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

[canuckamuck]

Personally I do beleive in complete freedom of information and think there should be no secrets and have no problem with people in other coutnries knowing the secrets of my or any other government. I have more faith in people in general than any government of any description in any country and believe the only way any government can be restrained is by everything it does being known by everyone. But we all have different opinions.

The world has both good and bad people, and governments are full of both as well, usually the Machiavellians and the narcissists rise to the top, but neither should be trusted. And I don't trust people on the bus, or at the mall, or even the guy who picks up the trash. You can only trust those you know and even they will let you down. The only ting that keeps us from total anarchy is the laws we have established and without the rule of law there is no freedom. One must first respect the law if one intends to change things for the good.

Anarchists feel they can skip that step and depend on mankind's inner goodness and a bright new future is coming one day.

There is no historical basis for such a belief.

[mark45y]

Response to Hammered.

Hammered said, “It was ion answer to a question that was posted here and not removed by moderators so I guess fair game. Or was the intention of the question to get an answer that those framing it could then use as an excuse to get a fellow member into trouble with board policy? As those that oppose wikileaks oppose freedom it wouldn't be a surprise.”

I think the crux of your argument is that because the US government is so bad that it is OK or even heroic to violate the law in order to bring the US government down.

If that is correct then it is a topic of this thread, “because the US government is so bad it is acceptable to do anything illegal to bring down the US government?”

I think that is the majority of your argument. Or am I missing something.

I am trying to understand what you are saying without getting sidetracked into a bunch of other issues.

Simply I think that it is OK or heroic to expose the excesses, wrongs and illegal actions of any government. In this case it is primarily the US government we are talking about but which one actually is irrelevant to me. I never said anything about bringing it down. That would be up to the people of the country but having those people properly informed is critical. I also think that having people across the world aware of the true nature of any government is a good thing.

To date no charges have been brought against wikileaks so nothing illegal has been done by them. That is different for Manning although to date he has not been proven guilty. Most governments have laws to restrict information and most whistleblowing has always been a breach of law anywhere in the world. What is worse though, breaching a secrecy law to expose governmental wrongdoing and illegalities or the illegalities done and hidden by government? All whistleblowers anywhere in the world are likely breaking laws but in many cases are celebrated as heroes.

The point I am trying to understand is, you think it is not the act that should be considered first but the general morality of the government that is the deciding factor in the prosecution of criminals of said immoral government.

[Ulysses G.]

Personally I do beleive in complete freedom of information and think there should be no secrets and have no problem with people in other coutnries knowing the secrets of my or any other government.

What if some lowlife had announced the fact that the British had broken the Enigma code in World War 2? Thousands more people would have died. Freedom of Information my a_se!

Overall, it is estimated that the success of the efforts to code break the German Enigma machine helped The Allies defeat Nazi Germany two years earlier than they would without it, saving countless lives, and making it one of the most successful intelligence operations in history. It it also important to note that German code breakers could read a significant part of the coded messages transmitted by The Allies.

[hammered]

Response to Hammered.

Hammered said, “It was ion answer to a question that was posted here and not removed by moderators so I guess fair game. Or was the intention of the question to get an answer that those framing it could then use as an excuse to get a fellow member into trouble with board policy? As those that oppose wikileaks oppose freedom it wouldn't be a surprise.”

I think the crux of your argument is that because the US government is so bad that it is OK or even heroic to violate the law in order to bring the US government down.

If that is correct then it is a topic of this thread, “because the US government is so bad it is acceptable to do anything illegal to bring down the US government?”

I think that is the majority of your argument. Or am I missing something.

I am trying to understand what you are saying without getting sidetracked into a bunch of other issues.

Simply I think that it is OK or heroic to expose the excesses, wrongs and illegal actions of any government. In this case it is primarily the US government we are talking about but which one actually is irrelevant to me. I never said anything about bringing it down. That would be up to the people of the country but having those people properly informed is critical. I also think that having people across the world aware of the true nature of any government is a good thing.

To date no charges have been brought against wikileaks so nothing illegal has been done by them. That is different for Manning although to date he has not been proven guilty. Most governments have laws to restrict information and most whistleblowing has always been a breach of law anywhere in the world. What is worse though, breaching a secrecy law to expose governmental wrongdoing and illegalities or the illegalities done and hidden by government? All whistleblowers anywhere in the world are likely breaking laws but in many cases are celebrated as heroes.

The point I am trying to understand is, you think it is not the act that should be considered first but the general morality of the government that is the deciding factor in the prosecution of criminals of said immoral government.

Im not considering the legalities. Im sure plenty of whistleblowers have been incarcerated. And an immoral government would certainly have no problem in proescuting someone exposing it as long as there was a law on the book san dit wouldnt cause undue harm to them.

The act of exposing the government is OK or even heroic even if it means breaking a secrecy law for which the whistleblower may or may not have to answer.

[hammered]

Personally I do beleive in complete freedom of information and think there should be no secrets and have no problem with people in other coutnries knowing the secrets of my or any other government.

What if some lowlife had announced the fact that the British had broken the Enigma code in World War 2? Thousands more people would have died. Freedom of Information my a_se!

Overall, it is estimated that the success of the efforts to code break the German Enigma machine helped The Allies defeat Nazi Germany two years earlier than they would without it, saving countless lives, and making it one of the most successful intelligence operations in history. It it also important to note that German code breakers could read a significant part of the coded messages transmitted by The Allies.

Yes but if in a society with real freedom of information would there have been a Hitler government or a second world war? It is impossible to predict a what if scenario withouit considering absolutely everything;)

[chuckd]

Chuckd, Assange didn't ask for it to be pro bono. Geoffrey Robertson QC is one of the most respected barristers on constitutional law and extradition law in both the UK and Australia. It was he who requested the work pro bono and jumped on a plain to go over and assist him.

Just what is it you have against someone getting sex for free? Do you think everyone should have to pay for it?

You obviously have nothing against the leaks as all you are thinking about is trying to put shit on Assange. As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks, the person behind it has nothing to do with it.

Typical of both the US govt and my own govt, instead of dealing with the facts and the issues they go after the man in an attempt to discredit him. But it doesn't hold water in this case as we all know the leaks to be true so any attempt to assasinate his reputation really is a nonsense and shows they just trying to move the goalposts.

But I'm afraid Jo Public is well aware of this tactic and is not buying it.

In short, Wikileaks is not about the man, it is about the system and the freedom of speech haters just have to get over it.

I second the motion................:jap:

Third and well put.

First let me apologize for the delay in answering all three of you. Unfortunately I had to take my wife's father to the hospital last night and really didn't feel I should delay that action by making another post.

Secondly, let me point out that Robert's Rules of Order do not require a "third" to any motion. A "second" is quite enough.

Third is whether I believe there is such a thing as "free" sex. The answer is...No, I do not. One always, in some manner, pays for sex, be it by purchasing a drink, dinner, taxi fare or a bar fine. At least that's the way I look at it. Correct me if I am wrong.

Now Julian seems to have a different interpretation of sex and is, possibly, the only human being in the world, other than most Thai motorcycle taxi drivers, that is able to get sex without paying for anything. Why, he even has his various hostesses of the evening paying for his accommodations, meals, train fares and who knows what else. Did any of you really buy that nonsensical excuse of..."buy my train fare since I don't have any cash and cannot use my credit cards because I am in hiding"? Many Thai men are wont to do the same thing. Live off the toils of their women.

Julian seems to be making a career of targeting women, from Ms Birgitta Jonsdottir in Iceland to his current problems in Sweden. If he isn't a sexual predator, he is certainly the closest thing to one outside of the Thai motorcycle taxi ranks. He uses women for his own benefit and uses his notoriety and fame as a calling card. He is a creep. Hopefully that explains what my feelings are about Assange.

Now on to how I really feel about Wikileaks. They are, rather simply put, a "fence". They deal in stolen goods. I have the same respect for this organization that I do for the unregulated pawn shops around the world that deal in stolen goods and merchandise. If they are not guilty of espionage then they are likely guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage. They may end up being an un-indicted co-conspirator but I would think that is the best they could hope for. It is as much a criminal enterprise as the gang down the road that is breaking and entering illegally.

Dress them up any way you want, all of them or criminals. Calling them "heroes" is a slur on the word itself. To compare them as heroes to those Aussie, UK and US soldiers who have died in the service of their country, hopefully to prevent another Bali, London transit bombing or 9/11, is a travesty. I would hope all of you could reflect on that before you call any Wikileaks conspirators "heroes".

You are wrong about the leaks not being about the man (Assange). He is Wikileaks and will always be identified as such. You may spout the freedom of speech theory all you want. It is about the fame and probable fortune awaiting Assange at the end of the rainbow that has driven this little venture.

You may claim Assange is a journalist. I ask you why isn't he in Iran interviewing dissidents and attempting to get information from a source there? How about China, Pakistan, Myanmar or other popular tourist spots? That's what a journalist does. They follow the action, rather than hacking somebody's internet account.

Those are my feelings in this Wikileaks issue. The information contained in the diplomatic messages isn't that earthshaking or embarrassing. It is simply stolen.

[beechguy]

Personally I do beleive in complete freedom of information and think there should be no secrets and have no problem with people in other coutnries knowing the secrets of my or any other government.

What if some lowlife had announced the fact that the British had broken the Enigma code in World War 2? Thousands more people would have died. Freedom of Information my a_se!

Overall, it is estimated that the success of the efforts to code break the German Enigma machine helped The Allies defeat Nazi Germany two years earlier than they would without it, saving countless lives, and making it one of the most successful intelligence operations in history. It it also important to note that German code breakers could read a significant part of the coded messages transmitted by The Allies.

Yes but if in a society with real freedom of information would there have been a Hitler government or a second world war? It is impossible to predict a what if scenario withouit considering absolutely everything;)

And your last sentence explains the reason it was illegal, stupid, and irresponsible of Manning to steal the documents, and release them, it was not his decision to make. It is equally stupid, irresponsible, unethical, and probably illegal for Wikileaks to handle and publish stolen information, because they don't have all of the information to make an informed decision.

[chuckd]

Hot off the presses.

______________________________________________________________

Ex-WikiLeaks staffer to launch rival whistleblower site Openleaks on Monday, seeking anonymous tips

BY MEENA HARTENSTEIN

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, December 12th 2010, 9:46 PM

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_exwikileaks_staffer_to_launch_rival_whistleblower_site_openleaks_on_monday_seeki.html#ixzz1846Q7CfH

[cdnvic]

Posts removed. Get back to a sensible debate or I'm closing this.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes but if in a society with real freedom of information would there have been a Hitler government or a second world war?

Which society are you referring to? If you mean one where everyone knows everything about everyone else, there has never been such a society that I know of and there probably never will be.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[mark45y]

Could someone re state the topic please.

[cdnvic]

Could someone re state the topic please.

It's at the top of the page. Please stop posting this repetitive nonsense.

[Wallaby]

To some it would seem that by publishing the leaks it will lead to a restriction in freedom of speech and the public will know less.

That's an interesting point.

If you publish them then we will make them more secret in future so the public doesn't know.

If you don't publish them then the public won't know.

Seems to me that either way the public won't know. So publish away.

[softgeorge]

Melbourne-based lawyer Robert Stary, who has taken on Assange's case in Australia, announced yesterday that he had formally requested that Attorney General McClelland order an investigation into whether Australian criminal charges could be laid against the American politicians and journalists who had called for Assange's assassination. These included figures such as Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Washington Times' columnist Jeffrey Kuhner and Tom Flanagan, former advisor to the Canadian prime minister.

Stary told journalists: “There have been serious threats made against Julian Assange and it is incumbent on the federal government to take action to protect him. In fact, they have a legislative responsibility to do so under Australian law.” Stary cited legislation making it a crime for any person, in Australia or internationally, to “deliberately or recklessly cause physical or mental harm” to an Australian citizen.

further reading here-

http://www.wsws.org/.../auwi-d10.shtml

They should all be arrested and extradicted to Australia to face charges and then left to die in an Australian prison. Thier actions were very serious and could have grave consequences. Inciting murder is no laughing matter even if it is an American citizen who is the offender.

[LaoPo]

Melbourne-based lawyer Robert Stary, who has taken on Assange's case in Australia, announced yesterday that he had formally requested that Attorney General McClelland order an investigation into whether Australian criminal charges could be laid against the American politicians and journalists who had called for Assange's assassination. These included figures such as Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Washington Times' columnist Jeffrey Kuhner and Tom Flanagan, former advisor to the Canadian prime minister.

Stary told journalists: "There have been serious threats made against Julian Assange and it is incumbent on the federal government to take action to protect him. In fact, they have a legislative responsibility to do so under Australian law." Stary cited legislation making it a crime for any person, in Australia or internationally, to "deliberately or recklessly cause physical or mental harm" to an Australian citizen.

further reading here-

http://www.wsws.org/.../auwi-d10.shtml

They should all be arrested and extradicted to Australia to face charges and then left to die in an Australian prison. Thier actions were very serious and could have grave consequences. Inciting murder is no laughing matter even if it is an American citizen who is the offender.

Good post.

Everybody, where ever he's from, calling for murder and assassination, openly on National Television, should be prosecuted and put in jail for a very long time.

The one(s) doing so is/are a bad example to the young children of the country and almost giving a free ticket to the youngsters since some of them will feel backed by the first, allowing and encouraging them to murder......"he said so on television and the State didn't disapprove...so I'm allowed to kill..."

It's a bloody shame that the ones who were calling for murder and assassination are enabled to walk away with it.

Unbelievable

LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

Melbourne-based lawyer Robert Stary, who has taken on Assange's case in Australia, announced yesterday that he had formally requested that Attorney General McClelland order an investigation into whether Australian criminal charges could be laid against the American politicians and journalists who had called for Assange's assassination. These included figures such as Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Washington Times' columnist Jeffrey Kuhner and Tom Flanagan, former advisor to the Canadian prime minister.

Stary told journalists: "There have been serious threats made against Julian Assange and it is incumbent on the federal government to take action to protect him. In fact, they have a legislative responsibility to do so under Australian law." Stary cited legislation making it a crime for any person, in Australia or internationally, to "deliberately or recklessly cause physical or mental harm" to an Australian citizen.

further reading here-

http://www.wsws.org/.../auwi-d10.shtml

They should all be arrested and extradicted to Australia to face charges and then left to die in an Australian prison. Thier actions were very serious and could have grave consequences. Inciting murder is no laughing matter even if it is an American citizen who is the offender.

Good post.

Everybody, where ever he's from, calling for murder and assassination, openly on National Television, should be prosecuted and put in jail for a very long time.

The one(s) doing so is/are a bad example to the young children of the country and almost giving a free ticket to the youngsters since some of them will feel backed by the first, allowing and encouraging them to murder......"he said so on television and the State didn't disapprove...so I'm allowed to kill..."

It's a bloody shame that the ones who were calling for murder and assassination are enabled to walk away with it.

Unbelievable

LaoPo

agreed :jap:

[softgeorge]

Here is a little parody I hope will bring a smile to all on here in regards to the topic. Sort of like a temorary cease fire. Not meant to be offend anyone.

[chuckd]

So, is it Freedom of Speech for Wikileaks only?

...and, of course, those that support Wikileaks. :jap:

[KhunAussie52]

Rosa Silverman, AAP December 14, 2010, 8:56 pm

Letters fail to reach Assange in jail!

http://au.news.yahoo...ssange-in-jail/

Edited December 14, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[LaoPo]

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women.

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

Australian-born Mr Assange is being held in a London jail while fighting extradition to face the accusations, which his defenders said are part of a plot to stop him releasing more embarrassing information on his WikiLeaks website about governments.

Mr Assange, 39, met both women at a seminar in Stockholm last August. He strenuously denies the allegations and has not yet been charged.

"From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place," Mr Hurtig said.

Read more: http://www.news.com....4#ixzz185CFkGLy

LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women.

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

Australian-born Mr Assange is being held in a London jail while fighting extradition to face the accusations, which his defenders said are part of a plot to stop him releasing more embarrassing information on his WikiLeaks website about governments.

Mr Assange, 39, met both women at a seminar in Stockholm last August. He strenuously denies the allegations and has not yet been charged.

"From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place," Mr Hurtig said.

Read more: http://www.news.com....4#ixzz185CFkGLy

LaoPo

Thank you Mr Hurtig :jap:

[Carib]

If only this would have been about an other nation having egg on it`s face, the u.s would be up in arms defending the leaks. They would use the same old mantras about freedom of speech and all those things they keep on telling each other that they seem to have so much of.

It would than be something which could save life's and could make the world a better place, since having secrets would be a mortal sin to the honest and open world they always talk about. They would state they their nation would defend those values at any cost for the well being of the nation and the world`s inhabitants. We all know the usual blah blah empty speeches.

But it is not about another nation, so they fall back on to what they always do when feeling attacked, and not much is needed for that by the way. Every argument I have seen on this board which was once in one way or another used to defend the honor and the free and whatever mantras always used, is now reversed, adapted or used as not intended in their defense.

Politicians openly talking about assassinating the ones who have done "so much damage" to their country and not being thrown out and banned for life from whatever public function, show what the so called democracy is really about. In most countries they wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes before being told to pack and leave and never come back.

Too bad most americans cannot read in other languages, if they could, they would know how the reactions to those statements are, it makes " the leaks" and all the alleged damage look rather insignificant.

[Ulysses G.]

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

I always believe people's lawyers. They would never mislead the public on behalf of their clients.

[JUDAS]

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

I always believe people's lawyers. They would never mislead the public on behalf of their clients.

Fair point but, isn't he leaving himself wide open to a slander suit by making such a comment outside the courtroom, unless of course, he can back it up with evidence.

[Ulysses G.]

I really have no idea, but lawyers are known to make some pretty wild statements to win a case.

[chuckd]

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

I always believe people's lawyers. They would never mislead the public on behalf of their clients.

What I have a hard time digesting is if Assange is so squeeky clean, why doesn't he simply return to Sweden and clear up his case?

He has been in hiding and, when he finally surrendered, he begins fighting extradition to Sweden. If he is innocent of the legal charges as his attorney claims, he can then return to his previous role in life.

The US isn't going to kill him. The last thing they want is a martyr right now. The Russians on the other hand......

Anybody?

[KhunAussie52]

Lost in this discussion is that fact that the documents released were confidential and personal.

How would someone feel if his/her personal emails were released? There has been an infringement of privacy. The documents were obtained by an illegal act.

That's the underlying issue, although none of the people hailing the release of the documents wants to acknowledge that issue. Look at it from another way. Mr. X is not well liked in the neighbourhood. There are rumours about that Mr. X is a pervert and that he looks at porn. Some of it is quite brutal. The porn is viewed through legit sources and there is no evidence of illegal porn such as kiddie porn. However, Mr. Z says, I don't like this guy so I'm going to expose him and undertakes to access Mr. X's home computer. He enlists the assistance of Mrs. W, the cleaning lady that has been entrusted by Mr. X to have access to his home. One day, Mrs. W goes and accesses Mr. X's hard drive and downloads all sorts of personal information including emails and Mr. X's collection of S&M porn. Mrs. W hands it over to Mr. Z that then releases the information so that anyone that corresponded with Mr. X is implicated. Is this scenario fair? Is it legal? Is it right?

If you applaud this theft of data, then what will you say when someone steals your personal information?

They are welcome to my personal information.As i have nothing to hide

[softgeorge]

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Mr Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.

I always believe people's lawyers. They would never mislead the public on behalf of their clients.

What I have a hard time digesting is if Assange is so squeeky clean, why doesn't he simply return to Sweden and clear up his case?

He has been in hiding and, when he finally surrendered, he begins fighting extradition to Sweden. If he is innocent of the legal charges as his attorney claims, he can then return to his previous role in life.

The US isn't going to kill him. The last thing they want is a martyr right now. The Russians on the other hand......

Anybody?

What do you mean the U.S is going to kill him? U.S politicians and other powerful people in the USA are calling for him to be assasinated. They came out in public rallying the people of America to kill him. To say that America is going to kill him is ridiculous they have already put a huge target on his back.

[slapout]

It is my understanding from the article that the attorneys allegation is based on, are police documents. I guess if he is permitted to use the documents in the extradition hearing they may become public record. Anyone whose presses this type of charge can expect to have past activities and conversations with third parties brought out.

[powderpuff]

Bradley should get life in a max security federal prision with no chance of parole.