And that the rest of the time they do need it because they are managing international relations, etc. in the best way they can ...
Wikileaks: Heroes of free speech or dangerous subversives?
- Thread starter ItWillNeverWork
- Start date
Ah yes ... humbug anyone?
(Just in case anyone was not aware, her maiden name was, er, Goldsmith ...
)* NEWSFLASH: The "mainstream sheep" couldn't give a fuck about anything other than who will win X Factor or who Amy Winehouse is flashing her tits at this week ... *
Absolutely terminally naive fuckwittery!
dylans
overlord of all acorns
If they attempt to extradite him from Sweden he's going to have a cast iron case to be freed. The rape charges are regards to the use of a condom in three cases and restraint in another. I'm more than a little concerned about the public's seeming dismissal of the rape charges, equally though that they have been manufactured to bring Assange to a convenient places. Rape's under reported and under prosecuted as it is, and this sideshow's certainly not making any less of a maligned crime in public consciousness.
1. There are no rape charges. There are no charges at all. He is wanted for questioning.
The accusation isn't rape. It is a bizarre Swedish offence called "unexpected sex". No one, not even the 2 complainants are denying that consensual sex occurred. Apparently he had consensual sex without using a condom. Both girls in the case later boasted of sex with him in text messages that described him as "the worlds coolest guy". No girl mentioned rape at any time.
This is a transparent honey trap.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Absolutely terminally naive fuckwittery!
Why? Why should any government have secrets? I see no reason whatsover.
To stop "terrorists?. Well given that government policy has led directly to the growth of terrorism it is a bit much for me to believe that their possession of secrets in any way shape or form aids the fight against an armed threat that they are responsible for.In fact there is an argument that transparency could have helped prevent the likes of 9/11. Remember the memo "Bin laden determined to strike USA" that was dismissed by Rice? It was, yeah you guessed it, a secret memo. Perhaps if docs like that had been widely available more voices would have been raised about the possible threat.
Oh yeah, the names of "sensitive" installations that terrorists may strike. We must keep them secret. Yeah that is sooo important isnt it. The twin towers location was clearly a tightly held secret. The tube trains in london would have been much safer if their location was secret. My point is anyone wanted to launch a terrorist attack has plenty of locations anyway. There is no need NO NEED WHATSOVER to keep locations secret.Any location of strategic importance is heavily guarded anyway. The location of harbours, military bases, nuclear weapons sites, nuclear power plants, oil terminals etc are all public knowledge. Personnel ? Who? Politicians and officials? They are heavily guarded anyway. spies? Well fuck em. We shouldn't be spying anyway and besides most spying is done by diplomatic personal (under cover of secrecy, which just begs the question) . What is kept secret? The gossip of two faced politicians.? Well they will just have to say what they mean from now on won't they? What are these great secrets that must not be revealed to us?
What wikileaks presents is an entirely new paradigm. A recognition that in the digital age. SECRETS ARE BECOMING IMPOSSIBLE. This is becoming the case for everyone, I see no reason why it shouldnt be the case for governments too. It is therefore the duty of governments to adjust, not by fighting that openness and transparency but by conducting their affairs in an entirely different manner. One with NO SECRETS. I honestly can't think of a single reason why governments should keep secrets on anything at all.
All Wikileaks are doing is what any good journalist should be doing if they haven't castrated themselves on the alter of corporate responsibility and state subservience.
Yossarian
⏭️
I agree - I doubt any other alleged quasi-rapist would have been pursued by Interpol as zealously as they went after Assange, but it's pretty unseemly how people are rushing to label his accusers CIA whores.
Looks like Assange is going to be out of the picture for a while if the US gets involved in the extradition proceedings, might be better for WikiLeaks in the long run if they can find a spokesman without the same cult of personality around him.
xes
F.O.A.D
dylans
overlord of all acorns
So despite admitting they had consensual sex with Assange.
Despite enjoying breakfast with him in one case and throwing a fucking party for him the next
Despite buying him a return ticket to Sweden
Despite boasting about being with him and describing him as "the coolest man on earth"
Despite attempting to delete the tweets boasting of her relationship
Despite showing no distress whatsoever until she found out Assange was sleeping with another woman (oh, the beast)
Despite the initial complaint being rejected out of hand by the prosecutor (only to be miraculously revived following the leaks)
Despite the fact that these allegations could only have been made in a country that is in the grip of a right wing radical feminist political agenda (one that has already seen prostitution effectively criminalised) which has the stated intention of redefining "rape" to not necessarily involve physical coercion. "
Despite there being absolutely no case against him. Not one scrap of evidence. I am expected to give credence to the claims of these women? I don't think so. Assange is innocent until proven guilty not the other way round. It is the duty of those seeking charges to present evidence. There is none.
I don't know if these women are "cia" stooges or not. I suspect they have more tawdry motives. (like petty revenge and ego) and that a combination of motives have come into play. The Swedish state who wish to use the case to further their anti liberal authoritarian interpretation of feminism, the US governments desire for revenge. The Swedish governments wish to acquiesce in the US governments demands.
I have no doubt however that they are being willingly used by those who wish to persecute wikileaks and stamp on all it stands for. I also have no doubt that on the evidence presented there is no "rape" case to answer.
For the above reasons and because this is important for anyone who doesn't want to see the web become a strangled muted censored shadow of itself, everyone who believes in freedom of expression should stand up against this outrageous judicial gangsterism. It couldn't be more obvious if the US had put a dead horses head in his bed.
Yossarian
⏭️
Salon - not exactly a pro-establishment publication - does a pretty good job of looking at what's been said about the accuser and tracing most of it back to a Daily Mail article and a CounterPunch article by some pretty dubious people.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Uncorroborated accusations?
Deleted or destroyed evidence?
Refusal of Swedish prosecutor to meet with the accused while in jurisdiction for 40 days
Initial rejection of accusations by Swedish prosecutor.
Permission initially given for the accused to leave Sweden.
9 hours notice of arrest
Refusal of bail to a man who voluntarily surrendered himself and who is so high profile that absconding would be impossible
Refusal of Swedish authorities to submit evidence.
Extradition considered despite the lack of a single charge
These are facts and they are not reducable to a single daily mail article.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I hope those lying, Swedish CIA whores get a bullet between the eyes. Surplus.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Which is exactly what has been said of Assange by senior US government figures recently. Calls for the assassination of an Australian national is an act of international state sponsored terrorism by the definition of the US government itself
I need only repeat: Absolutely terminally naive fuckwittery! (though, to be fair, I am assuming you are older than six ...)
I mean, if there was no need for secrets, why would anyone be the slightest bit concerned about the State losing personal data ...
Is this even possible ...
Absolutely correct.
* Bookmarks post for later use in support of my making exactly the same point in, er, other circumstances ...
*Dear Editor
Please can this be set as homework for all posters. And could all new posters be tested on their understanding of it before being allowed to log on.
Thank you.
d-b
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No one who is currently serving in the USG has issued a death threat. They've come from Palin (unlected, private individual), Huckabee (ex-Governor, now hawking himself as a Fox news commentator) and a Canadian academic (which I guess is just Canada desparately trying to get into the action). Three threats made public by 3 private citizens who have access to mass media outlets.
As for the rest of your comments regarding the women...disgraceful. If Assange was a government official facing the same charges, anyone saying 'These women are lying shills for the Swedish and US Governments' there'd be fucking outrage on here, at least one thread on how no one takes accusations of sexual misbehaviour seriously etc.
Double standards? On Urban? With their reputation? ... Surely not!!!
Absolutely terminally naive fuckwittery!
Bollocks.
Why should we be kept in the dark? So that they can prosecute their wars without restraint?
No-one wants their disgusting wars. They have no right to wage war against the wishes of their population. Indeed, to do so is criminal, both morally and quite possibly literally.
I'd have thought that you'd support the revelation of evidence that might help in the prosecution of criminals.
I need only repeat: Absolutely terminally naive fuckwittery! (though, to be fair, I am assuming you are older than six ...)
I mean, if there was no need for secrets, why would anyone be the slightest bit concerned about the State losing personal data ...
The difference is that the State serves the people, the people do not serve the state.
This difference is obvious to anyone who is free of authoritarian tendencies.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Presented by whom, and according to what agenda?
You'd have drawn the wrath of Urban for this comment if this wasn't St Julian we're talking about here.
ETA> As pointed out by Kyser, above.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's not a rape allegation as you'd understand it trev, it's a Swedish version of it.
You did nail what the majority response to these leaks outside the media and 'interested parties' like urban posters has been - complete indifference or ignorance about the whole thing, focussing on X-Factor.
what the fuck are you on about? Bloke upsets the powers that be, he is then arrested on suspicion of sexual assault from something that dates back to August ....and you see nothing suspicious??
They most certainly do not.
They know full well that if the truth does get out, it is them who will be in the dock.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Thing is, Phil, you're only considering this in the context of the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. There are plenty of valid reasons for governmental secrecy, legitimate defence and commercial tenders spring immediately to mind.
This notion that nobody would wish any harm upon, or seek to benefit illegally from another states affairs is straight off the pages of a fairytale.
Similar threads
- Poll
