Sweden seeks Wikileaks boss arrest over rape claim

Obviously you think, the more you write, it will get right. It won't. I give you an A for writing that much and trying to provide useless links and an F for talking nonsense and get the readers asleep. Since the latter has more weight, you get an F and can sit down.

Maybe you soon get a second chance, since Wikileaks just promised a file seven times as big as the Iraq logs and putting the big words in their mouthes, that this will change the world during the next months.

I am looking forward to this and wonder, if they really could manage such a big thing.

reply to post by Siddharta


I provide information that supports the argument I am making. I am sorry you choose to ignore the info present because it does not support your clim. Ignorance is certainly a choice you have, so you might as well run with it.

The release of 400k documents does not make him a whistleblower, nor does it make him a media outlet. It does make him a self centered ego maniac with an axe to grind with the US Government. It makes him complicit in the murder of informants he is exposing by not rdacting their names.

As I said before, either face the music in Sweden, in the US, or check out the cemetaries in Russia.

You even don't differenciate between Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Both are indeed no whistleblowers but offer a possibility for whistleblowers to publish their material. And of course, Wikileaks has become a new kind of media this year. They are very successful right now and that is why they also attract much hate.
It seems to be too horrifying that Wikileaks are many in many countries with an internet connection. It's easier to reduce the problem to one single man. But this causes new problems: He even became more famous and every action against him will affirm the dirty tricks of the governments. In the worst case he will become a martyr then. But the idea is out and can not be stopped anymore.

It is not so much a problem with one man or one organisation. The problem is, that we all can be publishers nowadays. The truth can be send out to the world within seconds. So they try to outbalance it with accusations and smear - they have no other means right now. Google rules.

Maybe your wishful thinking in regards to Assange will become true the one way or the other, but this only would lead to a lot of questions and I bet even the sleeping media would wake up and look, what is under the carpet.

reply to post by Siddharta


You are making my point for me. The military guy who released the video of the helicopter shooting people is a good argument for being a whistleblower.

The point I am trying to get across is this:

* - The military guy illegally obtained classified information.
* - The military guy gave the info over to wikileaks, which was also illegal
* - Wikileaks has been disseminating the info - a massive amount of documents.

While I am positive there is wrongdoing on part of our Government / Military, I am positive not every single document leaked shows wrongdoing, particularly the diplomatic cables. The release of information that contains no wrong doing does not meet the goal Mr. Assange talked about, which was to end our action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Releasing classified information that has nothing to do with wrongdoing does not even comes close to being covered as a whistleblower. In my opinion, Wikileaks acted in bad faith / irresponsible manner by releasing documents that contained information that had nothing to do with wrongdoing.

It reveals methods, sources, contacts, operational abilities etc. Those people are now in danger because of a classified security breach resulting in publication of the info..

As I said before, its one thing to release documents to stop an action. Its quite another when the info released gets people killed because info was not redacted. People who are trying to assist the US to make their country safe are now targets, including their families.

Its like the abortion debate - There are people out there who say abortion is murder, and is wrong. So what do they do to stop the action? They kill the abortion Doctor to stop him. Mr. Assange is making the argument that the documents release was done in order to stop US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in doing so he is killing innocent people who did nothing but provide info.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its like the abortion debate - There are people out there who say abortion is murder, and is wrong. So what do they do to stop the action? They kill the abortion Doctor to stop him. Mr. Assange is making the argument that the documents release was done in order to stop US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in doing so he is killing innocent people who did nothing but provide info.

What documentation do you have for this claim ?
Who (name please) has been killed since his/her name was found in those documents ?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra, you still repeat the "blood on their hands" nonsens, which was a joke from the very first moment, when a top general like Mullen dared to let it leak (pun intended) out of his mouth. Who is attacking other - much weaker - countries without any reason, but a lot of lies about chasing a guy, they never could find, and searching for weapons of mass destruction, which where not there either?

If you really followed the case, you also should have noticed this:

"The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security," Gates wrote. "However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

Reuters

But back to the topic of this thread: It looks as if prosecutor Ny cannot get through with that too easily.

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — The Stockholm appeals court (Svea hovrätt) yesterday heard from Julian Assange's Swedish solicitor Björn Hurtig. The court decided there wasn't enough information on the table. They've therefore summoned Marianne Ny to come with a statement and/or answer questions by Wednesday 24 November. Staffan Lind of the appeals court: 'We've asked the prosecutor (Marianne Ny) for comments by Wednesday. That means we need more information to arrive at a decision.' Björn Hurtig: 'This means there are weaknesses in the prosecutor's argumentation and strength in ours. I'm cautiously optimistic.' Assange's British solicitor Mark Stephens expressed cynicism earlier in an interview with Expressen, questioning Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny's competence and reiterating the fact that the warrant violates both British and European law.

Source

Originally posted by Torre

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its like the abortion debate - There are people out there who say abortion is murder, and is wrong. So what do they do to stop the action? They kill the abortion Doctor to stop him. Mr. Assange is making the argument that the documents release was done in order to stop US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in doing so he is killing innocent people who did nothing but provide info.

What documentation do you have for this claim ?
Who (name please) has been killed since his/her name was found in those documents ?

Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

One down.. 70 more to go -

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S.

reply to post by Siddharta


As far as Mr. Assange and the Swedish case I have stated already it sounds to me more like a material witness warrant than a criminal arrest warrant. I am not an expert in Swedish Law, and took notice even if it were their version of a material witness warrant, I had issues with the fact it was requiring someone accused of a crime to potentially give evidence against himself.

The other argument I made was I don't see a conspiracy in terms of the charges in sweden and the US Government being behind those charges.


As far as the leaked documents the best answer I can give on your description referencing the Admirals comments is this. The President, the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs all get briefed on a daily basis regarding intelligence, etc. It does not mean they know where the information is coming from in terms of names, locations etc, for obvious reasons.

The information leaked and then published was not sensored in the manner Assange claims, and there are names and locations of people who are providing the US with intelligence information. When the Taliban / Al Queida or another government reviews the leaked documents, they will find information that if looked at by someone from the US, will appear as nothing more than a source of info. When looked at by the very entities who are being spied on they will see the info, and will have a better understanding, if not name and location of source, simply by looking at a process of elimination.

If a Taliban leader is taken out by a drone attack on his vehicle, all the Taliban has to do is find the intelligence info where it talks about the Taliban target and where he will be. Then all they need to do is look at who had the information about the Taliban leader.

Also, food for thought - If there is a security breach I seriously doubt our Government will jump up and down about it, which would draw even more closer scrutiny to the info, because our enemies are going to be asking themselves, what does the info contain to get the US Government to react this way.

It is played down as a leak with minor repercussions in public, in private I gaurantee its a whole different story. How can we draw this conclusion? I refer you to a member of the US Congress who is calling for the death penalty on the soldier who released the documents.

As I have stated before, releasing information in a manner to bring a subject to light, to expose wrong doing, is acceptable. However, releasing 400 thousand plus documents, with many many more to come, does nothing good for anyone.

The Taliban comes across an intelligence file talking about how the Chief of a small village accepted American help in building a new mosque. To the rest of the world this is a non issue, nothing criminal, and if anything a bright spot in an otherwise dark area. To the Taliban or Al-Queida, this is collaberation, and anyone involved in the project would be executed as collaborators with the US. The argument they will make, as they have done before, is what did you give the Americans to get the help. The Propoganda spin the Taliban / Al-Queida will make is the MAericans don't just give away this type of service, since we are evil. We must of had a sinister reason for helping to rebuild a mosque, which means people in the town gave us information against the Taliban / Al-Queida.

There are reasons things are kept secret, and not because its sinister, but because it puts someone in danger who in the grand scheme of things did nothing wrong but try to look after the people in his village.


To me, some of the people in these forums are so happy to see soemthing happen to the US to make them look bad, I don't think they adequately understand or grasp the consequences of this type of classified material leak. I some people are so quick to get as much info as possible that paints the US in a bad light, that they ignore the bigger picture.

You still go on spinning your own tales. Why should anybody try to paint the USA worse than they act? It's all on the table.

reply to post by Siddharta


I am not spinning anything. What I am saying, and have been sayaing is the release of 400k documents does not come close to whistle blowing in any sense of the imagination.

The Military guy who leaked the info should be charged and held accountible.
Assange, who makes claims about openess and uncovering wrongdoings to prevent death, is now just as guilty for wrecklessly releasing documents that had nothing to do with his cause.

Assange should be arrested and held accountible for releasing classified documents.

You and I can argue back and forth all we want, and in the end we are not going to agree on this.

You think the wrongdoing is solely on the part of the US. I think the release of documents thathad nothing to do with said wrongdoing is just as bad.

I am not goiing to change my mind, nor your opinion in thie matter.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

One down.. 70 more to go -

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S.

Another quote from this article:

They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.

And a comment to the article:

The complete documents released by wikileaks are, of course, available for everybody to download and examine. It took me ten minutes to examine every occurrence of the words "Khalifa", "Abdullah", and "Monar", and determine that there are no documents in the corpus relating to this individual - in fact, there are no references to anybody in the village of Monar having any kind of relations with the US forces.

Obviously this whole story is a lie - it's probably counterintel propaganda from somebody (feel free to speculate about who, I'm not going to).

But the real disgrace here is that Jason Mick did not spend even ten minutes doing the very obvious and easy fact checking before reposting it. I shall now go and send a complaint to DT about this, and encourage other readers to do the same

You have really selected your quotes carefully ...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Siddharta

 

You and I can argue back and forth all we want, and in the end we are not going to agree on this.

I guess so. I never will understand, how someone can think, it is okay to attack and invade a country without any aggressions from that country at all. I never will understand, how someone can think, it is okay when in such a raid civililians are killed and they talk about collateral damage or just shrugg and say: "That's war."

And after we know, that more cilivilians died than combattants, it is a crime to publish this? Again those, who are the cause for all that, shout out loudest and point fingers at the messanger?

You say, things like the Baghdad video are okay. So what are you trying to tell us? There are a few crimes by some criminal elements, but all in all it is okay to bomb down a country, if you don't feel comfortable with their leader (anymore, one must add)?

I am not sure, what to think about Julian Assange. But then again, he only started to do the public relations in spring and obviously he had to learn a lot, like how to talk to journalists and to the public. He learns very quickly.

Obviously there are a lot of Eric Cartmans, who think, the louder they accuse Assange, the more people will think, he is guilty for whatever - maybe for everything. But somehow I got the feeling, that the Cartman gang is losing members right now. The government expects Wikileaks to start the next publishing on Friday. Let's see, what happens the day after tomorrow...

reply to post by Siddharta


You repsonse must be directed to someone elses comments because at no point in this thread have I said anything about justifying US action in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have stated that leaks from wiki have shown the 2003 invasion of Iraq did reveal a WMD program that was still in effect, but even then people want to debate the size of it and argue it was not a real progam - Which to me is splitting hairs but I digress.

My argument about MR. Assange is his motives are ulterior and are not geniuine in the manner he rpesents his argument. People claim he releases these documents to stop a war, and to prevent innocent people from being killed. His actions say otherwise, and his comment backs up his attitude.

NYP - WikiLeaks Article / Interview with Mr. Asange

I have posted this posted this protion before, yet people want to ignore the implications, instead wanting the names of people who have been killed because of the list.

The Taliban reportedly has targeted at least 100 Afghans identified in the documents as informants for the US-led counterinsurgency -- and may already have claimed its first victim.

Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute reports that Taliban leaders gleefully announced they'd begun combing the documents -- which not only named the informants, but in many cases also ID'd their villages, family members and the names of those on whom they'd been informing.

When Mr. Assange was confronted on this point, that his release of this information would place innocent people in danger, he disagrees. This is the portion where it was suggested the release of these documents would lead to further killing:

But it may get worse: WikiLeaks says it will publish another 15,000 documents, with perhaps even more catastrophic consequences. That, the Pentagon says, would "compound a mistake that has already put far too many lives at risk."

When pushed though, this is what Mr. Assange had to say about these people providing information to the NATO forces.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange snidely retorts that the Afghan people "should know" who among them has engaged in "genuinely traitorous behavior" -- i.e., helping the US-led coalition.

So now Mr. Assange has moved from the argument of stopping a war to prevent more innocent people from being killed, to the position that any peson who is Afghani, and provides information to NATO / US Forces, are traitors to their people. What does the Taliban / Al-Queida do to people they consider traitors?

These people are executed.

Mr. Assange makes the argument that what the US is doing is wrong, and innocent people are killed because of it. However, he is making the same argument that any person who provides info to the US are just as guilty as us forces, and as such states they are traitors, and implies their death is a solution to the problem in terms of ending the war.

General Patreus talked about Mr. Assange's point of view:

His clear goal: to undermine the US effort, even as Gen. David Petraeus tries to implement a counterinsurgency strategy.

Petraeus needs the help of the locals. But with Taliban death squads, guided by WikiLeaks documents, combing villages, why would they cooperate?

When Mr. Assange was asked about this, his true colors again came shining thought. From his own mouth:

Assange admits that he sought to sabotage Petraeus' plan "before it reaches implementation" and thus "end the war in Afghanistan."

Truth is, he's not really interested in "transparency" and "full disclosure," as he's claimed.

So while I believe our Government has taken actions that flies in the face of what we are supposed to be, its war. We are going up against people who do not play by the same rules, who routinely target civilians for no other reason than they dont have a beard, are not islamic, who believes in more than one idea.

I have no issues with people calling the Government out on those actions. What I have an issue with is people like Mr. Assange whose actions are routed in an ulterior motive. Publicly they claim the moral high ground in an effort to make our actions look bad. In the end though, his actions are just as bad, and his only goal was not to stop the war but to get even with the US because he simply hates what we do.

His actions to date, with the release of classified documents that have nothing to do with his assertations of "war crimes" , is nothing more, and I agree with the article on this point, than open colaboration with the enemy. He is providing them with information that will result in death, and not peace.

Mr. Assange is actively aiding the enemy under the guise of peace. Mr. Assange is a coward who has hijacked a cause for his own personal agenda that has nothing to do with the plight of the people he claims to want to protect by stopping the US.

For him I don't know whats worse, being targeted by the US Government for releasing classified information, or being consideed a hero by the Taliban for helping them kill innocent people.

SO yes - we will never agree on the actions of Mr. Assange, because he is not media, nor is he a whistle blower. He is not objective in his investigations, and has stated numerous times that his own personal feelings and goals often trump the "story" he is trying to influence. He does not care about the plight of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan, and has gone on record stating this.

Its one thing to take the US Government to task for its actions - You will not hear any objections from me on that issue. Its another thing to use that as an excuse to conduct your own clandestine operation under the guise of stopping a war and prventing casualties.

He is a narcissit, a coward, a liar anda fraud and has no business being anywhere near something referred to as media. Fox News is more reliable than this ass when it comes to reporting.

My personal opinion - I hope the US presses charges against this guy, along with Sweden. His fate when dealing with these 2 countries is a lot better than those whose fate is decided by the Taliban or Al-Queida. The moment he releases the information concerning Russia, he will find that it would have been a loit easier, and safer for him, to deal with the US and Sweden.

He has made his own bed.

As far as your accusations go against me, the eric cartment bs and what not, the comments about the more I write. To me, and to others, this does nothing but show the level people are willing to go to by ignoring information present so it does not disrupt their view, or argument about this guyy and his actions. Think what you want, ignore what you want to make your point and further your argumnet.

I find it funny you guys demand the information be released to expose the problem, while at the same time ignoring and disregarding information that does not support your argument.

You defeat your own argument and view point while at the same time reducing yourself to the level of the US Government and its actions. How can you make an argument knowing the basis is just as flimsy as those you are accusing?

You guys suffer from rectal-cranial inversion, which explains why you are so blind to what Mr. Assange's intentions are.

Check out the latest update on Wikileaks:
Wikileaks is down

Originally posted by Xcathdra

The Taliban reportedly has targeted at least 100 Afghans identified in the documents as informants for the US-led counterinsurgency -- and may already have claimed its first victim.

Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute reports that Taliban leaders gleefully announced they'd begun combing the documents -- which not only named the informants, but in many cases also ID'd their villages, family members and the names of those on whom they'd been informing.

Look at the language in that quote: "targeted at least 100 Afghans" - "may already".
Take a look at the thread of ATSer LarryLove, who checked the Warlogs for these claims here:
Details of Wikileaks Informants

But it may get worse: WikiLeaks says it will publish another 15,000 documents, with perhaps even more catastrophic consequences. That, the Pentagon says, would "compound a mistake that has already put far too many lives at risk."

Again the same language: "it may get worse" - "with perhaps even more catastrophic consequences". You also see, that the "may" of the first quote now became a fact here, suggesting, that there were already "consequences" - even "catastrophic consequences" - and that "perhaps" the next release could have "even more catastrophic consequences" - although they have no idea, what is in there.

When pushed though, this is what Mr. Assange had to say about these people providing information to the NATO forces.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange snidely retorts that the Afghan people "should know" who among them has engaged in "genuinely traitorous behavior" -- i.e., helping the US-led coalition.

So Assange said "should know" and "genuinely traitorous behavior", the NYPost added "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange snidely retorts that the Afghan people (inserted quote) who among them had engaged in (inserted quaote) -- i.e. helping the US-led coalition."
Where is the original answer? Why did you title this an interview in your link? Why was it necessary to cut Assange "snidely" answer into pieces and add more words than were quoted?
Googling for this quote, I only found the same collage of Assange's words in a few anti-Wikileaks articles. But I found one correction of a commenter also:

If you heard the press conference Assange described that he meant with “genuinely traitorous” acts. To tell the US military false stories to get the US to attack and imprison people who are innocent.

Look at the comment of ChristianKl here: PostPartisan

Obviously you don't ask for the complete quote and take over the false statements:

So now Mr. Assange has moved from the argument of stopping a war to prevent more innocent people from being killed, to the position that any peson who is Afghani, and provides information to NATO / US Forces, are traitors to their people. What does the Taliban / Al-Queida do to people they consider traitors?

All the rest of your post is based again on these "maybes" and false interpretations.

Assange admits that he sought to sabotage Petraeus' plan "before it reaches implementation" and thus "end the war in Afghanistan."

Truth is, he's not really interested in "transparency" and "full disclosure," as he's claimed.

Again this is not a quote, but a more a creative collage and again I had to search, if there is a better quote. I found this:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has made clear that his objective in releasing tens of thousands of classified documents was to "end the war in Afghanistan" and "oppose an unjust [war] plan before it reaches implementation."

Source: AEI

And again we see, how words are chosen: to "oppose an unjust plan" became "to sabotage Patreus plan". The added explanation, what truth is, seems totally out of context.

His actions to date, with the release of classified documents that have nothing to do with his assertations of "war crimes" , is nothing more, and I agree with the article on this point, than open colaboration with the enemy. He is providing them with information that will result in death, and not peace.

There would not be an enemy, if the US had not invaded these countries. It is cynical to argue, that information results in death, after many people had to die - and still have to - for the fears of the USA and their allies - or better: their avarice.

What you do here, is turn things upside down. You call Assange a "coward"? I can understand, that his opponents give him many names, but to call someone a coward, who risks everything and takes all the responsibility on his shoulders is surely not a coward. Why is it, that you dislike him so much and don't talk about any other Wikileaks member? Because he stands in the public for the project.

You accuse him for helping "kill innocent people"? The USA is not helping, they do the terminations themselves.

He is a narcissit, a coward, a liar anda fraud and has no business being anywhere near something referred to as media. Fox News is more reliable than this ass when it comes to reporting.

That explains, why you prefer manipulative text with a few snippets of quotes and a "translation" of what the speaker really meant to say. Wikileaks gives the raw data.

I find it funny you guys demand the information be released to expose the problem, while at the same time ignoring and disregarding information that does not support your argument.

Obviously you don't need any information at all. No wonder, you hate the messanger.

You defeat your own argument and view point while at the same time reducing yourself to the level of the US Government and its actions.

There is more in the world than just the USA. I would like to see more leaks of other countries, too. But the two biggest wars are led by the USA and Wikileaks chose to publish their material about this now. They published other things before, as you should know.

How can you make an argument knowing the basis is just as flimsy as those you are accusing?

That's difficult to understand. Are you saying, I am accusing the US government and their speakers have just flimsy arguments or are you talking about the two of us and it is you, who has only flimsy arguments?

You guys suffer from rectal-cranial inversion, which explains why you are so blind to what Mr. Assange's intentions are.

This is more easy to understand. And it surely corroborates your points.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You guys suffer from rectal-cranial inversion, which explains why you are so blind to what Mr. Assange's intentions are.

Originally posted by Siddharta
This is more easy to understand. And it surely corroborates your points.

Hear, hear ...

Thanks for correcting the names, Torre.

Originally posted by Siddharta
Hehe! I know, this was not your intend, Torre, but somehow you exchanged the names of the posters.

If you could edit that, I would appreciate this.

Sorry about that, won't happen again ...


It's hard trying to put a quote inside a quote, i suppose that was what happened ...

Never mind. It's confusing sometimes. Luckily we have a preview now.

I just had to change my own post, because after the correction it looked as if I still asked you to exchange the names. Posting is funny sometimes.

Any news about the case in Sweden? Obviously everybody is waiting for the new leaks right now and many governments are very nervous...

Originally posted by Siddharta
Any news about the case in Sweden? Obviously everybody is waiting for the new leaks right now and many governments are very nervous...

No, nothing new about the legal case, but there is an interesting discussion going on at the swedish site flashback.org, most of it in swedish, but you have a compilation in english on this first page: www.flashback.org...