Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Seriphyn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

In stuff such as these, there's his side, their side, and the truth. On one hand, we simply don't know if the sexual offenses are true, and they may very well be. On the other, it is very convenient for these women to come out and say they were assaulted right after the US and several other governments were embarrassed by the Wikileaks thing.

Personally, knowing the very dubious and amoral nature of the CIA/MI6 from what I have studied last semester on them, it's very clear to me at least that this is simply a case of an individual pissing off the security services, and then them going to any length to try and remove him from the equation. With a so-called "media shield", they simply can't off him, so they paid off or "encouraged" a couple of women to come out all victimized to try and give the government a moral high ground in getting him. That may sound very tinfoil hattery to folks, but if you read any academic piece of material on the CIA, MI6, Mossad, whoever, then you'll know that this is not very surprising at all.

I mean, are we the people really supposed to believe this is about sexual offense charges? It's about the Wikileaks embarrassment, and the UK/US govts are trying to make it something else. As far as the British public opinion is concerned, we're all watching the govt carefully. We're pretty sick of acting as a puppet of the US, dancing to all their strings and whatnot. There will be significant outrage if the UK violates international law to try and nab Assange. The most worrying thing is that (according to what he said) the Ecuadorian foreign minister tried to negotiate with the UK, US and Sweden to get guarantees he would not be politically persecuted. He didn't get any.

On a third hand, this can be seen as an overt attempt by Ecuador to increase its international standing by defying the major Western powers.

[Jev North]

As I understand it, the UK won't even need to violate international law to nab him, unless Assange wants to live out the rest of his days in the embassy.

To me, the whole thing seems like a gross media circus, where all the options available to all the major players are just plain bad. Too chaotic to show clear intent. I suppose that in thirty years' time or so, we'll be reading about the interesting and amusing ways the CIA messed this one up in some spook's memoirs.

[Casiella]

If only western nations were this aggressive in dealing with all accusations of rape. 

[Silas Vitalia]

The only question is are you wearing -enough- tinfoil...

I'm all for whistleblowing and exposing corruption and injustice, but not at the expense of risking other people's lives. 

Some of his document releases put some of my countrymen at risk for violence and murder, people who are already doing dangerous jobs risking their lives for national security, and I'm not ok with that.

[orange]

So the mess up was acknowledging that Wikileaks and their partners had anything.

When classified material is leaked (albeit on a smaller scale) or is in the open on Wikipedia, contrived in Aviation Leak, I mean Week, or published in the New York Times, those trained in the handling of classified material know what to do.  Do not acknowledge that the material is valid.

The US DoD does this, or rather nothing, all the time.  It does look for leaks, arrest those who broke laws, and try them under the appropriate justice code.  Even if there is plenty of in-the-open evidence that the DoD (or Intelligence community) has a capability, the capability and systems surrounding it are classified and not acknowledged.

[spoiler]How to Frustrate Someone With Classified Knowledge
- Unintentional discuss the knowledge after reading about it in a textbook.
- Read about a topic/area of interest, connect the dots a little bit, and glean a "secret" from it.
- Come up with a cool idea for a system that you don't know about.[/spoiler]

For some reason DoS instead decided to shit-a-brick (not the CIA DoS, the Diplomatic DoS) and acknowledge that Wikileaks had/has anything.  I don't think the Diplomatic corp is used to having their business in the open, unless they put it there.

Frankly, if a case is brought against Assange in the US and he is convicted and the Appellate Court does not overturn the conviction on Freedom of the Press grounds, it will be a very sad day. 1

(Pfc Manning on the other hand should be tried to the full extent the UCMJ allows.)

If only western nations were this aggressive in dealing with all accusations of rape. 

Agreed.

[Silas Vitalia]

Orange I don't have nearly enough knowledge about some of these specifics, but how is Manning's releasing classified material different than Assange?  Not arguing just curious as to your opinion.

[Casiella]

Manning was the one with clearance, American citizenship, and membership in the US military.

Not to mention that senior US officials (like, say, SECDEF) have admitted that nobody has actually suffered harm due to the Wikileaks release.

Personally, I think Assange is a self-serving dick for a lot of reasons. But I'm also uncomfortable with the implications of going into another nation's embassy to grab someone wanted purely for questioning, because then you have all sorts of concerns about what happens when other nations want to do the same thing.

This is the most direct implementation of Pandora's Box I've seen in a long time.

[orange]

Orange I don't have nearly enough knowledge about some of these specifics, but how is Manning's releasing classified material different than Assange?  Not arguing just curious as to your opinion.

Pfc Manning held a classified clearance and thus the public trust.  He was told the consequences of releasing any classified material he came in contact with when he was given the clearance.

Assange, while a dirt-bag, was never in the public trust.  He did not hold a classified clearance or have direct access to classified material.  Wikileaks published what they believed to be classified material.  They however did not acquire the material, but were provided with it.

There are other less high-profile recent examples on Wikipedia.

In January 2012, John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and later Democratic staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about the identity of undercover agents, including one who was allegedly involved in waterboarding interrogations of al-Qaeda logistics chief Abu Zubaydah.  He is alleged to have also disclosed an investigative technique used to capture Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002.

John Kiriakou is the Pfc Manning in the above case.  Journalists are like Assange.

[Silas Vitalia]

Ahh.

But public trust or not, releasing classified information is still illegal?


I also wonder what Equador is getting out of all this.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I'm not actually certain it is.  Then again, I dont know much about US law.  It would certaintly be illegal if he was a citizen of the USA, but he's Australian, and it wasn't Australia's data.

As for what Ecuador is getting out of this... Well, probably a whole bunch of temporary prestige for being able to go "Fuck you, America!", and not much else.

[Silas Vitalia]

It will be interesting to see how bad my government wants this guy in jail.... and if they will cut the aide purse-strings to Equador to get him.

We sell quite a bit of weapons and financial / humanitarian aid to Equador

[Silas Vitalia]

I'm not actually certain it is.  Then again, I dont know much about US law.  It would certaintly be illegal if he was a citizen of the USA, but he's Australian, and it wasn't Australia's data.

As for what Ecuador is getting out of this... Well, probably a whole bunch of temporary prestige for being able to go "Fuck you, America!", and not much else.

Well, saying it to us by proxy

But you have to admit the whole idea of British commandos storming the Equadorian embassy to nab a pasty white guy is surreal.

[orange]

But public trust or not, releasing classified information is still illegal?

Releasing classified information is illegal, but Assange didn't release the information, he published it.

Put it another way, if I have a clearance & classified information and I tell you (without a clearance) some piece of classified information and then you tell Casiella that information, I am the only one who would have done anything illegal.  You were under no obligation to protect the information, I was.

I'm not actually certain it is.  Then again, I dont know much about US law.  It would certaintly be illegal if he was a citizen of the USA, but he's Australian, and it wasn't Australia's data.

It is not (currently) illegal for an American reporter from the New York Times to publish American material they believe is classified.  It is illegal for a person who holds a security clearance to impart classified knowledge/materials to others (or even have that intent).

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

It's pretty weird, yeah.

GLAD THEY WAITED TILL THE DAY AFTER THE OLYMPICS _{when people have gone back to watching the Kardashians...}

Also, good point Orange.

[Jev North]

It's somewhat unlikely to become a commando operation, if only for the fact that it'd look exceedlingly terribly horribad to storm a foreign embassy with ski-masked, submachinegun-toting commandos. The way I understand it, the Chilean embassy is not any kind of guarded compound, but basically just a few offices with some unarmed, neatly suited politicos staffing it. They'd just send in a couple of uniformed coppers.