Julian Assange was arrested in London this morning. This backgrounder on his charges has some facts and speculation about Swedish rape law.
Update: Assange had an op-ed published in the Australian today:
WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain’s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.
[…]Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.
ChrisWWW
Now that he’s turned himself in, can we stop saying he’s some sort of maniacal asshole? Or must we keep parroting Conventional Wisdom?
tomvox1
You fuck with the Hyperpower, you can expect to get fucked back. He’s a brave guy but he’s going down one way or the other. If it’s not “surprise sex” it’ll be “crashed his car into a tree while drunk.” Not saying it’s right, just saying.
benjoya
why isn’t peter king calling for the arrest of the NYT publisher? after all, sulzberger is probably an american, so king could have that “treason” charge that gets him all aroused.
gibsojj
Mastercard froze Wikileaks’ account as well.
4tehlulz
Didn’t Wikileaks supply the cables to these publishers? Or am I misremembering?
benjoya
now we just have to wait for the other outlets to run out of leaks. that should only take a few years. unless, say, the NYT, is on a leash, and will quash stories at request of the government. but that could never happen, right?
Brick Oven Bill
Do you notice that when Julian was leaking Guantanamo stuff he was a hero and now that he is leaking Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Climate Chaos, or whatever the scam is called these days he is a villain?
The earth is currently trending cooler.
Alex S.
Julian Assange believed that there is some kind almighty authoritarian system that would systematically destroy each and every threat to its dominance. He also believed that he and his organization could play a vital role in defeating or changing that system. And now it appears that he was right all along. I wonder how he must feel – like a believer in conspiracies who sees all his worst fears become true. Of course, it depends on the validity of these charges, but Assange knows the truth about them, so he either feels his worldview and his own role as the “leader of the resistance ” completely confirmed, or he is a rapist on the run. I’ve heard some people complain that he’s on an ego-trip, only in it for himself. Well, if he is innocent and these charges are simply made up to shut him up, his behavior makes a lot more sense if he regards himself as the most important rebel “against the system”.
Omnes Omnibus
@benjoya: I am not particularly a fan of Wikileaks, but do you really think that an arrest of Assange will stop the organization from continuing to publish?
cleek
this is racist
benjoya
@tomvox1:
it’s funny how he was able to stand up to a “hyperpower” (iraq and afghan leaks) and keep going, but when he threatened the banksters, they shut him down. did i say “funny”? i meant totally predictable.
unless by “hyperpower” you meant B of A. in that case, spot on.
ChrisWWW
@4tehlulz:
Yes, but someone else (presumably Bradass87) supplied the cables to Wikileaks. American law says the leaker is legally liable, not the publisher. So, if you’re going to go after Wikileaks for publishing said documents, then, to be consistent, you need to go after all the American media outlets that did the same thing.
4tehlulz
@Brick Oven Bill: Cool story, bro.
4tehlulz
@ChrisWWW: I guess it depends on the definition of “leaker” I suppose.
ChrisWWW
@4tehlulz:
Not really. Whoever took/stole/whatever the data from the State Dept. is the leaker. Wikileaks and the NY Times are publishers of that data.
Now, if you can prove Wikileaks entered into some kind of agreement with Bradass87 to steal the information, then Wikileaks is a co-conspirator. But if he did it of his own accord, and then turned it over to Wikileaks, then they are in the clear.
benjoya
@Omnes Omnibus:
do you really think that an arrest of Assange will stop the organization from continuing to publish?
no, not at all. by “shut him down” i meant him personally. god knows they can’t stop the leaks. they’re still coming , more every day.
Kirk Spencer
@Brick Oven Bill: Winter in North America is not a global trend.
Southern Beale
Raw Story reporting that Assange’s rape accuser is linked to the CIA.
Southern Beale
It’s the new paradigm. The Rulers & Capitalists keep throwing up walls and the people keep building ladders.
Carol
I know the rest of the song=”I fought the law and the law won”
Chyron HR
@4tehlulz: I see what you did there.
Ash Can
Zzzzz…
WarMunchkin
Just seems like the world has gone insane. So, how do I get a job?_?
bkny
assange and manning will be made examples of in the most harsh manner possible. once the u.s. has its hands on him, he will be disappeared into the black hole of the u.s. security state and won’t see the light of day again.
difi in the wsj is calling for him to be tried under the espionage act.
booyah! USA! USA!
aimai
@WarMunchkin:
This “sex by surprise” thing must be a bad translation. However, the charge is pretty absurd: he is accused of having had sex with a broken condom (1) and possibly having had one act of unprotected sex during a night of sex. He is not accused of forcible sex, physically compelling sex, or even of frightening or endangering the women each of whom pursued him for sex and willingly engaged in sex with him without doing more than the equivalent of complaining that the bedcovers fell off during the act. I can see places in the law for revised sex laws that cover situations of extreme vulnerability by one partner (anti drunk sex laws or statutory rape laws) but this prosecution under this law is ridiculous.
aimai
Mattminus
Sex by surprise doesn’t sound like a crime, the name makes it sound kind of fun.
SURPRISE!
TheMightyTrowel
@WarMunchkin & @mistermix: “Sex by surprise” is not a real category of crime in Sweden. It’s a nasty slang term for rape. Please find better sources – I recommend Jill Filipovic’s lawyer’s take.
geg6
I hope Julian has left us all a bunch of lovely Easter eggs while he is dealing with his legal issues. Especially the banksters. I hope he left them a great big Easter basket full of them.
Viva BrisVegas
I’m always surprised whenever I have sex, should I avoid Sweden?
matoko_chan
AMG you are all as motherfucking stupid as the keystone kops of amerrikkka.
One of the prime directives of Wikileaks is MAXIMIZE EXPOSURE.
if you read Assanges mission statement MAXIMIZE EXPOSURE is how he expects to create more leakers.
Arresting Assange does nothing to stop the closed information system killer that IS RUNNING RIGHT NAOW.
Every OODA loop that gets cut or clogged, every increase in the cognitive security tax MEANS ASSANGES STRATEGY is WORKING AS INTENDED.
Please note, the feds CANNOT TURN ASSAGNGES SYSTEM OFF.
they have tried and tried. Arresting Assange does nothing but create more publicity…. and that is part of his strategy to make a thousand leaks bloom.
14 hours ago- 335 sites
18 hours ago- 208 sites
projecting a crude linear curve fit (not relly enough data points yet) wikileaks is adding approx 20 mirror sites per hour on average, not counting the old media sites that are now mirror sites.
in one week wikileaks should add approx 3360 mirror sites. in one month 13440.
if the diplocables continue at 1 or 2 per hour it will take ~ 28 years to release them all.
Do the math.
I dont know if Assanges system killer will work.
But it is running RIGHT NAOW, it is WAI, and it apparently cannot be turned off by the feds.
And if it works it is the ELE of the modern security state.
Pococurante
Who could have predicted Switzerland would cooperate with banksters…
jwb
@aimai: Except if that’s how the law is written in Sweden, that’s how the law is written, no matter how ridiculous, right? There are plenty of ridiculous laws around the world. And it’s really hard to know what to make of these charges without knowing a lot more about the Swedish law system. For instance, how common are charges like this? Do prosecutors often (ever) bring these charges as the basic charge as they are being used here? Nevertheless, I do agree that it all seems rather peculiar.
matoko_chan
Drum IS NOT a cudlip.
jwb
@matoko_chan: I’m curious to see whether he anticipated the banks shutting down Wikileak’s access to money.
Joe Beese
I know that every charge of rape made to American law enforcement is followed by a global manhunt.
burnspbesq
@ChrisWWW:
That’s almost certainly wrong, although all of the facts will not be known until a grand jury is empaneled here in the US. Manning’s behavior makes no sense unless there was a prior agreement with Wikileaks that it would publish whatever he could steal, and that agreement is enough to support a charge of conspiracy under US law. I also expect that when all the facts are known, they will support a conclusion that Assange is guilty of aiding and abetting the theft of government property.
Linda Featheringill
@Viva BrisVegas:
LOL! Bless you!
Michael
Can anybody divine matoko’s spamming abbreviations? Hell, I support everything that Assange is doing, but still want to pimpslap matoko in a way that would bring admiration from Ike Turner and Bobby Brown…
burnspbesq
@aimai:
No, it’s not ridiculous. Sweden is a sovereign state. It gets to have whatever laws regarding sex crimes that its people want to have. If Assange was insufficiently careful, and violated them, that’s just too fucking bad (literally and figuratively, in this case).
jwb
@matoko_chan: Well, if you declare every single group that leaks a terrorist organization and impound their money, destroy their domains, etc., you do increase the difficulty of disseminating the information, or more to the point, you make it harder for leakers to find a secure channel to make the initial leak. The question, I guess, is whether making such a blanket declaration would degrade the “cognitive abilities” of the state conspiracy sufficiently that it becomes counterproductive. That’s an open question.
burnspbesq
@matoko_chan:
That may in fact be true. We’ll see. But it doesn’t prevent the United States, or Sweden, or any other country whose criminal laws have been violated from enforcing those laws if they can get their hands on Assange and prove whatever charges they choose to bring.
Is martyrdom part of the strategy?
Jack
I’m a bit ambiguous in how I feel about Assange and WikiLeaks. I think openness and transparency in government is a good thing, but there is responsibility in knowing what to publish and what not to publish as well. The diplomatic messages aren’t showing widespread illegal or even necessarily wholly immoral activity, so publishing them approaches being irresponsible. I think we all as citizens have a responsibility to our nation that goes with the rights that we enjoy. (Yes, I know Assange isn’t a US citizen, but there is still responsibility as a human being towards other human beings as well.)
Of course, now I wonder when we’ll start hearing about people being “shot while trying to escape.”
Perry Como
@burnspbesq: I also expect when all the facts are known we’ll discover that Assange is actually an extra-terrestrial. Speculation is fun!
Ronbo
May God bless, protect and watch over Assange. Not that I love Assange; however, I know that if he falls, truth falls. We will live in increasing darkness for the rest of our days.
Godspeed your safety. Our lives, lived in twilight, are but half lived.
guster
@burnspbesq: ‘Ridiculous’ and ‘legal’ are not necessarily contradictory. Neither are ‘ridiculous’ and ‘what the people want to have.’
Fuck! A Duck
Funny that Burns can speculate ’til the cows come home about the criminality of people he doesn’t
fellate for cashlike, but when it comes tohis cash cowthe banksters and MOTUs, it’s all “leave them aloooooooooone!”Now, what could possibly be the root cause of that disparity?
jwb
@burnspbesq: I think matoko_chan’s argument is that martyrdom serves as a publicity stunt that is excellent advertising for the brand. Or something. Rather strange, but whatever.
matoko_chan
@jwb: dumbass.
wikileaks is adding 20 more mirror sites to its distributed server cloud per hour.
the diplo cable CONTINUE to be released 1-2 per hour.
there is no disruption. and every OODA loop that gets cut ot clogged means Assanges system killer is WAI.
@jwb: MAXIMIZE EXPOSURE is how Assange plans to make more leaks.
cant you retards read?
matoko_chan
@Michael: WAI working as intended
ELE extinction level event.
OODA Observe, Orient, Decide, Act
what else do you need help on?
THE
Poor Canada. What did you do to deserve this?
Omnes Omnibus
@matoko_chan: Your argument seems to consist of continually posting the same link. Many of us have actually read it. It is an interesting take on Assange and his goals. There are, however, other views and other interpretations. People may sympathize broadly with Wikileaks, but disagree with specific tactics. People may agree that certain information should have been leaked, but, at the same time, disagree with Assange’s stated goals. The world is complicated. Shouting the same slogans again and again does not indicate a recognition of that fact.
edited for spelling error
Perry Como
@THE:
Canada handed over one of its innocent citizens to the US to be tortured.
aimai
@jwb:
Sure, I’m not arguing that Sweden isn’t a sovereign nation (thank’s for the tip, Burnpesque! I was unaware of that!) or that they aren’t entitled to write their laws the way they want. However, that being the case, I’m actually fairly interested in and well informed about the history of rape and statutory rape laws and I’m pretty pro being a god damned feminist and all. However, its my considered opinion qua legal anthropologist (which I also am) that this is a shockingly badly written law if it is as described. I also think its a pretty serious abuse of adulthood for two grown women to pursue vanity sex with a self obsessed poseur and then be shocked that he’s “more interested in his computer than in [them]” and then that he’s not the most considerate lover. I mean, for god’s sake: inconsiderate celebrity sex toy is inconsiderate?
aimai
Peter J
I wonder if Assange had been in some middle-eastern country, and had consenting sex with a married woman, if those who are demanding for him to be extradited to Sweden for something that most likely wouldn’t be seen as a crime in most other countries, would still demand it.
If he had been gay, and had sex with a man in Iran?
jwb
@matoko_chan: Yes, martyrdom of the sort Assange is undergoing is great publicity. I’m sure these rape charges will bring in all sorts of new leakers to the cause. Whatever. In any case, your leakers are only going to show up if they believe you can get the information out without compromising them. This is what I see the various governments’ response appears to be aiming at: force massive decentralization so that leakers have a difficult time finding a secure channel to hand off their material. The point is to make the leaking system less efficient. The point you don’t get is that the governments have already discounted the current set of documents that Wikileaks has; they are presumed lost. What they are attempting to do is to contain and degrade the system Wikileaks has put into place. This is where we get to see how many steps Wikileaks has thought ahead.
matoko_chan
@Omnes Omnibus: the thing you are ignoring, cudlip, is that Assanges system killer is WAI.
everything that is happening is what Assange predicted.
just acknowledge that the
fedskeystone kops CANT TURN IT OFF.it doenst matter if you think Assange is amoral or watev the fuck it is that you cudlips think while you are milling around lowing and chewing your cud.
the design is worrrrrrrrrking.
every OODA loop that gets cut or clogged means the system is WAI, and the hyperpower is powerless.
Erik Vanderhoff
An Interpol manhunt on a $715 fine? Either the Swedes are really hurting for tax income or AG Holder is in front of a grand jury right now getting an indictment.
Michael
Looks like VISA just joined Mastercard in shutting off Wikileaks money.
I’m figuring that the BoA thing has them spooked.
burnspbesq
@Peter J:
Irrelevant.
matoko_chan
@jwb:
dumbass, THEY CANT. Mirror List
Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 507 sites (updated 2010-12-06 14:02 GMT)
14 hours ago- 335 sites
18 hours ago- 208 sites
projecting a crude linear curve fit (not relly enough data points yet) wikileaks is adding approx 20 mirror sites per hour on average, not counting the old media sites that are now mirror sites.
in one week wikileaks should add approx 3360 mirror sites. in one month 13440.
the old media sites are mirror sites too, NYT, der Spiegel, the Guardian.
they cant contain it, and by ATTEMPTING they are behaving in exactly the way that will cause the eventual system collapse.
they are cutting/clogging OODA loops and increasing the cognitive security security tax.
i dont know if Assanges system killer is going to work– but IT IS WAI RIGHT NAOW.
burnspbesq
@Erik Vanderhoff:
One can hope …
ricky
@TheMightyTrowel:
Thanks for the link to a feminist view on the differences in rape laws between Sweden and the United States.
I guess in a blind taste test American men might prefer the income distribution model of Sweden to the reality of their own, but when it comes to sexual assault they prefer the Swedish bikini models of their beer commericals to the reality of withdrawn consent.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“I also think its a pretty serious abuse of adulthood for two grown women to pursue vanity sex with a self obsessed poseur”
According to the police records, after the condom bust, the girl in question asked the sex to stop, but Assange kept banging away against the girl’s will. ‘Cos spreading his seed everywhere was more important than the consequences.
Somehow metaphorical for what’s happened, really.
Or maybe it’s something to do with OODA loops.
Erik Vanderhoff
@burnspbesq: You can hope. I remain conflicted.
Corner Stone
@jwb:
Almost certainly, IMO. Just like WL exposed Amazon, they are now exposing banks for their hypocritical “business” decisions.
jwb
@matoko_chan: Hey, cudlip, can you not read? the government isn’t concerned about shutting down the mirrors, nor the multiplication of mirrors; nor is the government overly concerned with preventing the release of the documents already exposed. All of that keystone cops stuff: it’s shiny objects for cudlips like you. The government presumes these documents are already lost. What the government is concerned about is controlling future leaks and it is proceeding to degrade Wikileaks’ ability to receive and disseminate future leaks by forcing it to radically decentralize. The questions are: will Wikileaks be able to convince future leakers that it can get the material out? Will future leakers be able to find Wikileaks (or its successor)? How efficient will the dissemination of leaking be in the decentralized environment?
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“This is where we get to see how many steps Wikileaks has thought ahead.”
They’re probably screwed. Informal volunteer organizations organized around one individual’s vision splinter if that individual gets into the shit, ‘cos you have disputes within the organization over whether to support the lead individual or condemn them, and no mechanism to resolve them or appoint a new leader.
Corner Stone
@Fuck! A Duck: When you use the word “funny”, would that be the same as saying “I am completely unsurprised by the following observation” ?
WarMunchkin
@TheMightyTrowel: thanks for the link.
Peter J
@burnspbesq:
Why?
ricky
@Ronbo:
If there is a God, he is not watching over Assange. God already wrote this tale.
Genesis, Chapter 3.
See CIA as snake. See Swedish tempotresses as Eve. See Poor Julian as Everyman. AMAP.
Corner Stone
@jwb:
While the govt can speculate about what documents may be “lost”, it seems far more likely to me that they have no idea what else WL may have. And that’s behind the full court press we’re seeing now.
It’s either they don’t know, or they are afraid they do know.
One of those scenarios is more frightening to them than the other.
jwb
@Corner Stone: I would agree, but I wonder how exactly, given the extent to which pretty much every online transaction passes through some financial institution. It’s hard to see how they maintain any centralization and without centralization it’s hard to see how they manage to maintain the flow of leaks. I’m not saying they can’t, or won’t, I’m just curious to see what form it takes.
Svensker
@Michael:
LOL, yes.
matoko_chan
@jwb: you dumb fucking COWbrain. the reason Assanges thesis is IMPORTANT is that on the way to non-linear info system collapse by paranoia infection america is GOING TO BECOME A POLICE STATE.
that is what shutting down Amazon, paypal, everydns, moneybookers, boa, swissbank, deutsch bank, cutting off library of congress, cleared access, defense contractors, civil servants etc is.
the paranoid state kindof commits suicide by overreaction, by overclassification, increasing cognitive security tax, freezing or cutting OODA loops.
AMG what is wrong with you people?
i dont KNOW if the system killer is going to run to endgame, but IT IS SURE WORKING FINE RIGHT FUCKING NAOW!
matoko_chan
moderated.
for all the swearing i guess.
@Corner Stone: yup. the poison pill, the drip drip drip of the diplo cables IS BY FUCKING DESIGN.
Assanges is trying to give the american security a paranoia infection that freeze the OODA loops.
that is what shutting down Amazon, paypal, everydns, moneybookers, boa, swissbank, deutsch bank, cutting off library of congress, cleared access, defense contractors, civil servants etc is.
the paranoid state kindof commits suicide by overreaction, by overclassification, increasing cognitive security tax, freezing or cutting OODA loops.
matoko_chan
more moderation.
i give up.
be cudlips.
the reason Assanges thesis is IMPORTANT is that on the way to non-linear info system collapse by paranoia infection america is GOING TO BECOME A POLICE STATE.
and it seems to be WAI.
jwb
@Corner Stone: The government certainly knows everything that has already been released to journalists but not to the general public. Reading between the lines, I’d say the banks actually seem more concerned than the government, and personally I don’t think the corporations are taking the actions they have on orders from the government; I think they’ve been taking orders from the bankers. If I was to speculate, I’d say this is because the bankers believe in their own power and believe they can prevent the release of the information, whereas the government recognizes that if the information is out, they have little hope of getting it back. So I think the government is actually aiming to make Wikileaks as inefficient as possible—this is all presuming, of course, that Wikileaks is not simply being played by some intelligence agency (or rogue unit in some intelligence agency).
Corner Stone
@jwb: IMO, the govt is betting on a kind of “cascading failure” approach to shut down WL. Take down or retard its ability to host/publish material. Deny WL funds for travel and coordination. Arrest or jail Assange so others have a clear picture it isn’t theory anymore. Paypal or the banks have probably already produced a list of financial supporters. They will be investigated/harassed.
Like any decentralized network, if enough nodes crash then the system can’t hop to another available route.
jwb
@matoko_chan: Ah, yes, dreaded veal cudlips for us all.
geg6
@burnspbesq:
Actually, yes, if you would ever bother to read any of the stuff matoko has linked to about his philosophy. I understand that she sounds nuts most of the time, but on this one particular issue, she seems to have called it correctly so far.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“the reason Assanges thesis is IMPORTANT is that on the way to non-linear info system collapse by paranoia infection america is GOING TO BECOME A POLICE STATE.”
This is a word salad.
Anyway, where did you learn your poli sci?
If there is a collapse in America, it’ll come ‘cos the GOP believe that St. Ronnie told us we didn’t have to pay taxes for all that shiny defense complex and medicare bennies.
In the meantime, the Chinese ploughed the money they weren’t lending us into their infrastructure and universities. While we let potholes grow and cut library hours in ours.
That’s why the U.S. is going to go into relative decline. But it won’t be an abrupt crisis, just a long slow uneasy feeling that we screwed it up and are past our prime like an aging rock star.
Perry Como
Decentralizing a system doesn’t cause failure anymore. Look at BitTorrent. All the governments and corporations in the world can’t stop IP infringement. Maybe WikiLeaks 2.0 will be LeakTorrent?
But I still think it is premature to say that WikiLeaks 1.0 is dead.
sparky
in related news, we are all East Germans now:
DHS press release 1 Dec.
DHS press release 6 Dec.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“Like any decentralized network, if enough nodes crash then the system can’t hop to another available route.”
I think we’re all overvaluing decentralized networks, especially those maintained by volunteers. “Free rider” effects mean that when the cost of maintainance goes up (as it just has) the temptation to reduce ones cost or risk, and assume someone else will pick up the slack is too great.
THE
Matoko did you see this article? I disagree with a lot of the details mildly, my models give somewhat different dates, somewhat different scenarios etc.
But the broad pattern is in agreement and I think you will recognize it from our previous discussions.
Peter J
@TheMightyTrowel:
And what does the actual Swedish law (according to google translate) consider to be rape?
And here’s Interpol on Swedish law and rape.
Read that, and then ask yourself what Jill Filipovic is smoking…
matoko_chan
@Corner Stone: but that is not the design of the system killer that is running.
Assanges arrest is kabuki.
right now the system is releasing 1-2 diplo cables per hour. only about 700 have been released to the public.
it is the stimulus/response that Assange is trying to induce.
the security state kills itself by fragging its own OODA loops.
and that is exactly what is happening.
the system is WAI.
that should scare the crap out of you guyz, because Assange is racheting up the cognitive secrecy tax until the handle breaks off and America becomes a police state on the way to non-linear info system collapse.
Mnemosyne
@aimai:
Actually, the charge is not that he ignored them in favor of his computer, but that in one case the woman asked him to stop after the condom broke and he refused, and in the other the woman asked him to wear a condom, he agreed, and then she discovered afterwards that he had not.
I don’t think you can consider those actions “rape” under American law, but I’m not sure why having someone continue to fuck you after you ask them to stop should just be business as usual. I guess you shouldn’t have agreed to have sex in the first place if they do something halfway through that you didn’t expect and didn’t want, and it’s your own damn fault for consenting in the first place?
I don’t think there’s a problem with the law. I do think there’s a problem with Interpol doing an international manhunt for someone who (allegedly) committed a misdemeanor-type crime that carries no jail time at all, only a fine.
THE
Matoko read my linked article above @84
matoko_chan
@Peter J: <– is a bedroom sniffer.
matoko_chan
@THE: no.
im sick of you retards.
matoko_chan
hahaha
i broke your blog again Cole.
i hate you ALL.
for being so motherfucking stupid.
Mnemosyne
@Peter J:
Which is why Assange is not actually charged with rape. He’s facing a sexual assault charge that is the equivalent of a misdemeanor that carries only a fine with no jail time.
And I have to say I’m pretty disturbed by how many people seem to think that if your partner suddenly says “stop” in the middle of sex, you can ignore him/her and just keep going because, hey, they consented in the beginning, so now they have to see it through regardless of how they feel.
Peter J
@Mnemosyne:
Interpol doesn’t issue red notices by themselves, a country has to request it, and Interpol then publishes it if it doesn’t violate their rules.
So, the problem is that Sweden requested a red notice for a misdemeanor, but won’t do it for other more serious crimes. (As an example, a Swedish man gets severely beaten by two Irish men, the assault was recorded by a security camera and two men confess, but flee to Ireland. Despite their current whereabouts being known, Sweden decides not to issue a red notice.)
Xenos
@burnspbesq:
The fact that Manning wanted to leak to Wikileaks, and that Wikileaks publishes leaks, is a fair bit less than a prima facie case of conspiracy. If Manning takes the Fifth, I don’t see how there can be a case, unless Wikileaks has been monitored by federal agencies conducting surveillance under a warrant.
Peter J
TheMightyTrowel linked to Jill Filipovic, who wrote that in Sweden withdrawal of consent is grounds for rape. My point was that there’s nothing in the actual Swedish law that would make that true. There isn’t even anything about consent.
If the Swedish law is wrong, then the law should be changed.
And I’m not arguing that it’s ok to continue having sex when the other person no longer wants to.
sparky
@matoko_chan: i don’t know whether you care, but since you post here so much i infer that you are attempting to communicate. some of us are simply unfamiliar with your form of shorthand. using it and writing in such a staccato style, you are, in essence, requiring people to do the work of untangling what you are saying. it may well be fun or amusing, but it’s neither good nor effective communication.
example: i attempted to look up “WAI” in a couple of places. no info. so whatever it is you are saying with that phrase is lost on anyone outside people who already know what you are talking about.
your refusal? disdaining? to explain to anyone who doesn’t already understand your view of the world leads me to another observation:
if i understand the argument correctly you are, i think, perhaps conflating the electronic world with the physical one. there seems to be an assumption here that the state will shrink in response. this seems to be a hacker’s notion of the way a system operator such as a state might operate as to a network problem of this kind, and perhaps the way say the electronic arm of the state will react. but states also operate in the “real world”, and, generally speaking, a state responds to threats by increasing its powers. because the state operates in innumerable worlds, the increase of these powers need not occur within the electronic world. thus this model of yours(?) may well be accurate with respect to computational networks. but that is not the same as reducing the actual power of the state.
if you think i am wrong about this or misunderstanding, then point me to a refutation, or an explanation. thanks.
jinxtigr
What do you mean ‘becoming’? o_O
On this of all blogs, you expect me to believe people aren’t paying attention?
THE
Sparky
WAI=Working As Intended
Stillwater
@burnspbesq: I also expect that when all the facts are known, they will support a conclusion that Assange is guilty of aiding and abetting the theft of government property.
New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel as well?
Corner Stone
@sparky: The thesis as I understand it is the state will increase its power in response to the threat. And this action will suffocate the citizenry, leading to some form of revolution. Because the state’s expected reaction is unsustainable.
To boil it down quite a bit.
Stillwater
@aimai: However, its my considered opinion qua legal anthropologist (which I also am) that this is a shockingly badly written law if it is as described.
I got this one for ya Burnsy: Wtf Aimai, you don’t believe in the rule of law!!??11!
Peter J
Both are still are ok with being used to donate money to racist organisations. I guess Wikileaks did something REALLY, REALLY bad.
Martin
@Mnemosyne:
Probably just an over-persecuted guy speaking here, but the rule was always simple – no means no. It means no at the start, it means no halfway through. I don’t know if a rape charge would hold in the US, but I wouldn’t bet against it.
Put more bluntly, given the idiotic attitude in this country regarding women’s reproductive rights you’d think just out of a basic sense of consistency that it’d be a non-debatable Class A felony. But we don’t roll that way. I see no problem in some parts of the country for no halfway through still being argued as consensual and then the very same people defending your right to be used as a human shield while they try and gun down the abortion doctor. Cuz Jesus loves us and shit.
burnspbesq
@jwb:
And a speedy and public trial of Bradley Manning, followed by a very long prison term if he is convicted, should have some significant deterrent effect.
gene108
What I find funny about liberals and the media is they somehow expect the media to be “watchdogs” of what the government is doing.
That’s historically never happened. You had a few exceptions in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, but generally government couldn’t have gotten away with – and mind you they did get away with it, without any push back from the media – with black listing people in Hollywood in the 1940’s and 1950’s (McCarthyism was different, and Murrow got shit canned from CBS for speaking out about it).
Or for that matter pushing the post-Civil War narrative of the happy and contented slave, or justifying segregation and the list goes on of social ills not highlighted by the media.
Sure you get some muckraking, like The Jungle, which makes an impact, but those are the exceptions and not the rule.
The media has historically been content to work as a propaganda arm for the government.
I guess there’s a level of fascism in every democracy.
Corner Stone
@Corner Stone: My thesis is the state is treating WL like a normal intelligence cel, and using familiar methods in an attempt to defeat or coopt.
IMO I don’t think their approach is going to work.
Lupin
In case no one’s found it yet the best constantly updated blog on the topic is The Guardian’s:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Tom
Actually, no, it’s because Wikileaks is the organization that obtained the information and would have put it out there with or without the NYTimes and Guardian. When the NYTimes breaks controversial, sensitive US intelligence, they solely come under fire, not the WaPo, ChiTrib, CNN, and countless others who also report on it after the initial Times story.
zuzu (not that one, the other one)
@aimai:
Rape doesn’t just happen by force, which is apparently recognized in Swedish law. It’s a lack of consent. If the condom breaks and one party says stop but the other party continues, that’s sex without consent, which is rape. From what various people have been able to piece together (and there is a whole lot of speculation going on, admittedly), one charge is based on Assange ignoring a withdrawal of consent after the condom broke, and one is based on his false representation that he was wearing a condom when consent to sex was conditioned on his wearing a condom.
Maybe it’s just because I’ve been in a situation where the guy was hurting me during consensual sex, and I told him several times to stop and he wouldn’t until I finally started screaming and crying and hitting him, but I find your airy dismissal of the charges to be offensive in the extreme.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
If the facts support it, why not? “The public’s right to know” is bullshit, invented by the media. There’s a balance that needs to be struck, and I’m as pro-First Amendment as the next guy, but the courts have never interpreted “Congress shall make no law” literally, and if media actors conspired or aided and abetted, indict their asses and let them mount their First Amendment defenses in the District Court.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
I might not have included the wtf. I have a lot of respect for Aimai, I just think she’s wrong on this one.
Martin
@burnspbesq:
Um. Aren’t you putting the burden on the receiver of the information to know if it’s secret or not? How would the know that when, well, it’s secret?
You just made every media outlet culpable for treason simply for receiving information as part of a tip. The NYT and WaPo would have been shut down decades ago.
Bottom line, once secret information becomes public (the act of disclosing it to a media outlet does that) then it is defacto not secret any longer. The burden of secrecy falls on those who classify it to protect it, not on the entire rest of the human population to recognize who, why, or how that information became classified.
And Manning’s behavior is completely understandable. People disclose information, theirs and information of others, freely and willingly for all manner of motives. It’s called Facebook. It’s called YouTube. It’s called myexgf.com. It’s called Brett Farvre. That Manning is 22 makes his behavior even more understandable.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq:
Obviously. As long as that next guy is Ari Fleischer.
burnspbesq
@Xenos:
If the facts are as I believe them to be – that is, that there was a prior promise made by Wikileaks that it would publish whatever Manning would steal, and Manning acted in reliance on that promise when he stole – would you agree that there is an agreement sufficient to support a conspiracy charge? If not, what case law are you relying on to say that there isn’t?
Martin
@burnspbesq: You would think so, but even after we’ve executed people for doing this, they keep doing it. And spies generally don’t profit much from their efforts in spite of the significant risks. They’re ideologues and they’re overconfident in their ability to dupe an organization they usually feel is incompetent. Their motivations typically don’t align well with deterrence.
And that’s the problem the government faces. These folks are going to do this regardless of the deterrence. And a certain percentage of the population will always be tempted. So in their efforts to expand access to secrets in order to be effective in terrorism, the invite more such people in under the secrecy covers.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
I think there’s a problem with a pompous twit whose self-described qualification as a “legal anthropologist” does not include expertise in the study of actual law or fluency in the Swedish language passing judgment on Swedish laws.
Or maybe it’s not so much a problem as a self-caricature.
But even that’s got nothing on the considered verdict of “pretty serious abuses of adulthood.”
Get the fuck over yourself aimai.
Peter J
@burnspbesq:
ROTFL
Three-nineteen
@burnspbesq: Why do you think that? Has Manning said anything to this effect? Has Assange?
Oh, and by the way, even though Assange had fully cooperated with the Swedish police when he was in that country, and even though he turned himself in to the UK police, and even though he is still not actually charged with anything, Assange has been denied bail while awaiting his extradition trial.
Stillwater
@burnspbesq: You realize that a ruling based on the facts as you present them would make substantive reportage on governmental affairs almost definitionally illegal. All that could be published is what the state officially wants to tell us, only the news they’ve decided is fit to be read.
Do you really believe that such a ruling – one that makes publishing leaks or tips an illegal act – is healthy for our democracy, even if it is consistent with the rule of law?
burnspbesq
@Martin:
@Martin:
No, I haven’t, because treason is defined in the Constitution, and based on what is currently known no actor has levied war on the United States or given aid or comfort to its enemies.
I don’t disagree with any of that, except that it ignores the point I have been trying to make for weeks. Conspiracy is a crime. Stealing government property is a crime. Aiding and abetting the theft of government property is a crime. Receiving stolen property is a crime. Persons (physical or juridical) who can be shown by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime should be punished. If punishing certain persons for certain crimes implicates First Amendment values, well, we have appellate courts that are tasked with balancing those competing values.
Respectfully disagree. Manning’s behavior is irrational, unless he knows in advance that someone will disseminate whatever he can steal. Which is not to say that the young and dumb don’t ever act irrationally. But for me, the more logical view of the facts is that there was a deal in place, and that deal, if it existed, is a criminal conspiracy.
Stillwater
@Peter J: Well, I’m a supporter of Wikileaks, but look, Manning isn’t gonna put his neck out like he did when he downloaded that data without there being an outlet on the other side. I think Burns is probably correct here about a prior agreement. FWIW.
Three-nineteen
@Stillwater: So basically, you’re saying that just the existence of a website that publishes this kind of information is illegal? If another website called We Publish Anything.com starts up with a motto that says “give it to us, we’ll publish it”, the people who run that website are automatically conspiring with anyone who subsequently leaks information to them?
RoyG
@sparky
If you look at the cables, you will find that Napolitano was part of the secret presser to coerce Spain into not prosecuting the BushCo war criminals.
It’s now beyond hypocritical how they want us citizens to spy on each other, and leak to them, but yet, their secrets remain sacrosanct.
I’d bet there is some kind of ‘Stop Snitchin’ video that is part of the Beltway indoctrination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin‘
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
That’s a fair question, and it’s one that I struggle with.
I do FOIA requests on a fairly regular basis as part of my job, and I think that in general, the FOIA system works. More journalists should learn how to use it. That said, I do think that the US government classifies too much shit, and declassifies it far too slowly.
I was 15 when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers. At the time, I thought he was a hero. I’m less certain of that 39 years later.
I generally agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I suppose that having random, rogue actors arrogate to themselves the power to decide what gets into the sunlight is something I have to live with. And if you set aside Assange’s megalomania and anarchism, at least some of what Wikileaks has disclosed may have a positive impact on how the United States conducts itself in the future. But if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Stillwater
@Three-nineteen: No. I’m just agreeing with Burns that Manning and Wikileaks probably communicated prior to Manning’s downloading of the data. I have no idea what the law says about this (Burns does). My argument was that a ruling enforcing a law which finds that an agreement between a whistleblower and a publisher of his leaks to publish those leaks is harmful, whatever the Code or court rulings might have to say about it.
burnspbesq
@Three-nineteen:
“If another website called We Publish Anything.com starts up with a motto that says “give it to us, we’ll publish it”, the people who run that website are automatically conspiring with anyone who subsequently leaks information to them?”
Stillwater can answer for himself/herself, but I would say the answer to your question is no, they aren’t automatically conspiring. A mission statement is not an agreement. You would have to consider their behavior on a case-by-case basis.
Pongo
@4tehlulz: Yes, but they were ‘supplied’ to Wikileaks, as well. Wikileaks did not steal the secrets, they just freely shared them with other media outlets who also chose to publish them.
I don’t know if Wikileaks is really causing serious damage or not, but the pile on of governments, corporations and law enforcement should be chilling to anyone who believes we have a first amendment for a reason. This sort of collusion between powers to shut down a private enterprise is just plain creepy and authoritarian. The government is strong-arming private industry to deny services to Wikileaks and manipulating the press by telling them what they can and can’t print (see: Keller, Bill–the govt was pre-warned by both Wikileaks and the NYT as to the content of the cables and chose not to act until after they had been leaked. Why? could they not have hounded PayPal, Amazon and Mastercard into doing their bidding before the ‘dangerous’ cables came out? Something doesn’t smell right, here.). Sadly, the press and corporate America are capitulating to the pressure. Where are all the anti-big govt types? This is wholesale govt takeover to destroy a private enterprise and not a peep about abuses of power from King, Fox News, etc.
And the revolving rape charges? Really? Charges were dropped after the first leak became a memory and re-instituted now with the second leak? I’m not sure it would be possible to design a more transparently ham-fisted effort to harass. I’m sure he’ll be convicted. We’ll never know if he was actually guilty. Where is Steig Larsson when you need him?
Again, I’m not defending Assange or his choice of career, but the govt’s reaction to it should concern everyone.
Catsy
@sparky:
I’m familiar with that internet tradition, but it’s still a bit hyperbolic for what follows. Don’t get me wrong; I would agree that DHS is a bit on the Orwellian side, especially with some of their Bush-era initiatives. But as far as this “if you see something suspicious, report it” stuff goes, how different is that really from the principle behind a neighborhood watch?
I would /hope/ people are reporting genuinely suspicious activity in public spaces.
burnspbesq
@Catsy:
We’re all East German? Does that mean that we will win all the medals in women’s swimming at the next Olympics?
Three-nineteen
@burnspbesq: Isn’t that what Wikileaks does, though? Publish things that are “secret”?.
Put another way: If Manning somehow communicated with Assange before he stole the info and said “If I steal this will you publish it?” and Assange said “yes”, you’re calling that a conspiracy? And would you have to prove that Manning wouldn’t have stolen the data if Assange had said “no”?
Corner Stone
@sparky: Here, let me see if I can synthesize the press release:
“Fear every thing and every one.”
Joseph Nobles
Lieberman has now floated the possibility of the New York Times seeing charges in all of this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Martin
@burnspbesq:
There’s no evidence of a conspiracy here. Nobody is suggesting that Manning shouldn’t be held fully accountable for stealing the information. But information is not property – the laws covering information are entirely different than the laws covering property. You know that. Primarily, information is duplicatable, and for digital information, the act of viewing it and copying it are the same. So once it’s been copied, it’s impossible to know to what extent it’s been copied. Information therefore cannot be ‘returned’ and treating it as though it can be is pointless and stupid. That’s why the burden for simple receipt cannot fall on the recipient. They cannot ‘return’ the information. The deed cannot be undone.
I said that inartfully. Manning’s behavior is completely predictable. We can predict irrational behavior, at least statistically. But he need not have an external motive. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that internal motives are what generally cause this to happen. The main motivation I suspect that Wikileaks offers is that anyone can use it. Nobody needs a contact at the NYT. They can just send an email and be done, so anyone who might have been considering such an action now has one less reason to resist those urges.
Stillwater
@Joseph Nobles: From that article:
Shorter Lieberman: we don’t really have a law permitting us to extradite him, but we’re not gonna let that get in the way.
burnspbesq
@Three-nineteen:
Yes and not quite. You would have to prove that Manning acted in reliance on Assange’s promise. Which Manning will admit when he finally realizes that it’s in his interest to roll over on Assange.
Catsy
@zuzu (not that one, the other one): I am conflicted about this.
On the one hand, I’m in full agreement that if a partner withdraws consent during sex–effectively saying, “I changed my mind, we need to stop”–then the sex needs to stop. Period. And if it continues after consent has been clearly withdrawn, then it becomes rape. If that is in fact what happened, Assange should be accountable.
On the other hand, the timing and circumstances of these allegations and the disproportionate resources mobilized to extradite Assange in this matter are extremely suspicious–and that’s understating things a bit. It seems all too convenient that these allegations emerged shortly after the Afghan document dump, and that the arrest warrant and Interpol notice occurred after the rumors began of the diplomatic cable leak that would be released a week later. I’m not saying that these two women are lying–but I am saying that there’s ample reason to be skeptical. At the very least, they and their allegations are being exploited as an opportunity to strike at Assange with an astonishingly disproportionate amount of international police resources.
On the gripping hand, Assange has been charged with a crime and is now in custody, so at this point it’s a matter of working through the system. Sweden has a right to enforce its laws, these women have a right to have their claims adjudicated, and Assange has a right to fight his extradition and defend himself in court.
Xenos
@burnspbesq: The only thing I can cite are my old BarBri notes, and they are packed up in a box in a basement 5,000 miles away from me. No sign saying ‘Beware the Leopard’, at least.
Assange claims Wikileaks operates blindly – people who contact them to leak info are not identified, just given instructions on how to make completely anonymous communications to Wikileaks. Some sort of electronic cut-out is used. Assange went so far as to state that if they find out who supplied the leak, before it is published, Wikileaks will destroy the data and will not publish it.
I fail to see how such a policy, if followed, can allow for conviction for conspiracy. In any case this is all very fact-sensitive, and we do not know the facts yet.
Martin
@Stillwater: DiFi just jumped on board as well. I fucking hate it when she forces me to write these letters…
fasteddie9318
Show of hands: who thinks that Julian Assange became the most heinous criminal to ever walk the land over his $715 offense because of what Wikileaks has already released, and who thinks it’s because their next target is/was going to be a major American bank?
burnspbesq
@Xenos:
Exactly. We’re all speculating, and if I’ve ever suggested otherwise I didn’t mean to.
fasteddie9318
@Catsy:
I agree, this would be rape. If that’s what happened, why hasn’t he been charged with rape?
burnspbesq
@fasteddie9318:
None of the above. As of now, Julian Assange isn’t a criminal. He’s just a defendant. We can judge the heinousness of his crimes once we know what they are. I plead guilty to multiple counts of loose use of language. I should have been more careful to say “I think when all the facts are known, we will see that Assange is a criminal,” rather than using the shortcut “Assange is a criminal.”
Excellent strawman, though. Very well constructed.
lol
@fasteddie9318:
Well, the charges have been circulating for months and well before anyone knew about the Bank of America leak.
And given that Wikileaks’ data center is apparently housed in a leftover Bond villain lair, simply arresting him isn’t going to stop future leaks.
I guess the real question is whether this arrest is sufficient to trigger his failsafe.
Catsy
@fasteddie9318: I can only assume you quoted the wrong person but responded to what I wrote.
I’m not in disagreement, though I believe the whole point of the specific kind of charge they’re leveling against him is that it’s a kind of rape, but one that is (as it should be) treated differently than violent coercion.
We’re simply going to have to see how this plays out now that he’s in custody.
Xenos
@burnspbesq: Well, it is no speculation that Manning will want to roll over on Assange. When he does there will be some very interesting legal issues to sort out. Just the issue of Assange’s extradition to Sweden presents a number of interesting issues.
fasteddie9318
@burnspbesq:
He made Interpol’s most wanted list, apparently over being charged with a crime whose penalty is a $715 fine. You’re suggesting that’s not even a tiny overreaction?
fasteddie9318
@Catsy:
Sorry about the misquoting; I must have hit something other than CTRL-C.
burnspbesq
@Xenos:
I would certainly roll over if i were Manning. That’s the only leverage he has if he wants to avoid serving his sentence in the Federal Supermax and going slowly insane.
Omnes Omnibus
@fasteddie9318: My hand is up for bank.
Mnemosyne
@fasteddie9318:
Frankly, I think it’s the bank. It’s fine to mess with war and diplomacy, but messing with corporate profits? That will get you shut down way faster.
Smedley
@Martin: @Martin:
A couple of thoughts:
The Diplomatic cables clearly carry their classification in the header, e.g. ssss and at the start of each paragraph. Anyone receiving them knows the classification.
And, under US law, documents are still classified and must be treated as such even if publicly available. This is why government employees without appropriate security clearances and need to know are admonished not to down load them or read them.
Yeah, I know. Horse is outta the barn but thats the law.
Stillwater (aka Capn Hindsight)
Deleted to naming violation.
Stillwater
Re: the curious timing of the rape charges, there’s this from Wiki (pedia!):
Two things: the purpose was political, to discredit Ellsberg and by association the contents of the PP; and this ridiculous plan was approved.
Anyone know of Cuban waiter sightings in Sweden about 6 months ago?
Mnemosyne
@Catsy:
Frankly, the charges are so minor even in Sweden that Option B seems much, much more likely than Option A. If you were going to try and frame someone for rape, wouldn’t you shoot a little higher than “he didn’t wear a condom after he said he would”?
If Assange were accused of jaywalking and arrested like this, would your first thought be that of course he couldn’t possibly have been jaywalking at all and the whole thing must be a setup? Frankly, Assange strikes me as exactly the kind of asshole who would pull this stunt. He just didn’t realize that doing so is actually illegal in Sweden.
Mike M
I do electronic discovery and computer forensics for a living; that is, I search computer systems and networks to uncover documents and emails that are relevant to specific civil and criminal investigations, often under court order. With attorney guidance, I prepare the relevant documents for review by the parties to a suit, by law enforcement, or by the court. In the course of my investigations, I routinely come across much confidential information that is not relevant to a case or court order, and I exclude it from the information I collect.
If I wished, I could provide millions of corporate, non-profit, and government emails to a site like WikiLeaks or directly to a news organization. Very little, if any, of the information would be evidence of a crime. Nearly all the emails would be routine and banal, but some of them would be extremely embarrassing to the people involved. The revelations could do severe damage to personal relationships, careers, business brands, charitable giving, and even government operations.
If I found evidence of a crime, I would feel compelled to report it, but I’d be otherwise irresponsible and immoral if I dumped confidential information on the Internet. I’d expect to be held in civil contempt and charged with various crimes.
I don’t think that WikiLeaks ought to get a pass just because the information they released comes from the US government. And they don’t become a news organization, any more than I would, just by dumping government data. Nor is a news organization relieved of responsibility just because they didn’t steal the information themselves; circumstances matter.
I fully support whistle blowers and those who risk their livelihoods to expose serious crimes, but my support does not extend to vandals and anarchists.
benjoya
@Mike M:
my support does not extend to vandals and anarchists.
does that include the NYT?
Stillwater
@Mike M: I fully support whistle blowers and those who risk their livelihoods to expose serious crimes
Helicopter gunship.
ETA: I guess your view of this depends on whether you think the massacre of civilians constitutes a crime.
Catsy
@Mnemosyne:
Only if you assume that the conviction and long-term incarceration for the rape itself is the goal. If your aim is simply to get him in state custody and keep him from fleeing or seeking asylum while you work out how to deal with him, then all you need is a plausible pretext that meets the bar for issuing a warrant and isn’t easily falsified.
If Sweden was seeking to extradite Assange for jaywalking and Interpol issued a “red notice” for his arrest on jaywalking charges, then yes–my first thought would be that he’s being set up.
Nice strawman, though.
Assange strikes me as all sorts of an asshole. That has fuckall to do with how why the timing and hugely disproportionate mobilization of international law enforcement are suspicious.
I direct you to the previous comment–which you quoted–about how at the very least it seems as if these two women and their allegations are being exploited in order to get at Assange.
Stefan
First sentence: “The public’s right to know” is bullshit, invented by the media.”
Second sentence: “There’s a balance that needs to be struck, and I’m as pro-First Amendment as the next guy,….”
Ummm, who would this “next guy” be? Richard Nixon?
burnspbesq
@Stefan:
The First Amendment says nothing about the public’s right to know. If you think it does, I’d appreciate you pointing out the language that you think says that.
The First Amendment is about freedom of the press. It’s not about freedom of the reader.
P.S. FWIW, Nixon was President when I joined the ACLU.
Mnemosyne
@Catsy:
I never said it didn’t. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying all along — Assange has been arrested and is being held without bail essentially on a jaywalking charge. That doesn’t automatically mean that the jaywalking charge is completely made-up bullshit and all of the witnesses to it are lying hags who are just trying to take Assange down.
See the difference?
HyperIon
@burnspbesq wrote:
In the pentagon papers case, actual papers that were taken from pentagon offices were given to the NYT. Yet the supremes found no reason to prevent their publication. Did not the NYT receive stolen property?
Perry Como
@HyperIon:
SHUT UP WITH YOUR LOGIC AND YOUR FACTS AND YOUR SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.
Binzinerator
@jwb:
Which ironically is the same strategy Assange had outlined to degrade an organization’s (like government) ability to conspire. (If I understood what I read in an interview with him. An earlier thread here on B-J had a link to that interview; can’t find it right now.)
IIRC Wikileaks was supposed to degrade conspiracies’ effectiveness by making it very difficult for members of a conspiracy to communicate to each other or to widen the conspiracy without being exposed. (The whole diplomatic cables thing would be an example of a conspiracy in this sense.) The response to increased threat of exposure would be to become more decentralized and more compartmentalized and more paranoid. Which would degrade the effectiveness of the conspiracy.
No wonder the powers that be launched a global manhunt. If this works it’s a steel-toed kick in the syphilitic junk of every closet Cheney and Goldman-Sachs banksta out there. Uninformed consent of the governed is not legitimate consent but it has proved to be very useful to these kinds of people.
I think we can all now point to the whole Iraq WMD pack of lies as a sterling example of conspiracy and manipulating consent by keeping the public uninformed. (I recall how they went after Wilson and Plame with vengeance for pointing out there was a curtain behind which somebody was undoubtedly lurking.) This may also be as to why Wikilieaks is being targeted and not NYT and other mainstream news outlets. NYT et al was part of the conspiracy. Our mainstream media has been a better and more useful tool to misinform than to inform.
Amusingly, the whole concept of a communications net designed to be survivable was advanced by DARPA, a government conspiracy by my understanding of Assange’s definition. We’ll soon see just how net-like Wikilieaks is, and how survivable.
Catsy
@Mnemosyne:
I do, I just think you’ve mistaken me for someone who was arguing that the charge is completely made-up bullshit and all of the witnesses to it are lying hags.
I said that the timing of the charge and the disproportionate resources mobilized to bring him in were extremely suspicious–and we seem to agree about that. I explicitly said that I wasn’t saying these women were lying, but that at the very least they and their allegations are being exploited in order to get at Assange.
I think it’s possible that they’re lying, but I think it’s far more likely that they’re being used.
See the difference?
Seebach
I wish there was this much sex crime attention when US troops raped a 12 year old girl in Okinawa.
Perry Como
@Seebach: Or when US contractors were pimping out boys.
On the upside we get to see who the crypto-fascists are. I’m looking at you Joe Lieberman.
zuzu (not that one, the other one)
@Catsy:
Why can’t it be both? The charges could be legit, AND the powers that be could be exploiting the charges for their own ends; that certainly seems plausible given the international manhunt and the denial of bail for a charge that carries, at most, a fine of less than $1000.
The way you determine the legitimacy of the charges is to go through the process.
But let’s say, for a moment, that the charges aren’t legit, or they were the product of coercion or exploitation by, say, the CIA in order to discredit Assange.
If that’s the case, what happens? Why, there’s a lot of anger directed at the complaining witnesses, there’s a lot of harrumphing about sluts who had “vanity sex” that didn’t work out to their liking, as our resident feminist slut-shamer aimai puts it, there’s a lot of discussion of the silliness of the Swedish sexual assault laws putting the focus on consent when EVERYBODY KNOWS that’s just what women say when they regret it and the only kind of REAL rape there is involves violence and threat so you know they really didn’t want it, and even then it’s hard to tell, because bitches lie, you know, blahblahblah.
And the result is, the story goes from being about the leaks to being about Assange to being about the two women who filed the charges.
zuzu (not that one, the other one)
By the way, at least one state, Maryland, has held that continuing to have sex with someone after she has withdrawn her consent during penetrative sex is rape.
Stefan
The First Amendment says nothing about the public’s right to know. If you think it does, I’d appreciate you pointing out the language that you think says that. The First Amendment is about freedom of the press. It’s not about freedom of the reader.
Oh, please, I’m a lawyer. You can’t play these specious little word games with me. This kind of meretricious hair-splitting was old after my first month at Harvard Law.
Caravelle
Has anyone tried to donate to Wikileaks recently ? I couldn’t do a bank transfer (as opposed to a credit card payment, I know Mastercard and Visa blocked those) to their German account but I haven’t heard anything about it being frozen or about banks blocking transfers of their own initiative.
zuzu (not that one, the other one)
The First Amendment is about freedom of the press. It’s not about freedom of the reader.
You *were* asleep during Con Law. Look up The Tattered Cover sometime.
Caravelle
From the Guardian liveblog :
Freedom of Speech – priceless. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.
Seebach
Exclusive update: Payments firm Xipline now taking WikiLeaks donations
If some are interested.
Catsy
@Stefan:
Horseshit. If you truly think the difference between the concepts protected in the First Amendment and the concept of “the public’s right to know” is “hair-splitting”, you’re demonstrably incompetent to practice Constitutional law.
burnspbesq
@Stefan:
Oh, bullshit. “Specious little word games” are how we lawyers earn our living, and one persons “meretricious hair-splitting” is another person’s “careful textual analysis.”
I’m right, you know I’m right, and you just don’t like it. Too fucking bad.
P.S. Am I supposed to be impressed that you went to HLS (if indeed you did)?