Discuss?
Honestly, I have nothing to add. This whole WikiLeaks/Julian Assange drama exploded when I was holed up in the lab 24/7. A nuclear bomb could have been dropped somewhere and I wouldn’t have noticed. So yeah, I’m trying to catch up on the whole thing, but while I’m doing that, feel free to speak your mind in the comments. I’m curious to see what my blog readers think about it.
Tree Lobsters pretty much summed up my thoughts.http://www.treelobsters.com/20…
This is the best thing I’ve read or heard on subject:http://www.salon.com/news/opin…Don’t buy the line that diplomatic cables were just gossip.Also: Apparently there are lots of suspicious things about the Assange prosecution. Even people who are really concerned not to be dismissive of rape charges are telling me it would be naive not to think they were politically motivated.
I believe Assange is completely innocent, and I laugh at the government’s hypocrisy and corruption. That’s all I’m gonna say about that.
Well, IMHO these are really two separate topics. The first being the ongoing work that Wikileaks is doing since 2006 and that led to releasing the cables (most recently) and second, the swedish charges against Julian Assange. Although it is hard to perceive it this way, since the two can seem so very related, it’s not doing a lot of good to mix it up too much. For one, that Assange is so extremely hated by some, for co-founding Wikileaks, is overshadowing what the actual cables are saying. That’s really regrettable and these leaks deserve better. The public should primarily discuss what’s in them. There’s so much background information! The general media never came close to reveal this much. Concerning Assange I have to say, that I really hope the charges are actually unjustified. I respect a lot what he’s doing (and what he’s done so far) and I have a similar opinion on many topics. Seeing such a person confronted with something like this is never easy. But it’s too early to tell how all of this is gonna turn out, so I’ll try to keep an open mind, as always.
Oof. It has exploded in a lot of different ways.1) Wikileaks itself. First off, outside of certain administrative offices and right-wing news agencies, it has released no mission-critical information. (The ‘leaker’ from the last set was a private, and downloaded it off the main military network). If they were publishing military plans or technical details, that would be a different kettle of fish. But publishing stuff that a staff private has access to?The actual information is largely embarrassing, and frankly confirms a lot of stuff that was theorized by various near-fringe groups. In this, Wikileaks is doing what our news agencies should be doing, but are choosing not to. Hold our government (and military!) accountable. Find out what they are doing wrong and shed light on it.2) Assange: There is a lot here as well. To sum it up quickly, if he has or has not raped those two women, it doesn’t change the content of Wikileaks. This doesn’t excuse him, and he should be tried. The timing is suspicious, yes, as is the hullabaloo around his bail. That said, the charges need to be investigated and dealt with properly. Even if he is found guilty, it is my hope that Wikileaks continues to do what it is doing now, being an investigative power, a whistle-blowing agency, and providing a source for people to turn to.
I read a good article recently that stated the whole ordeal is really showing the true guts of our so-called “democratic” governments: hiding information that shouldn’t be hidden under the guise of national security (among other reasons). All because it would embarrass them, and to deny our true democratic right to make an informed decision.The media here in Australia has been going overboard with the Bondesque super-villian schtick, practically making shit up to make it seem like Assange is everything from some sort of communist spy to a petty child jaded at the military. Not to mention pretending a data centre that hold a couple of Wikileaks servers (among thousands of others not related to WL) is his “lair”. The media beat up has been extreme, to say the least, but they have no qualms using the information for their own (usually political) purposes.As for the rape case, while I find it highly suspicious that an extradition order could be secured with (apparently) so little evidence, and that there are almost certainly some severe political machinations happening in the background to discredit/silence him, I’m withholding judgement on the case itself.
Wikileaks is the work of modern heros. Not just Julian Assange, he’s mainly a figurehead at this point. And it’s becoming a distributed phenomenon in the same way that P2P networks have. Which means it is something that can no longer be stopped short of completely shutting down the internet.IMO, this is will have a strong effect on politics in much the same way that digital transactions has effected merchants. In the next ten years the nature of democratic government is going to change radically because of it.
The rape charges were dropped. They are now charging him with “sex by surprise”. Yes, that is a crime in Sweden.
The air force is blocking news sites, particularly those that report on wikileaks, keeping our servicemen from knowing information. What we have here is an infowar, and fascism is winning, while freedom is being forgotten and swept under the rug.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_…Sounds like Wikileaks is making Obama’s commitment come true. So stop with the fussing, America voted for open government!I am disappointed to see many blind Obama supporters now against the opening of government. If it was Bush, they would likely be just as critical of the suppression of information. Also, Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, and Visa are all politically motivated, and the two credit card companies blocked customers who donated to Julian Assange. It appears both the Democrats and the Republicans are failing us. Who to turn to? Or perhaps, should the government change radically?Questions, questions. It is always nice to ask questions.
to be honest, i fully support wikileaks. most of the cables were full of bullshit anyway, like how canadian tv portrays americans poorly, etc. i’m all for transparency in the government, and if the US government doesn’t want to tell us shit, looks like we have to find another source.
sounds like a venereal disease.
What the fuck is the difference between rape and “sex by surprise”?
Hey look, you just got a square! http://www.flickr.com/photos/b…
I’m all for WikiLeaks, but I’m also super depressed that the only reason anyone takes rape allegations seriously is to get rid of some one who is politically inconvenient.
Clarifying the name of the charge is hardly rape apologetics. Your accusatory and substance-free posts are getting old pretty quickly.
I would explain it but apparently that would make me pro-rape.
To be clear, the “sex by surprise” thing is actually made up. AOL News disseminated this idea that there was a “sex by surprise” law in Sweden separate from the rape one. In reality, “sex by surprise” in Swedish is a slang word from rape. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2…I can hardly blame someone for being taken in by the article (nor would I take it as rape apologetics merely to repeat the claims presented as fact therein), but in the days since that story, it’s been soundly debunked; the charge is still and has always been rape.
See, this is an example of an excellent reply. You actually corrected what he said using facts instead of just acting huffy and lobbing accusations. Thank you for clarifying the situation.
Personally, I think the whole thing is a typical response of an incompetent bureaucratic system, who uses WikiLeaks/Julian Assange as an scapegoat to evade the real security problems within the US government.
I’m in favor of transparency. I think it’s necessary for anything approaching a democratic nation/society. Without it you can’t have informed citizens, which are necessary for democracy.I think the real problem is the excessive secrecy of the government. If the government were more responsible in the use of secrecy then there wouldn’t be all this stuff to leak while leakers and whistleblowers wouldn’t feel the need to leak it.So, yeah, I have little sympathy for the government in this situation. From what I understand WikiLeaks was pretty responsible about the release, having those major newspapers reviewing the information as well to mark out anything actually dangerous.Which also brings me to wonder how WikiLeaks is different from any other journalistic organization? If someone leaked this info to a major paper directly, wouldn’t they have done much the same thing? They don’t seem to be shy in reporting on big chunks of it as it is and they weren’t telling WikiLeaks it shouldn’t be released and they’d be no part of it.So not only am I in favor of WikiLeaks disseminating info handed to them (in a responsible manner), I’m not even sure I think the private who leaked it deserves much in the way of punishment. The real guilty parties are the people setting policies in the first place.
Personally I’m not sure why Assange is so focused on. He seems little more that a spokesperson for wikileaks.Wikileaks has a worryingly anarchist agenda.The diplomatic cables have been widely criticised as being nothing we didn’t know already, with a few extra bits of triva, and as such not worth blowing the trust of secrecy that is important in intelligence gathering.
While I don’t think that if I were in Wikileaks place I would post all that information, and I’m not sure what I feel about posting information that isn’t theirs, I’m glad that it exists, and I would defend their right to do what they’re doing. That such an orginization can exist in today’s society, that they’re not afraid to post what they do, and that they can get the information that they do is a good thing. I also think that it says potentially bad things about our society that journalists and governments are having the reactions that they are having to wikileaks. It shows how far our respect for freedom of the press really goes.
Hey I got bingo! Several times! What do I win?
Of the ~240.000 cables, that Wikileaks has all in all, only ~900 were released so far, because it’s such hard work to edit names out etc. (the journalist-teams at The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel must be rotating right now, must be hell to work/read through all of this) – so this argument isn’t really valid, because no one knows what’s in the still unreleased cables. The real shockers could still be coming. But even without the reality, that only a very small part has been made public thus far: There were several new pieces of information already. The public had no idea about the number of civilians killed, or that story where US tax payer dollars where used to buy “dancing boys”http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…just to name some things (I too recommend listening to this podcast: http://www.salon.com/news/opin…. The statement “nothing we didn’t know already” is clearly wrong. Whoever says that, hasn’t read the news and the cables or is deliberately lying. Also, even IF this would be true (which, again, it isn’t), why would people, in this case, hate so much on Wikileaks? If there’s nothing important in it, what did they spoil? Or, if there’s nothing in it, why was it declared secret in the first place?
For anyone who is interested, the following explains some of Assange’s original motivations regarding WikiLeaks (start on page 7):http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-co…
“and I’m not sure what I feel about posting information that isn’t theirs, “But that’s what Journalism and Reporting is all about! Reporters always publish information that isn’t theirs! It’s never been different!
I don’t get what the uproar is about. Aside from NATO plans to defend the Baltics, there wasn’t a whole lot of crucial information leaked. I actually found the cables a bit reassuring. The US government isn’t acting angelic or demonic, just pursuing its foreign policy interests like any other state.
You’ve got to be kidding me, lady. Just because you don’t agree with the substance doesn’t make a post substance-less. Using a sensationalized bullshit phrase as if it’s a legal term isn’t anything BUT rape apologism. You might want to look up Swedish legal code before defending said rape apologists. Just a suggestion, since you posted something telling your readers to inform you as to what’s going on with Julian Assange, yet the minute someone is wary of rape apologetics going on in the explanation, you immediately validate their “sex by surprise” myth. Something doesn’t make sense here. You know nothing of the case EXCEPT that obviously those women are just pissed about “sex by surprise”. Riiiiight.http://www.washingtonpost.com/…This might help you out. But hey, if you’d like to spew the same lies as the likes of Glenn Beck and other rape apologists, do so. I mean, it’s so much easier than actually giving a shit about what actually went down, or the women who may very well have been assaulted! Cool feminism, bro!
Wow, you really don’t get it, do you? Now it’s just sad instead of funny.
There is some excellent information from UK lawyer David Allen Green, he spoke at length to Assange’s lawyer and then blogged about it here. http://jackofkent.blogspot.com…“There is an interesting quote from it regarding “sex by surprise.”
Also interesting is this article by Laurie Penny at New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/bl…
Jen summed it up very neatly. I’ll just add: if you see rapists and rape apologists in every discussion, pretty soon no one is going to listen to you. And perhaps by extension other feminists as well, who get tarnished by your, well, insanity. So nice rescuing there, FttR.
You win “Suprise Sex”!
You’re right. When some person just repeated rape-apologist terms on a feminist blog, it’s probably best to just assume they’re “clarifying the name of the charge”. No really, in what country is “sex by surprise” a legal term? I’d love to know.PS – Glad I garnered a tweet. It’s @FeministRescue next time you’d like to talk about the “general stupidity” of somebody who calls you on your bullshit on Twitter. Come on, show your commitment to free speech and open discourse and ban me already. L. O. L.
There was not a lot in these reports we didn’t know already…except for the euro bailouts and yemen
um. . .commenting on one discussion in which a person calls rape allegations “sex by surprise” instead of using actual legal terms is now seeing rapists and rape apologists in “every discussion”? Wow, and I’ve been told I’m paranoid. :-
Aww, so cute that you think trolling and acting like an asshole is the same as adding to discussion! Oh well, your wish is my command. Banned. Feel free to whine about my bullshit on your own blog :)
I’ve been following and blogging about it, here at http://browneyedgirl65.com/tag…It’s pretty interesting, along any number of fronts, I think.
Thank you for correcting me instead of calling me a rape apologist.
Also, Bradley Manning’s narrative is starting to come out. Greenwald’s got the goods on this. Whatever else he may have done, keeping him in solitary for the last several months without even any charges is rather extreme, even if he’s military and signed his civil liberties away.
Is that like the Mystery Box?
..because you are. That is all.
I’ve become obsessed with all things Wikileaks and Assange since this really came into the news. I was intrigued when the Iraq and Afghanistan war docs were released. Then came the new infodump and I was hooked. I will resist from commenting on the charges against Assange, as his accusers must be given their rightful day in court. If Assange is guilty, that doesn’t wipe out the good work that he has done with Wikileaks, but it does mean I would no longer consider him a hero.
Again, the public hasn’t seen the whole batch yet. Wikileaks is only slowly releasing cables, as they were worked through by journalists. Therefore it’s not okay to state that there’s nothing in there, if only a small percentage is known so far. We’ll have to wait and see, before such final statements can be made. I disagree already, because I didn’t know several of the things revealed so far, neither did the press…
What else did we not know, if you don’t mind me asking (I’m going off of the bits and pieces ive heard over the past few days and from other news junkies I know)
I am a big fan of wikileaks, but the narrative around the rape charges is really pissing me off. The accusations are very serious and the victim blaming defenses have made me sick. “She went to a party that evening, so she couldn’t have been raped earlier”. No, fuckwads, that isn’t how reality works. It is fine to say that it is best to withhold judgement as to the charges until we know more, but making bullshit statements about how if a woman does certain things, looks or behaves a certain way, has certain types of sex, consents to other sex acts, etc. then she couldn’t have been raped is disgusting and, yes, it is rape apologist to say that “sex by surprise” isn’t rape. It is rape, just as marital rape was still rape before it was a criminal charge. Cut the fucking crap, people.
Rape is a real thing in the real world. The most consistently reported figure for its prevalence is that 15% of women will be raped in their life-time (Rozee & Koss, 2001). I don’t think its unreasonable to be afraid and, well, “paranoid.” That figure is way too high for my tastes. And also, in FttR’s defense, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be outraged by the term “sex by surprise,” though I think she may have directed her outrage at the wrong people. I think that Rev. Ouabache was just reporting what he heard elsewhere and was as baffled by the term as the rest of us. The real offender here is a popular culture that makes “sex by surprise” an acceptable euphemism for rape.
She used the word “paranoid”, not me. My point was simply that if you start lashing out frantically at people having a discussion over legal terms in Sweden and calling them rape apologists…you’re insane. Or a troll.Either way, when people are legitimately called out over rape apologetics or something similar, such an accusation has been utterly devalued by people like FttR who apply it to everyone. Everyone just ignores it because it’s been meaningless every time before, just like the boy who cried wolf. So yeah… good system.Also, “rape is a real thing in the real world”? Thanks for that, I didn’t know. Show some damned respect for your fellow commenters.
Well, just to name a couple of things, again – listen to the first podcast on this site, the guest, Glenn Greenwald, lists a few things in there:http://www.salon.com/news/opin…This hasn’t been reported before:http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…this neither:http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…Actually I learned lots of new things. But maybe you are a diplomat and therefore always had access to this stuff.Also, again, don’t forget that 99% (!) of the cables are still unreleased. Wikileaks decided to release it piece by piece, instead of the whole thing at once (so they could carefully work through the material). So it’s impossible to determine right now, what’s still ahead.
I feel like I’ve heard the Afghanistan story with the dancing men before…im a political science grad btw…
Dancing men? They were little boys dolled up made to dance then used for sex by older men.
Cat do you know what ‘sex by surprise’ covers? I heard a Swedish diplomat on the BBC say that the charge was that Assange had failed to use a condom during sex, despite agreeing to do so.To conflate that with rape would be to do a serious injustice to rape victims. It’s a pretty serious thing to do – because of the potential consequences (particularly that Assange seems to have sex wth lots of different people). But if that is the ‘sex by surprise’ charge, it does not sound anything like rape. I’m no expert in Swedish law…but we need some clarity here as to exact what this charge means, I think, given that it is a translation.I agree with you on the mansplaining about how a raped women might act…
Yeah, I’ve really had to stay out of that. There’s been a number of good articles published about this unfortunate sort of rape culture mindset swirling around it but of course which narratives are getting more traction? At the *same* time, watching governments — which to this point have *never* paid such sedulous interest in enforcing such charges — play solemnly along with all these charges and extradition requests, (really? really? extradition over *rape*?) & in so doing a disservice to rape victims everywhere whose situations are at best ignored and at worst abetted, results in the worst kind of teeth gnashing imaginable.Huh. Not sure I can parse my own sentence above but I don’t care; it’s getting pretty late.
This whole saga, both the revelations and the way the rape accusations are being handled, show the total hypocrisy of governments whose foreign policy is based on narrow national interest with no moral element at all. How many women and girls are raped legally every year under the guise of forced marriages, and can you remember any western government even suggesting that might be wrong?Just as with the decision to invade Iraq but stay well clear of Sudan the interests of the local population never seem figure in any decisions, so all praise to Wikileaks for letting governments know their dirty secrets are NOT safe.
Quick addendum, before I get accused of being a rape apologist. I think all rape is a serious crime, if Assange is guilty he should be tried and punished. My point is not that the charges should be dropped but that it’s time we made some efforts to protect women everywhere from this devastating crime.
I personally don’t know what to think of wikileaks itself, but I think that a lot of what’s happening with Assange himself seems awfully fishy.Regardless of whether he did it or not, the circus they’ve made of this, complete with half-assed media coverage, musical charges, (like musical chairs, but even LESS fun,) and their sudden insistence that he be brought back to Sweden, like, yesterday, when they don’t even appear to have a full case built against him yet, is ridiculous. And really, I wouldn’t blame /anyone/ for not going, “Oh yay, let me shell out for plane tickets just so I can be put in jail!”If he’s guilty, the circus this has turned into can’t be fair to the girl in question, and if he’s not, then he’s probably right, and it was an attempt to discredit him, and by extension, wikileaks. Either way, it’s utterly ridiculous, and seems to me like the investigation has been a rather botched one from the start.
That’s what I was thinking too. The charges could be true, or they could be fake; the third option is that they are true, but the victims had given up (as so often happens), but once Assange became “undesirable” there was suddenly a strong motivation to find out anything and everything he had ever done wrong and punish him for it.Kind of like the Mexican girl in LA Confidential who bore false witness against her rapists in order to get them convicted for the murder of a police officer because she knew no-one would take her rape seriously.It sounds far-fetched, I know, but at this point anything is possible.
If the content of the cables was stuff we already knew, what makes Wikileaks dangerous in its anarchism? Oh, it breaks trust? The trust we don’t have due to the fucked up shit we already know about? That trust?
Forgive the mildly lengthy verbatim quote, but this is the text of an open letter regarding Wikileaks and Assange (sent to the Australian government, signed by a substantial number of prominent Australians) that I strongly agree with:
(source: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashe…
Ok, just to be very clear, clear as crystal. I consider (nay, it is a direct result of the Golden Rule) that rape is absolutely inexcusable, in all its insidious forms. Also, in reply to a few (but not all, which is to be expected, with a diverse discussion) accusations of rape apologetics: Questioning the validity of the accusation (based on the current circumstances, which are immensely complicated) as well as questioning the treatment of the accused is not the same as rape apologetics, just as questioning the treatment of an accused murderer and rigorously testing the accusations against him (is there DNA evidence? are there eyewitnesses, and if so, is their testimony reliable?) is not the same as murder apologetics. Its reasoned, skeptical, just and fair practice of the law (or, since there are very few legalese terms in these considerations, the public’s informal assessment)The application of a Red Notice to Assange was definitely overwrought, since the Red Notice is generally reserved for very major crimes. If it is indeed true that the Swedish are not revealing what new evidence prompted the revival of the summons (no actual charges, apparently) against him (which were earlier dropped with a particularly damning ‘this case lacked substance, indeed, any concrete basis’, to paraphrase), then it really shouldn’t be in there, since the Red Notice implies that the accuser actually has a solid argument and enough evidence to DEFINITELY convict them.Also, quite a few of the deep digging reports on his accusers (Anna Ardin and friend) have noted that, since he was apparently involved with both of them and also that in such a situation, Julian would keep that information from both of them, the timing of the accusation is suspicious. They find out, become outraged (I would too, seeking cold revenge on the guy would be very tempting) and decide to sue him, which is apparently something Anna has done in the past (unless that’s fabricated or a rumor, which is a possibility. http://www.suite101.com/conten… for more info).Also, if its true that Anna Ardin (arguably the stronger half of the accusing side) is in fact not cooperating with the prosecutors, then either she is being pressured (though who would pressure her to make Assange’s life /easier/? Us dangerous freedom of speech proponents?) or the case is too weak, or the offence too minor (since the accusation is the least severe of the Swedish rape levels). That is to say, too minor combined with weak evidence, while weak evidence can stand by itself (even if it were a major (not to denigrate the violation involved, though it would personally be a ‘screw you, asshole’ moment) offence, evidence as tenuous as this is somewhat damning for the case, and definitely for extradition).Also, on the actual site, Wikileaks…Its awesome. Since its gone peer to peer, nothing can stop it, hence there is nothing the governments and militaries of all nations can do but clamp down and reveal themselves as draconian, anti-democratic tyrants (or at the very least elitists. In essence, ‘you can’t handle the truth! You’d mess it up, ask stupid questions, bad questions like ‘why’d you shoot that reporter?”) OR improve and cease as much of their highly questionable activities, as well as switching into high gear with its damage control (i.e. minimize risks for field operatives, etc which is admittedly complicated).In this whole debacle, alot of people are forgetting ‘innocent until proven guilty’, skepticism (even where it makes us uncomfortable and defensive), freedom of the press, that wonderful idea of ‘by the people, for the people’ that you Americans have (sadly Australia is stuck with a heavily reworked ‘by the monarchy, for the monarchy…and maybe a little for the common folk’) and lastly, objectivity.
From what I’m hearing, the current charges aren’t yet officially revealed. Though it is connected to rape charges earlier this year, I believe. I read that investigation was dropped, but it’s possible some ambiguity in language obscured that the investigation was actually put on hold until now. I’m not sure, and a quick search at Åklagarmyndigheten’s site didn’t put much info into a recent summary.
Headlines: “I had a bowl of müsli this morning”, says reporter.Caffeine withdrawal of death?! Must remember to buy more coffee after work.Tune in to CBS to hear more about the cloud that looked like a hat!
For WikiLeaks, go for it. Even if the information had all been uninteresting (which is not the case), I don’t see how a conclusion can be drawn from that to condemn the release.And even if it had weakened some diplomatic advantages between various nations; so? Mr. C filed a report that Mr. B is a fat bastard, so now Mr. B doesn’t like Mr. C, thus WikiLeaks is the devil? I don’t follow the reasoning. Maybe Mr. C just isn’t a very good diplomat, would that be possible?As for the something-maybe-mystery crime, it’s a something-maybe-mystery so far. I’m not a legal expert, but I’m a bit baffled by how the “överraskningssex” rumour could spread so well. It’s not a swedish thing, for fucks sake, it’s the same term as “surprise buttsex!” It’s used in the same context (by mere mortals, at least), arose in the same crowds, and the only semantic element missing is “butt”.
have i mentioned sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagai… ?go. there.
Meh, go WikiLeaks! I’m all in favor of transparency. So far, nothing that’s uber crucial seems to have been released… but we’ll see, like others have noted, 99% of it is still unreleased.As far as rape charges, I really have no opinion on his guilt. Particularly since the whole media has been coming up with this ‘sex by surprise’ bullshit. Either he raped 2 girls, or he didn’t. No need to make up crazy terms to sensationalize it, or try to rationalize it under euphemistic pretense. Not to mention there are a lot of claims that this is just convenient timing, but that seems like bullshit cuz I’m pretty sure I read that the charges got filed in August… way before Cablegate, so any convenient timing is not on the part of the his accusers imo.My only concern about the rape charges, is that suddenly all this pressure to find and arrest him from the Swedes. Now, I’m sure they take rape seriously in Sweden, but working to extradite him conveniently after the entire US gov’t blasts him? It smacks of Obama pressuring Sweden to lock him up via any means necessary to me. I mean, I’m sure if he had gone back to Sweden, they would’ve picked him up based on the charges anyway. So… the charges must be strong enough to withstand basic inquiry, so there must have been something going on between him and those women, but I guess whether or not he raped them is officially up to the courts. I just feel like, regardless of whether or not there is evidence against Assange, the US will be pressuring Sweden to lock him up and throw away the key, which may put some cracks in the impartiality of the jury. But who knows, no one has seen the charges, or spoken with the women that I’ve seen, so… Guilty until proven innocent I guess.
I guess that’s the result of simply feeling the news, instead of reading them…
This appears to say rape, sexual assault, and coercion: http://www.aklagare.se/Media/N…According to Gizmodo, they temporarily had a translation of that page to English that listed the charges as “rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion”: http://gizmodo.com/5705430/wik…At least some charges had to be revealed in order to begin hearings; IANAL, but I don’t think they be talking about whether to extradite him for some vaguely unspecified crime.
Yep, “rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion” it says. Good find.
I’m a little surprised that the rape charges are even an issue. It seems like such an obvious no-brainer: either he’s a rapist and therefore a dirtbag or he isn’t. I don’t know why that needs to be discussed.
Just need a clarification. . . It would be adding to the discussion is a comment is about sexism pies? And said comments would not be ban-worthy trolling?
A reply to Zach2005: I ban repeat trolls and thread derailers, not someone who happens to do it once.
So I can correctly assume that “this porn ain’t gonna watch its self!” slipped by you then?
The Guardian have obtained access to the full charges. http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi…
Okay, so moving beyond the rape trial, which has been discussed extensively on two blog posts, I’ll talk about Wikileaks itself since that is the point of the post. First of all, I’d have a lot more respect for this guy if he went after China as well, who is undemocratic and jails people who disagree with the government. By focusing on the US, this seems like anti-US hate. He seems angry at our military and economic power and disregards our democracy and aid to the poor in other countries. Why doesn’t he seek data from North Korea or Iran or Sudan, all of which have far worse human rights records than the US?Furthermore, this information hurts US diplomatic relations because other countries don’t want to talk with the US if their private conversations will be revealed. It also makes it easier for the terrorists to plan against the US (one document listed economic and resource sites around the world that the US relies on the most). Even I feel the thrill of “sticking it to the man” in regard to the US military, but if I’m honest I’d much rather help the US military than some of the fascist and communist rogue nations around the world. Wikileaks works to help not only for Al Qaeda, but also for other nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. This leads to a much less democratic world and a darker future. All that being said, I’m not sure that they can necessarily charge Julian with a crime. Unless they can prove that he conspired directly with the private in the army to get the information, then they can’t prove he committed a crime. Publishing the data in and of itself isn’t a crime. The New York Times did that. However, for the private, who supposedly took these files, marked secret, from army computers, it seems that he did commit high treason. And if anyone is killed because of the information released (such as people helping the US in Afghanistan) then many people are going to say that the private should be put to death. I feel bad for the guy since he is only 23, but if you release classified information and put our soldiers and allies in risk of death, then you have to pay the consequences.