wikileak

[Removed]

Nice dodge of the central point.

 

 

 

 

I'd like you to elaborate on this, please, maybe with some examples.

 

I don't think it is a dodge at all. You have arbitrarily framed the parameters of the conversation about some specific details I have no knowledge of. While this may be important, it must also be recognised in the context of the other 25000 reports.

The significance of this event is not only in the release of specific information, but it's aggregate effect.

 

 

I am happy to elaborate further the second point, but I will do it when I am a little more sober.

[JerseyViking]

Somewhat off topic I suppose (or at least against the flow of the current debate, and has probably been brought up before but I didn't see it.) Who else thinks that the accusations of rape against Assange have been fabricated and that the two women were paid to say the intercourse was not consensual.

[boost™]

sure is samefag in this thread

[Mercer]

These slores are out of their fucking minds,

 

condom broke = file rape charges.

 

I hope they do actually get raped some day.

 

The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than any of Stieg Larsson's best-sellers.

 

True, one of Assange's accusers sounds tailor-made for those who think Assange is being set up in Sweden by dark CIA-backed operatives who want him smeared or silenced for his document dumping with WikiLeaks. She's a 31-year-old blond academic and member of the Social Democratic Party who's known for her radical feminist views, once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

 

But others say Assange, who denies any wrongdoing and says the sex was consensual, may have just run afoul of Sweden's unusual rape laws, which are considered pro-feminist because of the consideration given issues of consent when it comes to sexual activity -- including even the issue of whether a condom was used.

 

In fact, the current prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who re-opened the case against Assange, has been active in the proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws that would, if passed, involve an investigation of whether an imbalance in power between two people could void one person's insistence that the sex was consensual.

 

Swedish tabloids and the country's blogosphere have been rife since August with stories and speculation about Assange's accusers, the flip-flopping prosecutors and just what, if any, crime was committed by Assange during sex with the two women.

 

"He's innocent, that I can tell you," Bjorn Hurtig, Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer, told AOL News today. Hurtig later issued a statement saying the international arrest warrant for Assange is based on "exaggerated grounds."

 

Assange arrived in Sweden on Aug. 11 to speak at a weekend seminar sponsored by the Social Democratic Party and arranged to stay at a Stockholm apartment belonging to the event organizer, a member of the branch of the party who would become one of Assange's two accusers.

 

According to a police report obtained by the Daily Mail in August, she and Assange had sex, and at some point the condom broke. While she was apparently not happy about the condom breaking, the two were seen the next day at the seminar, and nothing appeared amiss.

 

Another woman at the seminar, a 27-year-old art photographer, said in her police statement that she'd come to hear Assange's lecture because of her fascination with him and his work. She can be seen in video footage on the Internet sitting in the front row during Assange's lecture, wearing a pink sweater and snapping pictures of him.

 

According to the police report, the woman managed to get an invitation to go out for lunch with Assange and his entourage after the seminar. They spent time together before he went back to stay at the event organizer's apartment.

 

Two days later, on Aug. 16, they reconnected by phone and the woman invited him to her apartment, more than 40 miles outside Stockholm. She paid for the ticket since Assange apparently had no cash and doesn't like to use credit cards because they could be traced.

 

She complained in her police statement that during the train ride to her hometown, "he paid more attention to his computer rather than me." She also said that by the time they arrived at her apartment, "the passion and excitement seemed to have disappeared."

 

The woman and Assange also reportedly had sex. According to the Daily Mail account, Assange did not use a condom at least one time during their sexual activity. The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

 

According to the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, the photographer contacted the other woman two days after her assignation with Assange, and the two apparently had a conversation in which it became clear they had both had sex with Assange. The photographer was worried about having had unprotected sex and decided she wanted to go to the police.

 

The other woman accompanied her to the police station on Aug. 20 just to support her but then told the investigating officer on duty that she, too, had had sex with Assange, Aftonbladet reported.

 

Based on what was said to police, the on-call prosecutor, Marie Kjellstrand, decided to issue an arrest warrant on charges of rape and molestation, and the next day the story hit the Swedish paper Expressen and newspapers all over the world.

 

Kjellstrand's decision was overruled the following day by a higher-level prosecutor, Eva Finne, who withdrew the arrest warrant and said she did not see any evidence for rape allegations.

 

Then, on Sept. 1, a third prosecutor, Ny, re-opened the rape investigation, implying that she had new information in the case.

 

On Nov. 18, Swedish judicial officials approved a prosecutorial request that Assange be detained for questioning for alleged sex crimes, and on Nov. 30 Interpol issued a "red notice" against Assange for alleged sex crimes in Sweden. Despite what has happened, the woman who organized the event and had Assange stay at her apartment told Aftonbladet that she never intended that Assange be charged with rape.

 

source: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

[wearekilluminati]

sorry to interrupt your adoration about a guy yall dont know about.....its funny to me,so see a bunch of so called know it all's have these arguments that really are irrelavant. do ya even know this dudes backround?

 

 

 

 

INDYMEDIA: WikiLeaks ‘struck a deal with Israel’ over diplomatic cables leaks

“Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.”

[wearekilluminati]

We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent ‘cable gate’, which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.

[wearekilluminati]

wake up..

 

According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.

 

 

Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”

[wearekilluminati]

this dude thinks people who think 9-11 was an inside job, are idiots.

[wearekilluminati]

As a result of WikiLeaks, the Obama Administration may introduce a new bill that would allow government officials the ability to spy on Americans through the internet. Meanwhile, an army of hackers rally behind WikiLeaks by shutting down MasterCard and PayPal because they stopped all payments to WikiLeaks. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen says we could see massive government surveillance of our personal computers, phones and surveillance of our internet activities.

 

 

 

its all a Giant hoax.....................im telling ya....................

i knew because of wikileaks this was going to happen.......i fucking knew it....

ok now proceed with ya irrelevant commentary...

 

and cmon i love haters....................so talk shit haters...

[wearekilluminati]

and again just incase you missed it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange, seemingly overnight, has become one of the biggest ‘whistle-blowing’ agencies in modern history. In reality though, it is one of the biggest disinformation projects in modern history, and it may be the most dangerous because it is masquerading as an organization of truth. The information released by Wikileaks isn’t new; it isn’t groundbreaking; it doesn’t hurt the US as much as people think, it’s fractional really; and it is overloaded with as much as propaganda as the day-to-day Zionist media is. This propaganda is benefiting someone. And that someone is the illegal usurping entity of Israel. Even the Israeli government itself thinks so

[christo-f]

An Arabic news site makes an accusation against Israel, not something that I would believe at simple face value. Not to say that it isn't true, could well be. But I'd prefer to see some kind of evidence before I simply believed something just because I read it somewhere.

 

also, there are still thousands that haven't been released yet, I think it's waaaaaay too early to say that there isn't anything damaging to Israel.

 

 

 

I don't think it is a dodge at all. You have arbitrarily framed the parameters of the conversation about some specific details I have no knowledge of. While this may be important, it must also be recognised in the context of the other 25000 reports.

The significance of this event is not only in the release of specific information, but it's aggregate effect.

 

 

I am happy to elaborate further the second point, but I will do it when I am a little more sober.

 

Your point was that for democracies to properly function there should be full disclosure of govt actions. What you are saying is that people should know what they are voting for and paying their taxes to.

 

So I chose two issues out of thousands (most of them bland and meaningless) and asked how these two issues improved democracy. Now I see your point that the aggregate effect is what is important but that is exactly my point, how does releasing this kind of info improve people's ability to chose elected members....., keeping in mind that 99% of people will not and do not have the time and inclination to read through and digest this mountain of info.

 

I know what you are saying and to a large degree I am with you. Govts should be held accountable and if my taxes are paying for dishonesty, deception for personal gain or a member is going directly against their elected platform or the national interest it should be outed.

 

I cannot see any of that taking place in this context, as a matter of fact I can see the opposite.

 

Assange has leaked a pile of rubbish and/or stuff that will not actually inform the voting public but has the potential to hurt the national interest. The reaction will be a tightening of matters, a squeeze of these kinds of sites and people and less information (that really needs to) will actually make it to the electorate. This process is already in motion in a number of ways and publicly conducted.

 

 

Once again, in real terms rather than the ideals the action represents, how has this improved democracy?

[Removed]

Once again, in real terms rather than the ideals the action represents, how has this improved democracy?

 

It has improved democracy through the greater proliferation of information and transparency, even if this only temporary. In real terms western voters now have a greater understanding of the actions their governments are taking in relation to foreign policy. Very simply put; the more information you have the better your choice will be, to participate, protest, or take other political actions.

 

If the ultimate result of this event is even greater secrecy, then that will be a sad outcome. But my suspicion is that it will result in the voting public of western nations demanding greater transparency surrounding foreign policy. At the very least major public debate will be generated on this issue. Furthermore, the hype around this issue will ensure that others will want to follow in Assanges's footsteps, as such I believe this will not be a flashpoint but a watershed event.

 

I have personally learnt a lot from the media coverage and reading the cables myself! Perhaps this means that I didn't know what 'everbody' else did. But my suspicion is there is a lot of others in my position. So as the individual reports are important, as stated earlier, it is the principle of transparency is the most powerful aspect of this event. To try to debunk its importance by focussing on the direct outcomes of isolated examples is redundant. To make a comparative example; If you were a passenger in my car, would you ask me to explain the importance and outcome of reading and reacting to each and every road sign? Some signs are obviously potentially life saving and others act as general guides or reminders. However, it is the fact that I am alert to road all road signs that is the main priority in this situation as then I can judge their importance as I encounter them. If I am unaware of some of the road signs for whatever reason I cannot personally judge their importance and thus react appropriately.

 

In summary, real outcomes and broad principles are not so easily divisible as real outcomes are are produced by the actions taken after an event has been interpreted through a principled framework.

[christo-f]

Mate, I agree with the principles of openness and informed decision making as well as keeping elected reps honest and responsible, however I cannot see this issue doing much of that at all. Few reasons as to why, some I mentioned before:

 

-The VAST majority of people will not read these coms. They will read some in the papers here and there and they will tend to be the more sensational out of them

 

-Most people don't understand the intricacies of foreign policy, I sure as hell didn't until I studied it for four years and now 3 years in to the game I'm still learning.

 

- The bulk of these coms don't offer any value for the electorate, such as how does it help knowing if a leader of a Central Asian state is a horse lover and holidays in Dubai? How does it help knowing what the State dept's opinion is of Rudd's possibility of holding on to leadership in the next election? That may be useful to Australian voters but it was a US govt cable and they are elected by Us citz, not Aust. For transparency to aid voting behaviour and the accountability of govts the information actually has to be useful

 

Don't forget, a lot of this stuff is simply the opinion of a diplomat, not an actual policy position. I think that is lost on most people and massively degrades the utility of this information.

 

- This will and already has resulted in a tightening of classification, information security and compartmentalisation of information (c'mon, do you honestly believe that a security breach would not result in the re-evaluation of security protocols??!!). To think that this would be some kind of watershed moment and everyone would be all "Wow, this has changed the way I viewed the world and we all now demand a change in the way things are done around here" is to be honest a little naive. This will pass, measures will tighten and voting behaviour will not change.

 

this is not the first time information like this has been leaked on a scale similar to this. Nothing changed then, nothing will change now. This is not Watergate.

 

- Voting behaviour is influenced by domestic politics, mostly so on matters that affect the household economy. Very little voting behaviour is influenced by matters of foreign policy, the 2004 elections in Australia were a great example of this. Only people motivated by and interested in forpol vote that way and that is a very small sector of society in developed countries...., or any country really.

 

 

 

 

Once again, I agree with your position of openness and accountability but when it comes to this particular issue I think you are letting your ideals gloss over what really has happened, what the results are for politics in general and what the consequences will be for govt transparency. This will not change voting behaviour, will not increase openness and will not in the least part change foreign policy or govt behaviour.

[Removed]

I’ll try to keep this one brief.

 

Mate, I agree with the principles of openness and informed decision making as well as keeping elected reps honest and responsible, however I cannot see this issue doing much of that at all. Few reasons as to why, some I mentioned before:

-The VAST majority of people will not read these coms. They will read some in the papers here and there and they will tend to be the more sensational out of them

-Most people don't understand the intricacies of foreign policy, I sure as hell didn't until I studied it for four years and now 3 years in to the game I'm still learning.

- The bulk of these coms don't offer any value for the electorate, such as how does it help knowing if a leader of a Central Asian state is a horse lover and holidays in Dubai? How does it help knowing what the State dept's opinion is of Rudd's possibility of holding on to leadership in the next election? That may be useful to Australian voters but it was a US govt cable and they are elected by Us citz, not Aust. For transparency to aid voting behaviour and the accountability of govts the information actually has to be useful

 

How is it a problem if most people don’t read them or only focus on sensational messages? Of course not everyone is going to read them, but some people will read them and they will be more informed for doing so. I recognise that you have much more knowledge of this field than I do, or than most people. However, I do not think this gives you the right to dismiss swaths of information on the behalf of others. This seems to be a general line amongst some elements in the media as well. I find this approach unacceptably elitist. How can I, or others, know if the cables are useful or not if I cannot read them? In a context of secretive government action the basis for political legitimacy is highly problematic. If government has little concern for legitimacy then this should be a serious concern for its citizenry. I do not think this is statement naive or overly idealistic in the slightest.

 

Don't forget, a lot of this stuff is simply the opinion of a diplomat, not an actual policy position. I think that is lost on most people and massively degrades the utility of this information.

- This will and already has resulted in a tightening of classification, information security and compartmentalisation of information (c'mon, do you honestly believe that a security breach would not result in the re-evaluation of security protocols??!!). To think that this would be some kind of watershed moment and everyone would be all "Wow, this has changed the way I viewed the world and we all now demand a change in the way things are done around here" is to be honest a little naive. This will pass, measures will tighten and voting behaviour will not change.

this is not the first time information like this has been leaked on a scale similar to this. Nothing changed then, nothing will change now. This is not Watergate.

 

Governments are made up of people, so having insight into the opinions of some of those people equates to insight into the actions of government. As a citizen of a democratic nation I have vested interest in the actions and motivations of my government.

 

Of course governments will tighten their operations after this. But they may also respond to popular pressure for greater transparency if it arises, perhaps you misinterpreted my previous message.

 

Sure this will pass, but a change in voting behaviour is not a given. It is too early to tell the ultimate effect this event will have.

 

Some people are saying it is bigger than Watergate.

 

- Voting behaviour is influenced by domestic politics, mostly so on matters that affect the household economy. Very little voting behaviour is influenced by matters of foreign policy, the 2004 elections in Australia were a great example of this. Only people motivated by and interested in forpol vote that way and that is a very small sector of society in developed countries...., or any country really.

Once again, I agree with your position of openness and accountability but when it comes to this particular issue I think you are letting your ideals gloss over what really has happened, what the results are for politics in general and what the consequences will be for govt transparency. This will not change voting behaviour, will not increase openness and will not in the least part change foreign policy or govt behaviour.

 

Yes I understand voting behaviour is largely influenced by domestic policy, however there have been ample examples in recent history where foreign policy has also played a part.

 

Perhaps you are imagining that I am arguing for this to be an event that precipitates some kind of instantaneous massive paradigm shift which will result in a utopian outcome? This is definitely not what I think. What I am suggesting is that, while you seem quick to dismiss this event, it will have further repercussions. One of these repercussions will be some, of course not all, of the citizenry of the US, Australia and other nations, being more vocal about transparency in foreign policy.

 

Now to make a somewhat esoteric point to clarify my position; I see the social fabric of the world, including all its institutions, as made up of a dynamic conflict of ideas. People struggle to assign their subjective, or collective, sense of meaning to objects and actions. Major shifts in the socially constructed aspects of reality occur when ideas gain currency and support throughout society. It is from this theoretical perspective that I say that an event such as this which has generated so much media and popular interest will surely have some kind of further impact. I feel to deny this would be to have a very static outlook regarding social systems.

[christo-f]

YEah, I agree with the principal of everything that you are saying and you are right when you say that you cannot know if something is useless if it's not released. I guess I just feel that this is a little misdirected and there are many more useful things I'd prefer outed than this. I see the majority of this having little use and stopping the actual useful stuff from grabbing people's attention. The only result I can see coming of this is greater secrecy and that is a shame.

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, Dec. 10, 2010

 

Tougher rules on protecting classified info eyed

Kyodo News

 

 

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20101210a1.html

 

The government vowed steps Thursday to toughen the law and current system for managing classified information in the wake of recent leaks of investigative data at home and U.S. diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks.

 

 

 

The decision was made by the first meeting of a government panel tasked with improving the handling of classified information, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said.

 

Prime Minister Naoto Kan set up the panel after the release onto the Internet last month of sealed video footage showing September collisions involving a Chinese trawler and two Japan Coast Guard cutters during a run-in near the Senkaku Islands that reignited a territorial row between Asia's two largest economies.

 

The meeting was also held at a time when Japanese officials, as with many others around the world, are concerned about the release of thousands of sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables by the confidential information-divulging WikiLeaks website.

 

"In recent years, information technology and the (digital) network society have been developing significantly and there is a question about whether the government has appropriately responded to this kind of changing environment," Sengoku, who heads the panel, said at the outset of the meeting, which was opened to reporters.

 

The panel plans to put together proposals by next spring, according to government officials.

 

After the meeting, Sengoku told a news conference the public's right to information and freedom of the press are "the basics of modern society but it may well be that a certain amount of restrictions are necessary."

 

Critics are concerned about possible actions by the government to impose stricter discipline on officials regarding information management, saying this could run counter to the public's right to know.

 

Video clips running for about 44 minutes, taken at the time of the ship collisions, were posted on YouTube in early November by a Japan Coast Guard navigator not involved in the run-in but who had internal access to the footage.

 

The collisions, which led to the brief arrest of the trawler's captain, strained diplomatic ties between Japan and China.

 

Sengoku, who strongly opposed disclosing video footage of the Sept. 7 collisions, shot by the coast guard, has been under pressure in recent weeks to leave the Cabinet, with opposition parties criticizing him for infringing on the people's right to know and others trying to hold him responsible for the guardsman's video leak on YouTube.

[lord_casek]

http://www.metafilter.com/98335/For-the-Chaotic-Good#3411183

 

One of the issues here is that if the US (and any other) governments move too hard against Wikileaks, they risk radicalizing a significant minority of the population. By "move too hard," I'm talking about declaring Wikileaks and the Operation Payback guys as terrorist organization.

 

Doing that could radicalize the IT community. Smart people in our government should realize this and act accordingly to deal with all the new Wikileaks publicized cables. I'm thinking something like actually prosecuting the pedophile-enabling Dyncorp contractors, cleaning up the mess with the corrupt government in Afghanistan and so on. I am not certain that the senior US leadership (Clinton, Lieberman, etc) really understand the depth of frustration in the IT community regarding government corruption. It started in the 1990s when it became clear to geeks that the recording industry was doing its level best to kill technological innovation via lobbying law makers. For a lot of people, learning about how twisted the law making process actually is, served as a catalyst for understanding how narrow oligarchical interests have corrupted the process to enrich themselves. Prof. Larry Lessig, beloved by the copyright reformers, is a good example of this. After the failure of his struggle against Big Media, Lessig has switched his emphasis to institutional corruption. You can see how much things have changed by looking at Slashdot, which is a decent bellwether for the older generation of IT workers. In the 1990s, it was a real libertarian haven-- today, if you try to fly the Ayn Rand/Objectivist flag there you will probably take a lot of heat.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0

[Mercer]

So I chose two issues out of thousands (most of them bland and meaningless) and asked how these two issues improved democracy. Now I see your point that the aggregate effect is what is important but that is exactly my point, how does releasing this kind of info improve people's ability to chose elected members....., keeping in mind that 99% of people will not and do not have the time and inclination to read through and digest this mountain of info.

 

I can say for certain, that as a supporter and even a campaign contributor to Obama when it was going to be either him or Hillary, my opinions have changed. Several bits of information made public by wikileaks has changed my mind about a few different issues on confirmed my suspicions abut others.

 

The interactive map where you roll over a red dot on the map and see the description of the death drove the point home to me that we are wasting trillions on running a country which has at best billions of dollars in oil. Again trying to forge a direct path between specific information and actual results isn't practical when looking at the effects in their entirety is much more powerful. Our mainstream journalists and news here are generally of the lowest tabloid or politically biased quality so you can see how what Wikileaks is doing might inspire some of us.

 

Again, all information without getting too specific is validating the opinions and platforms of some and discrediting others. The diplomatic leaks brings this to a global scale. I had no Idea the Saudi King was inviting us to bomb Iran. While this may not change my life in a major way I bet this factually based confirmation being put out there did change someones life or policy.

 

Again, your opinion against Wikieaks might be easier to argue if you have to draw a line between specific cause and effects or the release of specific documents. Looking at the effects as a whole may be more accurate if ones trying to judge the validity of their work.

[Mercer]

Sorry, I read the last page not realizing this page existed and the general points I was making had already been presented and responded to.

[christo-f]

Yeah, I guess it's also harder for me to judge as I read fucking reams of shit every day and there is very little in this so far that is a surprise to me (especially the KSA pressure to deal with Iran, for instance). However if I was an accountant, electrician, graphic designer, postman or anyone else who doesn't have ten hours a day exposure to IR then it may not be as straight forward as it seems to me.

 

I read some of this stuff and my response is "well, durrrr...!". However when I ask my electrician mate how to wire up a power socket, my IT mate why my computer is running slow, my mechanic mate why my car won't start, they all give the "well, durrr" look right back at me, and for good reason in their minds.

 

SO, yeah, I still stand by my position that this shit was the wrong stuff to leak and that it will do more damage than good in the world of democracy. But there is also a decent probability that I do not see the forest for the trees.

[Removed]

This article explores aspects of my argument about Wikileaks being a watershed for transparency.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-tapscott/macrowikinomics-thriving-_b_794954.html

 

Macrowikinomics: Thriving in the Age of Hyper-Transparency

 

The arrest of Julian Assange doesn't change the new reality faced by governments and corporations that have always craved secrecy. Even if Assange is put behind bars for an extended period, others will be happy to take his place. Think of the whack-a-mole game at the arcade. Hit one on the head and another will pop up.

 

The WikiLeaks episode is just a hint of the world to come. We are entering an era of hyper-transparency. Courtesy of the Internet, people everywhere have at their fingertips the most powerful tool ever for finding out what's really going and informing others. They are gaining unprecedented access to all sorts of information about governments, corporations and other organizations in society.

[RIPS]

too much information = zero information

[wearekilluminati]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^agreed.......................................more like disinformation comming from some aussies.......................

[Lesbian Fisting]

Yeah the only real truth is on Infowars.com!

[boost™]

For those of us who felt uncomfortable with the cavalier attitude evinced by some Assange supporters in the matter of the Swedish sex-assault charge, but also smelled a rat at the drop-everything hustle demonstrated by Her Majesty's filth in getting Mr Assange behind bars, Naomi Wolf offers this nuanced analysis:

 

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

 

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

 

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

[christo-f]

Bit that surprises me about this shit is that people are surprised.

 

I mean really, WTF did you expect to happen?!

[christo-f]

Yeah the only real truth is on Infowars.com!

 

and this, are you fucking kidding me?

 

Info wars and prison planet are like the bizarro world version of Fox news.....

[Removed]

and this, are you fucking kidding me?

 

Info wars and prison planet are like the bizarro world version of Fox news.....

 

hahaha spot on bruz!

[Removed]

too much information = zero information

 

Does someone want to have a go at justifying this?

 

This statement probably the best example of Orwellian double speak I have ever seen.

[Mercer]

The information shared in the leaks isn't intended to be a news story, it's undigested information.

The press now has a reliable source to obtain factual information in order to make news stories.

 

The too much info is no info argument is about as valid as saying "I can't read the entire internet, it's useless"

[wearekilluminati]

y'all seriously ........need to wake up////////

 

 

He tried so hard but was only a runner up, just like the 'Tea Party' and Hamid Karzai.

 

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is the big winner. That should help solidify Facebook's place as a 'legitimate' social phenomenon. It should also make the CIA happy.

 

Assange, Zukerberg and the 'Tea Party' are also considered by many to be at least partly controlled or used by the intelligence services and/or big money political interests. We know Karzai is a tool.

 

We also know that Time is a tool for the bankers and wars and most of what is taking this country to ruin. ............................

considered by many........except y'all brain dead tools.....and y'all know who im talking to.