WikiLeaks Launches Criminal Investigation ahead of Wednesday's Obama Visit to Sweden

WikiLeaks Launches Criminal Investigation ahead of Wednesday's Obama Visit to Sweden

www.economicpolicyjournal.com

WikiLeaks will file a criminal complaint in Sweden, ahead of the arrival of President Obama. The complaint concerns the seizure of WikiLeaks property on 27 September 2010, following its publication of thousands of classified US intelligence documents on the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange said: "Swedish authorities have the opportunity to demonstrate that no one, including state officials, is above the law."

According to Wikileaks, this is the first of four planned criminal complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions by WikiLeaks during the month of Septemb

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
__._

At 9:44am Per Samuelson confirmed that the criminal complaint ahead of Obama's visit to Sweden was filed. Second criminal complaint in another jurisdiction is being filed within the hour. Details at 6pm CEST.

Interesting to see if this will be taken seriously. I commend wikileaks for their determination, hopefully something comes of this..



www.economicpolicyjournal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm curious to ask others who live over there? Does this have any chance, whatsoever? I'm thinking in practical and legal terms. Not even political or moral for what is behind all of it.

Didn't England just conduct a merry record wrecking party at The Guardian as well as very personally screwing with the partner but officially/professionally unrelated person to a Guardian reporter? England is part of the EU, right? So what they are doing is either based on or setting precedent. If anything, WL's complaint makes the case that their violation may have been some of the precedent which made the more recent abuses possible.

However... Isn't that also the problem? They're prevailing for justice upon the same people with more than a little to personally lose (and/or know people who do, directly) in all this being done to this very day.

I'm really serious in asking too. I know the U.S. Supreme court can and HAS (however rarely) directly contradicted both Presidents and Congress. Can the same happen by courts over there? Even an outside chance?

reply to post by wrabbit2000


It will be interesting to see. Julian Assange says that they are going from 'legal defence' to 'legal attack'. I know they would have no chance if they were to try this on American soil so it does depend on each different jurisdiction, and they do have some pretty savvy legal professionals working for them, so hopefully it yields something.

Honestly ive no idea how it will play out, one can hope tho

Wow it's amazing how irrelevant and lame wikileaks has become. This is one of the more pointless things they have done.

The shoot out between secret service and whoever tried to take the president into custody would sure make for good news, too bad it will never happen.

Unfortunately this is all predicated to an adherence to the "Rule of Law" , which we all know will be and has been repeatedly disregarded by the U.S. and other western nations.

When no one is willing to make a credible attempt to stop you, selective adherence to international laws becomes the norm.

I fear the day we hear statements like; "We broke international law for your own protection" or "We acted without legal or popular approval because it would have been to late".

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha

WikiLeaks Launches Criminal Investigation ahead of Wednesday's Obama Visit to Sweden

www.economicpolicyjournal.com

WikiLeaks will file a criminal complaint in Sweden, ahead of the arrival of President Obama. The complaint concerns the seizure of WikiLeaks property on 27 September 2010, following its publication of thousands of classified US intelligence documents on the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange said: "Swedish authorities have the opportunity to demonstrate that no one, including state officials, is above the law."

According to Wikileaks, this is the first of four planned criminal complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions by WikiLeaks during the month of Septemb

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
__._

So.... Wikileaks published stolen material - classified material at that and think they have a leg to stand on? Or is it that pretentious attention seeking alleged sex offender trying to get into the limelight?

reply to post by uncommitted


I suppose you are right if a person or organization acts in an illegal or immoral fasion and some one squeels on them it is ok to confiscate the evednce provided if the accused claims that it is top secret. Please remember these people only act for your protection using money stripped from your paycheck and you have no right to know whom that money is killing or bribing.

Originally posted by oasisjack
reply to post by uncommitted

 

I suppose you are right if a person or organization acts in an illegal or immoral fasion and some one squeels on them it is ok to confiscate the evednce provided if the accused claims that it is top secret. Please remember these people only act for your protection using money stripped from your paycheck and you have no right to know whom that money is killing or bribing.

I see what you tried to do there, not as clever as you may think though. I don't think Assange has done much apart from make a name for himself. What do you honestly think you know now that you didn't know or didn't have the ability to find out solely because of wikileaks?

reply to post by uncommitted


I dont see what your problem is? Are you against freedom of the press?

The property seized included evidence of a war crime perpetrated by US forces in Afganistan in which more than sixty women and children were killed, known as the Garani massacre. The filing follows the revelation of unlawful FBI and US intelligence activities against WikiLeaks in Europe that have been forced onto the public record through a Parliamentary inquiry in Iceland and the Manning court martial.

I dont agree with seizing material just to save ones own ass.

link

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
reply to post by uncommitted

 

I dont see what your problem is? Are you against freedom of the press?

The property seized included evidence of a war crime perpetrated by US forces in Afganistan in which more than sixty women and children were killed, known as the Garani massacre. The filing follows the revelation of unlawful FBI and US intelligence activities against WikiLeaks in Europe that have been forced onto the public record through a Parliamentary inquiry in Iceland and the Manning court martial.

I dont agree with seizing material just to save ones own ass.

link

It's quite simple really. The material was stolen and published by wikileaks. Therefore it was not their material in the first place. Do you also then include phone hacking as something that the press should have freedom to do?

I'm not referring to the content of the material, the morality of some of the actions it included is a completely different debate. What I find is ironic is Assange suggesting that he is the wronged party.

Originally posted by uncommitted
It's quite simple really. The material was stolen and published by wikileaks.

Perhaps you should do even a minor reading over of the subject you are going to talk so you wont make up stuff like that.

Therefore it was not their material in the first place. Do you also then include phone hacking as something that the press should have freedom to do?

WL hasn't broken any laws. Hacking and publishing are not even in the same ballpark.

What I find is ironic is Assange suggesting that he is the wronged party.

I find it ironic how many people are quick to raise their voice and utter lies.

Only an observation, but Wikileaks filing a complaint is not anywhere near the same thing as "launching a criminal investigation." Wikileaks can't launch any criminal investigation, as they are not a law enforcement agency.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by uncommitted
It's quite simple really. The material was stolen and published by wikileaks.

Perhaps you should do even a minor reading over of the subject you are going to talk so you wont make up stuff like that.

Therefore it was not their material in the first place. Do you also then include phone hacking as something that the press should have freedom to do?

WL hasn't broken any laws. Hacking and publishing are not even in the same ballpark.

What I find is ironic is Assange suggesting that he is the wronged party.

I find it ironic how many people are quick to raise their voice and utter lies.

Perhaps your comprehension isn't very good is it? Was the material stolen? Yes, the Bradley Manning trial concluded that. I didn't say wikileaks committed the theft, sorry if you don't understand basic English. I said it was stolen and published by wikileaks meaning they published it. If WL have committed no crime then perhaps Assange wouldn't be hiding in an embassy.

I find it ironic how some people leave their brain at home when it comes to a theory close to their heart. I have stated facts - this is like a fence complaining when the stolen goods they are selling are taken off them.

This is nothing to do with the contents of the documents - if you stopped to think about what I actually have written you would have seen that, more that it's about the grandstanding of the man you want to see as a celebrity.

Originally posted by uncommitted
Perhaps your comprehension isn't very good is it? Was the material stolen? Yes, the Bradley Manning trial concluded that. I didn't say wikileaks committed the theft, sorry if you don't understand basic English.I said it was stolen and published by wikileaks meaning they published it. If WL have committed no crime then perhaps Assange wouldn't be hiding in an embassy.

You said exactly that. Again, dont come here making up stuff. And JA hiding isn't because he or WL are criminals. It's US and it's cronies that are the criminals.

I find it ironic how some people leave their brain at home when it comes to a theory close to their heart. I have stated facts - this is like a fence complaining when the stolen goods they are selling are taken off them.

Touche. You have stated bs. And using the word stolen doesn't make it so btw.

This is nothing to do with the contents of the documents - if you stopped to think about what I actually have written you would have seen that, more that it's about the grandstanding of the man you want to see as a celebrity.

Now you presume to know how I see things? Ok.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by uncommitted
Perhaps your comprehension isn't very good is it? Was the material stolen? Yes, the Bradley Manning trial concluded that. I didn't say wikileaks committed the theft, sorry if you don't understand basic English.I said it was stolen and published by wikileaks meaning they published it. If WL have committed no crime then perhaps Assange wouldn't be hiding in an embassy.

You said exactly that. Again, dont come here making up stuff. And JA hiding isn't because he or WL are criminals. It's US and it's cronies that are the criminals.

I find it ironic how some people leave their brain at home when it comes to a theory close to their heart. I have stated facts - this is like a fence complaining when the stolen goods they are selling are taken off them.

Touche. You have stated bs. And using the word stolen doesn't make it so btw.

This is nothing to do with the contents of the documents - if you stopped to think about what I actually have written you would have seen that, more that it's about the grandstanding of the man you want to see as a celebrity.

Now you presume to know how I see things? Ok.

Oh dear. Please, let me leave you be with your own thoughts - you obviously think you know best. And yes, the material was stolen - frankly stating otherwise doesn't make you correct. I can see how you see things - badly, through a mindset that you aren't going to change so facts aren't going to help.

Feel free to enlighten me when WL has stolen anything. They received a copy of leaked material. So how's that for facts?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Feel free to enlighten me when WL has stolen anything. They received a copy of leaked material. So how's that for facts?

I'd be delighted to. The information was stolen - taken without consent. The authority that the information belonged to appears (if the press statement the OP refers to is correct) has taken it back. That is the equivalent of returning stolen goods to their rightful owner - I'm puzzled as to why you think WL would have a leg to stand on about this?

Let me say again, I'm not arguing about what the information contained, if it should have been released (most of it as you know was diplomatic chit chat that did nothing other than embarrass several governments), but purely on the law action WL have decided to take.

Please don't think me as being disrespectful of you, but I don't see why the publicity machine that is WL should be seen as an innocent party in this.

Originally posted by uncommitted
I'd be delighted to. The information was stolen - taken without consent.

Not taken, copied. There is a difference.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by uncommitted
I'd be delighted to. The information was stolen - taken without consent.

Not taken, copied. There is a difference.

No, there isn't, please, take the emotion out of what the information was. If someone managed to get your bank account details and PIN number and passed them to me and I took money from your account - are you saying I am not culpable? If you say no, then please pass me the information for your parents or your partners bank account, let me take all their money and by your judgement I am not guilty as I didn't steal the information.

Sorry, it was stolen/taken. copying it is not a defence as the man (yes, man, Bradley Manning) had no right under the terms of his employment to do so. Remember, I'm only looking at the legality of what the wikileaks court order as described in the OP is referring to.