http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assan...-cia-ties/

"both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests following the alleged "rapes.""

Yawn. So how about Wikileaks? Remember them and when they had potential? Those were the days.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

Hugh Shelton, former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-de...rview-pt-1
(Wikileaks part starts at the 7:00 mark)

"In my opinion, he constitutes a greater threat to our national security, and to the reputation of the United States than Osama Bin Laden does."

I'm with Tzadeck on this one. It's one thing to expose governments for the bad things they do behind the scenes, but Assange has set off a pipe bomb in the US diplomacy machine, presumably, just to get his jollies off like some immature teenager.

vinniram Wrote:this is pretty cool. Julian Assange is what the world needs right now.

No he's not. I don't think you'd be cheering him on if he put a bunch of your secrets up on the internet. Not everything should be exposed to the public.

Hilarious.

Assange: I'm Julian
Miss W: Hi
Assange: I run a website. People know me.
Miss W: Oh that nice...
Assange: ...You ever been raipt?

/Firefly

JimmySeal Wrote:No he's not. I don't think you'd be cheering him on if he put a bunch of your secrets up on the internet. Not everything should be exposed to the public.

People with so much power should not be allowed the same amount of privacy as a common citizen.

quincy Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:No he's not. I don't think you'd be cheering him on if he put a bunch of your secrets up on the internet. Not everything should be exposed to the public.

People with so much power should not be allowed the same amount of privacy as a common citizen.

So what's your point? Do you really think diplomatic comminuqués should be publicly available?

JimmySeal Wrote:

quincy Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:No he's not. I don't think you'd be cheering him on if he put a bunch of your secrets up on the internet. Not everything should be exposed to the public.

People with so much power should not be allowed the same amount of privacy as a common citizen.

So what's your point? Do you really think diplomatic comminuqués should be publicly available?

No because in that case they would be watered down and edited so badly they would look like your regular news.

I find it ironic that western world while being fed "information" about Chinas censorship and human rights, takes attempts of their own government at the same problems as a greater good. Arguments like: it protects our country, Wikileaks puts people in danger and a "foreign terrorist" sound great to people who don't have enough common sense to put it in perspective of Chinese party "protecting" their own country from harm. Their argumentation is as good as ours, but somehow they are bad and our governments are good?

Such leaks are beneficial for all societies like a good report to a manager, we can check whats been going on in our company (country) financed by our money with no sugar coating. When politicians say they want to protect something it means their own interest (system->party->financing) because they look bad and it might swing voters against them. We have yet to hear about any death resulting from leaks (but somehow its the nations greatest concern, despite 10000 people dying on crappy roads yesterday) and a terrorist rhetoric should only work if you're from Texas and have a Bushes picture somewhere in your house.
If anything we should be thanking Wikileaks for doing us a service since it shows how easy for a REAL enemy (potential or existing) to obtain information from within the government and we can act accordingly to protect things that really matter.

Right now almost every western country trials or is already using censorship on the internet. Today they say its to block child porn, nazis & terrorrists. Tomorrow it will block Wikileaks (Australia), blogs with different views than people at power and any government fuckup that happens. You will watch only things that have concessions to broadcast/write on the net (no more funny cats, parodies, stupid people doing dangerous things). Want to live in that world?

You want to live in a world where every terrorist organization in Iraq and Afghanistan can freely look at secret US communications where the names and locations informants and spies are published? Or where the world's terrorists can just freely download a secret list of facilities the US considers vital for national security? Or where the Iranian or Chinese government can put together clues to figure out the names of human rights activists who have been talking to the US government? Or a world where the Russian government can download the specific military plans to defend Poland (FSB probably already knows that but still)?

I'm all for some more transparency but this is not the way to go. This is just downright dangerous.


Also LOL at you thinking that anyone in America has a picture of Bush on their wall.

Wikileaks in August:

1,300 people were eventually killed [in Kenya], and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak.

Wikileaks today:

WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed.

thurd Wrote:You will watch only things that have concessions to broadcast/write on the net (no more funny cats, parodies, stupid people doing dangerous things). Want to live in that world?

I'd like to know what you're smoking, 'cause it must be really good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't wikileaks just publish material given to them by whistle-blowers from within organizations? So isn't it just an outlet for people to expose corruption/dodgy goings on anonymously where they may otherwise face persecution.

As for the rape charges, let's just wait till he's had his day in court. If he were accused of theft or even murder people would be calling for evidence, but because he is accused of rape he must automatically be some kind of low-life degenerate?

nadiatims Wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't wikileaks just publish material given to them by whistle-blowers from within organizations? So isn't it just an outlet for people to expose corruption/dodgy goings on anonymously where they may otherwise face persecution.

That may have been what it was at some point, but now it seems it has become an indiscriminate dumping ground for any confidential document Assange or his cronies can get their hands on. Maybe you haven't been watching the news lately, but the reason there is so much attention on Assange lately is the recent "dump" of 250,000 confidential US transmissions onto his site. There is very little whistle-blower material among them, but the very fact that it took place is a blow to US national security. Check any news site and see for yourself what the hubbub is about.

Cronies?

JimmySeal Wrote:There is very little whistle-blower material among them, but the very fact that it took place is a blow to US national security. Check any news site and see for yourself what the hubbub is about.

From what I gathered, the leaked materials reveal U.S. diplomatic relations that are being pursued which the American public has, until now, been completely unaware of. If this is the case, I think there can be a serious debate whether there is whistle-blower material or not.

I think the problem Wikileaks has is the lack of political belief or opinion.

If I remember correctly, Julian Assange started it claiming that journalism should be more like science; everyone should be able to check the evidence for themselves. But what he's doing now is not science or journalism at all.

In science, you make a claim and back it up by making evidence available to others. Journalists reveal political secrets to prove something right/wrong is going on. But as far as I know, the current Wikileaks doesn't claim or prove anything. They just dump information which is supposed to be kept secret.

It's not science or journalism to simply reveal confidential communications and secrete information without any political reason. You must have a strong opinion about what you have revealed. You let the public know what people were unaware of in order to prove you are right.

Wikileaks does it to keep the governments honest, you say? If that's the purpose, they should have only revealed the minimum amount of information necessary to achieve that. Of course, a high degree of transparency is important to keep them honest. But diplomacy also needs confidentiality to a degree. Throwing confidential information indiscriminately to the public only leads to chaos and, in the worst case scenario, puts innocent lives at risk.

When you have hard evidence that the US covered their ass when they shot innocent citizens, making the evidence available to the public may be one way to keep them honest. Your message and opinion to the public are very clear here. It may be morally wrong to leak confidential information. But I wouldn't be surprised if many people support this act. You broke the law to prove that they are doing something really terrible.

So, what's Wikileaks' message with regard to the list of US facilities in foreign countries? What do they want to tell us by shoving the humongous amount of confidential cables in our faces? They are evidence for what? What do they want to prove?

I'd say they should open their mouth only when they have something to say. They could keep them honest by letting people know only when there is something immoral going on. The current Wikileaks only makes diplomacy difficult without achieving anything.

It seems to me that what they're doing now is as immature as posting random stuff a 15 year old computer hacker happened to find on a celebrity's PC. My impression on this matter is that the mentality of 39 year old Julian Assange is as immature as when he was a high schooler with super hacking skills. Their act is hardly a crime of conscience.

magamo Wrote:I think the problem Wikileaks has is the lack of political belief or opinion.

I think that's what makes it great. If they truly have no particular political opinion, the goal is then to reveal deception, and not to reveal specific deceptions that support a certain political cause. I do think they should be editing out names & personal info though, and they seem to be doing that now.

It definitely is a huge indiscriminate dump though, and it might be handled better, but the lines of "revealing corruption" and "just pointless exposure of documents" can be extremely vague.

Womacks23 Wrote:You want to live in a world where every terrorist organization in Iraq and Afghanistan can freely look at secret US communications where the names and locations informants and spies are published? Or where the world's terrorists can just freely download a secret list of facilities the US considers vital for national security? Or where the Iranian or Chinese government can put together clues to figure out the names of human rights activists who have been talking to the US government? Or a world where the Russian government can download the specific military plans to defend Poland (FSB probably already knows that but still)?

I'm all for some more transparency but this is not the way to go.

I would love to live in such a world. USA thinks it owns this world. I am excited about a rising china and how this might eventually silence the never-ending stream of lies the USA spouts out to justify it's crimes. all these things you stated above are things USA does. and I would trust the Chinese government more than USA any day. why should the "world" fear if USA's security is breached, I think this is a good thing as at least the world will know where the next invasion will occur ahead of time. and as a side note, when I say USA, I mean it and it's posse of servant states as well - NATO states, Australia, etc. china is a fresh hope for this ridiculously unbalanced world.

*Walks into thread. Reads latest handful of posts. Walks out of thread.*

Ah man, vinniram, really?

China is the hope of the world?

WTF? Seriously? You know you are talking about a single party dictatorial government that has murdered no less than 50 million people in living memory?

Hope of the world, woo!

That was a different government entirely, before Deng Xiaoping and the reforms. Back then the government of China was no better than any other dictatorship. But now, things are changed. China is spreading its influence *peacefully*, especially in Africa and South East Asia. So to hear Kevin Rudd urging the USA to "use force" to keep China's influence from spreading really enrages me. And that's why I support Assange - I want to know the true positions these leaders are taking.

If you want to step back in history, USA is a country founded upon the genocide of another people (much like Australia, as you know). It has waged wars in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and others, and caused much loss of civilian life. But the thing is, USA's aggression continues to this day, whereas, what was the last war China started? When was this last war that China started? China is the peaceful counterbalance to USA imperialism that I, personally, think the world needs.

PATRICKRL Wrote:

magamo Wrote:I think the problem Wikileaks has is the lack of political belief or opinion.

I think that's what makes it great. If they truly have no particular political opinion, the goal is then to reveal deception, and not to reveal specific deceptions that support a certain political cause. I do think they should be editing out names & personal info though, and they seem to be doing that now.

It definitely is a huge indiscriminate dump though, and it might be handled better, but the lines of "revealing corruption" and "just pointless exposure of documents" can be extremely vague.

If the lack of particular political opinion is the point, then they should give the evidence that what they're doing is a change for the better.

They can't have the information without someone committing a crime. Disseminating the illegally obtained information may not be a crime. But if they don't tell who stole the information, they must explain why. So they must prove either:

that it was a crime of conscience and that there is a strong reason for Wikileaks to protect the criminal based on their own political belief

or that this indiscriminate information dump changes the world for the better.

Obviously the former isn't the case because they don't have a political belief regarding the information they leak. But it doesn't seem they prove the latter either. If they claim that they want journalism to be more scientific, then they should give evidence to us that what they're doing will make this world better.

Considering the size and importance of the leaked information, it is not enough to say, "I think transparency is good." They should prove that they are right by giving evidence which is available to everyone so people can decide for themselves. This was the principle of Wikileaks in the first place, wasn't it?

If they can't prove their act is a change for the better, they're simply being irresponsible.

vinniram Wrote:That was a different government entirely, before Deng Xiaoping and the reforms. Back then the government of China was no better than any other dictatorship. But now, things are changed. China is spreading its influence *peacefully*, especially in Africa and South East Asia. So to hear Kevin Rudd urging the USA to "use force" to keep China's influence from spreading really enrages me. And that's why I support Assange - I want to know the true positions these leaders are taking.

If you want to step back in history, USA is a country founded upon the genocide of another people (much like Australia, as you know). It has waged wars in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and others, and caused much loss of civilian life. But the thing is, USA's aggression continues to this day, whereas, what was the last war China started? When was this last war that China started? China is the peaceful counterbalance to USA imperialism that I, personally, think the world needs.

So China's current government is open and free and nonviolent? That's nice to know. I guess they just get a bad rap from the evil imperialist Americans.

They must be pleased with Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Peace Prize! ;p

Why were people giving Google a hard time over Chinese censorship? It was peaceful, wasn't it?

It would seem that anyone who questions USA's position in the world is considered "weird" by most others, well that's what I've realized here in Australia, anyway.

I didn't say China is without fault. But, tell me the last war they actually started - what was it, what was its motivation? Was it recent? China is not the "hegemonistic" country USA tries to paint. No, it's government is not open, free, or nonviolent. But it is not a government which is 'eager to wage war'. USA's government is not open, free, or nonviolent, but contrastively, it *is* a government which continuously wages war. Going from a purely "this plus that" perspective, I think the first option is better than the section, in terms of "less overall damage caused"...

[fuaburisu]

Reality Sandwich Article Wrote:We do not think that taking a stand for or against WikiLeaks is what matters most. WikiLeaks is here to stay, until it either scuttles itself or is destroyed by opposing forces. Our point is rather to (try to) assess and ascertain what WikiLeaks can, could -- and maybe even should -- do, and to help formulate how "we" could relate to and interact with WikiLeaks. Despite all its drawbacks, and against all odds, WikiLeaks has rendered a sterling service to the cause of transparency, democracy and openness. As the French would say, if something like it did not exist, it would have to be invented.

A refreshing article on Wikileaks that highlights various problems with its current incarnation:

Twelve Theses on WikiLeaks