Wikileaks: Heroes of free speech or dangerous subversives?

[goldenecitrone]

You couldn't have proved it otherwise. And Shell could (and did) deny it otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that most people had no idea of the extent of Shell's reach. And now they do.

I truly think that you're reacting to this with the instincts of an authoritarian.

In police world suspecting something is as good as having hard evidence for it. Ask Colin Stagg.

 

[phildwyer]

From a New Yorker article published back in June:

"During a trip to a conference before he came to the Bunker, he thought he was being followed, and his fear began to infect others. “I went to Sweden and stayed with a girl who is a foreign editor of a newspaper there, and she became so paranoid that the C.I.A. was trying to get me she left the house and abandoned me,” he said."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

 

[audiotech]

that is the law in the UK too, as it should be. There is no need to attack Sweden's laws on rape...

I said The Times in India is reporting the story and put quotes around the word "obscure", so I take it that wasn't addressed to me?

 

[belboid]

You were rather vague, I couldn't tell whether you were endorsing it or not. Given the rest of your post, it would seem quite plausible that you weere doing, tho I would have been surprised to find you doing so.

And whether you were or not, some peolpe are doingm and that shit needs stamping on.

 

[audiotech]

You were rather vague, I couldn't tell whether you were endorsing it or not. Given the rest of your post, it would seem quite plausible that you weere doing, tho I would have been surprised to find you doing so.

And whether you were or not, some peolpe are doingm and that shit needs stamping on.

I've already made it clear I wasn't, so go stamp on some post that is.

 

[belboid]

you did no such thing, but glad to hear your clarification

 

[audiotech]

Don't forget the rear-end of your pantomime horse.

 

[belboid]

grow up you prat.

 

[audiotech]

The writer Armanda Marcotte wonders why so many people can't manage to keep two thoughts in their head at the same time when it comes to Julian Assange:

It's possible both that Wikileaks is a necessary curative for government overreach and that its leader is out to serve his own ego needs above all.

 

[kyser_soze]

How about 3 thoughts: wikileaks = good, Assange = egomaniacal twat, charges = possibly true

 

[xes]

possibly true, until they were dropped with no charges to answer, until he releaed loads more stuff.......*pifpafpoof* charges re-appear. Just like majick. Which we don;t believe in round these 'ere parts.

 

[London_Calling]

How about 3 thoughts: wikileaks = good, Assange = egomaniacal twat, charges = possibly true

And a 4th and 5th - no damage yet done to USA interests, USA interests served in the Middle East and Korea.

 

[kyser_soze]

Indeed.

 

[Peter Dow]

Why not shut down the real terrorist websites as well?

However that doesnt stop specific activities/groups on the web from being targeted in a variety of ways or used as part of a different agenda. Governments such as ours may indeed try to shape the web in a way that restricts thought-crimes and troublesome people-power, although such as quest to make the web safe, dull & entirely shiny corporate plastic is not exactly easy. Cant remove any of the aspects of humans from the web easily, but suspect they will try using tried-and-tested methods of fear by making an example of certain people.

Of course we also have to watch out for wider changes in the world having instant and far-reaching ramifications for the web. Nobody can be utterly complacent about the prospects for almost any country ending up under an overtly totalitarian regime that would think less about tampering with the web in cruder and more dramatic ways. Likewise I certainly dont take the international aspect of the internet as a permanent given. If globalisation went tits up and nations were far more hostile to eachother, its not hard to imagine us eventually ending up with regional or national versions of the internet instead of what we know today.

The only way this might lead to an undemocratic power grab on the part of the machine at the expense of the people's democracy, free speech and people power on the internet would be if the crime of Assange and WikiLeaks leaking important military secrets was used as a pretext to lash out at political activists and at general internet freedoms of us all.

I don't see that happening at all. I am sure that is not what Condi has in mind.

I suppose it is a theoretical danger which would not be to the benefit of anyone except someone who wants to run the West by censoring the West's internet as heavily as the Chinese communist party censors the Chinese internet.

The way we defend general rights of us all is to disown WikiLeaks as criminals and crack the whip on them like Condi has done. If the machine takes out the thorn in its foot which is WikiLeaks and leaves the rest of us alone where is the problem?

The real terrorist websites out there

The real question is this - if the machine can shut down WikiLeaks easily enough - why are they not shutting down all those pro-Al Qaeda pro-Taliban pro-terrorist Jihadi websites?

If they can arrest Assange who is a thorn in the foot of the machine, why not arrest those running pro-terrorist websites who are really trying to murder and kill us all and end our freedoms - they are our real enemies whom the machine should be going after.

A few such terrorist websites have been taken down and some webmasters jailed but I have a strong feeling more are out there and those should be the priority target of the machine.

Here is a reminder from a 2007 video I have recently (re-)uploaded about what a real terrorist website looks like and I sincerely hope that such real terrorist websites are the ones the authorities are cracking down on mostly.

Video details
ABC World News, Charlie Gibson anchors in the newsroom. Jim Sciutto reporting from London in 2007.

MSNBC: Britain convicts its first online-terror culprits.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19617936/

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.

 

[Peter Dow]

Assange is under threat of extradition to the US

I see The New York Times reports that the US have been going after Assange for sometime now, over the separate issue of the leaked cables.

The US, also reportedly struggling to find a way to indict him, will continue to leave people doubting the complaints and accusations made against Assuage and see these charges as politically motivated .

Very likely to strengthen the belief in others and lead them to conclude, that a 'honey-trap' operation has taken place, which could also turn out to be right, but possibly now, being even less likely to be found out about and exposed as such?

We should not ignore the possibility that the bogus Swedish "sex" charge could actually be a rescue-Assange bid which WikiLeaks supporters in Sweden have concocted to try to rescue Assange from a pending US extradition to a much worse fate.

Admittedly, my theory doesn't explain why Assange didn't jump at the chance to be extradited to Sweden especially if he is expecting a US extradition attempt.

Maybe he told the UK court he was opposing extradition to Sweden before they denied him bail. Maybe he thought he was going to make bail and would not need his Swedish-extradition escape route?

Maybe once they refused him bail, the chance to accept extradition to Sweden was lost?

The BBC have addressed themselves to the legal theory if the USA apply to extradite Assange as well.

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.

But as the Gary KcKinnon extradition case shows, the political realities when there is media / famous person / public sympathy for the accused person can push legal theory to the side and a political special case made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

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'

I predict there will be more politics in the Assange case where feelings run higher on both sides - Assange is more of a villain or more of a hero to most than ever McKinnon is.

I think though that the US has more political clout with the UK than Sweden has so Assange may have missed his chance to take the Swedish extradition option.

The lawyers will want to milk this for every fat fee they can get, and the extraordinary rendition option, by-passing the courts' extradition procedure - I don't know if the Obama - Cameron team are so keen on as the Bush - Blair team, so maybe that is out too?

 

[audiotech]

Interesting.

 

[Peter Dow]

Condoleezza Rice punishes Assange of WikiLeaks. Photoshop.

After Condi is finished with him, Assange won't be typing much with his broken fingers and the next time he leaks he will be urinating blood from his bleeding kidneys.

 

[butchersapron]

What was this all about then?

Unite Against Fascism email contacts list, 2009

 

[laptop]

Interesting.

No: quite mad.

The BBC article is from 11 January 2011.

Assange went into the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 June 2012.

 

[butchersapron]

...and his post is from december 2010.

 

[xes]

how can the article audiotech said was interesting, be from 2011, when audiotechs post, was from 2010????

 

[butchersapron]

The article was originally from dec 2010 when Assange was arrested. It's been updated and the latest update is recorded.

No comments from anyone on wikileaks putting out UAF contact list details?

 

[xes]

seems a bit cunty to me

 

[laptop]

...and his post is from december 2010.

Whoops

 

[laptop]

No comments from anyone on wikileaks putting out UAF contact list details?

Is it the perverse US notion of "balance" - equal space to those who are right and those who are wrong?

Or, in this case, if the list is genuine, equal damage.

I bet they'd archive redwatch if asked...

 

[cesare]

Is it the perverse US notion of "balance" - equal space to those who are right and those who are wrong?

Or, in this case, if the list is genuine, equal damage.

I bet they'd archive redwatch if asked...

The interview that Assange gave to Google indicated that he regarded information as power that could shape politics, and that he (WikiLeaks) now controlled the information.

 

[butchersapron]

Is it the perverse US notion of "balance" - equal space to those who are right and those who are wrong?

Or, in this case, if the list is genuine, equal damage.

I bet they'd archive redwatch if asked...

The interview that Assange gave to Google indicated that he regarded information as power that could shape politics, and that he (WikiLeaks) now controlled the information.

This is the thing isnt it - it then becomes their property, their leverage, enclosed rather than free. Depresses me that so many couldn't spot this from before it got too far.

 

[cesare]

This is the thing isnt it - it then becomes their property, their leverage, enclosed rather than free. Depresses me that so many couldn't spot this from before it got too far.

The transcript of that interview is well worth a read. Very long though - probably deliberately in order to obscure what he was saying in plain sight.

 

[smokedout]

What was this all about then?

Unite Against Fascism email contacts list, 2009

I spotted that today. Assumed everyone else knew about it and I'd managed to miss it completely so kept quiet about it. Bit of an opinion changer if you ask me.

 

[Delroy Booth]

The comments on that wikileaks UAF list is quite revealing about the sort of ideological premise that Wikileaks starts out from. The fight between the UAF and BNP is a "pseudo war" where both sides are controlled by "sophisticated native and foreign oligarchs" so to them there's literally no difference between exposing the UAF's contacts and the BNP's, as both the BNP and UAF were being controlled by the same puppetmaster.