Judge puts Assange behind bars ahead of extradition hearing Wikileaks editor Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates Court he would not consent to extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for alleged sexual offences. Assange said he would fight proceedings from the UK. Wikileaks meanwhile said legal action against its spokesman would have no effect on its publishing programme. It …
Erm, Canadian Nutters, maybe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtIafdoH_g
Example of unstable folks?
Bit more...http://www.scribd.com/doc/41076931/CIA-Response-to-Assange-Assassination-FOIA
What happened to "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?" Maybe it's only applicable in the 51'st state of the Union.
''Bail was refused because of fears he could be a target for unstable people.''
Then, surely, he should have been offered police protection, not locked away!
Do they really think that we are that stupid or are they only interested in convincing Daily Mail & Sun readers ? -- or even more frighteningly: convincing themselves ?
He was actually refused bail because he's an enormous flight-risk. Proven by when the judge asked him where he lived he came up with all sorts of stupid answers, and then lastly Australia where he hasn't lived since the dawn of time.
Basically he got himself locked up by virtue of being a mouthy t**t with no fixed abode.
Wrong - those in power don't do the dirty work themselves, they've lackeys to do it for them.
That's one major reason why WikiLeaks has to be put down:
It exposes such things as the connection between the real operatives and their shit-kicking lackeys (for instance the poor infantry soldiers who have take the brunt of evil and undemocratic decisions).
There's always exceptions and I accept Palin is one. However, history shows that backroom deals and decisions are far more common (it's easier for the gutless not to be up front or publicly exposed).
These matters I take some interest in. I once 'won' a conscription ballot for a war in which my government entered into on an outright lie--a lie that we strongly suspected at the time, but it took another 30 years for definitive documentary proof of the lie to emerge. In the meantime a lot of poor unfortunate 'shit-kickers' were killed. I am still extremely bitter about it and always will be.
Were the liars charged with treason? Of course not, secret lies and such are all considered just part of the secret diplomatic banter--just a means to an end within the so-called democratic process.
Had WikiLeaks been around at the time then things would have been very different--of that there is no doubt.
The Bourgeoisie have always kept us Proles complicit by nefarious means and they exist in a utopia of corruption. All Wikileaks is doing is confirming what we either already know or have long suspected.
However my original comment was a jovial, throw away jib of paper thin comedic value.
No need to read anything more into it.
Oh and please remember to use the Warning: Troll alert "Stupicon" next time.
Right, essentially we agree.
Perhaps my difference is that I long for the those days in '68/'69 when for a brief moment we Proles actually had the Bourgeoisie running scared.
But alas the world has changed, we now expect and accept as norm gutter morals from our leaders. Even with WikiLeaks 'proof' we Proles no longer have the stomach for any action, 'tis even hard to maintain cynicism.
... you mean the US "intelligence community"?
Come on, these cables were available to someone with the intelligence clearance of a feckin' *private*. Do you seriously think that the Iranian intelligence services didn't already know this stuff?
The real issue here is how much material was (a) written down (when it never should have been at all), and (b) shared with everybugger in the US security forces whether or not they had any conceivable need to know about it. After 9/11 the Americans went absolutely berserk with "sharing" intel internally, and now they're seeing the downside of that approach. About time too.
"Bail was refused on grounds that Assange has access to finance, the case is serious and he could fail to surrender"
Those would be the finances they have frozen in Switzerland, and the not surrendering like he did this morning as arranged?
Looks like it's who you know which is important, not what you know!
Good luck Julian, I don't fancy your chances, I bet there are a few phone calls going on from the US embassy right now. Swedish extradition on dubious charges might be least of your worries.
What ? This is a first. You mean those nice high value white collar insider dealers and the like that the SFO frequently let off the hook don't have access to finance..... hmmm but they usually get bail, don't they......?
And don't the aforementioned scrotes usually get to keep their passports and frequently get to do a runner to somewhere with no extradition treaty ?
Political ? Much ?
"Bail was refused on grounds that Assange has access to finance, the case is serious and he could fail to surrender."
But, didn't he surrender himself to Police for his "Arrest" anyway - by appointment. Seems a feeble excuse for "The Americans want him locked up" to me.
Oh, and to all those commentards who've quoted "Bail was refused because of fears he could be a target for unstable people."
Where does it say that??
Aren't you reading the same article as I am?
Or do you just make it up in your heads?
When I read on the BBC that Assange had been refused bail for his own protection, I laughed - I guessed that what was reported was some discussion between the magistrate (who is not a lawyer) and someone else.
Coming to El Reg several hours later, I wasn't too surprised to read that it was the prosecution that proposed this ludicrous justification for refusing bail, and that it was eventually refused once the clerk of the court (who IS a lawyer) had the opportunity to point out that:
If the police are allowed to arrest people who they deem to be in danger, and to hold them (subject to legal process) until they are no longer in danger; and if the police are further allowed (as, in fact, they are) to arrest people who they deem to be dangerous, and to hold them (subject to legal process) until they cease to be dangerous, then...
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.
Beer for the first El Reg insider who posts here (or maybe to Wikileaks?) the name of the clueless idiot who originally simply copied the BBC story here.
Would some idiot claim treason against Assange. To educate you, one has to be a citizen of a country to commit treason against it. Assange is an Australian citizen.
Go look the word treason up in a dictionary, which is a big book with lots of words and their meanings in it, and also readily available on line.
Reality is a bitch eh?
I presume you are also calling for the editors of 5 of the worlds major newspapers who are publishing these leaks to be charged with treason too?
Your'e an ignoramus.
From the American..(John 104)
"He is guilty of treason in this country"
From Websters online dictionary..
" the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance"
Assange is Australian.
Now, go and work out how to boil your own head you <insert worst insult you can imagine here>.
i trust that your government is also getting ready to prosecute the treasonous NY Times for publishing a number of the leaked cables as well - after all, they have done exactly the same thing as Wikileaks and the government would have a much better case, since the NY Times is a US entity with US employees, unlike WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange (Australian).
Also, I think you had better check a definition of treason - "treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation". Since as already mentioned Mr. Assange is NOT a US citizen, treason is definitely one of the things he can't be charged with, no matter how much you wish he could be.
If by 'treason' Assange's actions were undermining morally admirable (yes, I know this is a grey area, and no, I can't be bothered spending paragraphs explaining) operations, then I'd have more sympathy.
As it is, whilst it may be treason by the strict dictionary definition, Wikileaks is actually highlighting hypocrisy and outright lying that should be brought to light. None of the information revealed so far seems to be even slightly remarkable, will all be known by the real opposition to various governments and thus the issue is mainly the populace who now have clear and unambiguous information that they were repeatedly lied to.
Wikileaks should be given a medal for starting to force politicians to be more honest, and hopefully encourage more of the wider populace to think for themselves.
The idea of bail is that it is incentive for someone to show up for trial, to get the bail money back. If the bail money in question was not his own, this significantly reduces his incentive, since it would presumably have to be given back to the donaters, so he doesn't get to keep it in any case.
Access to finance is not a valid reason to deny bail; for example, Archer had truckloads of finance and was granted bail, ditto Nasir currently. Similarly Assange cannot be regarded as posing a significant risk of tampering with witnesses (its difficult to tamper with witnesses in Sweden when you're in London). All in all I'm a bit surprised by the refusal to grant bail given that there is a presumption in favour of it.
Maybe a real lawyer can clarify if he thought the DJ was right or not....
Meanwhile, MasterCard and Visa are blocking payments to the fund that supports WikilLeaks. This would be the same two card companies that are happy to take payments for funds that support racist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan (Googling for similar organisations shows they're also allowed to receive donations from Visa or MasterCard card holder payments).
We all love a good conspiracy theory! Time for someone to take an unbiassed stand on events:
1. Mr Assange has admited he had sexual relations with the ladies in question
2. Everyone knows he is not the only person in wikileaks and that leaks will continue without him.
3. The authorities have nothing to gain by smearing him - the leaked documents are not rumour, they contain clear, undeniable fact.
If there is an accusation of a crime (any crime, not just this case), then we MUST rely on the authorities following due dilligence in processing the case, and on a trial by our peers. The principles of our justice system have been developed over many centuries to ensure as fair a trial as possible, free from undue influence. We cannot exempt someone from the process just because that person holds a controversial position. And if we don't follow the process, we might as well start digging our bunkers now, as all we'll end up with is anarchy.
And before I'm shot down in flames for defending the authorities, I think wikileaks are right to be releasing most of the material. I question their judgement over a small number of the releases, but I stand by their principles. Mr Assange's guilt or innocence lies with a jury.
"If there is an accusation of a crime (any crime, not just this case), then we MUST rely on the authorities following due dilligence in processing the case, and on a trial by our peers. The principles of our justice system have been developed over many centuries to ensure as fair a trial as possible, free from undue influence. We cannot exempt someone from the process just because that person holds a controversial position. And if we don't follow the process, we might as well start digging our bunkers now, as all we'll end up with is anarchy."
Try telling all that to The Pirate Bay crew... I think you'll find 'justice' in Sweden has been proven an ass. ;)
Sure, *IF* they would do their jobs properly, however for someone to be charged they have the *RIGHT* under the European Convention on Human Rights to be notified of the details of what they are being charged with in a language that they understand.
Julian Assange does not understand Swedish, so the Authorities have screwed up at the first hurdle.
Person in question surrendered himself to the police and was arrested. No issue there. Clearly, it is a serious accusation. No issue there, either.
There are more serious cases, everyday, were bail is granted. I do not accept your contention that it is therefore reasonable or proper exercise of the law to deny him bail and lock him up.
If he is allowed a swift appeal and he is released I may change my mind.
Magistrates, and more senior judges get judgments wrong regularly and this may be a case in point. He has not been found guilty, yet, and I believe it merely adds to his martyrdom to lock him up like this!
Wikileaks are doing a damn fine job and will continue without him
1) When first brought forward, the so called rape case was dropped within hours, presumably due to lack of evidence. Why has it been subsequently resurrected by Swedens Head Prosecutor who shows every sign of a person who is conducting a witch hunt. I don't know enough about the Swedish legal system to say whether a suitably determined government apparatchik could RAM through a case Kangaroo Court style or not.
2) If I were Assange, I would be extremely concerned that once I was delivered to Sweden I would be immediately handed over to the U.S. who I have absolutely NO FAITH AT ALL that they would conduct a fair and unbiased trial. It would be exceedingly easy to drum up a jury of Right Thinking, God Fearing True American Patriots in any one of dozens of their States and most of them would not be averse at all to handing out the death penalty.
3) The authorities do have lots to gain from smearing him. There is no better way to stifle dissent amongst the proletariat than to very publicly destroy someone who stands up and threatens to topple their huge house of cards. If they succeed in crushing Assange, future troublemakers will certainly think twice before attempting to expose the secret dealings of the ruling class to public scrutiny.
I wish him luck. I certainly would fight the extradition until the full set of evidence is provided by the Swedish Witch Finder General. Hopefully the British courts will see how lacking the evidence apparently is and dismiss the case completely.
True, so why then are the Swedish authorities doing PR, releasing information about the case to the media long before it gets to trial? Why release accusations that would damage anybodies life/career even if he is later found not guilty, before supplying information to the UK magistate or Assange lawyers?.
Given the timing (months after the incidents) but at a time when a number of organisations would like to devert attention away from the contents of the leaked information and towards a fall-guy, then I do find it quite remarkable.
I mean sex without a condom being an offense that causes somebody to be banged up in a foreign jail without bail, when a famous movie director can have sex with underage girls (which is technically rape as well) & get away with it...
Regardless of the rights or otherwise of Wikileaks, Assange has always come across as a somewhat creepy guy. He's seemed that way from the first few interviews with him I've read and I think he'll still seem that way long after this court case has been resolved, however that works out.
* Unlawful coercion - used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
* Sexual molestation - had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom.
* Deliberate molestation - molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
* Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep.
If ever we needed proof that our Western democracies are nothing of the sort then WikiLeaks has provided it.
Most of us have always known that the diplomatic 'system', international treaties, cabinet government and secret services etc. are power and authority exercised by power-mongers 'outside' democracy--supposedly in its interest but so often not--and in ways that are never fully accountable within the democratic system. WikiLeaks has not only proved this overwhelmingly but it's done so in ways that cannot be denied, for that we owe it and Assange a great debt.
For the first time ever, democracy's 'real' government has been exposed. And in reality the Jeffersonian notion of democracy being knowledge and power residing within the citizenry is factually little more than a chimera (and perhaps terrible joke).
For such an exposure Assange will pay a very high price indeed, the start of which we are seeing here.
What depresses me is that whilst Assange has provided us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve our governance, most citizens--as usual--will do nothing, thus there'll be no critical mass to change the status quo.
I think Assange might have better chance of bail next time around.
By then the Swedes will have to get their stuff together sufficient to paint a picture of their case to persuade the Beak, who recognises a hot thing, to ship him off.
Since it is nearer Christmas the chances are the Beak will be more disposed towards considering bail.
The authorities have to be very careful to secure an conviction and lock him up in a padded cell. Anything remotely dangerous happens to him, they risk turning him into a martyr. Next thing you will have sodding t-shirts with black and white shots of his fugly mug a-la Kurt Cobain or Tupac!
So undue US government pressure causes both Amazon and Wikileaks DNS provider (both based in the USA) to (try to) yank Wikileaks from the Web. Strangely enough, here is the US we have a legal principle called inequitable justice whereby the government is "not supposed to" apply the law in an inequitable manner "as in being applied differently for for the same "crime"".
So just how come the "gummint" can't do anything about the myriad command and control servers for botnets, the vile hosts of spammers, the kiddieporn sites and the DNS hosts that are located right here in the "good ole USA"? Oh, you say they have "legal rights" and deserve "due process of law".
As I've heard it, the colloquial saying is "Fair is for Hicks".
I don't see this Wikileaks thing being espionage, I see it as taking the "Freedom of Information Act" to it's fullest extent. Even if a F.O.I.L. lawsuit was filed and acted upon, we would never see this data even if we knew exactly where the data was located.
I guess it's time for a global change of leadership. Is anyone else up for it?
The real story here is that the US / UK military machine were sent to invade, murder and destroy another sovereign state in a corrupt and illegal act instigated on behalf of evil greedy corporate and political establishment paymasters.
Anything else is a manufactured distraction.
Wikileaks have done what corporate media have once again failed to do - expose the brutality, corruption and cruel injustice of armed conflict. Julian Assange is being crucified because he "failed to stop" when the establishment warned him against dirtying their carefully crafted reputation.
First stop Westminster, second stop Stockholm, third stop (very briefly) USA, fourth stop Bagram, fifth stop somewhere nice and quiet in Uzbekistan.
Scene: the basement of a security headquarters, somewhere in Central Asia. A "sex offender" is being boiled in the customary way, while a man in dark glasses with a crewcut looks on approvingly.
.. he was a fool to going sleep with partners that he didn't have a relationship with. Something like that is always going to jump up and bite you in the ass. Normally it happens 9 months down the line, not after releasing classified docs.
I've got a lot of respect for the guy, but in his position, it was a pretty foolish thing to do...
In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques.
The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.
The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values.
Noam Chomsky & Ed Herman - Manufacturing Consent
... I would send the incumbent authorities a strong signal. Say, making public a 5% of the memos, plus another 5% of the 'monster file' without any selection, editing or censorship. And I'd make sure the involved parties understand that any 'accident' that happens to me would automatically cause everything to be made public at once without any kind of filtering. Now THAT would make the States and their toadies play by the rules. Or bring the End of the World. The way things are going, in a few years we may be longing for the Doomsday, instead of having to live in this fucking Orwellian dystopia. Cheers!
Reading everything that has come through on this story, I can state four things as fact
1. Guilty or not the truth will be a innocent bystander in any future court proceedings
2. The Political shitstorm that has resulted from the pursuit and arrest of Assange and the subsequent trails will/has far surpassed that would have resulted from the leaked documents alone.
3. The entertainment value I'm getting from this is right up there with the Pirate Bay Fiasco
4. My level of confidence in any government to be able to do it’s job properly whilst zero, is I’m afraid, was overly optimistic of their capabilities and intelligence
Flame On!
I think Mr. Assange is on to something. Let's leak what food they're bringing to him before it gets to the jail, what the transport routes for him will be, who does his laundry, cuts his hair, supplies cologne or any prescription medication, etc.
After all, information will set us free, there can't be any harm in it right?
You may not have figured this one out yet but there is a fundamental difference between an individual and a government.
Governments should exist to protect the individuals. Strange concept but that's what democracy is all about.
Individuals _should_ have rights. Governments should respect these rights. Governments should have restrictions and they should respect those restrictions.
Governments do what they do _IN OUR NAME_. Thus _they_, the government, has to be open and free, so that _we_ can see that _they_ are doing things properly.
If an individual doesn't do things properly, i.e. breaks the law, then they get prosecuted for that.
When a government doesn't do things properly then _they_ say it's secret, it's in the national interest, it's classified. And it's in OUR NAME. But THEY too should get prosecuted for _their_ wrong doing.
The Guardian had a detailed piece on the allegations, as well as a time line, which highlights all the oddities about these allegations.
One article provides an interesting analysis: < http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-making-an-arse-of-swedish-law/ >.
Assange hasn't broken any U.S. laws, either, nor is is covered in the U.S. / U.S.A. extradition agreement.
The whole thing smells.
Local reports of this sordid affair feature toadying grabs from most politicians with the honourable exception of Andrew Wilkie, a former ASIO analyst-turned-whistleblower. Our politicians speak as if Assange was already guilty of a crime under Australian law, which is ridiculous. They are generally doing their best to drag even their shoe-laces up into Unca Sam's arse ( no disrespect to our real american friends ). I mean, WTF, it is so screamingly obvious that the Swedish chicks got leant on, the Swedish police got leant on and now that the UK authorities are being leant on. I hope it is realised by all concerned that so much as harming a hair on this idealistic boy's head
will have dire consequences, no matter what " excuse " might be rolled out. I am but one of several million Australians who take a very dim view of political interference and influence-mongering at the best of times. We have long memories, deep pockets and a deserved reputation as very dirty fighters in some very tough battles. If this travesty must continue ( as it seems it must ) WE the people will be looking very closely at its outcome.
Although Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' has been around for some years and that the process of manufacturing consent has been mainstream since Goebbels took it to a high art form in the 1930s, we citizens still seem utterly powerless to do anything about it.
How is it that we still allow the same of brainwashing propaganda processes to be used on us that the Nazis used on the German population in the 1930? It seems to me that George Orwell was asking a similar question when writing 'Nineteen Eighty Four' after the defeat of the Nazis. Orwell clearly understood the power of propaganda and that it was just as damaging even when in the hands of democracy's elites.
I despair that 80 years on and despite Orwell's warnings that the citizenry is still powerless in the face of authoritatively manufactured consent. It's as if we've not learned anything from the Nazi era and WWII.
WikiLeaks will eventually go but we citizens will not have learnt from it. Perversely we'll continue to accept the lies and propaganda and the status quo will continue on as if nothing had ever happened.
"we citizens will not have learnt from it."
That all depends on the 'we' doesn't it?
If by 'we' you mean the educated and interested people who frequent this forum, then I think we have learnt, but we have also learnt we are in a minority.
The majority are the people who care who wins X-factor this year, I'll let you draw your own conclusions as you seem capable. This sentence when uttered to someone 'of the majority; wouldn't even pass their 'nonsense' filter.
I think what riles me the most is the sheer and utter arrogance of the ignorant that they are 'right' - i.e. no possibility of being wrong or making a mistake. If you don't make mistakes, how can you learn?
Does anyone know of any minority rights groups that represent the disaffected souls of the world that isn't up it's own arse?
I meant 'we' the citizenry--society at large if you like.
Whether I agree with other El Reg readers or not, by and large they're far more knowledgeable as a group than many other sections of society. Thus it is unsurprising that on many of these broader issues, whether they be on IT, IT related or related through government regulation, policy etc., often a majority view emerges, which in my opinion, is usually the correct and proper view (as it is based on logic or some well established moral principle). Wild, outlandish and woolly statement usually and rightly get hounded down.
The statement "we citizens will not have learnt from it." comes from my long experience in dealing with and watching governments. For example, during and after the Vietnam War many mammoth hypocrisies were exposed, yet the citizenry got bored with reform and thus governments just had to wait it out until the reformers went home. And that's exactly what happened.
With so many examples from history where apathy by the citizenry has resulted in power being subsumed or appropriated by governments, it's very reasonable to assume that it's unlikely that anything will be very different this time around, Internet or not.
- my paypal account (call them up if you can't remeber the security question)
-my amazon account
-my ebay accoutn
Next thing will be
-delete my Google Mail account. That requires some work to change email addresses with third parties, but I will definitely do this.
Let's make the corporates put pressure on the Whackos in Washington D.C.
Is your phone ringing? It must be. Amazon, Google and Pay pal are really worried that you've decided to stop using them they are right now trying to personally call you to get you back on side.
I've heard Microsoft are on standby just in case you learn the governments are using windows based PC's.
If lots of people punish Ebay/PayPal and Amazon and the other suckers who can be intimidated by the Death Threats Of U.S. politicians like Sarah Palin, it *will* have an impact.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL/AMAZON AND EBAY.
And when we are at it, be rude to Americans whenever you meet then. If they ask why, tell 'em. "Nothing personal, just the retards you vote into office".
Their actions are probably self-defense as much as anything. There are people here in the US who want Assange classified as a terrorist. We have some pretty serious laws about aiding and abetting terrorists, laws that don't require evidence, warrants, or judicial review. I can see why these US based companies might honestly be afraid. That may not make it right, but I can see why they might feel that way.
Anonymous have knocked mastercard.com off the web today, in response to MC withdrawing wikileaks card payment facility.
http://twitter.com/Anon_Operation/statuses/12441051566448640
Lolz ; )
(which presumably makes the guy a terrorist by association, at least in the eyes of the merkins cyber-warfare division. That orange jumpsuit is getting closer, poor dude)
What happens to Assange is a great story, but not really very important - except, of course, to him. Wikileaks will carry on regardless and there seems little chance that publication of the leaked messages will cease in the near future
What is more important is the information war. It seems likely that the internet will win this round, but unlikely that governments will accept the loss of power without a fightback. Part of the fightback, of course, is to discredit Wikileaks and undermine their ability to use leaked information to influence public opinion. This is probably the real motivation for attacking Assange - smearing by association - as I'm certain that no government really expects to stop publication by getting Assange arrested.
Whether this strategy works will depend greatly on how effectively the mainstream media are in making the case that the leaked information is in the public interest. As with the MPs' expenses scandal, initial reactions are to assert irresponsibility but, as the picture builds, the public interest aspects may come to the fore. My expectation is that Wikileaks' reputation will eventually be strengthened by this episode.
So what will governments do next? Probably they will attempt to secure their data better, but as we all know that's easier said than done. So they will probably also address the obvious source of this threat to their power, namely the free exchange of information on the internet. Just as file sharing broke the music industry's business model, rapid and uncontrollable public information exchange threatens to break the model on which governments rely.
Personally, I think we can expect a similar reaction - a direct attack on internet freedoms - to be the main outcome of this development. It will be very interesting to see what develops over the next few years.
Sounded very paranoid as if they were saying that the whole world was against them, asking british people to unite against the enemy?????
Its a bit ott, after all they chose to do what they did releasing the information, no one asked them to do it, and im sure were all aware you wave a red rag in front of a bull for long enough and the bugger will come running at you...
Anyway, just sayin'....
...according to some news site or other I carelessly forgot the name of,
"Gemma Lindfield, appearing for the Swedish authorities, successfully opposed bail being granted because there was a risk he would fail to surrender – and also for his own protection, she said. She outlined five reasons why there was a risk: his "nomadic" lifestyle, reports that he intended to seek asylum in Switzerland, access to money from donors, his network of international contacts and his Australian nationality."
All crimmoes, those Australians.
Wow all this vitrol and bile and other crap from both sides, So what if he's guilty.
Wikileaks well hmm here is one to think about really, really freaking carefully..
What if someone YOU know is on the front line somewhere fighting for freedom, the american way / for queen and country and gets blown the heck up because of some crap on wikileaks or hmm another terrorist attack somewhere that gets blamed on wikileaks..
How would you feel then, pretty freaking Stupid I'll bet.. Every government has a sovereign right to defend itself again all enemies both foreign and domestic where ever they may be.
I'm British and proud of it. I do love all the theorist out there that say it's cover up, it's a cover up....
Hmm let me think you always say that, your so caught up in it you don't look properly.
Can you see what this guys is actually doing, he's going oh "woe is me, look i'm being persecuted here, I need fame" and we are all letting it happen.. I say we just send him the freak back to Australian and remove his passport, then his own country can deal with him.
Don't lose your objectivity altogether!
Remember, don't lose sight of the fact that it is the US government whose security was shot! It allowed its files to be easily stolen.
Furthermore, Assange did not steal the files in the first place; he, as is any other news reporter, was just the messenger, albeit a controversial one. His organization, WikiLeaks, published the leaks as did the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald and other news media. So, in principle, why is he so really different to anyone else in any other news media who published the leaks?
"What if someone YOU know is on the front line somewhere fighting for freedom, the american way / for queen and country and gets blown the heck up because of some crap on wikileaks..."
Before I comment on this point, if you look elsewhere amongst these posts you'll see I have great sympathy with anyone who's on the front line and have so for decades.
That said:
- it's clear that both WikiLeaks and other media have gone to great lengths to edit out such identifying information that would leave people exposed, and;
- seeing the US diplomatic service was/is leaking like a sieve, if WikiLeaks had not gotten the information in the first instance then it would likely have fallen raw and unprocessed/unfiltered into less sympathetic hands (if it hasn't done so already).
Not only is it naive in the extreme to believe that in the absence of WikiLeaks this information would have been safe. By definition leaks disperse as containment is already lost (moreover, we lay public probably would never have been aware of the leaks and thus in the event of a tragedy happening, the US government would have been able to cover up its culpability without any public exposure).
Furthermore, blaming Assange just because you don't like him etc. is the height of hypocrisy. In the 21st Century law and procedural fairness are supposed to be the orders of the day, not lynchings and witch-hunts.
Yeah, based on forged intelligence kicking the wrong guy and killing hundreds of thousands in the process. We need less of your "freedom fighters", actually.
We need people to expose the dirty dealings of USGOV and the officers who conspire with that.
Did you British and Americans also "fight for freedom" when you killed the Iranian PM to protect your oil interest and when you killed Chilean PM Allende ?
We need people who uncover US Intelligence simply making up things like "mobile chemical labs" and "BM-25 solid-propellant rockets which have never been tested but are surely a deathly threat".
We need people to hang out the dirty laundry of Kissinger and Nixon, who played with Nuclear War.
We need people to perforate those myths.
Just a few points for our American friends - and others.
1. Probably most of us agree that intra-Government - including diplomatic - correspondence should remain confidential
2. So the US Government put it all on a system that can be accessed by 2,500,000 people - security clearance for them all, anyone?
3. Then anyone of those people can download the material - not just view an image on a screen in a secure location with the data securely held someplace else
4. Then the download seems to be unencrypted - I could imagine circumstances where an authorised person might need to download flies that can only be decrypted on an 'official' machine with suitable precautions - but making it available to all these folk in 'clear'?
5. So the miscreant (NOT Assange) stole the files - he is obviously at fault. What would be the case if he had simply copied the CD he downloaded it to, and sent copies through the post to sundry newspapers, broadcasters etc. Some would use it - what a scoop! - would they be arrested. Is the editor of the New York Times up in court?
6. No -he used the technology of today and used someone who had a suitable website for disseminating it. he could have set one up himself if he had the resources to do it - then what
7. So they are trying to shoot the messenger - likely to fail, just as it always did.
8. Perhaps the US Government should take note of the bit in the Bible about removing the beam in your own eye before moaning about the mote in your brother's, and look to sorting out their own procedures and security arrangements.
9. I suspect any company that followed such security processes wouldn't employ the relevant managers very long.
... but I herard Assagne's lawyer on the BBC yesterday. He was adament that the US had been given the opportunity to redact the information to protect lives. They declined.
If that is true it is hard to have any sympathy with their position.
Possible more disturbing is the Swedsih government's position. Charges made, then withdrawn then revived a little later with no indication of any new evidence being produced.
As for Assagne being creepy: well he did mange to bed two Swedes: I doubt many of us could do that.
:(
This post has been deleted by its author
...the best parts (Radar, engine) of the Saab Gripen Fighter are from the Land Of the Yanks. I am sure the Swedish state is fully capable of twisting justice in the name of "national security".
They feel safer with a half-mad cowboy behind them in case the drunken bear next to them deploys his claws.
In Germany we call this kind of situation "chose either pestilence or cholera".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
