Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Overheal · 07-12-2010 10:20PM

Don't get me wrong, wikileaks was not really doing anything useful (revealing where undersea network cables were... why??) but the press freedom day is a joke.

gizmo · 07-12-2010 10:53PM

Biggins wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING secret should be exposed.
I do support the idea that there should be more honesty to the public, accountability for deeds/behind the scene deals and transparency - and until such states start living up to proper modes of behaviour, we needs such people as Assange and his site, to do what most can't - and thats call the all too powerful big boys to order and expose them! till they kop themselves on

I, personally have already stated that Wikileaks is not perfect a number of times but to repeat myself yet again...

See I agree with the initial part of this, I'm all for transparency of government et al however what Assange has shown following the last two bouts of leaks is that he is no longer capable of determining what should and should not be leaked. As another poster said earlier, his organisation could do great good around the world however it now appears they're more interested in embarrassing the US rather than attempting to achieve anything meaningful.

The reason I asked you in particular was because you seem to be going to great lengths to criticise the US for going after him via US-based companies. To that I say, if you yourself simply disagree with some of the recent leaks then imagine how they feel.

biko · 07-12-2010 10:58PM

Weirdly I just read a Swedish blogger that have studied one of the women's blogg and on the evening of the alleged rape she had written "Julian want to go to a party, anyone knows one?".
The next day she wrote "To sit outdoors at 2 o'clock not freezing with the coolest smartest people in the world is amazing!".
The last message was erased when she decide to charge Assange with rape a week later. But not before it was caught by google cache.

Does not sound a woman fraught with emotional turmoil after a rape, but then I only have one and a half years of psychology studies.

Axe Rake · 07-12-2010 11:03PM

biko wrote: »

Weirdly I just read a Swedish blogger that have studied one of the women's blogg and on the evening of the alleged rape she had written "Julian want to go to a party, anyone knows one?".
The next day she wrote "To sit outdoors at 2 o'clock not freezing with the coolest smartest people in the world is amazing!".
The last message was erased when she decide to charge Assange with rape a week later. But not before it was caught by google cache.

Does not sound a woman fraught with emotional turmoil after a rape, but then I only have one and a half years of psychology studies.

Obvious CIA plot is obvious.

I say this as an arm chair psychologist.

iamstop · 07-12-2010 11:17PM

"WikiLeaks stands to improve democracy, not weaken it."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-editorial/

Biggins · 07-12-2010 11:22PM

gizmo wrote: »

...The reason I asked you in particular was because you seem to be going to great lengths to criticise the US for going after him via US-based companies. To that I say, if you yourself simply disagree with some of the recent leaks then imagine how they feel.

I criticise the non-open methods in which they are supposedly using (lord knows we will never be able to prove much) to harass the man at every corner even, before now when they are trying desperately also to actually try and find some sort of actual legal charge to demand his extradition and imprisonment to the states.

If they wanted the man they should have charged him a long, long time ago - but mysterious DOS attacks, regurgitated charges (re-dug up by a recognised political appointee in a separate city) brought up about the breaking of a condom (bordering alone on the farcical in order to get an Interpol warrant out on him!), the many ways that they are cutting off his money, suspending his other funds, trying to stop companies from dealing with him, they are trying indeed any trick in the book to get their way.

This week its him, next year who else will it be that speaks out?
Their covert methods are underhand (its America - whats new, lets be honest!), hypocritical and frankly leave a bitter taste in the mouth!

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

SamHarris · 07-12-2010 11:35PM

Biggins wrote: »

I criticise the non-open methods in which they are supposedly using (lord knows we will never be able to prove much) to harass the man at every corner even, before now when they are trying desperately also to actually try and find some sort of actual legal charge to demand his extradition and imprisonment to the states.

If they wanted the man they should have charged him a long, long time ago - but mysterious DOS attacks, regurgitated charges (re-dug up by a recognised political appointee in a separate city) brought up about the breaking of a condom (bordering alone on the farcical in order to get an Interpol warrant out on him!), the many ways that they are cutting off his money, suspending his other funds, trying to stop companies from dealing with him, they are trying indeed any trick in the book to get their way.

This week its him, next year who else will it be that speaks out?
Their covert methods are underhand (its America - whats new, lets be honest!), hypocritical and frankly leave a bitter taste in the mouth!

Your getting a little over excited, he is being brought in for questioning in a Swedish rape case. I dont think those evil Americans are orchestrating everything, or will at least wait for some evidence other that; they dont like him, therefore they are framing him for rape. Of course they are trying to build a case, and he probably has not broken any laws, so it wont come to pass. That is kind of the way things work.

Biggins · 07-12-2010 11:47PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Your getting a little over excited, he is being brought in for questioning in a Swedish rape case. I dont think those evil Americans are orchestrating everything, or will at least wait for some evidence other that; they dont like him, therefore they are framing him for rape. Of course they are trying to build a case, and he probably has not broken any laws, so it wont come to pass. That is kind of the way things work.

He is being brought in for questioning - on the strength of a warrant based on the regurgitated charge, the details that have been already stated. Lets make that clear and not brush the FULL circumstances to one side!

The circumstances surrounding the re-issuing of the warrant alone are now under scrutiny and apparently according to Swedish comment which has been repeated across a number of networks, the public in that country are not happy at the now antics of their own government against the man and are openly questioning why the charges were re-instated!
especially when taken in to account of the actions of the two females involved - before and after the actual supposed "breaking of a condom!" (Wow, crime of the century!)

As one comment says on the Swedish main newspaper site "The Local"
(http://www.thelocal.se/30674/20101207/)

Pardon my ignorance on this subject but in any other circumstance an alleged sex crime would probably fly beneath the radar screen at Interpol. Their website says that their 6 priority areas are:

- drugs and criminal organisation

- financial and high tech crime

- tracing fugitives who threaten public safety

- public safety and terrorism

- human trafficking

- corruption

Just saying.

As for whom is ultimately responsible for the methods being currently being used against the man, we will have to respectfully disagree as to whom is responsible. You might think its all just coincidental. I (and is suspect many, many others) disagree. The Americans are up to their overt and covert methods - in other words, by any means necessary!

O' and by the way - read this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

SamHarris · 07-12-2010 11:53PM

Biggins wrote: »

He is being brought in for questioning - on the strength of a warrant based on the regurgitated charge, the details that have been already stated. Lets make that clear and not brush the FULL circumstances to one side!

The circumstances surrounding the re-issuing of the warrant alone are now under scrutiny and apparently according to Swedish comment which has been repeated across a number of networks, the public in that country are not happy at the now antics of their own government against the man and are openly questioning why the charges were re-instated!
especially when taken in to account of the actions of the two females involved - before and after the actual supposed "breaking of a condom!" (Wow, crime of the century!)

As for whom is ultimately responsible for the methods being currently being used against the man, we will have to respectfully disagree as to whom is responsible. You might think its all just coincidental. I (and is suspect many, many others) disagree. The Americans are up to their overt and covert methods - in other words, by any means necessary!

Im sure, but then I require evidence for claims such as this. Most people jump on whatever bandwagon they can if it conforms to their paradigms.

Sure, the case is strange, it is also strange they dropped a rape case without talking to the accussed, your argument is that one should not be questioned if they are disliked by the powerful, I disagree. It's for an investigation and a court to decide, not a bunch of internet warriors who believe that those who do something they see as good can only do good. I'm not saying he is guilty. Far from it, the case is obviously very strange. I do not, however, believe someone should be exempt from investigation on a serious crime purely because he has fans.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:00AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Im sure, but then I require evidence for claims such as this. Most people jump on whatever bandwagon they can if it conforms to their paradigms.

Sure, the case is strange, it is also strange they dropped a rape case without talking to the accussed, your argument is that one should not be questioned if they are disliked by the powerful, I disagree. It's for an investigation and a court to decide, not a bunch of internet warriors who believe that those who do something they see as good can only do good. I'm not saying he is guilty. Far from it, the case is obviously very strange. I do not, however, believe someone should be exempt from investigation on a serious crime purely because he has fans.

BUT!!! ...he WAS investigated once already for the crimes he supposed to have been previously charged with!
...And the conclusion was that such a case didn't hold up and/or the circumstances was suspicious to say the least.
It was therefore decided that he had nothing to answer for!

BUT!!! ...hey, that wasn't good enough for some - who clearly wanted to get their man!
(And those reasons alone are now suspicious!)

So lets see to it that the case is reopened yet again! And maybe keep trying till we finally get him to crack and/or find something we can use against him till the Americans can finally find a charge they can hit him with within their old law books that are gathering dust somewhere in a law library!

chin_grin · 08-12-2010 12:04AM

Not sure if this has been posted already.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 12:10AM

Biggins wrote: »

BUT!!! ...he WAS investigated once already for the crimes he supposed to have been previously charged with!
...And the conclusion was that such a case didn't hold up and/or the circumstances was suspicious to say the least.
It was therefore decided that he had nothing to answer for!

BUT!!! ...hey, that wasn't good enough for some - who clearly wanted to get their man!
(And those reasons alone are now suspicious!)

So lets see to it that the case is reopened yet again! And maybe keep trying till we finally get him to crack and/or find something we can use against him till the Americans can finally find a charge they can hit him with within their old law books that are gathering dust somewhere in a law library!

#

Maybe, doubt it though. Even the US AG said it was doubtful a case could be brought under US law.

Really one can see shadows where ever they want. Considering when the original case was dropped the US government new all about the information wikileaks has, your hypothesis of a changed situation in that respect kind of falls apart.

We will see. I have a feeling, though, this is the type of thing that if he is hit by lightning in a decade, it will be the CIA. If he develops cancer, the
CIA. Falls down the stairs, the CIA. Its just the way things work out with anyone of high profile that is seen as stiring stuff up.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:12AM

SamHarris wrote: »

#

Maybe, doubt it though. Even the US AG said it was doubtful a case could be brought under US law.

Really one can see shadows where ever they want. Considering when the original case was dropped the US government new all about the information wikileaks has, your hypothesis of a changed situation in that respect kind of falls apart.

We will see. I have a feeling, though, this is the type of thing that if he is hit by lightning in a decade, it will be the CIA. If he develops cancer, the
CIA. Falls down the stairs, the CIA. Its just the way things work out with anyone of high profile that is seen as stiring stuff up.

Yea, there is no CIA involvent what so ever.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/

Manic Moran · 08-12-2010 12:13AM

BUT!!! ...he WAS investigated once already for the crimes he supposed to have been previously charged with!
...And the conclusion was that such a case didn't hold up and/or the circumstances was suspicious to say the least.
It was therefore decided that he had nothing to answer for!

Not quite.

The case was initially investigated, and the conclusion was that he had a case to answer. Aug 20

The investigator's superior looked into it, and decided that, no, he didn't, and overruled the first guy. That's why there was initially a 'warrant,' and then it was withdrawn very shortly thereafter. Aug 21

Then a third investigator with even more authority looked into it, declared that the first investigator had a point, and overruled the second guy, this putting out the current 'warrant' Nov 18.

You have to look at all three stages, not just the last two.

NTM

gizmo · 08-12-2010 12:17AM

Biggins wrote: »

I criticise the non-open methods in which they are supposedly using (lord knows we will never be able to prove much) to harass the man at every corner even, before now when they are trying desperately also to actually try and find some sort of actual legal charge to demand his extradition and imprisonment to the states.

They've been pretty open about it imo...

Amazon.com Inc. forced WikiLeaks to stop using the U.S. company's computers to distribute embarrassing State Department communications and other documents, WikiLeaks said Wednesday.

The ouster came after congressional staff questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks, said Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

...

The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, called for a boycott of the site by US companies.

“[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material,” he said.

“I call on any other company or organisation that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.”

The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon’s move, referring journalists to Lieberman’s statement.

Source

Biggins wrote: »

If they wanted the man they should have charged him a long, long time ago - but mysterious DOS attacks, regurgitated charges (re-dug up by a recognised political appointee in a separate city) brought up about the breaking of a condom (bordering alone on the farcical in order to get an Interpol warrant out on him!), the many ways that they are cutting off his money, suspending his other funds, trying to stop companies from dealing with him, they are trying indeed any trick in the book to get their way.

No US-department would be stupid enough to try a DDoS attack on Wikileaks.
The charges, as others have mentioned, aren't regurgitated, they were dropped after it was decided the case wasn't strong enough to make due to a lack of evidence. Now the case has been built up and they're ready to take it further. If he's innocent, which I reckon he is, he'll be exonerated.
The manner in which they are cutting off his funding makes sense given the fact that it's been Paypal and Visa whom I assume were handled in the same manner as Amazon. The Swiss account makes sense too as he simply doesn't live there hence isn't eligible for the account.

The main problem is though, what do you charge him with? I'd say they'll go with espionage but who knows really.

Biggins wrote: »

This week its him, next year who else will it be that speaks out?
Their covert methods are underhand (its America - whats new, lets be honest!), hypocritical and frankly leave a bitter taste in the mouth!

See here we go again, there's a rather large difference between speaking out and publishing confidential wires between State and diplomat and the reckless publishing of a list of vital installations. As for the US comment, well I've shown above they've made it clear what they're doing so I don't think it's particularly underhanded.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:20AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not quite.

The case was initially investigated, and the conclusion was that he had a case to answer. Aug 20

The investigator's superior looked into it, and decided that, no, he didn't, and overruled the first guy. That's why there was initially a 'warrant,' and then it was withdrawn very shortly thereafter. Aug 21

Then a third investigator with even more authority looked into it, declared that the first investigator had a point, and overruled the second guy, this putting out the current 'warrant' Nov 18.

You have to look at all three stages, not just the last two.

NTM

Indeed and if you look at the third stage - the very suspicious third stage by the newly appointed prosecutor Marianne Ny, she wasted no time, the very day she took office, to go after this one man alone!
She wasted no time - anyone find that strange - gosh - he must be a mastermind criminal and a danger to the Swedish state!

The whole case stinks to high heaven and those involved in it besides him have a lot of questions to answer.
People back home are starting to ask those questions!

Manic Moran · 08-12-2010 12:26AM

DDP

Inzilbeth · 08-12-2010 12:26AM

It just gets better and better.. NOT

The words 'bully boy tactics' spring to mind

Great thread by the way.. love all the different views

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/06/swiss-govt-closes-wikileaks-account

mikemac · 08-12-2010 12:27AM

Want to check your link? ^^^

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:30AM

gizmo wrote: »

No US-department would be stupid enough to try a DDoS attack on Wikileaks.

LOL seriously? Thats your contention? Fair enough!
Yea, just hours before the leaks were to start, it was coincidental!

gizmo wrote: »

The charges, as others have mentioned, aren't regurgitated, they were dropped after it was decided the case wasn't strong enough to make due to a lack of evidence.

So they were brought up again. I think that's still called "regurgitated" or re-invoked. Semantics but still the same outcome/result!
- or what word would you like to dress it up as?

gizmo wrote: »

The manner in which they are cutting off his funding makes sense given the fact that it's been Paypal and Visa whom I assume were handled in the same manner as Amazon. The Swiss account makes sense too as he simply doesn't live there hence isn't eligible for the account.

Well everything was fine up to now, Amazon, Paypal, VISA etc had NO problem him operating with them.
But hey, homeland security spoke up and so did the republicans (and remember he is STILL not charged with an American crime!!!) and subsequently he's been treated like a leaper!
I though one had to be found guilty of something before being punished?

gizmo wrote: »

See here we go again, there's a rather large difference between speaking out and publishing confidential wires between State and diplomat and the reckless publishing of a list of vital installations. As for the US comment, well I've shown above they've made it clear what they're doing so I don't think it's particularly underhanded.

So where are the charges?
But hey, lets not wait for those and skip to other punishing means to get him!

Inzilbeth · 08-12-2010 12:31AM

soz .. first time putting one on here.. but the second one works.. will delete the first

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:36AM

Inzilbeth wrote: »

It just gets better and better.. NOT
The words 'bully boy tactics' spring to mind
Great thread by the way.. love all the different views
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/06/swiss-govt-closes-wikileaks-account

Indeed, I love the bit:

Assange has been seeking residency in Switzerland, but US Ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer has warned the Swiss not to provide him shelter.

No bullying there then or uncouth!
The tactics by the Americans get better and better by the day!

gizmo · 08-12-2010 12:41AM

Biggins wrote: »

LOL seriously? Thats your contention? Fair enough!
Yea, just hours before the leaks were to start, it was coincidental!

Common sense is my contention. What would happen if it was traced back to them which, may I add, isn't outside the realm of possibility in the slightest?

Biggins wrote: »

So they were brought up again. I think that's still called "regurgitated" or re-invoked. Semantics but still the same outcome/result!
- or what word would you like to dress it up as?

No, they went and strengthened their case. Are you saying that if a police force finds themselves in a situation during an investigation whereby the evidence they currently have is insufficient to bring a case to court that they should just give up and not continue to build it before bringing it up again? As I said, if he's innocent then I'm fully confident the verdict will go in his way.

Biggins wrote: »

Well everything was fine up to now, Amazon, Paypal, VISA etc had NO problem him operating with them.
But hey, homeland security spoke up and so did the republicans (and remember he is STILL not charged with an American crime!!!) and subsequently he's been treated like a leaper!
I though one had to be found guilty of something before being punished?

What it was like up till now has nothing to do with this. They hadn't published such sensitive information "up to now" but now that they have the government have made their move as outlined in the quoted sections from Liebermann. And you're correct, he hasn't been charged with a crime...yet. The investigators are probably trying to put together a strong case before they bring it to courts, doesn't that sound a bit familiar? :pac:

Biggins wrote: »

So where are the charges?
But hey, lets not wait for those and skip to other punishing means to get him!

See above, not here yet. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to take down the site which is hosting the classified information in the meantime. Remember, whatever about Assange's guilt in terms of the rape case the material published still shouldn't be in the public domain.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 12:56AM

gizmo wrote: »

Common sense is my contention. What would happen if it was traced back to them which, may I add, isn't outside the realm of possibility in the slightest?

I live in hope!

gizmo wrote: »

(a)...No, they went and strengthened their case. (b)Are you saying that if a police force finds themselves in a situation during an investigation whereby the evidence they currently have is insufficient to bring a case to court that they should just give up and not continue to build it before bringing it up again? As I said, if he's innocent then I'm fully confident the verdict will go in his way.

(a) Here we will have to politely disagree.
You say they went and strengthened their case.
I and others say they went and re-opened the case just in order to find something to strengthen it!

(b) We're talking hypothetical analogies now but I'll play along:
I'm saying that if a case is not strong enough to continue, the police should state quite clearly that there is not enough to make a case that can be justified in bring it to court.
The first look at the whole mess did this as far was we know!
Any subsequent NEW evidence that had been found WOULD justify a further re-opening - but hey! There was/is none and still NO evidence what so ever has even been introduced to the accused, never mind the public!

gizmo wrote: »

They hadn't published such sensitive information "up to now"...

They hadn't????

There was me thinking there was Afgan war logs alone out there somewhere!

gizmo wrote: »

...now that they have the government have made their move as outlined in the quoted sections from Liebermann. And you're correct, he hasn't been charged with a crime...yet. The investigators are probably trying to put together a strong case before they bring it to courts, doesn't that sound a bit familiar? :pac:

As was shown in the last two days on a number of channels ON CAMERA and reported in the press, the top American White House officials stated words to the effect from their podiums "No, we can't find anything to charge him with yet - but we are trying to look for something!" :pac:

Farcical! :pac: :pac: :pac:

gizmo wrote: »

...That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to take down the site which is hosting the classified information in the meantime. Remember, whatever about Assange's guilt in terms of the rape case the material published still shouldn't be in the public domain.

Well seeing as the servers are now not in the states, where the Americans are supposed to ONLY have legal jurisdiction, what are they doing and by what legal right, are invoking their tactics onto others outside the boundaries of America?

Has Julian been officially classed as an "Enemy of the state" ? If so many has missed that bit of news - and he is still legally an innocent person beyond the borders of United states - for the activities the Americans want him for! You know, those Americans that are within their own borders and say they hold their laws to such a high respect and self-evident!

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 12:59AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're missing a step, or adding a step which hasn't happened, depending on your point of view.

August 20. After initial investigations, the investigator put out a warrant to bring in Mr Assange for questioning. He hasn't been investigated yet, since, well, they've not had him in for investigating!

August 21. The warrant is rescinded by a higher authority on the basis that he/she concluded there was insufficient grounds to bring in Assange.

November 18th. A yet higher authority decided that the first investigator was closer to the mark then the second one, and put out a new warrant, albeit on reduced specifications.

I don't believe he has actually been investigated to this point.

NTM

It looks like the Swedish justice system is as a big a joke as our own, this isn't the first time their legal system has been held up as a laughing stock, remember the judge who presided over the pirate bay case turned out to be on the board of pro-copyright groups.

I wonder what will happen if the US finds/passes a law that will allow them to ask for Assanges extradition. I'm sure the Swedish people won't be too happy at their government handing him over.

Inzilbeth · 08-12-2010 01:00AM

The more I read about the 'charges' he is wanted for questioning about the more I suspect that whatever the outcome of his fight against extradition to Sweden the US will get their act together to get him extradited

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_extradition/index.html

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:06AM

Inzilbeth wrote: »

The more I read about the 'charges' he is wanted for questioning about the more I suspect that whatever the outcome of his fight against extradition to Sweden the US will get their act together to get him extradited

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_extradition/index.html

Maybe, but you need a case first, and law does not work retrospectavly.

Its interesting that a thread dealing with the extradition of a man from the UK to Sweden has turned into a bunch of people claiming how the NWO/US is trying to take the guy out.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 01:09AM

SamHarris wrote: »

...Its interesting that a thread dealing with the extradition of a man from the UK to Sweden has turned into a bunch of people claiming how the NWO/US is trying to take the guy out.

Who said that?
I must have honeslty missed the NWO bit somewhere!

As for the US, well they would LIKE to take him out but that would be too obvious right now, they will bide their time.
(Maybe they still fear the insurance file?)
In the meantime, they continue to use other means to make his life hell.

Its interesting times we live in!

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:23AM

Biggins wrote: »

Who said that?
I must have honeslty missed the NWO bit somewhere!
As for the US, well they would LIKE to take him out but that would be too obvious right now, they will bide their time.
(Maybe they still fear the insurance file?)
In the meantime, they continue to use other means to make his life hell.

Its interesting times we live in!

I was being flipant.

Doubt they would kill him, it was not his hacking skills that gained the knowledge, nor really anything he did. They know this, and are well aware if he were to show up with a bullet in his head they will only martyr him. I think people have been watching too much TV.

If he was a direct threat (ie, he had the ability to access government documents when he pleased), or the knowledge would die with him, probably. But now? I seriously doubt it.

I doubt the US government is in the business of taking massive risk for no reward, Im thinking people like Daniel Ellsberg would be long dead if that were the case.

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 01:25AM

SamHarris wrote: »

I doubt the US government is in the business of taking massive risk for no reward, Im thinking people like Daniel Ellsberg would be long dead if that were the case.

The whole Iraq war thing must have passed you by...

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments