison for his crimes in Sweden.

The Swedes have changed the charges again, now it is a kind of minor case of rape - whatever that is. I guess, he is suspected to have raped the condoms. Probably it would be better to get rid of that farce, but if they could change their minds three times, they surely can again, and if they could prolong the investigations for month, they also could put Assange behind bars (ironically we call it "Swedish curtains") without any proof at all.

Maybe he takes the offer of Ecuador though.

No surprise, now Amazon has stopped hosting __._. All of you that used to buy from Amazon, tell them that you are no more interested in using their services, I will definitely do that.

Now it is the swedish company Bahnhof that hosts wikileaks, they won't yield that easy ...

Interesting reading:
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”

Originally posted by Torre

Interesting reading:
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”

My previous attempt above to link to the article failed so here it comes again:

To destroy this invisible government

This joke seems to have no end at all:

"We have to refresh the warrant. It's a procedural fault, we agree. The prosecutor Marianne Ny has to write a new one," Tommy Kangasvieri of the Swedish National Criminal Police told AFP.

Swedish police to renew Assange arrest warrant

reply to post by Siddharta


Come now.. The joke will end when he is arrested and extradited back to Sweden. Then the joke can have his day in court.

Patience, Xcathdra, patience.

Prosecutors are not judges and even if the Swedish judges should be as "skillful" as the prosecutors they are still member of the EU.

Give them some time, to fulfill your dreams...

Originally posted by Siddharta
Patience, Xcathdra, patience.

Prosecutors are not judges and even if the Swedish judges should be as "skillful" as the prosecutors they are still member of the EU.

Give them some time, to fulfill your dreams...

Lol I was being sarcastic.. Its not a secret I dont care for Assange / wikileaks for some of their releases. I would not wish summary judgment on anyone. What irritates me is the double standard he sets. He wants transparency, but wont say where their money to operate comes from. He wants to hold people accountible, but balks when their is the possibility he did something wrong.

Whether people think its a setup, real, money grubbing women etc the fact remains the accusation is there. Rape is a serious accusation, and to dismiss it because people think its a setup, without seeing the evidence, is just plain wrong.

Ive seen other comments about placing the guy in solitary confinement and refusing access to lawyers. I wanted to ask if anyone can show where that accusation came from? I have been unable to find it so far.

If you really want to know something about the backgrounds, you should start here:

nicholasmead.com...

It's not so much about the article, but the reader's discussions.

Regarding the money, you have to wait, as anybody of us. Wikileaks promised to show their books by the end of the year.