The Wikileaks debate continues

[Kaftan Barlast]

A bit of background first, I couldnt find a summary in english on a proper news site, so wikipedia will have to do for now. You can follow their sources for more detailed info.

 

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enk

Edited December 8, 2010 by Kaftan Barlast

[Tale]

Has the US actually made a request for extradition? I know they were looking in to see if they had any cause or right, but hadn't heard that they'd found anything.

[Meshugger]

The US can't do jack shoot about Assange. He hasn't done anything that's illegal. I donated 20 bucks today to wikileaks btw.

[Malcador]

Doubt the US will want him, nor will they execute him even if they did get him - despite Assange's stated fears mostly outside folk rambling. They should execute Manning if anyone.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not familiar enough with US law to know whether Assange can be charged with a criminal offence of the gravity to trigger extradition.

 

The Swedish case is what it is, an allegation of sexual offences. Once these are dealt with, i.e. Assange is either found guilty or not guilty, then the US might try to get their bite of the cherry. Assange has received and distributed illegally obtained material belonging to and caveated by the US Govt. From a legal POV I suppose there might be substantive criminal offences there. Maybe one of our American forumites, and especially Grom, might be able to comment.

 

In any case, sorry, but I don't buy into the Assange-as-free-speech-martyr meme.

 

The guy knows what he's doing, and yes he's the face of a new type of online activism. But he's a grown man, he's rolled the dice now he has to face the consequences.

[Meshugger]

Swiss bank, paypal, Visa and MasterCard has cancelled any transactions to Wikileaks now. Man, even the african dictators get away with that. We have a war on terror, war on drugs and poverty, but the biggest political-financial effort is focused on this guy. He really seems to have caused a rockus on the "establishment".

 

However, Ron Paul summed it up nicely:

 

"In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

 

Damn straight.

 

Also,

Edited December 8, 2010 by Meshugger

[Enoch]

The guy knows what he's doing, and yes he's the face of a new type of online activism. But he's a grown man, he's rolled the dice now he has to face the consequences.

Exactly. The moral thrust of civil disobedience is to do what you think is right, regardless of the cost or retribution that may come from the authorities. Evading that retribution greatly undercuts the moral authority with which you speak.

 

That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. has any existing legal authority to reach him. Most of the speculation I've seen centers on the Espionage Act of 1917, which seems like a pretty thin reed to go on.

 

 

I've been on the record that there hasn't been anything all that newsworthy in what he's leaked. The damage to the level of secrecy required to have a functioning diplomatic system-- which is a pretty major concern when the country involved is the primary actor in dealing with the "problem" states in the world on behalf of the rest of the West-- has been the main casualty.

 

But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Enoch

[Gfted1]

^Agreed. Its leaks like that which prove this has nothing to do with "full disclosure" or "civil disobedience" and everything to do with trying to make a name for himself while damaging the U.S.

 

I humors me to see people proudly proclaining they support Wikileaks because they think they are "fighting the power".

 

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

[Enoch]

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

Because that would have the opposite of the intended effect vis a vis stopping future leaks of classified material.

[Gfted1]

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

Because that would have the opposite of the intended effect vis a vis stopping future leaks of classified material.

 

How so? This just so happens to be the perfect storm of a U.S. service member who was willing to sell out his country meeting another person who is all to happy to diseminate said information to everyone in the world. I think a bullet would go a very long way in plugging potential future leaks. And just to show I dont discriminate, the soldier should get one too.

[Gorgon]

Why would he be extradited to the US, as I understand it no one there is bringing charges. It's beside the point that assorted pundits and lunatics have called for his execution, that's just the colour of political discourse right now, it represents no official stance.

 

I suppose it's entirely possible that some one set him up. One can't really know.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Gorgon

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, never mind.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Nepenthe

[ShadySands]

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

Because that would have the opposite of the intended effect vis a vis stopping future leaks of classified material.

 

How so? This just so happens to be the perfect storm of a U.S. service member who was willing to sell out his country meeting another person who is all to happy to diseminate said information to everyone in the world. I think a bullet would go a very long way in plugging potential future leaks. And just to show I dont discriminate, the soldier should get one too.

 

You don't think the assassination bit is a little extreme?

 

Also, I'm sure the Soldier will get what's coming to him.

 

EDIT: not a bullet

Edited December 8, 2010 by ShadySands

[Thorton_AP]

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

Because that would have the opposite of the intended effect vis a vis stopping future leaks of classified material.

 

How so? This just so happens to be the perfect storm of a U.S. service member who was willing to sell out his country meeting another person who is all to happy to diseminate said information to everyone in the world. I think a bullet would go a very long way in plugging potential future leaks. And just to show I dont discriminate, the soldier should get one too.

 

You make them martyrs.

[Tale]

I never really credit the "martyr" idea, but I have little doubt that there will be dramatic global backlash. Political (holy ****, you straight up murdered a foreign citizen) and civilian (you want a leak, I'll give you a leak!)

[Humodour]

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who has not broken any Australian laws. He is also not the leaker - he is the leader of a media organisation, WikiLeaks. Australkia is now providing him consular assistance in his legal case with Sweden.

[Humodour]

But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

 

Very disappointing indeed.

[Gfted1]

You don't think the assassination bit is a little extreme?

 

Good question, I dont know. How much damage do you feel an individual should be able to do before its too much? If there is no legal recourse due to different countries laws do you just let him run amok?

 

I never really credit the "martyr" idea, but I have little doubt that there will be dramatic global backlash. Political (holy ****, you straight up murdered a foreign citizen) and civilian (you want a leak, I'll give you a leak!)

 

I disagree. As I stated earlier, it took a specific service member in a specific location who was willing to sell out his country to a person trying for a famegrab by spreading it around the world. I dont think that many service members would be willing to do that and hopefully the U.S. military will adjust accordingly to ensure it doesnt happen again. So no, your civilian tidal wave of secret data would never materialize. And while they would have to put on a show of handwringing I seriously doubt there would be any serious political backlash over his death.

[Aram]

As an aside, not that its legal or moral, but why dont we just send a sniper to put a bullet in his head? End of story.

**** off man.

[Gfted1]

 

Stay classy Aram.

[Monte Carlo]

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who has not broken any Australian laws. He is also not the leaker - he is the leader of a media organisation, WikiLeaks. Australkia is now providing him consular assistance in his legal case with Sweden.

 

Shouldn't your cricket team have it's own website called Wicket-Leaks?

 

Bada-bisch! I'm here all week!

 

[Thorton_AP]

I never really credit the "martyr" idea, but I have little doubt that there will be dramatic global backlash. Political (holy ****, you straight up murdered a foreign citizen) and civilian (you want a leak, I'll give you a leak!)

 

It's at the point where if I was a terrorist organization, I would be trying to kill him because it would help undermine American credibility.

[Tale]

As I stated earlier, it took a specific service member in a specific location who was willing to sell out his country to a person trying for a famegrab by spreading it around the world.

What you stated earlier is simply a complete misunderstanding of all elements involved. Completely ignorant that this information was not specific to a specific person and place and that there are a large number of people who readily disagree with you on your assessment of what wikileaks has been doing for the past 4 years.

 

There's simply no shortage of already malcontent government servants or security clearances. And that, inevitably, the two overlap in various places. No element involved is in particular short supply. They're just waiting for excuses.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tale

[Nepenthe]

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who has not broken any Australian laws. He is also not the leaker - he is the leader of a media organisation, WikiLeaks. Australkia is now providing him consular assistance in his legal case with Sweden.

 

Shouldn't your cricket team have it's own website called Wicket-Leaks?

 

Bada-bisch! I'm here all week!

 

I prefer Wookieleaks.

[Malcador]

It's at the point where if I was a terrorist organization, I would be trying to kill him because it would help undermine American credibility.

 

Pretty much, this guy might end up like Gerald Bull at this rate, heh.