WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not correct. Of course you can have sex without a condom in Sweden.
It can only be punished if you have aids, don´t tell your partner and even if you use a condom.

Assange is supposed to have raped one woman and secually harrassed another one. That is what happened.

But that doesn't fit the narrative of maverick world hero persecuted by Evil Overlords.

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton's question: how can we stand up to Beijing?
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 December 2010 21.30 GMT

Australia's ex-PM Kevin Rudd advised US secretary of state to welcome Beijing onto world stage but keep force as a last resort


Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at a state dinner in Beijing with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at a state dinner in Beijing with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, in November 2009. Photograph: Jim Young / Reuters/Reuters

Hillary Clinton revealed America's deep anxiety over China's growing economic power and hold on US finances by asking Australia's then prime minister: "How do you deal toughly with your banker?"

The question, at a lunch with Kevin Rudd last March and reported in a US Department of State cable, underscores the evolving and often difficult relationship between the world's superpower and an increasingly mighty China. It is the largest holder of US treasury bonds, with around $870bn. Tensions are also highlighted in an economic dispatch, written by the US ambassador to Beijing last January, warning of a "rough" year for relations between the two countries and accusing China of hubris.

His remarks presaged increasing tensions between the two countries over their currencies and fears of protectionism. The United States is pushing China to allow significant appreciation of the yuan, which it says is substantially undervalued, while Beijing is unhappy at the US Federal Reserve's loosening of monetary policy through quantitative easing.

Another cable from last year quotes a senior Chinese official predicting that the midterm elections in America would increase pressure for protectionism in the US and expressing fears about the Fed "printing lots of money".

According to the note of Clinton's lunch with Rudd in Washington: "The secretary affirmed the US desire for a successful China, with a rising standard of living and improving democracy at a pace Chinese leaders could tolerate… The secretary also noted the challenges posed by China's economic rise, asking: 'How do you deal toughly with your banker?'"

Rudd responded by calling himself "a brutal realist on China", arguing for a policy of "integrating China effectively into the international community and allowing it to demonstrate greater responsibility, all while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong". He described Chinese leaders as "subrational and deeply emotional" on Taiwan, a frequent source of tension with the US.

In the January memo, Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to China, argued: "Whereas 2009 was a year to build the US-China relationship, 2010 will be a year that tests it.

"Ten per cent US unemployment coupled with our huge trade deficit with China, China's increasing use of industrial policies to restrict market access, and an undervalued RMB [yuan], will bring greater tension to bilateral ties. The Google case adds fuel to the fire."

Clinton made a speech about internet freedom shortly after Google announced it would no longer censor results in China, to the anger of Chinese leaders. Officials said the speech was planned before the Google case emerged.

Huntsman said: "The Chinese continue to signal intense displeasure with US positions on issues from the Dalai Lama to Taiwan arms sales and internet freedom, which they then cite as reasons why they may not co-operate with the US on other issues."

The ambassador stressed that China's economic growth offered "enormous" opportunities for the US to create growth and jobs and talked of possible options for increased co-operation.

China has overtaken Japan to become the world's second-largest economy and Huntsman noted that this offered a huge potential market for US goods and services. He listed possible "carrots" to dangle in front of Beijing, including a re-examination of export controls.

Set beside that, he warned: "USG [US government] complaints about discriminatory policies – absent a credible threat of retaliatory action or other leverage – are falling on increasingly deaf Chinese ears.

"China's relatively strong economic position in the wake of the global financial crisis has intensified that trend. As has Chinese hubris that it can call the shots and determine the playbook under which it operates without disclosing the same to foreign firms.

"We may want to consider ways to toughen up our talking points and enhance the use – or perception of likely use – of other real 'sticks' in order to achieve market-opening, job-creating objectives. This will require some consideration of just how much disruption in our economic relations we are willing to countenance if we must carry through on threats." ...<cont>

....Julian Assange is being investigated by Australian police to establish whether he has broken any of the country's laws and is liable to prosecution there, foreign minister Kevin Rudd said today.

Washington is furious about WikiLeaks' release of hundreds of its confidential diplomatic cables, which have given unvarnished and sometimes embarrassing insights into the foreign policy of the United States and its allies.

"The federal police was asked by the Australian attorney general some days ago to investigate whether or not Assange has breached any element of the Australian criminal law," Rudd told reporters at a security conference in Bahrain.

If Assange – the Australian founder of WikiLeaks – has broken any Australian laws, his case will be referred to the public prosecutor, Rudd said.

"The Australian government unequivocally condemns the action by any of those responsible for the unauthorised release of classified and confidential information and diplomatic communications between states," he said. .....

"I am concerned and disappointed that the Australian government is not affording J Assange appropriate protection that should be the right of an Australian citizen. I had hoped that this government would not follow the despicable example of the treatment of other citizens such as David Hicks, set by the Howard government.

What is the point of Australian citizenship if it looks like we are pushed around by the US at any opportunity. Wikileaks performs a whistleblowing service that provides transparency to the global community of many underhanded actions by governments and corporations. While frustrating and occasionally painful in transition, community understanding of government processes and directions is critical to global democracy. It may be time to be a 'good friend' to some of the other governments and say publicly that Australia does not condone their underhanded activities, which would in effect truly voice the opinion of the community. It would also demonstrate that Australia has the confidence to hold a different opinion and show respect for another government by saying that we don't agree with every action they perpetrate. Indicating a mature, respectful relationship of equals, rather than the sucking-up stance taken by the Prime Minister in relation to Assange."

rather than the sucking-up stance taken by the Prime Minister in relation to Assange."

Quote:

....Julian Assange is being investigated by Australian police to establish whether he has broken any of the country's laws and is liable to prosecution there, foreign minister Kevin Rudd said today.

Washington is furious about WikiLeaks' release of hundreds of its confidential diplomatic cables, which have given unvarnished and sometimes embarrassing insights into the foreign policy of the United States and its allies.

"The federal police was asked by the Australian attorney general some days ago to investigate whether or not Assange has breached any element of the Australian criminal law," Rudd told reporters at a security conference in Bahrain.

If Assange – the Australian founder of WikiLeaks – has broken any Australian laws, his case will be referred to the public prosecutor, Rudd said.

"The Australian government unequivocally condemns the action by any of those responsible for the unauthorised release of classified and confidential information and diplomatic communications between states," he said. .....

That's right. The Australian police will not be investigating any Australian laws which Julian Assange has broken (there is nothing on record) ... they will be investigating whether he has broken any Australian laws. In the hope if finding something, I guess ....

This would certainly not be the first time that an investigation was conducted to determine whether questionable actions of an individual might violate any law.

Whether or not you agree with it, your government has condemned the actions of Julian Assange and expressed the official opinion that they are damaging to the interests of your nation. If for the sake of discussion, we assume your government’s position on this matter was taken in good faith, then it is hardly shocking that it would seek to determine if there are any Australian statutes which prohibit Assange's actions can form the basis from forcing him to cease and desist.

The same investigations are conducted in cases where there have been or continue to be questionable financial and/or sales practices by an organization or individual. Bernie Maddow's scheme comes to mind.

The US government conducted such an investigation when Arizona passed its controversial immigration law and subsequently, and as a result, filed a civil action against the State.

There have also been conducted when controversies arise concerning potentially dangerous or offensive speech. For example, a man in Idaho recently caused a stir by building a snowman, in his front yard, that resembled a Ku Klux Klansman holding a noose, and the local authorities conducted an investigation to determine if the snowman violated any public nuisance ordinance. It would not be evidence of bad faith on their part if the investigation was conducted with the goal of having the offensive snowman removed, as was desired by numerous local citizens who complained of it.

While certain actions may immediately suggest wrongdoing, they are not always immediately identifiable as illegal and require investigation and analysis of the facts and potentially applicable law.

Can you imagine the US government treating one of its citizens in this way, to appease a foreign government? Or the UK government, or ....?
I certainly can't.
There'd be outrage in their communities.
But apparently the Australian government is different.

If there was no good faith suspicion of the legality of the person's actions, and the investigation was being conducted for the sole purpose of appeasing a foreign government, I believe that a large segment (if not the majority) of Americans would and should be outraged.

This is not what is going on in Australia with Julian Assange.

It is not in the least unreasonable to suspect that "the unauthorized release of classified and confidential information and diplomatic communications between states," violates Australian law. Most nations have statues addressing the release and publication of such information.

Australia, apart from "appeasing" a vital ally, has a real stake in the matter of WikiLeaks:

1) Certain of these leaks may embarrass the Australian government as well as the American government, or the government of any number of other nations.
2) Certain of these leaks may compromise one or more effort of the Australian government to act in the nation's best interests
3) The Australian government, in good faith and in common with virtually all others around the globe, relies heavily on the confidentiality of diplomatic communications between states and the secrecy of information it deems classified, and will suffer in its efforts to promote Australia's best interests if they are compromised or negated.

... plus severe criticism of of Julian Assange from our prime minister & attorney general. Who apparently believe that loyalty to the US is more important than the rights of an Australian citizen.
Needless to say, this is not going down too well with quite a few of us who don't have short memories

You have failed to show how Assange's rights as an Australian citizen are being violated by your prime minister and attorney general, and so any claim as to why they might be doing so is irrelevant.

In addition, I doubt you believe that it is the right of an Australian citizen to be shielded from the legal consequences of their actions simply because the impact of their actions is felt solely or most severely by a foreign country.

This morning I participated in a couple of Australian online discussions about Wikileaks, Julian Assange & our government. Here's what one contributor had to say. This was one of the more moderate posts:

Quote:

"I am concerned and disappointed that the Australian government is not affording J Assange appropriate protection that should be the right of an Australian citizen. I had hoped that this government would not follow the despicable example of the treatment of other citizens such as David Hicks, set by the Howard government.

What is the "appropriate protection" that is not being afforded to Assange? Protection from the legal consequences of violating Australian law? The US is not seeking to extradite Assange from Australia, nor is there any evidence that it is attempting to deal with him or WikiLeaks in any way that violates Australian law.
Putting aside the question of the nature of the 'treatment" of David Hicks, by the Australian government, how does Hick's situation parallel Assange's? Who are the "other citizens" to whom the poster refers and how do their situations parallel that of Assange’s?

What is the point of Australian citizenship if it looks like we are pushed around by the US at any opportunity.

This seems an absurdly overblown statement. The perception of this poster, and the likeminded, that Australia is being "pushed around by the US at any opportunity" invalidates the purpose and benefits of Australian citizenship?

Wikileaks performs a whistleblowing service that provides transparency to the global community of many underhanded actions by governments and corporations. While frustrating and occasionally painful in transition, community understanding of government processes and directions is critical to global democracy.

Aside from the fact that "the global community" referred to is entirely amorphous and that "global democracy" is entirely non-existent, the poster is correct that WikiLeaks can reveal some "underhanded" governmental and corporate actions, if by "underhanded," the poster means "secret."

In reading on it seems to me that the poster intends "underhanded" to encompass a sinister element (in which case he is far less accurate in his statement), but that, as with many others who support WikiLeaks, "secret" and "sinister" (at least in terms of governments and corporations) are synonymous. This theme consistently runs throughout the debate surrounding Assange and WikiLeaks: Secret activity by governments and corporations may be ineffective, but they can never be necessary or benign.

It may be time to be a 'good friend' to some of the other governments and say publicly that Australia does not condone their underhanded activities, which would in effect truly voice the opinion of the community.

Australia should publicly state that it doesn't condone "secret" activities, thereby voicing the unified position of the amorphous "community," and being a more valuable ally to nations like the US. The assumptions here are staggering.

It would also demonstrate that Australia has the confidence to hold a different opinion and show respect for another government by saying that we don't agree with every action they perpetrate. Indicating a mature, respectful relationship of equals, rather than the sucking-up stance taken by the Prime Minister in relation to Assange."

`

Well Rudd will be pissed off that his very candid remarks about China to Hillary Clinton have been released.

Not sure how a bunch of Arab governments are handling the release of their desires for Iran to be bombed!

One hack of a ride for angry misfit kid Bradley Manning
(Jon Ungoed-Thomas, The Australian, December 06, 2010)

IN May, a steady stream of electronic traffic was sent more than 10,000km from a US military base near Baghdad.

It went to the home of a young computer hacker in Carmichael, northern California.

The messages were sent by Bradley Manning, an army intelligence analyst, and seemed barely credible. The young man was boasting to a hacker he had never even met that he was filleting the US Defence Department of some of its greatest secrets.

Manning, 23, called it the "largest data spillage" in US history. He described systematically downloading detailed reports of alleged torture incidents, civilian deaths and airstrikes and sending them to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

The documents he claimed to have downloaded have dominated the international news agenda ever since.

Assange said on Friday that if Manning had leaked the US cables, he was an "unparalleled hero". Manning's messages suggest other military documents are yet to be published.

He even claimed to have passed Assange the military files on Guantanamo Bay.

Manning described the highlights of the stolen files last May as "the Gharani airstrike videos and full report [of an American strike on an Afghan village], Iraq war event log, the Gitmo [Guantanamo Bay] papers and State Department cable database".

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Adrian Lamo, 29, the Californian hacker who befriended Manning over the internet, said last week he had kept pressing Manning for more information. How was it possible to penetrate the security networks of the world's greatest superpower?

Manning replied: "Everyone just sat at their workstations . . . watching music videos, car chases, buildings exploding. Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis . . . a perfect storm."

It is unclear even today exactly what motivated Manning. Supporters say he wanted to highlight what he considered the unacceptable actions of some US troops. Others claim he was lonely, lacked attention as a child and wanted to make an impact.

Even within the flexible codes of behaviour in the hacking community, Lamo considered Manning's behaviour unacceptable and reported him to army investigators. Manning was arrested on May 26 in Iraq.

He has been charged with unauthorised transfer of information from military computers and is being held at a military base in Virginia. He faces possible sentences of up to 52 years.

Lamo said he believed American lives were being put at risk by Manning's alleged activities.

"I am certain that more information would have come out had I not acted. Bradley would have continued compromising computer files," he said.

According to Lamo, Manning enjoyed the status of being one of Assange's key sources. "He made Bradley feel involved," said Lamo.

"He had unprecedented access to Assange. He certainly wasn't being coerced, but he wasn't entirely acting of his own accord."

Manning had access to two key databases: SIPRnet, used by the US Defence and State departments for files classified secret; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System for files classified top secret.

He arrived in Iraq in October last year and it is claimed he started downloading secret files between the following month and May this year.

Manning joined the army in 2007 and did his basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. In 2008, he was trained at the army intelligence centre at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. While there, he was reprimanded for uploading to YouTube from inside the base videos that revealed potentially sensitive information.

His superiors clearly did not view this incident as a serious security breach because he was subsequently confirmed as an intelligence analyst with full clearance.

Those who knew Manning from his home town in Crescent, Oklahoma, say he was noted for his intelligence. Mark Radford, editor of The Crescent Courier, the local newspaper, said last week: "He was a friend of my son and would play at our house. He was very intelligent. While other children played video games, he was figuring out how to crack codes."

Chera Moore, 24, who attended Crescent high school with Manning, claimed he refused as a child to recite the part of the pledge of allegiance that referred to God. She said he was unhappy at home.

"He acted differently. He acted smart," she said. "I think what has happened might be because he wanted to get attention that he felt he didn't get when he was young. I don't think he realised all the pain and trouble he has caused."

After his parents separated, Manning moved as a young teenager with his Welsh mother, Susan, to Haverfordwest in Wales. He moved back to the US after finishing school and told friends he was gay. He took a series of low-paid jobs before joining the army.

In his messages to Lamo, he appears to have found little solace in army life. He said: "I've been so isolated so long. I just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life."