It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ilandrah
Cables at a glance
That should help I think
The Main Leaks So Far
* Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
* Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
* US instructs spying on key UN officials
* China's changing ties with North Korea
* Yemen approved US strikes on militants
* Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
* Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
* Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
* Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak"
* The extent of corruption in Afghanistan
* Chinese leadership 'hacked Google'
* A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 09:39
In an interview with The Daily Mail, Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, said that he had seen police documents that prove Mr Assange is innocent, and that the accusers had a "hidden agenda" when they went to the police:
"From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place. It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian."
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
Assange and Wikileaks have done nothing that any journalist worth his salt would have done if presented with evidence that was contained in those documents.
Wrong. Journalists have a code of ethics. They do not , for example, report information unless it can be verified by multiple sources. It is not clear if WikiLeaks has fully researched the credibility of its sources. Furthermore, journalists weigh the public's "right to know" against other parties' "right to privacy" and legitimate concerns for national security. Exposing corruption or illegal activities is in the public's best interests and is fair game. Indiscriminately publicizing routine confidential communications is not. When WikiLeaks leaked the illegal rendition documents it was serving the public interest; when it publicized unflattering comments made by American diplomats about world leaders, it was undermining international understanding.
Ooh, thats scary!
If Manning is a traitor and Assange assisted, even after the fact, then Assange can be tried for treason. As an aside for the armchair warriors, they can be charged with treason also.
Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
Condi whips WikiLeaks. Condoleezza Rice politically dominates Julian Assange. (YouTube)
December 3, 2010. Condoleezza Rice replies to a question by Katie Couric and one from a member of a studio audience about WikiLeaks.
I think what has happened is a crime. It is up to the Justice Department to figure out exactly what crime it is but it's got to be prosecuted and punished or it's going to keep happening and I hope the penalty is really severe because maybe that will deter this kind of behaviour.
The United States cannot exist in a world where we can't share information within the government with the expectation that is somehow going to end up on the front pages of newspapers. You can't do business that way. So I hope it is prosecuted and prosecuted severely.
The event was organised by the Council on Foreign Relation for their HBO History Makers Series.
Wikileaks - Heroes, Villains, Other?
My answer "Villains", right now, primarily because Condoleezza Rice as my choice for world leader says so.
The Independent: WikiLeaks vs The Machine
If, as the Independent says, this is a fight between WikiLeaks and "The Machine", I, for one, am siding with the machine.
I, at least, know the value of discipline and loyalty to the leaders of the free world, whereas it seems Assange and WikiLeaks want to make the headlines irrespective of outcome - sometimes doing good, sometimes risking danger to others.
WikiLeaks is too anarchic right now and Condi should be supported as and when she decides to crack the whip on them.
As Condoleezza Rice, who is, in my opinion anyway, the leader of the free world, precisely promotes freedom and human dignity for all the people in the world therefore WikiLeaks should be more careful to take their lead from her.
I think WikiLeaks needs a new management ethos and organisation hierarchy which works with Condi and her staff at the US State Department (or ex-staff but you know what I mean).
If Assange and WikiLeaks come to order, give an undertaking to toe the line and generally work with "the machine" then maybe Condi will be less severe in the punishments she is looking for.
Generally it is the best advice to appease Condi and give her what she is asking for, most times anyway. The "New World Order" is not an Imperial dictatorship but the world does need a president and it should be Condi, not Assange.
Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
Now if you think Julian Assange should decide what gets published in this world and not Condi then I trust that you have some political videos, with or without music, to post in defence of your man or some other evidence showing how many millions of people Assange has saved from tyranny and disease? No? Oh dear. Assange's defence - strike one.
There is no legal defence to an accusation by Condi because it is primarily a political offence, not just a legal offence.
One course of action is a guilty plea to whatever charge they come up with, agree to co-operate and be very, very sure to get the best possible water-tight plea bargain you can get. No really. You need it written in blood from the US president and you need to give them whatever they want to guarantee the plea bargain.
Either that or flee to sanctuary somewhere. Russia wants to recommend Assange for the Nobel Peace prize I hear and President Putin has described the arrest of Assange as "not democratic" so maybe Assange might get asylum in Russia IF he can get to Russia and maybe via Sweden is the best way to Russia?
Condoleezza Rice walks on this earth without living parallel, IMHO. She is the nearest thing to a messenger of God, and that's coming from an atheist! She is here to save us from our worst selves and we should be grateful.
So I would think Assange's best tactic to ever be a free man in the West is to apologise a lot, salute Condi, or better yet grovel low to Condi, get in line and start taking orders from Condi or rather from her staff because he is too low in the food chain to get direct access to Condi.
Otherwise Assange could be in for a very, very long hard time in a US jail. Some in the US want to execute him. The US is not very forgiving about this kind of thing. Research "Jonathan Pollard" if you doubt me in any way.
I have tried to put in a word for mercy for Pollard as have many others but still he suffers, and that was for maybe a suitcase worth of documents, not the masses of volumes Assange has distributed.
Next to Pollard's 25 years and counting in prison, a stretch in a Swedish prison for a sexual offence and maybe an exit to Russia afterwards if he can avoid extradition to the US after the Swedish case is disposed of, is like a slap on the wrist.
I am not sure why I am giving any advice to Assange at all. I am such a soft touch for a loser I guess, being a loser myself.
I guess I feel sorry for Pollard, think he has had too hard a time and don't wish that on anybody with naive fantasies of doing good by leaking documents.
The Swedish extradition is not Assange's real problem. It may be his best option if he can't square things with Condi and that is going to be very, very hard to achieve.
Maybe I could have, should have tried to warn WikiLeaks about this before they got themselves in such difficulty but I didn't see this far ahead.
Originally posted by The BBC
BBC: Q&A: Arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
What would happen if the United States made a request to extradite Mr Assange from the UK?
When there are two competing claims to extradite someone, the home secretary has to decide which takes precedence. In making that decision, he or she will take into account the relative seriousness of the offences for which the person's extradition is sought, where the offences were committed, and the timing of the two requests.
Extradition to the United States is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. This provisions governing extradition between the two countries has been criticised for creating a lop-sided relationship under which the United States no longer has to provide prima facie evidence - normally in the form of witness statements - that an offence has been committed.
That criticism was voiced in relation to the case of the so called 'Nat West Three'.
If Mr Assange is extradited to Sweden and the United States wanted to extradite him from there, they would need the consent of the United Kingdom.
Such an extradition would be conducted in accordance with Swedish law and the extradition arrangements agreed between Sweden and the United States.
It has been suggested that it would be easier for the United States to extradite Mr Assange from Sweden than from the United Kingdom.
This does not appear to be the case as the United States would have to show that there were reasonable grounds for the extradition from Sweden. This is arguably a higher test than the test which applies when an extradition is sought from the United Kingdom.
On 20 July 2010 Tom Bradby, ITN political editor, raised the Gary McKinnon issue with President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron in a joint White House press conference who responded that they have, in fact, discussed it and are working to find an 'appropriate solution'
ABC World News, Charlie Gibson anchors in the newsroom. Jim Sciutto reporting from London in 2007.
MSNBC: Britain convicts its first online-terror culprits.
The FIRST UK convictions for inciting Jihadi terrorism on the internet in July 2007.
That's two years after the 52 people killed in the London bombings and nearly 6 years after the thousands killed in the US 9/11 terrorist attacks. So, the UK was slow to take action against on-line terror to save lives and the problem of terrorist websites world wide is a current and continuing problem in the war on terror.
BBC: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange freed on bail
This BBC web-page contains an interview with Julian Assange and Kirsty Wark. Listening to it, I thought at one point, Kirsty was going to ask Assange if he understood the Swedish word for "No".
Originally posted by Nite_wing
Originally posted by riiver
Originally posted by AntiCitizenZone
Good they got him! Anyone who lives in America, and dosent want to see him brought to justice for his crimes against our country is just un-patriotic. Freedom of speech is one thing. Treason and espionage are another, As we all wait for this big scarry "poison pill" that probably dosent exist, I hope hes being WATERBOARDED! It kills me how some of the people here are so infauated with this guy. Maybe you should put up your homes to help get your hero out of jail so he can start some wars and get us all killed.edit on 8-12-2010 by AntiCitizenZone because: Didnt mean to reply to a specific persons post ! But cant seem to fix it.......edit on 8-12-2010 by AntiCitizenZone because: (no reason given)
I keep hearing the word "treason" bandied about, but the fact of the matter is it could only be called treason if he were an American citizen. Nor is it espionage---he didn't spy on anyone. This information was handed to him on a platter, unsolicited.
Not true. When a person joins a conspiracy, they adopt all criminal actions that have occured before they joined as if they did it themselves. It is call complicity and people are in jail for this now. If Manning is a traitor and Assange assisted, even after the fact, then Assange can be tried for treason. As an aside for the armchair warriors, they can be charged with treason also.edit on 12-12-2010 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)