Somehow I doubt that the US government was going to release the information contained in the 'diplomatic' cables...loCAtek wrote:Meaning the US government was/is in the process of constructively (and legally) doing what Assange was/is doing chaotically.
Assange writes.
Re: Assange writes.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Assange writes.
The result of this release will most likely be that diplomats and their aids will not speak frankly on any subject. The president will get even less information on which to base his decisions. I wonder how this would have worked out in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis? I don’t think that Crushchev would have backed down with the whole world tuned in to updates on his weakness.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Assange writes.
Perhaps diplomats will realize that the world has turned and that they need to do something to strengthen the security over their communications. Germany and Japan lost WWII in part because they communicated using codes which they arrogantly assumed to be unbreakable. Those diplomats whose communications have been unearthed have been done a favour - the weaknesses in the security of their communications have been brought to their attention when it didn't do much damage, instead of carrying on obliviously and having those security holes exploited by an enemy at a critical juncture.
Re: Assange writes.
That really depends on how they were leaked doesn't it?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Assange writes.
(From xkcd*, one of my favorite web comics--not least because Randall Munroe makes no pretense of being able to draw anything more realistic than stick figures.)
* "Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)."
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: Assange writes.
If the whole world had known the truth, that Kruschev traded Russian missiles in Cuba for US Missiles in Turkey*, which is what Kennedy did, rather than the lie that "Kruschev backed down" (a macho lie which has created the false impression that being an asshole is good foreign policy) then we would have been far better off and we would have known that real diplomatic solutions are more effective. Creating the impression that dick-waving is more effective than diplomacy was stupid.liberty wrote:The result of this release will most likely be that diplomats and their aids will not speak frankly on any subject. The president will get even less information on which to base his decisions. I wonder how this would have worked out in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis? I don’t think that Crushchev would have backed down with the whole world tuned in to updates on his weakness.
HIding the truth for decades only hurt us there too.
Your ignorance of the truth in this case proves Assange's point.
yrs,
rubato
PS Kruschev was brought down by agreeing to keep the trade a secret. By keeping it a secret he made it look like the Russians had 'lost face' vs the US and his political opponents used that to oust him. Losing Kruschev was harmful to us and gave us Breshnev, who was a hard-liner. Kruschev was the one who told the Soviet people how evil Stalin really was.
* A fair swap trading our missiles on their borders for their missiles 80mi from our border was publicly urged by several including Bertrand Russell.
Re: Assange writes.
See below:
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides: "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ... "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.
“…18 USC 641… provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. Classified information is valuable government property.
The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, [however, t]he government isn't trying to put a prior restraint on Assange's publication of the documents…it wouldn't be punishing Assange for his opinions. Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime, so whether or not Assange is a "journalist" is irrelevant. If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony.
-Ann Coulter
Jurisdiction is obviously another issue.
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides: "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ... "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.
“…18 USC 641… provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. Classified information is valuable government property.
The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, [however, t]he government isn't trying to put a prior restraint on Assange's publication of the documents…it wouldn't be punishing Assange for his opinions. Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime, so whether or not Assange is a "journalist" is irrelevant. If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony.
-Ann Coulter
Jurisdiction is obviously another issue.
Re: Assange writes.
Fine.
Now please explain how those sections make Assange guilty, without necessitating the indictment of the publishers of every news organization in the world that published extracts of those very same "document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch[es], photograph, (etc.etc.)"
Now please explain how those sections make Assange guilty, without necessitating the indictment of the publishers of every news organization in the world that published extracts of those very same "document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch[es], photograph, (etc.etc.)"
Re: Assange writes.
Not at all. However they were leaked, it constitutes a security breach which needs to be addressed. That this was discovered when the topics of discussion happened to in the nature of Berlusconi's womanizing, rather than potential locations for secret missile bases, means that those whose communications were disclosed were done a great service.Crackpot wrote:That really depends on how they were leaked doesn't it?
Re: Assange writes.
And while we're at it, show me how you know--
(emphasis added). Are you a mindreader now?(which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States
Re: Assange writes.
I see your point though I think there is a big security difference between a leak and being hacked.Scooter wrote:Not at all. However they were leaked, it constitutes a security breach which needs to be addressed. That this was discovered when the topics of discussion happened to in the nature of Berlusconi's womanizing, rather than potential locations for secret missile bases, means that those whose communications were disclosed were done a great service.Crackpot wrote:That really depends on how they were leaked doesn't it?
That being said there was at least some information that were part of those cables that wasn't published (due to Assange now using the MSM to vet his publications after the afanistan leak debacle) So you really can't say exactly what information is floating out there.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Assange writes.
Interestingly, his defence lawyers have been given no acces to any evidence with regard to the charges against him.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Assange writes.
Is that a law in the UK as it is in the USA?Gob wrote:Interestingly, his defence lawyers have been given no acces to any evidence with regard to the charges against him.
Re: Assange writes.
Yes, but not in Sweden apparently..
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Assange writes.
Maybe he only gets access when he actually arrives in sweden.
Re: Assange writes.
The cheek of some people!!
Just a week after it cut off the whistle-blowing website from its servers, Amazon is selling a version of the WikiLeaks diplomatic files. The cables (available free of charge all over the internet) have been turned into a Kindle e-book by an enterprising Amazon user, Heinz Duthel.
The price of the whistle-blowers' efforts? Yours for £7.37.
On 1 December Amazon became the first website to stop hosting WikiLeaks on its servers, a move praised by the US government.
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, derided the retailer and denied that the loss of Amazon's support would seriously hinder WikiLeaks's ability to publicise the files.
"Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit in order to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases," he told the Guardian.
Amazon is the latest website to have been targeted by the hacker group Anonymous, whose members have already launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, all of which have frozen WikiLeaks bank accounts.
It didn't take long for irate shoppers to start registering their displeasure on Amazon, either:
Sarah: "Hm, would Amazon let me buy this using my PayPal account? What about my Visa or Mastercard? Considering all those companies stopped supporting WikiLeaks, it would be pretty messed up if I could use them to pay Amazon. Wait a second . . . Didn't you guys, like, totally chicken out and dump WikiLeaks from your servers because mighty Lieberman sneezed?"
Michael Mcconnel: "If the leaking of this information constituted a threat to US security, wouldn't selling it constitute espionage/treason? You better hope someone DDOS attacks your site before the US notice or you could be looking at a regime change pretty soon."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... ks-website
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Assange writes.
"If you didn't need to see anything else..."
Then your not paying attention;
+
Amazon UK Unknowingly Sells WikiLeaks Documents
(WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Amazon UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk) is currently selling a Kindle ebook that features a portion of the controversial leaked US diplomatic embassy documents that WikiLeaks published last week, according to a report by GeekoSystem.
This is particularly ironic when considering that Amazon cut WikiLeaks' hosting services last week, stating that it had violated its terms of service.
The online retailer is selling the ebook, "WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000," which includes 1541 KB of the originally leaked memos, for £7.37 ($11.63).
The report points out that it is not physically possible for the ebook to include all 250,000 memos that are in WikiLeaks' possession, but says it does contain all the recently leaked memos.
The book is currently ranked #431 on the most popular paid items in the Kindle Store, and #7 on the Kindle eBooks on Politics & Current Affairs section.
Many have been pointing fingers at Amazon in the reviews section, calling the online retailer hypocritical for making money off the same leaked documents for which it booted WikiLeaks off its servers.
The author, Heinz Duthel, claims the ebook is a more thorough analysis of the documents in a subsequent article.
In its defense, Amazon is probably unaware that it is selling the book as it is impossible for the site to monitor all of its user-generated content, says GeekoSystem, and will likely pull the title once it is alerted to the fact.
Then your not paying attention;
+
Amazon UK Unknowingly Sells WikiLeaks Documents
(WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Amazon UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk) is currently selling a Kindle ebook that features a portion of the controversial leaked US diplomatic embassy documents that WikiLeaks published last week, according to a report by GeekoSystem.
This is particularly ironic when considering that Amazon cut WikiLeaks' hosting services last week, stating that it had violated its terms of service.
The online retailer is selling the ebook, "WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000," which includes 1541 KB of the originally leaked memos, for £7.37 ($11.63).
The report points out that it is not physically possible for the ebook to include all 250,000 memos that are in WikiLeaks' possession, but says it does contain all the recently leaked memos.
The book is currently ranked #431 on the most popular paid items in the Kindle Store, and #7 on the Kindle eBooks on Politics & Current Affairs section.
Many have been pointing fingers at Amazon in the reviews section, calling the online retailer hypocritical for making money off the same leaked documents for which it booted WikiLeaks off its servers.
The author, Heinz Duthel, claims the ebook is a more thorough analysis of the documents in a subsequent article.
In its defense, Amazon is probably unaware that it is selling the book as it is impossible for the site to monitor all of its user-generated content, says GeekoSystem, and will likely pull the title once it is alerted to the fact.
Re: Assange writes.
The top Swedish prosecutor pursuing sexual assault charges against Julian Assange has abruptly left the case and one of Mr Assange's accusers has sacked her lawyer.
The turmoil in the Swedish Prosecution Authority's effort to extradite Mr Assange comes as another leading Swedish judge prepares to deliver an unprecedented public lecture in Australia next week on the WikiLeaks publisher's case.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority want to extradite Mr Assange to have him questioned in Stockholm in relation to sexual assault allegations by two women.
Fairfax Media has obtained Swedish court documents that reveal high-profile Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye has unexpectedly left the handling Mr Assange's case, effective from Wednesday, and has been replaced by a more junior prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren. The reasons for the change have not yet been disclosed.
One of Mr Assange's two accusers, political activist Anna Ardin, also applied to the Swedish courts on February 28 to replace her controversial lawyer Claes Borgstrom. Ms Ardin complained that she found Mr Borgstrom spent much more time talking to the media than to her, referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant, and that she had lost faith in him as her legal representative.
As well as pursuing the prosecution of Mr Assange, Mr Borgstrom has been heavily criticised for his handling of another high-profile case involving an alleged mass murderer, with one prominent Swedish commentator describing him as doing "the worst defence counsel job in modern Swedish history".
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z2Osd4PIAB
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Assange writes.
Well, given the amount of time that Asswipeange has been able to elude justice, it's hardly surprising that there would be changes in the legal teams representing the government or his victims...
