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

[mark45y]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

[Wallaby]

Snips from a news story. I think the newspaper is OK and not one of those nut case internet sites but you never know. Maybe you could check it out. www.theaustralian.com, what do you think is it OK?

WikiLeaks defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg reveals Julian Assange's siege mentality

Until this month "Daniel Schmitt" was the second most public face of WikiLeaks after Mr Assange, giving hundreds of interviews in defence of the organisation's mission to put classified documents directly on the internet.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. "We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland's Parliament. "If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better."

I see that guy is opening up his own leak website.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-rival-site-underway-by-former-julian-assange-co-worker/story-e6freonf-1225969288151

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

Are you for real? This is absurd.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Snips from a news story. I think the newspaper is OK and not one of those nut case internet sites but you never know. Maybe you could check it out. www.theaustralian.com, what do you think is it OK?

WikiLeaks defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg reveals Julian Assange's siege mentality

Until this month "Daniel Schmitt" was the second most public face of WikiLeaks after Mr Assange, giving hundreds of interviews in defence of the organisation's mission to put classified documents directly on the internet.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. "We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland's Parliament. "If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better."

I see that guy is opening up his own leak website.

http://www.courierma...f-1225969288151

That's interesting. And I think the complaint about transparency might well be justified but that obviously doesn't affect any rights to publish or not.

[mark45y]

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

It's mostly fairly second-order stuff: doing nothing about possible Ugandan war crimes, assorted episodes of spying, the astonishing level of corruption in Afghanistan, the unofficial war in Yemen, troops in Pakistan. I'm sure there's more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Is spying on the head of the UN illegal? I mean, it is spying, same thing the US is accusing Assange of doing.

I just wonder what any journalist would do with the leaks if it fell into their hands. My guess is a lot of front page stories. The govt could then put enormous pressure on the owners/editors not to print more. Maybe that is why the govt is so upset, they can't strong arm wikileaks and the ego is bruised.

Depends on where it is. 300 dead journalists in Russia since 1993.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

My question remains - can you or anyone else list any of these "all sorts of sordid, illegal activities" the US government has been engaging in that the latest leaks of 250,000 cables have exposed?

It's mostly fairly second-order stuff: doing nothing about possible Ugandan war crimes, assorted episodes of spying, the astonishing level of corruption in Afghanistan, the unofficial war in Yemen, troops in Pakistan. I'm sure there's more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Is spying on the head of the UN illegal? I mean, it is spying, same thing the US is accusing Assange of doing.

I just wonder what any journalist would do with the leaks if it fell into their hands. My guess is a lot of front page stories. The govt could then put enormous pressure on the owners/editors not to print more. Maybe that is why the govt is so upset, they can't strong arm wikileaks and the ego is bruised.

Depends on where it is. 300 dead journalists in Russia since 1993.

I'm not sure what the original question meant as Wikileaks are cooperating with 5 newspapers in releasing the cables. And I'm not sure what the relevance of Russia's atrocious human rights record is, unless to point out that repressive regimes are all alike in fearing the free flow of information.

[mark45y]

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

Are you for real? This is absurd.

Certainly many people think that death is a possible outcome of some of the WikiLeaks, a number of WikiLeaks supporters quit because of that. Grave harm befalling the US government is a potential. Answer the question. It is not absurd at all. Would your feelings change if WikiLeaks proved to have aided in deaths or grave harm? Cops kill people all the time. Soldiers kill people all the time.

It is one of the risks of being a cop or soldier. WikiLeaks has released some heavy duty things and is set to release more. Is it one of the costs of freedom of information?

Edited December 11, 2010 by mark45y

[softgeorge]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

I think you mean "AUSSIE DIGGER" (ANZAC). Either way wikileaks did not send the troops to Afganistan the American government did. It is not Australia's war it is America's and Australians are dying in the aid of a pointless American war Aussies dying for an American cause.

..

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Certainly many people think that death is a possible outcome of some of the WikiLeaks....blah...blah.....rinse and repeat...and again.....why not try once more.....I don't think anyone's looking so I'll try again.....

Here you have a perfect example of why these forums are utterly pointless. Again and again, posts have been made which show this claim to be untrue and again and again you simply ignore it and repeat it over and over and over and over again. And all the while - seemingly without feeling the slightest shame about endlessly repeating yourself - you utterly fail to offer up any evidence which would encourage others to take you seriously.

[mark45y]

Certainly many people think that death is a possible outcome of some of the WikiLeaks....blah...blah.....rinse and repeat...and again.....why not try once more.....I don't think anyone's looking so I'll try again.....

Here you have a perfect example of why these forums are utterly pointless. Again and again, posts have been made which show this claim to be untrue and again and again you simply ignore it and repeat it over and over and over and over again. And all the while - seemingly without feeling the slightest shame about endlessly repeating yourself - you utterly fail to offer up any evidence which would encourage others to take you seriously.

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said.

End of quotes.

A lot of people think it is possible. All I am asking is, If the leaks are implicated in death of Americans or Allies would it change your attitude toward WikiLeaks or is that an acceptable cost of Freedom of Speech?

[canuckamuck]

I think if the world had more recently been through a world war that the relationship between government secrets and national security would be better understood.

[TAWP]

How many times is the same things going to be posted in this thread?

[mark45y]

How many times is the same things going to be posted in this thread?

Apparently people don't want to read it the first time. Some people have a hard time realizing that actual harm could come from the WikiLeaks posts. That notion is absurd. The absolute best one can can say either way is maybe. So if harm is at least a potential why do people have a difficult time saying how they would react under the different possible outcomes of the posts? The Taliban is happy about the leaks. The US Army is not. Why is that? Is this really so hard to figure out?

[KhunAussie52]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

And to tell you the truth.it not worth a comment!!!

[KhunAussie52]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

And to tell you the truth.it is beneath my dignity to reply!!!!

[TAWP]

How many times is the same things going to be posted in this thread?

Apparently people don't want to read it the first time. Some people have a hard time realizing that actual harm could come from the WikiLeaks posts. That notion is absurd. The absolute best one can can say either way is maybe. So if harm is at least a potential why do people have a difficult time saying how they would react under the different possible outcomes of the posts? The Taliban is happy about the leaks. The US Army is not. Why is that? Is this really so hard to figure out?

So post once that you think it is dangerous, someone else post once that so far no violence has been connected to it - and it has been months! - and then move on?

[softgeorge]

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange was in a segregation unit of a London jail on Saturday for his safety, as new secret US diplomatic cables were made public, increasing the embarrassment to Washington.

The 39-year-old Australian has been transferred from the main section of Wandsworth prison to an isolation unit, Jennifer Robinson, one of his legal team, said Friday.

"The prison authorities are doing it for his own safety, presumably," she told AFP.

Assange is due to appear in a London court for a second time Tuesday after being arrested on a warrant issued by Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about allegations of rape and sexual molestation made by two women.

WikiLeaks insists the allegations are politically motivated because the whistleblowing website has enraged Washington and governments around the world by releasing thousands of classified US diplomatic cables.

Robinson complained that Assange "does not get any recreation" in the prison and "has difficulties getting phone calls out... he is on his own."

The former computer hacker is not allowed to have a laptop in his cell, but his lawyers have requested one.

"We are trying to prepare a legal appeal and he has difficulties hand writing, so it would be much easier in order to assist us in the preparation if he had a laptop," Robinson said, without explaining why he had difficulty writing.

Assange is in "very good" spirits but "frustrated" that he cannot answer the allegations that WikiLeaks was behind cyber attacks launched on credit card firms which have refused to do business with the website.

"He told me he is absolutely not involved and this is a deliberate attempt to conflate WikiLeaks, which is a publishing organisation, with hacking organisations which are not," she said.

The websites of the Dutch prosecutor's office and police became the latest target of cyber attacks Friday, "probably" linked to the arrest of a 16-year-old WikiLeaks supporter, officials said.

[Ulysses G.]

All I am asking is, If the leaks are implicated in death of Americans or Allies would it change your attitude toward WikiLeaks...

That is what WikiLeaks is all about - despite all the justifications - so very likely not.

[mark45y]

No evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Before Sunday's release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers "established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war," according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. "All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted," the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

The newspapers also communicated U.S. government concerns to WikiLeaks to ensure that sensitive data didn't appear on the organization's website.

"After its own redaction's, The (New York) Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest," The New York Times said in a story published on its website Sunday. "After reviewing the cables, the officials - while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material - suggested additional redaction's. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The paper said it also passed the government's concerns to WikiLeaks "at the suggestion of the State Department."

Unlike the release earlier this year of intelligence documents about the war in Afghanistan, when WikiLeaks posted on its website unredacted documents that included the names of Afghan informants, WikiLeaks agreed this time not to release more than 250,000 documents because they hadn't been vetted by the U.S. government.

The newspapers said WikiLeaks had agreed to release only the documents used in preparation for articles that appeared in the five publications, which in addition to Le Monde and The New York Times included Great Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais.

"Together, the five newspapers have carefully edited the raw text used to remove all names and indices whose disclosure could pose risks to individuals," Le Monde said.

Le Monde also said U.S. officials would have the opportunity to argue their point of view in its columns.

Sunday's release showed a growing willingness on the part of WikiLeaks to cooperate with the government on the document trove.

When the first batch of documents was released this summer, WikiLeaks unapologetically released the names of Afghan informants, which U.S. officials charged could lead to their deaths. In the second batch, released in October, which focused on the Iraq war, WikiLeaks withheld names but didn't work with the U.S. government to determine what could endanger U.S. national security.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

Despite that, the government has maintained that the release of the documents could put people in grave danger. In a letter to WikiLeaks Saturday, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, said that the release "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security."

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger," Koh said.

It wasn't immediately clear how Sunday's release would endanger secret U.S. programs, though it wasn't difficult to conclude that some of the releases could endanger local officials' political futures.

One cable, for example, describes a meeting between Gen. David Petraeus, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, and Yemen's president where they were discussing what was apparently a U.S. bombing campaign against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. According to the cable, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh began to "joke that he had just 'lied' by telling his Parliament that the Yemeni forces were responsible for attacks carried out by the U.S.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," the cable quotes Saleh as saying.

Tell the truth KhunAussie52, what difference would it make to you if Americans got killed as a result of Wikileaks postings?

Tell the truth what difference would it make if Afghans got killed or Iraqis or Allied troops?

What would you do? Would call for Wikileaks to stop?

Would you call for any punishment? How many years in jail for each American killed? How many years for each Aussie trooper killed?

I don't think it would make any difference to you if people were killed and massive harm came to the government of the US. But I don't want to give you a bad rap. Maybe I am wrong.

And to tell you the truth.it not worth a comment!!!

I didn't expect you to be able to answer the question.

It was a simple question. Relative to the discussion, topical and one that is being asked every day in the media.

I, imagine it will be asked in a court of law soon. 50 years of a man's life may hang on the answer.

But I didn't expect you to be able to answer the question.

I have been asked a lot of foolish questions on Thai Visa. In every instance I have tried to answer those questions. Sometimes I asked for more information. Sometimes I asked for clarification but in every case unless warned by a moderator not to answer the question I have attempted to answer.

It has been my experience that when a question is left unanswered here it means that the fellow has been bested in a discussion. And that is my impression here. If you do ever answer my question, I will come back and apologize because I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Apparently people don't want to read it the first time.

That would be you, then. I and others responded to you about that exact quotation days ago. Now, if you want to keep on flogging a horse which is not so much dead as vaporized, why don't you wait until you have some proof that Wikileaks have been responsible for some deaths and then post your question again because until then there is absolutely no point in carrying on with this.

[mark45y]

Apparently people don't want to read it the first time.

That would be you, then. I and others responded to you about that exact quotation days ago. Now, if you want to keep on flogging a horse which is not so much dead as vaporized, why don't you wait until you have some proof that Wikileaks have been responsible for some deaths and then post your question again because until then there is absolutely no point in carrying on with this.

Some people do dangerous things and yet they don't get hurt.

Happens all the time. During WW II the Thais gave the Allies information about Japanese troop movements in Thailand. The Allies did not take action on the information because they didn't trust the Thais. So no harm was done to the Japanese. Do you think the Japanese would have felt less anxious or would not have responded negatively it the Thais told them, “Don't worry the Brits don't believe us anyway.”

If you list the names of Afghanis who cooperate with Allied troops the Taliban might not do anything about it. But what is wrong with asking, what happens if they do? That is one of the possible outcomes of listing that information.

The Japanese government is currently involved with some very sensitive negotiations with the US government. One of the WikiLeaks to come out shortly will be the US opinion on the long term viability of the current Japanese government. If it is in the negative the Japanese government may break off the negotiations. The US government is concerned as is the Japanese government. What do you find unacceptable about discussion possible results of a particular course of action.

If I go to the doctor and he says the operation is 90% safe I'll do it. If he says I only have a 10% chance of survival I won't.

In any event I certainly want to discuss the possible outcomes and not hide my head in the sand like an ostrich. I am not insisting you agree with me. But you have a fear of even discussing potential outcomes. Hardly something I would expect from a free thinker.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Making trite, pointless, asinine analogies and repeating the same point for days on end - despite its having been effectively dealt with on its first appearance - is not the mark of a free thinker. I could point out what it is a mark of but I'll be banned if I do so you'll have to do your best to work it out for yourself.

[mark45y]

Making trite, pointless, asinine analogies and repeating the same point for days on end - despite its having been effectively dealt with on its first appearance - is not the mark of a free thinker. I could point out what it is a mark of but I'll be banned if I do so you'll have to do your best to work it out for yourself.

I said before I doubted if you would be able to answer the question. Free speech apparently only goes one way. Your way.

If you were really interested in discussion you would respond. I think you are only interested in your point of view and that is not free speech. That is a dictatorship. That is censorship. Only room for one idea. Your idea.

[LaoPo]

Interesting take on the matter now.

Does the great God America realise at last that their perverse brand of democracy is not quite the knight in shining armour that they would have us think ?

Hence their little femanazi lapdog has scurried away to escape.

<b>

Australia's Crikey.com reports (h/t Raw Story):

Anna Ardin, one of the two complainants in the rape and sexual assault case against WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, has left Sweden, and may have ceased actively co-operating with the Swedish prosecution service and her own lawyer, sources in Sweden told Crikey today.

The move comes amid a growing campaign by leading Western feminists to question the investigation, and renewed confusion as to whether Sweden has actually issued charges against Assange. Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, and the European group Women Against Rape, have all made statements questioning the nature and purpose of the prosecution.

Ardin, who also goes by the name Bernardin, has moved to the West Bank in the Palestinian Territories, as part of a Christian outreach group, aimed at bringing reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. She has moved to the small town of Yanoun, which sits close to Israel's security/sequestration wall. Yanoun is constantly besieged by fundamentalist Jewish settlers, and international groups have frequently stationed themselves there.

Ardin recently mocked her detractors and the press by tweeting: "CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, frigid & fatally in love with a man, can you be all that at the same time …"

</b>

No surprise she left. I'm sure the feminazi has been threatened by Assange supporters. It seems they've been threatening and attacking everyone else.

You have no proof whatsoever and you are only speculating that she left BECAUSE of threats.

Well, I have a surprise for you since this is what Anna Ardin wrote on October 21st, (long before the WikiLeaks uproar in the Press but also 2 months after her sexual accusations towards Assange) in her blog (translated from Swedish into English):

"As one of six Swedish delegates, I will go three months ecumenical companion to Israel and Palestine, with departure at the start of December.

Being ecumenical companion means working actively to try to quell violence and promote respect for international law. Through practical solidarity supported vulnerable groups - both Palestinians and Israelis.

Ecumenical Accompaniment in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) is an international project run by the World Council of Churches. The Swedish part financed by Sida and administered by the Christian Council of Sweden.

During my time in the field, I will send an electronic trip report about every two weeks, so if you're interested, you love to subscribe to these reports. Write a comment on this post, if you want to be anonymous to other readers, write an alias, your e-mail address will only be able to see me. You can also send me an email I'll put you up on the list."

http://annaardin.wor...-lamnar-landet/

Quite an interesting journey of Anna Ardin, to Palestine and Israel, known for her Pro-Arab and anti-Semitic essays and views....although the latter wouldn't be in her favor if she would keep that up, considering the bumpy road she's on, would it?

LaoPo

Edited December 11, 2010 by LaoPo

[kujirasan]

Visa, Master card, PayPal, have closed wikiLeaks accounts! But the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) accounts are operating, KKK never done anything illegal!

Anna seems to be bit of Red Brigade, set up by the local goons and CIA. She just an agent !

[LaoPo]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

Not only that; the WikiLeaks'' documents are published in English.

Most of the world's citizens can't speak nor read English, so the number of WikiLeaks supporters is quite high taken into consideration that most people, able to read WL do not even register, as being pro WikiLeaks.

Where is the anti-WikiLeaks poll? Would be interesting to see who's pro or contra.

LaoPo

[chuckd]

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

I don't know how many have internet access, but I will answer your question with another.

How many of your 6.8 million are really people and not simply entries? The Wikileaks linked group "Anonymous" shut down several web sites by flooding the web sites with e-mail. Maybe it is 3.4 million individuals posting two times, or 1.7 million posting four times, or....well, perhaps you get my point.

Are you in position to say "anonymous" has not inflated the numbers by using multiple posts per person or hacker? Not without a complete audit of the numbers performed by a reputable auditing firm.

Your numbers are highly suspect and totally irrelevant.

PS: I know. I know. Wikileaks has disavowed any connection to Anonymous. Any thinking individual knows that is spin.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

[powderpuff]

Yeah former KGB spy chief & torturer & hero to TV libs Mad Vlad.

Seems Russia and Brazil have offered support for Assange.

Putin is real advocate of free speech. What a hypocrite.

Edited December 11, 2010 by powderpuff

[LaoPo]

Certainly many people think that death is a possible outcome of some of the WikiLeaks....blah...blah.....rinse and repeat...and again.....why not try once more.....I don't think anyone's looking so I'll try again.....

Here you have a perfect example of why these forums are utterly pointless. Again and again, posts have been made which show this claim to be untrue and again and again you simply ignore it and repeat it over and over and over and over again. And all the while - seemingly without feeling the slightest shame about endlessly repeating yourself - you utterly fail to offer up any evidence which would encourage others to take you seriously.

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to "punish" any Afghan listed as having "collaborated" with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. "We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland's Parliament

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member "commission" after the Afghan documents were posted "to find about people who are spying." He said the Taliban had a "wanted" list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

"After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people," he said.

End of quotes.

A lot of people think it is possible. All I am asking is, If the leaks are implicated in death of Americans or Allies would it change your attitude toward WikiLeaks or is that an acceptable cost of Freedom of Speech?

"After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react"

I have read those allegations on this forum before and my questions are:

Is there any proof that this happened?

any links ?

any documents to proof what they say ?

What were the reactions by the Taliban ? any links to prove this ? How do they know ?

Or is it all hearsay ?

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I think if the world had more recently been through a world war that the relationship between government secrets and national security would be better understood.

What an absurd statement; so we would have been better off, unstanding the relationship between government secrets and national security, AFTER another world war?

That's about the most BIZARRE statement I've ever read.

Are the casualties, amongst other wars, of fine young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan not enough?

are the 4.700+ dead coalition soldiers in Iraq not enough?

are the 2.200+ dead coalition soldiers in Afghanistan not enough ? in both wars most of them were between 18 and 25 years old...

are the 1 Million+ dead civilians in Iraq not enough?

Didn't the world learn enough about it's GIGANTIC number of deaths during WWII (not even to speak about WWI) with a shocking number of between 62 and 78 million in Asia, Pacific, Africa and Europe?

SO: in your opinion we would need another WORLD WAR to understand our Governments a little better ? I have the feeling you're too young to even realize how horrible a WW is, otherwise you wouldnt make such a bizarre and absurd statement.

Unbelievable.

LaoPo