Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[Ulysses G.]

As a matter of interest, has any media business been prosecuted in the past for publishing/ broadcasting secret documents passed to them from another source?

I'm not sure, but the Supreme Court ruled that the media could not be barred from printing secret documents, but could be prosecuted after they did it.

[Wallaby]

As a matter of interest, has any media business been prosecuted in the past for publishing/ broadcasting secret documents passed to them from another source?

I'm not sure, but the Supreme Court ruled that the media could not be barred from printing secret documents, but could be prosecuted after they did it.

That's an interesting way to put them in a catch 22. If your Supreme Court is anything like our High Court then I fear for you. Ours is rarely decisive and tends the muddy the waters. Bring on those UFO leaks, this will be fun, I hope.

[JUDAS]

As a matter of interest, has any media business been prosecuted in the past for publishing/ broadcasting secret documents passed to them from another source?

I'm not sure, but the Supreme Court ruled that the media could not be barred from printing secret documents, but could be prosecuted after they did it.

Thanks for the chuckle UG. I guess though the ruling actually makes sense in as much as it would be unconstitutional to prevent the right of free speech but, keeps the option of prosecution open if printing disclosure was seen as "not in the public interest?"

Looking at this hypothetically, lets say the current govt decides to increase taxes on everyone by 50% after the next election ( let's ignore the fact they no longer control the Congress )and do not disclose to the electorate. This "secret" document does the rounds of Govt depts and is eventually leaked. Is a prosecution in order for the guy who leaked it and the business that published it? I'm sure the majority would give them a medal.... Is the wikileaks situation clear cut enough to say it's not in the public interest?

[Ulysses G.]

Is the wikileaks situation clear cut enough to say it's not in the public interest?

Most governments certainly seem to think so.

Other than that, IMHO your "logic" does not apply to violating national security.

[metisdead]

Several posts and replies not related to the arrest of Julian Assange have been removed from view.

[JUDAS]

Assangne arrested in London http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

[SergeiY]

Is the wikileaks situation clear cut enough to say it's not in the public interest?

Most governments certainly seem to think so.

Other than that, IMHO your "logic" does not apply to violating national security.

"Most governments seem to think so?"

That statement is based on what?

[Ulysses G.]

Newspaper reports.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SergeiY]

^^

Well, its true that the interpol 'red notice' is on charges completely unrelated to the Wikileaks activity. (and is definitely not murder as some suggest here)

The OP contains also that line " The United States, the most affected nation by the release, launched a criminal investigation on the matter."

I think is kinda odd that we cannot discuss issues related to that.

[JUDAS]

Quite amazing to listen to the surprise from the presenters on Fox atm when they discovered Assangne was not actually wanted for rape but sex without a condom.

[mark45y]

Is the wikileaks situation clear cut enough to say it's not in the public interest?

Most governments certainly seem to think so.

Other than that, IMHO your "logic" does not apply to violating national security.

"Most governments seem to think so?"

That statement is based on what?

The signals coming from Moscow, however, suggest that the Russian reaction will not be as reserved as America's. So is WikiLeaks really ready to take on the world's more callous states?

So far Russia has had no official response. But on Wednesday, an official at the Center for Information Security of the FSB, Russia's secret police, gave a warning to WikiLeaks that showed none of the tact of the U.S. reply to the Iraq revelations. "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever," the anonymous official told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.

When reached by TIME, the FSB, which is the main successor to the Soviet KGB, declined to elaborate on the comment or say whether it was the agency's official position. But history has shown that the FSB readily steps in to shut down Internet tattlers. In June, a Russian analog to WikiLeaks called Lubyanskaya Pravda published a series of documents it claimed to be top-secret FSB files detailing the agency's operations in the former Soviet Union and conflicts with other Russian security forces.

The site stayed online for less than three weeks — during which time no Russian newspapers published the files — and then put up a notice saying it was under construction. With the site down and the people who anonymously ran it unreachable, the leak was apparently stopped. "The FSB could have easily found the people behind it and convinced them that this was not a good idea," says Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russian security services. "It is also possible for the FSB to take down a site like WikiLeaks. They have the capacity for all of this."

A far more gruesome case of leak patching, former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who had published damning books about the agency and Russia's leadership, was poisoned with a rare and highly radioactive polonium isotope while living in London in 2006. British police suspect former Russian security agent Andrei Lugovoi of murdering Litvinenko. But the Russian government, which vehemently denies any connection to the murder, has refused to extradite Lugovoi, and a nationalist party has since made him a member of the Russian parliament.

Russia's reputation abroad, however, could be badly hit by the release of foreign-policy secrets. As the Kremlin pushes ahead with a drive to charm the West, its security agencies will be eager to prevent that kind of embarrassment. And there's no knowing how far they'll go to save face.

Snips from, Time CNN

[Ulysses G.]

The fact that only one murderer was charged does not make him less guilty. Yes or no?

Maybe only one murderer was dumb and arrogant enough to go on TV and tell the whole world that he pulled the trigger.

So now you think he should be charged with murder do you?

Not necessarily. As you must realize, I was responding to your analogy.

However, you might have a point about his thoughtless actions causing innocents to die in the future.

.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Stay on-topic please. What other governments have to say about Wikileaks is fair game, but let's keep the discussion limited to that.

Thanks.

[Ulysses G.]

Quite amazing to listen to the surprise from the presenters on Fox atm when they discovered Assangne was not actually wanted for rape but sex without a condom.

Maybe because he was wanted for questioning about rape charges - despite all the speculation on Internet blogs.

LONDON (BNO NEWS) -- Scotland Yard on Tuesday released the following statement regarding the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service's Extradition Unit have this morning, Tuesday 7 December, arrested Julian Assange on behalf of the Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape.

Julian Assange, 39 (3.07.71), was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station at 09:30hrs.

He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

Assange is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court today."

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SergeiY]

Is the wikileaks situation clear cut enough to say it's not in the public interest?

Most governments certainly seem to think so.

Other than that, IMHO your "logic" does not apply to violating national security.

"Most governments seem to think so?"

That statement is based on what?

The signals coming from Moscow, however, suggest that the Russian reaction will not be as reserved as America's. So is WikiLeaks really ready to take on the world's more callous states?

So far Russia has had no official response. ...

Whatever, put Russia on that list of countries that 'seem to think so'.

It will just not substantiate the statement that most governments seem think so.

There are more countries in the world than only the USA and Russia. I know you know better, you posted here a long list of different countries. Albeit your list is still incomplete but 193 countries are an impressive number and even more impressive is that Ulysses G. seems to know what most of their governments seem to think.

[Ulysses G.]

There are more countries in the world than only the USA and Russia.

There are more countries in the world than Iran and North Korea and many of them are not happy with Wikileaks.

[Wallaby]

I'm sure the ones that aren't mentioned would be having a good laugh. Only those with things to hide would not be happy. Probably all of them, but some more than others.

At the other end of the spectrum I would think quite a substantial amount of the public of those countries would be happy. At least I know I'm happy my government is being caught out.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Wallaby

[mark45y]

I'm sure the ones that aren't mentioned would be having a good laugh. Only those with things to hide would not be happy. Probably all of them, but some more than others.

At the other end of the spectrum I would think quite a substantial amount of the public of those countries would be happy. At least I know I'm happy my government is being caught out.

What countries are pro WikiLeaks? None as far as I know. I think most countries realize that putting people's lives at risk is not something to laugh about even Australia.

[SergeiY]

I'm sure the ones that aren't mentioned would be having a good laugh. Only those with things to hide would not be happy. Probably all of them, but some more than others.

At the other end of the spectrum I would think quite a substantial amount of the public of those countries would be happy. At least I know I'm happy my government is being caught out.

What countries are pro WikiLeaks? None as far as I know. I think most countries realize that putting people's lives at risk is not something to laugh about even Australia.

Wikileaks make war crimes public and other misdeeds by the authorities, of course some governments don't laugh about this. wikileaks don't put people life on risk that is a busted propaganda lie. (except maybe if some of the war criminals getting the death penalty somewhere, but these people are not some innocents)

Wikileaks won awards, Amnesty International's UK Media Award for example.

Okay there are a couple of governments that dislike wikileaks like Iran, China and Thailand for example.

But there is also support:

The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there.

The invitation came through a comment by Ecuador's Deputy Foreign Minister, Kintto Lucas, on a website on Monday. ''We are ready to give him [Mr Assange] residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions. We are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the internet but in a variety of public forums.''

Even though it was not Ecuador's policy to involve itself in the affairs of other countries, the worrying nature of the cables - particularly the references to Latin America - had compelled it to offer safe haven, Mr Lucas said.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-could-face-prosecution-and-years-in-jail-20101130-18fee.html

[Ulysses G.]

'SergeiY' post='4072718']

But there is also support:

"The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there."

Well, that's ONE.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SergeiY]

'SergeiY' post='4072718']

But there is also support:

"The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there."

Well, that's ONE.

yep that disproves the statement that no country is pro wikileaks.

And its far from being any evidence for your claim that most governments seem to be against wikileaks. Most countries probably don't care much about these US cable leaks.

[mark45y]

I'm sure the ones that aren't mentioned would be having a good laugh. Only those with things to hide would not be happy. Probably all of them, but some more than others.

At the other end of the spectrum I would think quite a substantial amount of the public of those countries would be happy. At least I know I'm happy my government is being caught out.

What countries are pro WikiLeaks? None as far as I know. I think most countries realize that putting people's lives at risk is not something to laugh about even Australia.

Wikileaks make war crimes public and other misdeeds by the authorities, of course some governments don't laugh about this. wikileaks don't put people life on risk that is a busted propaganda lie. (except maybe if some of the war criminals getting the death penalty somewhere, but these people are not some innocents)

Wikileaks won awards, Amnesty International's UK Media Award for example.

Okay there are a couple of governments that dislike wikileaks like Iran, China and Thailand for example.

But there is also support:

The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there.

The invitation came through a comment by Ecuador's Deputy Foreign Minister, Kintto Lucas, on a website on Monday. ''We are ready to give him [Mr Assange] residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions. We are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the internet but in a variety of public forums.''

Even though it was not Ecuador's policy to involve itself in the affairs of other countries, the worrying nature of the cables - particularly the references to Latin America - had compelled it to offer safe haven, Mr Lucas said.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-could-face-prosecution-and-years-in-jail-20101130-18fee.html

Is this the award from Amnesty International from a story in the Huffington Post.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Groups Ask Wikileaks To Censor Civilians' Names

LONDON — Human rights groups said Tuesday they've asked WikiLeaks to censor secret files on the Afghanistan war to protect civilians who've worked alongside the U.S. and other foreign forces from reprisals.

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and three other groups have sent a series of e-mails to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange calling for the names of Afghan civilians to be removed from the 77,000 classified military documents published by the online whistle-blower last month.

Nader Nadery, of the commission, said the groups want the names removed from files already released, and from any documents disclosed in the future.

"There was no consideration about civilian lives," Nadery said, noting a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators.

[LaoPo]

7 December 2010 Last updated at 16:16 GMT

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail

Julian Assange surrendered himself to police in London

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has told a court he will fight extradition to Sweden.

Bail was refused and the Australian, who denies sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of Mr Assange fleeing.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom.

Mr Stephens said after the court appearance he would be applying again for bail.

He also claimed the charges were "politically motivated" and he pointed out the judge had said he was keen to see the evidence against Mr Assange.

Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

Secret locations

He said Wikileaks was being operated by a group in London and other secret locations.

Five people, including journalist John Pilger, film director Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, the sister of Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, stood up in court offering to put up sureties. But District Judge Howard Riddle refused bail for fear Mr Assange would flee the country and he was remanded in custody until 14 December.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, gave details of the allegations against Mr Assange.

One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom.

Another is that he had unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep.

Continues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Strongly recommended Read!

WikiLeaks: The Three Faces of Uncle Sam

Tuesday, 07 December 2010

From Asia Sentinel

Written by Michael Brenner *

What the disclosures tell the Americans about themselves, or should, if they listen

Know Thine Enemy is the famed dictum of the renowned Chinese military thinker Sun Tzu. He took for granted something even more crucial: know thyself. Yet, Americans routinely ignore that latter counsel – at their growing peril.

That uncomfortable truth becomes abundantly clear when immersing oneself in the dense cable traffic revealed to us by WikiLeaks. Their exposure of the mindset and outlook of the country's policy-makers and diplomats is more telling than any of the details. For it reveals who we are, who we think we are, and how that self conception is out of line with both world realities and others' perceptions of us.

Most striking is the unstated but pervasive belief that the United States is wiser, more skillful and dedicated than anybody else. Therefore, it is natural that America rules the roost. Our serial failures of judgment and action, at home as well as abroad, have left not a trace of modesty on our conduct.

That hubris has a number of practical meanings: One is the conviction that Washington should set the policy direction for allies and friends, jerk them back into line when they show a tendency to stray or are unresponsive to American leads, and cultivate a corps of informers and helpmates from among the native elites. Access to antechambers of imperial power and favors magisterially bestowed are the coin in which they are paid.

Long article continues here:

http://asiasentinel....2859&Itemid=367

* Michael Brenner: - Michael Brenner is a professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh

Full Bio: http://www.huffingto...michael-brenner

LaoPo

Edited December 7, 2010 by LaoPo

[koheesti]

'SergeiY' post='4072718']

But there is also support:

"The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there."

Well, that's ONE.

yep that disproves the statement that no country is pro wikileaks.

And its far from being any evidence for your claim that most governments seem to be against wikileaks. Most countries probably don't care much about these US cable leaks.

Earth to Sergei...Earth to Sergei...Ecuador is a puppet of the USA. By trying to lure Assange with their "open arms", they are simply accomplishing what a CIA rendition would - get this hypocrite to a 3rd world country to rot in prison.

[JUDAS]

7 December 2010 Last updated at 16:16 GMT

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail

Julian Assange surrendered himself to police in London

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has told a court he will fight extradition to Sweden.

Bail was refused and the Australian, who denies sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of Mr Assange fleeing.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom.

Mr Stephens said after the court appearance he would be applying again for bail.

He also claimed the charges were "politically motivated" and he pointed out the judge had said he was keen to see the evidence against Mr Assange.

Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

Secret locations

He said Wikileaks was being operated by a group in London and other secret locations.

Five people, including journalist John Pilger, film director Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, the sister of Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, stood up in court offering to put up sureties. But District Judge Howard Riddle refused bail for fear Mr Assange would flee the country and he was remanded in custody until 14 December.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, gave details of the allegations against Mr Assange.

One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom.

Another is that he had unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep.

Continues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

LaoPo

How can holding someone in prison be justified in any way when the offense they are wanted for does not even carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment? Please correct me if I'm wrong as I find this bizarre.

[Wallaby]

Oh wait til it really starts, then you'll know the meaning of 'Bizarre'.

[hammered]

'SergeiY' post='4072718']

But there is also support:

"The actions of the US have not discouraged all countries from expressing their support for Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. Ecuador has seemingly opened its arms, and invited it to establish a home base there."

Well, that's ONE.

yep that disproves the statement that no country is pro wikileaks.

And its far from being any evidence for your claim that most governments seem to be against wikileaks. Most countries probably don't care much about these US cable leaks.

Earth to Sergei...Earth to Sergei...Ecuador is a puppet of the USA. By trying to lure Assange with their "open arms", they are simply accomplishing what a CIA rendition would - get this hypocrite to a 3rd world country to rot in prison.

Ecuador is no longer a puppet of the USA if you care to check politcal developments in the country.

[hammered]

Excellent analysis by the Guardian, which will hopefully continue to inform the people, including this:

What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger.

All at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

I hope this is OK to post as it really gets to the gist of what is happening.

[mark45y]

Strongly recommended Read!

WikiLeaks: The Three Faces of Uncle Sam

Tuesday, 07 December 2010

From Asia Sentinel

Written by Michael Brenner *

What the disclosures tell the Americans about themselves, or should, if they listen

Know Thine Enemy is the famed dictum of the renowned Chinese military thinker Sun Tzu. He took for granted something even more crucial: know thyself. Yet, Americans routinely ignore that latter counsel – at their growing peril.

That uncomfortable truth becomes abundantly clear when immersing oneself in the dense cable traffic revealed to us by WikiLeaks. Their exposure of the mindset and outlook of the country's policy-makers and diplomats is more telling than any of the details. For it reveals who we are, who we think we are, and how that self conception is out of line with both world realities and others' perceptions of us.

Most striking is the unstated but pervasive belief that the United States is wiser, more skillful and dedicated than anybody else. Therefore, it is natural that America rules the roost. Our serial failures of judgment and action, at home as well as abroad, have left not a trace of modesty on our conduct.

That hubris has a number of practical meanings: One is the conviction that Washington should set the policy direction for allies and friends, jerk them back into line when they show a tendency to stray or are unresponsive to American leads, and cultivate a corps of informers and helpmates from among the native elites. Access to antechambers of imperial power and favors magisterially bestowed are the coin in which they are paid.

Long article continues here:

http://asiasentinel....2859&Itemid=367

* Michael Brenner: - Michael Brenner is a professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh

Full Bio: http://www.huffingto...michael-brenner

LaoPo

From News Time.

Written by: David Gleason

LEAKING SECRETS LIKE A SIEVE.

The curious thing about Assange and WikiLeaks is that though it started out as a mix of the Arthurian knights Lancelot and Percival he and it have since been seized by a desire to bash America and things American, at the expense, perhaps, of sacrificing their own credibility. In the beginning WikiLeaks attacked Kenya’s outrageous corruption, asked questions of the offshore operations of private Swiss bank Julius Baer, partially exposed the unpleasantness attached to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, took apart Scientology’s warped philosophy and listed details of Sarah Palin’s personal email account (who cares?).

What has it done since then? Well, it published classified Pentagon and British military documents and released 90 000 odd documents about the Afghan war. No one knows yet how damaging that has been or whether any lives have been lost as a result. We shall probably never know because the NATO military is unlikely to give any details for fear of giving encouragement to its Taliban enemy.

http://www.newstime.co.za/column/DavidGleason/Leaking_secrets_like_a_sieve/89/2724/