Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for

24 comments

• farmerart

  •

  14 years ago

  And who put the Swedish prosecutors up to this bogus effort? French media are having some glee reporting the embarrassments of official Washington, conveniently ignoring the egg all over Sarkozy's face.
• big johnson

  •

  14 years ago

  What a lot of people are overlooking is that there my not be a crime here. Not referring to the bogus "rape" case , but the leaking of classified material. When Ellsberg leaked he Pentagon Papers he was prosecuted not the papers that published it. The government order that the presses be stopped, but the US Supreme Court said no - on First Admendment grounds. The same appears true now. The person who leaked the docs is in custody, and Assange simply published the material. If the government is successful in prosecuting him, it would mean that any news paper or journalist is subject to the same prosecution. That is somewhat frightening. Assagne has not advanced truth in any real way, and in my opinion he has damaged the United States. However, it should be governments that must play by the rules.
• ztrzi2000

  •

  14 years ago

  I heard on the radio some suspicion that the whole deal with his arrest and extradition to Sweden could be overblown for the purpose of eventually putting him physically in the hands of the United States government. I presume that this would be so that they can do whatever they feel they need to do in order to stop him and perhaps to make an example of him so that others would be less likely to publish leaked material like this. I can certainly see where big johnson can justify his opinion that Assange has damaged the United States, but it would seem, from my perspective, that all he has done is publish some embarrassing truths. Some of the things that have been published on wikileaks offer a very disturbing raw glimpse into the way that American agents execute their duties. However, if we do not take notice of and bring to light the ugly side of what our representatives are doing, then we can neither stop those things that are truly wrong nor give our consent to those things that are truly necessary. Every citizen has an equal stake in the government, and I feel that we have a right to know how our representatives, who are in a way our own employees, who administer their duties only by the consent of us, the governed, actually conduct their business. In my opinion, he has advanced truth in a real way by offering the world a site for the indiscriminate exposure of sensitive government information, and also for strongly standing by it. If the public face of the United States or any other country suffers because of it, then it would seem to me that they have themselves to blame, not for allowing the release of the information, but for doing the very things that those releases show them doing. In conclusion, I agree with big johnson that governments must play by the rules. It is my sincere hope that Assange receives the full and complete measure of his rights and responsibilities in accordance with the rule of law with regard to all of his dealings. If he did, in fact, break the law in Sweden, then he should receive a just and fair penalty in accordance with the way that that particular law is routinely enforced. If not, then he should be released. With all due respect to alternate opinions, with thanks to those who have brought this topic to our attention and to those who have commented on it, and with a sincere hope that this discourse remains coherent and civil, I now relinquish the soapbox.
• Prim0

  •

  14 years ago

  Actually, I assumed the "sex crime" involved a goat. If the info he's putting out is actually harmful to the US (putting our people's lives at risk) then he's no friend of ours and I'd bet he might meet with an "accident". Freedom to put out information does not come without consequences if your actions hurt someone.
• ztrzi2000

  •

  14 years ago

  I agree with Prim0 that there should be limits to freedom of speech. Speech that incites violence, or fraudulent speech, for example, ought to remain illegal. I have heard the official United States government claim that the releases endanger American lives, and from what I have heard, wikileaks has even asked the government if it would help wikileaks "scrub" the releases to remove especially sensitive information, which, I imagine, may include the identities of confidential sources or other such people who would directly be put at risk, and the government refused to help wikileaks to identify and remove such information. To some extent, even speech that indirectly poses a threat ought to be protected, in my opinion, whereas speech that directly poses a threat ought not to be protected. For example, I would say that a release that shows American soldiers doing something wrong, which then results in further general international anger against the USA would be warranted and should be protected. Whistle-blowing is important to the ability of any organization to be able to make corrections to bad behavior, instead of simply covering it up and allowing it to continue. It is true that a general increase in the level of anti-American sentiment might result, and that might result in one more attack than otherwise might have been carried out, and that might result in one more death than might have otherwise occurred. However, the progression of causes and effects I just illustrated is too long and indirect to be traced. The fact that a certain release would make some people upset is insufficient cause to justify banning it, especially if it reveals unjustifiable action. I have no sympathy for soldiers who violate rules of engagement or who commit war crimes. If we do not endorse their criminal actions, then we should feel no shame in revealing them. On the other hand, speech that outs a specific informant, spy, or other covert operator who has been performing their job honorably would result in specific, rather than general, harm, and thus, I would say that such a release would not be warranted and should not be protected. As far as I have heard, there have been no such releases from wikileaks that directly put anyone in danger. I agree with Prim0 that no such release should be tolerated. If something of that nature ever does happen, though, I would hope that the government could deal with it openly and honorably according to the rule of law.
• Dudester

  •

  14 years ago

  Yesterday, Wikileaks published a list of sites, worldwide, sensitive to U.S. interests. In short, Wikileaks waved a red cape in front of terrorists sying "these are places to hit". What Assange has done, aside from the Swede case, is yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The Schenck case The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. If even just one person dies because of the actions of Assange and Wikileaks, I say prosecute him for murder and lock him up in general population in Texas.
• gatorfan

  •

  14 years ago

  Was there any Inter-pole dancing?
• how

  •

  14 years ago

  Revealing U.S. classified information is in no way a matter of "free speech." It is either illegal (for U.S. residents subject to U.S. jurisdiction), or an act of war against the U.S. for others. But regarding the obscure Swedish law... it's quite unusual. The intercourse is either consensual or it is not. If treachery with the condom makes it non-consensual, then just call it "rape" or "assault."
• sharkhunter

  •

  14 years ago

  In the latest news update, it sounds like Assange has been arrested for leaking material to a couple of women. He had previously claimed that if he was arrested he would leak a whole lot of material to a lot of people. Apparently he plans on having surprise sex with hundreds of females now that he has been arrested. There's no telling what harm this may cause world governments as the material leaks out and impregnates and multiplies. Apparently the US, France and many other countries are greatly worried about the leaks. Who knows some of that material could have HIV and lives could be lost. I'm personally glad such a fiend has been arrested. Governments need to put a stop to such horrendous leaks.
• sharkhunter

  •

  14 years ago

  :) :)
• Prim0

  •

  14 years ago

  I heard this morning that the judge asked Assange where he lives...he replied that the information was private. What an hypocritical a$$hole!!! I'm sure paparazzi guys wouldn't want as much of their lives put out there as they try to put out about celebs.
• Dougster

  •

  14 years ago

  MisterGay's parents should have been charged with "sex without a condom" .
• troop

  •

  14 years ago

  I heard this morning that the judge asked Assange where he lives...he replied that the information was private. What an hypocritical a$$hole!!! I'm sure paparazzi guys wouldn't want as much of their lives put out there as they try to put out about celebs. -------------------- ^ good point primo!
• MisterGuy

  •

  14 years ago

  "I heard on the radio some suspicion that the whole deal with his arrest and extradition to Sweden could be overblown for the purpose of eventually putting him physically in the hands of the United States government." Exactly, except that Assange was in the USA & on American TV as early as this past April, and no one did anything about it. This whole WikiLeaks thing has been overblown by just about all sides IMHO. Most of the stuff that's been "revealed" by WikiLeaks is stuff that people already knew or should have known. I'm not saying that some of it hasn't been embarrassing to both the USA & other nations, but the "importance" of this issue has been waaaaay blown out of all proportion at this point. Assange is only the head spokesman for WikiLeaks. There are literally dozens (if not hundreds) of people behind the WikiLeaks website, so going after one guy isn't going to do anything. "On the other hand, speech that outs a specific informant, spy, or other covert operator who has been performing their job honorably would result in specific, rather than general, harm, and thus, I would say that such a release would not be warranted and should not be protected" ...just like with the Valerie Plame case. --------------------------- "Yesterday, Wikileaks published a list of sites, worldwide, sensitive to U.S. interests. In short, Wikileaks waved a red cape in front of terrorists sying 'these are places to hit'." Not really. The list literally has sites on it like a cobalt mine in the Congo, locations of drug companies that produce insulin & treatment for snake bites, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia (which Al-Qaeda has already tried to attack), and the Strait of Hormuz & the Panama Canal. WikiLeaks has NOT given out any info as to their exact locations, security measures, or vulnerabilities. Again, most of this stuff is much to do about nothing.
• how

  •

  14 years ago

  Valerie Plame wasn't covert. Further, the prosecutor knew who mentioned her job, but still pursued others whom he knew had not.
• MisterGuy

  •

  14 years ago

  "Valerie Plame wasn't covert." Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald affirmed that Plame was, in fact, a CIA officer from January 1, 2002 onward & that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003, when her cover was blown. Plame worked for the CIA in a clandestine capacity relating to counter-nuclear proliferation. Plame served the CIA as a "non-official cover" (or a deep cover officer), operating undercover in at least 2 positions in Athens & Brussels. [view link] [view link] [view link] "Further, the prosecutor knew who mentioned her job, but still pursued others whom he knew had not." Plame's cover was blown by Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, and Karl Rove. [view link]
• how

  •

  14 years ago

  MG is immune to the truth, as are each of the leftist (a/k/a anti-American) "sources" he cites.
• troop

  •

  14 years ago

  regarding plame, here's what really happened, minus the liberal slant. Two Shots at History It was pleasant — and frankly a little shocking — to see The Washington Post editorialize over the weekend about the new film "Fair Game," which purports to be the true story of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. Noting that Plame has labeled the movie "accurate" and that Wilson had expressed the hope that the film would help people "who don't read" or have "short memories" to understand the period, the Post blasted them both. "'Fair Game' … is full of distortions — not to mention outright inventions … Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; 'Fair Game' is just one more example." Yes, yes, and again yes. The entire Plame episode, it bears recalling, was steeped in deceit from the start — a great deal from Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, a huge dollop from the press and Democrats, an assist from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and a generous contribution from Richard Armitage and Colin Powell (both of whom knew the identity of the leaker before Fitzgerald began his investigation). As I wrote at the time of Scooter Libby's trial, "The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial." For Libby, the witch-hunt was a personal tragedy. Because his memory of conversations differed from some others', he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Though his sentence was commuted, he lost the ability to practice his profession (law), paid a huge fine, and endured disgrace. But for the country, it was a descent into dangerous demagogy. The entire case rested on a lie shopped around by the Wilsons and eagerly parroted by a press hoping to damage the Bush administration — namely that Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer by the White House as retaliation for her husband's role in discrediting President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger. To quote Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, "every word was a lie including 'and' and 'the.'" The White House did not leak Plame's name or identity. It turns that the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage (who opposed the Iraq War and thus had no motive to punish Wilson), was the leaker. And Wilson did not discredit the uranium story when he made his report to the State Department. In fact, his report tended more to support the claim than to refute it. But Hollywood now enters the picture and catechizes the Wilsons' false history. Joe Wilson is right — some people who don't read will be duly propagandized. Everyone knows that Hollywood is very liberal. But you'd have to be really cynical — or well informed — to know that Hollywood will peddle outright falsehoods and pass them off as history. Liberals always get two shots at history — one as events unfold, and another when playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, and other cultural arbiters recount events later. It's a crime against truth, but it happens every day. In Washington, D.C., a new play opened recently. Titled "Every Tongue Confess," the play was described by The Root, a magazine for African-Americans, as "a moving response to an almost forgotten racial inferno of the mid-1990s, when hundreds of black churches in the South were mysteriously burned." The Washington Post review said that the play "tries through lyrical speeches, magical spirituality and densely interlocked subplots to locate the redemptive potential in a horrific set of circumstances: the serial burning of black churches in the Alabama of the mid-1990s." It may be a great play. But the history is distorted. There was a ginned-up panic about black church burnings in the mid-1990s, but there actually was no epidemic, at least not until after President Clinton delivered a speech on the subject (which was followed by a rash of copycat crimes). The press, salivating over the possibility of reaping civil rights glory, fanned the flames with headlines like "Flames of Hate: Racism Blamed in Shock Wave of Church Burnings" (New York Daily News) and "A Southern Plague Returns" (Associated Press). By the time a presidential task force issued its report showing that the overwhelming majority of the arsons (and more than half were of white churches) were the result of drunkenness, insurance fraud, burglary, and personal revenge, everyone had moved on. Of 64 arsons studied, only four turned out to have any racial motivation. Four are too many. But they aren't a "racial inferno." But the truth is now smothered by literary license — again.
• deogol

  •

  14 years ago

  Luckily we have all these little laws that can be made use of to implement a police state. If you break a law every day, it gives the state reason to interact with you every day so as they can continue finding something better to hook you by. "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." (Tasitus)
• deogol

  •

  14 years ago

  ^^^ Tacitus (spelling error)
• troop

  •

  14 years ago

  deogol, i've been joking for the past 20 years or so that when you wake up in the morning and get out of bed that you've already broken 3 laws. it's not much of a joke anymore, it seems to be close to true :( fucking politicians are trying to make a law against everything!
• MisterGuy

  •

  14 years ago

  "MG is immune to the truth" Physician heal thyself! LOL... ------------------------- "Two Shots at History" ...which is an OPINION PIECE from Mona Charen, a well-known Right-wing shill...ugh... [view link] Scooter Libby leaked Plame's covert status to reporter Matthew Cooper, period. Did other people leak Plame's covert status? Sure, but Scooter Libby broke the law right along with them, period. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice for impeding the course of a federal grand jury investigation concerned with the illegal leaking by govt. officials of the classified identity of a covert agent of the CIA (Valerie Plame Wilson), making false statements to the FBI about when & how he learned that Plame was an undercover CIA agent, and 2 counts of perjury for lying to a federal grand jury. Libby was the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years. Plame's husband Joe Wilson was sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a deal to buy enriched uranium yellowcake there. The then current U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, informed him that she had already debunked that story. Wilson ultimately concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." Wilson's NY Times op-ed responded to President Bush's controversial "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [view link] On March 7, 2003, 11 days before the U.S.-led coalition invasion of Iraq, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its report determining that documents indirectly cited by President Bush as suggesting that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger were actually "obvious" forgeries. [view link] Still don't believe that Plame was a covert agent?? Well, take it from the mouth of General Michael Hayden, who's certainly no Lefty: "The role of this Agency was simply saying that Ms. Plame’s relationship with this Agency, as a covert CIA officer, was a classified piece of information." [view link]
• samsung1

  •

  14 years ago

  Wikileaks founder Julian Assange bailed but release delayed. The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been granted bail in London on conditions including cash guarantees of £240,000.. [view link]
• Prim0

  •

  14 years ago

  Aww who cares...the damage is done. Now we just have to deal with the ramifications. I hope nobody I care about gets hurt because of this asshole and others like him.