WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

The (Jan/Feb 2009) issue of Archaeology magazine has a news item detailing the recovery of munitions from the wreck of the Lusitania. Most adults are familiar with the story, which can be reviewed at Wiki. For almost a century now a debate has smoldered and flared as to whether the Lusitania was transporting a significant cargo of war munitions, which would have rendered it a valid target for the German U-boat.
http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

First, yes I've read the article outlining the actual accusations. I don't find it "mere" anything. You must accept at some level however that it "not being rape in your book" doesn't mean that it's not in Sweden's or for that matter Ms A or Ms W's book.

You go out of your way to bold consensual, but in reading the very article you would have also read that the allegation is that he used physical force to progress the sexual act. I think the consensual nature of the act is exactly what is being investigated. Re-invitation doesn't translate to consent retroactively for a previous act.

I think you have it backwards when you say "make light of [rape]" here. I think the Swedes are taking this situation very seriously, and you aren't. In your words, this is a "mere overrumpling."

A
R
That's pretty crass.

Nor by lax security procedures either.

Re: Yemen

I'm pretty sure the cable about Yemen says a lot more. Wasn't part of the Yemeni Presidents reasoning for covering for the US is because they were afraid to look weak to other Arab states for needing assistance fighting AQ within their own borders?

So this information can be read as Yemen being manipulated by the US. Or you can read that Yemen and the US both had interests in combating AQ in Yemen and the public cover fit was mutually beneficial. Recall that it was no secret that AQ was being fought in Yemen, only who was carrying out the operation.

A
R
T

Absolutely correct. There are none.

Is willful, though, the appropriate standard for consideration?

I'm quite sure that Assange did not willfully intend to put anyone's lives in danger when he released information on Afghan informants. Does that exonerate him for any responsibility for the deaths of these informants when there was no need (even within his mission statement) to publish their names and redaction would have been a relatively simple thing?

And the fact that, post-leak, there is yet to be any direct connection between the leaks and an individual being harmed is a pretty feeble defense.

I will reuse an analogy posted earlier:

I walk into a crowded mall and begin indiscriminantly firing a gun. Somehow, no one is hurt. When the police question me I tell them I had no willful intent to harm anyone. Should I be released without any criminal charges filed?

It was not my intent to harm anyone and there is no proof that anyone was harmed.

Or consider this version. I approach a policeman prior to entering the mall and advise him of my intent to indiscrimantly fire a gun, but assure him that it is not my intent to harm anyone. Should the policeman allow me to continue with my plan because I don't intend to harm anyone, and after all he won't know if anyone will be injured until after I fire the gun.

If you feel confident that this analogy doesn't apply to WikiLeaks because it is a violation of the law to indiscriminately fire a gun in public, and you don't agree with those who believe Assange did violate the law by indiscriminantly dumping the secret cables, remove the legal aspect of it.

If my reason for firing the gun was something other than to harm people, did I not have an obligation to do my utmost to make sure no one was harmed? Or would you wait until you knew whether or not anyone was harmed before you placed that burden on me?

I don't think anyone in this thread would see these cables willfully endanger anyone (except perhaps John Howard and Dick Cheney), but that's hardly the test.

why should we, mr. bush and mr. obama have already done that

endangering doesn't get more wilful than sending someone to war

not to mention all the other tinpot dictators (canadians included) who assisted mr's b and o

Only people I have read about whose lives have been endangered are undercover agents. A primary concern I have with them is that resources are so scarce. Don't get it wrong, I do care about human life, but:

* we may never know who and how one of these people are effected,
* many of these people are from very, let's say - "different" backgrounds,
* many are double and triple agents.

If I hear that soldiers and diplomats are detrimentally adversely effected - then the leaks would suddenly go to a very different "state" in my mind, depending of course on severity and size/number of cases.

One thing that really made me adverse to Assange is his total childish threat to just willy nilly release everything regardless of results if "anything" happens to him. This is a negative toward him (in my mind) - but, to my knowledge, nothing has happened yet, so it is only a rather minor negative until/unless it happens.

I agree totally!

Interesting analogy.

I'd say no analogy is even necessary (we can go directly to the topic) if everyone can reach consensus that this information has the ability to cause harm. Even if a person does not believe that it has caused harm, acknowledging the potential means a few things.

1) That people who disagree with Assange's methods can do so out of legitimate concern. In fact it may be their exact job. Is it really so incredible that the US trying to stop him? If you genuinely believe it could cause harm, what is the proper response?

2) People are concerned with how this effects them and not just cleaning up a mess. Politicians may be cleaning their asses, but I think soldiers are talking about how this effects their daily lives and the lives of the people they work with (like Afghan informants).

In fairness, the information has the ability to have a positive effect as well. However if we are to observe such a rigid definition of what is harm, then certainly we should apply an equally rigid standard on positive effects.

If it's cheap to blame any harm that comes to soldiers or Afghans on WL, then it seems equally cheap to reward WL with praise for every positive step towards transparency.

A
R
T

3) That people trying to stop him don't have to necessarily disagree with him. The DoJ is investigating, but there's no reason (by that alone) to believe that even the investigators think is right. They may simply have the job of looking into the question "what can we do?"

The answer may be returned that nothing can be done.

This is EXACTLY what happened in Australia. AFP investigated and returned that Assange had broke no Australian law. The fact that they investigated didn't mean that they were going to charge him. It also shouldn't be considered offensive that they investigated to begin with. WL represents not just a new player, but a new type of player. Exploring the boundaries of what defines the press is something all people involved are interested in.

This is why I think Assange will not be extradited to the US. If they were going to find a bogus way to bring him back they would have already done it. Olga said the same thing about Australia, and was wrong. She rejoiced that Australia came to this conclusion all the same. If the Australians came to that decision because of public pressure or by critical examination of their laws is a matter of opinion. Why it would be different for the US, I can't imagine. I think the US is just as likely to find Assange and WL has broke no US law just like the Aussies did.

A
R
T

As you are constantly sounding like a old cold war Soviet propaganda, I can only assume that anyone in your social circle who could not get away from you had committed suicide

We have different opinions here. Remember, neither woman filed suit, they
complained to the police and wanted Assange to get tested for STD.

If I am raped by a man, why would I let him stay there for an additional week
in my apartment? The other one invited him to parties afterwards. Hello,
why would you socialize with someone who committed a violent crime against
you?

Something doesn't add up here, and you choose to not see it. Fair enough,
but I have my doubts and a different opinion of how things happened.

Your analogy doesn't make sense.
It's illegal to go into a mall where innocent people shop and start shooting.

However, if you're already in a war zone and many people around you start shooting, does an additional shooter matter?

Look at the wikiped link I had already posted parados.

In any case the fact that the ship happen to be carrying a few millions rounds of small arms ammunition was not a secret at the time and listed openly as part of their cargo before sailing so not drivers was needed to prove that fact a half a century later.

No evidence of any kind had been found that the ship was carrying heavy weapons or the components of heavy weapons.

So we have half truths and then down right falsehoods all mixed together including the false claim that any cargo of any nature would had turn a passenger liner into either a warship or allowed the Germen under then existing international law to sink it without warning.

Bill, look at the link I posted from the Archeological magazine and their findings.

No charges are filed at all. The warrant is to come in for questioning. They are investigating.


CJ - Both of the above happen all the time. Even in marriages rape occurs. Many people aren't raped once, but many times. They don't report it, and often go back to their aggressors. Both women as I understand were huge supporters of WL and probably were a little star stuck with his presence. Perhaps they decided to let his transgression slide. Once they learned about each other, they may have simply decided that letting it slide was worse.


Finish your thought. Choose not to see what?


I understand doubts. Assange may very well be innocent of these allegations. What is your opinion on what happened?

A
R
T

People with no knowledge of history would be needed to post the above statement as times after times military leaders had council their nation leadership against going to war.

The first example that come to my mind would be Admiral Yamamoto who planned the Pearl Harbor attack and who did not think that it was wise to enter a war with the US from the start.

Sorry but no matter what it was carrying it should not had been sunk without warning and time to get the passengers off the ship under the then existing international agreements on naval warfare.

So putting out the false information that any cargo repeat any cargo would had rendered it a valid target to be sunk without warning is not helpful.

You are probably right that they were a bit star stuck by him.
I think that both of them thought that they were exclusively dating Assange and when they found out that he slept with both, they rallied against him. Never ever underestimate the scorn of a woman.

What I don't understand is: why wasn't Assange charged when he remained for an additional 40 days in Sweden to work with the prosecution on this case? The investigation then with the senior prosecution did not result in any charges and he was allowed to leave the country.

Why is there a second investigation now with a different prosecutor?