See this thread!

edit: although I agree that calling Assange a traitor is retarded, I don't see how publishing secret documents (something illegal according to U.S. law) could be considered legal based on the 1st amendment and free speech. Wikileaks is not voicing an opinion or expressing its right to free speech, the material it publishes' origin is not wikileaks/Assange. Would you defend filesharing based on free speech?

how does assange fall under us jurisdiction?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm merely pointing out that trying to defend Assange based on free speech and the 1st amendment is, in my opinion, a mistake :p I believe these legal dispositions do not apply here.

Seen plenty articles stating that it's entirely constitutional for US journalists to report classified documents as long as they themselves are not the ones that leaked it. A protection given to them by freedom of expression.

Though if that's not the case - why aren't the same accusations being thrown at the Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post etc - all those that where sent the documents pre-release and published?

I could be completely wrong here, but in the case of journalists isn't their right to comment protected instead of the act of publishing secret material?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Thanks!

edit: looking at the content of the Espionage Act cited in that article it looks like wikileaks did indeed break U.S. law regardless of that court decision. It's not the same case either.

Read the majority and concurring opinion - it's pretty emphatic

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.

Full text here (it really is a fascinating read)

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the law was passed by Congress. A different court could reach a different decision (it's a different case too).

What now? That case, and the opinions expressed pretty emphatically states that the first amendment and the constitution trumps all other law.

Again, a different court could reach a different decision (it's a different case too). There is legal basis to declare wikileaks' actions illegal. I'm not saying it's the decision that would be reached by a court, I'm simply pointing out that there is a law that can be evoked. According to wikipedia, "Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents."

another point being, that a discussion based on free speech and 1st amendment is void.

people who are allowed to view and read such documents half to agree beforehand that they relieve themselves of certain rights.

if someone "finds" a "secret" document, and, as in this case, decides to make it public, his actions should be considered grossly negligent, since all he should be doing is alerting some form of authorities.

Pentagon papers. End of story.

Even though I focused on free speech rather than free press in that comment (my mistake), I don't think the Pentagon Papers trial ruled out the possibility of getting condemned for publishing classified documents (see my comment #41).

Aside from the legal aspects, I think it's hilarious. It's just what the world needs - more honesty. That stupid Hillary Clinton. I told those idiots not to put her in a diplomatic position. She's pure military, or just a plain old dominatrix. I realize she wants more intelligence, since Monica Lewinsky, but that's for the CIA not the Secretary of State.

It is funny though. If only they had released the 'top secret' documents too.

Man, this post sounds too sane. Are you ok Jonesy?

that's the purpose of the middle man, to be a buffer. in Stalin's time they used to say "he's not a bad guy, he just has bad advisers and they're lying to him".

You have to admit, there is some pretty funny shit in all these 'leaks': http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/iran_ninja/

It's more like a comedy show than some kind of international incident. All the legal shit is complete crap though. I don't see where the 1st-amendment is only limited to U.S. citizens. I also don't see where it says, "Congress will not abridge the freedom of speech, except in cases of xy and z". It's very plain, and there are simply no legal grounds to prosecute Australia.

If you don't want 'leaks' to be damaging, don't print anything, or don't say anything full of aids-cock. Problem solved. Government response to these leaks is like, "Yes, we raped and murdered 2 billion people, but by releasing that information, you're doing a lot of damage to us.". I suppose we should all simply ignore the damage done by government, and focus only on the so-called 'damage' done by leaked documents.................. right.

I built my cat a fortress. He really likes it in there.

Well what do the younger Americans think about this stuff? I understand, not many are as lawyerish as myself. Do you think the Australian will be martyred? Do you find it disturbing, to learn about reality in such ways? Would you rather not learn about reality at all? I mean, i'm almost 30, and have spent many years in politics and law. For younger people though, I could imagine, the things going on here might be bothering. Would it suit you to live your youth through revolution, or to live in denial like those of the U.S. 50's?

german journalist found out, that one of the girls shared her happines about fucking/hanging around with assange 1 day after the claimed rape on twitter/her blog. the data got deleted tho, but the journalist got the cache data.

buuuh USA

Is that the same bitch that had written an essay on How to get legal revenge on men? Typical result of the ultrafeminism that has spread like a disease in the nordic countries in the name of equality, but through the means of inequality towards penises. Consensual sex without a condom is rape and molestation? My god, Sweden.

she's hot tho

Pics?

http://www.anorak.co.uk/256861/media/julian-a...ooped.html

She looks like she could do with a proper rape.

she looks like a man here
http://rixstep.com/1/20100823,00.shtml

Of course Corporate America has immediately joined in on the witch hunt (Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, PayPal..) after pressure from their government, despite no laws having been broken. Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe, unsurprising though, since the two are one and the same. The fault of these leaks lies with the US. Wikileaks is no more to blame than the Guardian/Spiegel/Times.

I'm gonna reply to a second wikileaks thread just because jonsey posted it.

"what was done is entirely protected by the United States constitution, under the 1st-amendment."
wouldn't that work only if assange was an american citizen anyway ?

If they choose to press charges then US laws naturally apply, which includes e.g. the first and sixth amendment. From what I've read literally all the impartial experts that have spoken on this assess that even his to extradition to Sweden is unlikely due to Sweden's inability to even press charges, then his extradition to the US from any country is very unlikely since extradition treaties generally exclude proceedings over political crimes, where the espionage act would apply, and then the possibility of him being sentenced if brought to the US is near impossible due to the vast majority of first amendment ruling precedents dealing with protection from publishing secret documents, and no US statue exists that specifically forbids the publishing of secret documents, only the Espionage Act could apply but that is considered too broadly worded. And why would it apply to wikileaks and not the Times? Remember he didn't leak the documents himself, presumably Bradley Manning did. Actually the US did themselves, 3M people had access to these files. What on earth was an analyst in Iraq doing with access to cables from e.g the Reykjavik US embassy? And the leak wasn't their own fault?

if he was american, he would have already been locked up for treason, free speech my ass

http://pastehtml.com/view/1c8i33u.html

http://213.251.145.96/mirrors.html

Despite the efforts to assassinate Assange and wikileaks, their number of mirrors has increased.

I guess the real question is, how will these leaks effect gaming? And also, how will they effect global reform?

I have one point to discuss:


If more than 50% of a country's population supports what wikileaks is doing, should it still be possible to call it illegal and unconstitutional?

Of course. Not to say that what wikileaks does is unconstitutional, but you don't determine what's illegal/unconstitutional based on the opinion of the population.

why not?

to clarify: what if it weew 60%, 90% or 99%.

At what point is the system itself unconstitutional as it, for example, changes the very first words of the constitution to "We the minority in control"?


I find that to be a very fundamental and important question and one that can not be easily answered.

Because it's the legislative branch which passes the laws and the judicial branch which interprets them. Public opinion can influence which laws are passed though, and it's obviously the population which elects the people passing the laws.
edit: I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but that's simply how the system works :p Otherwise you have to completely change the system.

I know that thatis how it works and that is why I wrote 'should'.

I also know that it does make sense for very complicated and less fundamental issues to not always heed the public opion.

But I wanted opinions not a statement of fact ;)

Yeah, but that's why I think it shouldn't, because otherwise it would mean having to change the entire system! Plus, how do you get everyone to vote on something like that? How do you decide which issues go to such a huge national vote? Who pays for it? What kind of majority do you need?

ask the Swiss ;)


But this is another issue, I mean there is no clear legislation on the matter, especially if the accused are not on US territory (talking about wikileaks, not Manning obv.).
So if there is a ruling, in the end someone or some group will have to decide on what it shall be. Of course they will argue their opinion on pieces of law, the constitution or whatever else they can find.
But there will be arguments for the other decision, too.

And when that happens, how is possible to ignore a majority, as this is a very fundamental issue that is at the very root not so complicated in comparison to other decisions.

Switzerland does not have the population of the U.S., so it certainly doesn't answer my questions :p

If there is a ruling, it will be by a court, and that's the way I'm convinced it should be.

of course Switzerland does not have the size of population, but I would like to hear why, in this day and age, size makes a considerable difference once you are over something like a million.

I mean, sure the cost will be higher but at most it should be proportionate. What else?

As for the ruling, yeah I agree it should and will most likely be done by a court. But how does that oppose anything I have said? Or do you really believe judges never make a personal deicision on a complicated matter or worse are influenced by political agendas. Especially if it comes to the supreme court.

With that last sentence I was basically voicing my support of the system that hnns described below. I do not think that the public opinion of the day should rule in individual cases.

Regarding my questions, I still don't see how you could possibly make it feasible in the U.S. You're talking about letting the population rule in individual cases, this isn't even about deciding actual laws. When would you reach a majority? When 50% of the people who vote agree? What if there's a low turnout and you could reasonably think that more people would actually disagree? When 50% of the total population agrees? Another percentage? Why should individual cases be decided by an unchecked majority which does not attend any trials like the members of a jury do? How do you make sure that people have the actual individual case in mind when voting, and are not voting to voice their concern about the current government for example? How do you make sure everyone voting is sufficiently informed about the case? Where do you draw the line between which individual cases go to the public and which don't? How do you even make sure people go vote on your individual case? The presidential election turnout was 63% in 2008, I sincerely can't imagine it being more than a few percent for an individual case like this one. How can this possibly be a better system than the one we have now, which hnns described?

Hey, I was the one asking about a threshold in #31 (weew = were, btw) you can't just not reply to it and then go and turn that against me ;)

Also, both you an hnns keep mentioning a plural, as if I was proposing to make this a standard rule for everything. Which I am not.

From the begining I have been talking about one specific, fundamental decision, not an everyday practice!

So while it may be a valid subsequent question to "draw a line" between this and similar cases, I do not think we have reached that point in this discussion. After all, "because it would make things complicated" can not be a reason for a ruling ;)

I'm with Raz in that it should be a fundemental element of constitutions as superior law to be meant to serve as an enduring stable framework, stable enough to endure whatever current political and ideological winds and trends. Popular opinion of the moment should not dictate the constitution, it should only be modified and altered by a slow, difficult and tedious proccess. Then of course there are instances like with in Germany and South-Africa where a "new democracy" had to be built from scratch.

There's a horrible initiative, a Constitutional Assembly, about to gather in Iceland to suggest changes and even complete overhauls of the constitution. I'm strongly opposed to it for the reasons stated above.

just fyi, Germany hasn't got one 'constitution' as such, it is a bit different here, but I don't want to go into detail, as it isn't really related.


And yeas, I do agree a constitution should last long and should certainly not be influenced by public opinion, even less over a short timeframe.
But that was not really my question. Because do you think it is right the people in charge who possibly just want to safe their own hide, should be allowed to make a decision that the public may not. Since I don't think anyone believes that the legislation or the courts can be completely objective is this case.

In fact, in this specific case the public opinion might be even more objective than their government!

And last but not least, this issue isn't really about altering the words of the constituion, but to specify more precisely how it should be read. Differently put, not about changing or adding, but clearing up!
And who should get a say in that, or rather, should the public be comepletely ignored, while the ones that might have a real stake in the decision get to make the call?


tl;dr.

here's an abstraction: If you want a court order to search a judge's premises for possibly incriminating evidence, would you ask it from that same judge?

Just to clarify what I meant, "a constitution" can have two meanings, I mean it as the supreme law of a land, and not necessarily a document or even written as with e.g. parts the UK constitution.

I don't really share your concerns, I think they are adequately covered by three things in western constitutions; articles that constitute the principle of legality, which inholds that all government actions that apply rights or burdens to citizens must have bearing in laws, the separation of the executive and the judiciary, and the powers given to the judiciary to ultimately review government's actions. So I would not say the government has the power to interpret the law in its contradiction, at their discretion, at the expense of people's rights, at least where true separation of powers is in place. Another thing in regards to worries over government abuse is that in a representative democracy the government is voted by the people for the people, and if the people feel they are not being adequately represented they can easily replace it. The government is an extension of the people and they cannot operate without the people's consent.

With regards to the objectivity of judges, of course they are humans like everyone else. But there are systems in place designed to eliminate, at least to a large extend, discretionary or simply wrong verdicts, e.g. with multiple stages of courts, where a rulings is subject to multiple reviews. Judges do not have powers to interpret law as they see fit, especially not constitutional law. They are obliged to follow certain principles of interpretation and in many cases their verdict is considered bound by precedent(stare decisis). They are also bound by the principles of legality and they are trained to do so. You have more faith in the righteousness of public opinion than I do, I have very little faith in them to objectively assess just about anything. Mass opinion is decided by emotions, not objective reason. If it was left to the public to rule in every particular case, the first thing we would lose is objectivity and equality in different areas of ruling.

please see #52, as well. Everything after the first paragraph is a reply to you as well.

Additionally, you are right a public opinion is always influenced by emotions, and I am not denying it. My point is more based on the "Qui bono?" part. You shouldn't let the public decide on taxes for example. But what are the personal benefits of the public to go for either of the choice, pro or contra wikileaks? And compared to that what are the benefits of the government in that same decision?

Judges do not have powers to interpret law as they see fit, especially not constitutional law.

I believe if you look at the past rulings of the Surpreme Court you will find that that sentence is not true. For one thing, the votes are rarely unanimous. As the judges obviously discuss the cases among each other and therefore have the same knowledge, that only difference is their opinion. Considering the judges are installed by the president that is also a political matter!
On top of that, the Surpreme Court has taken back their own rulings on conformity with the constitution. For example, criminalisation of homosexuality in 1986 vs. 2003.
The constitution did not change, only the public opinion and the judges.


As a disclaimer, I am not saying the Supreme Court will certainly rule in a biased way! All I am saying is that there is that risk.

I must admit I find it very difficult to understand what you mean. Where exactly do you envision peoples involvement and how? Sometimes you seem to be referring to law interpretation and passing judgements', as with your original post, other times in enacting law statues, as with Switzerland, and other times in relation to some executive procedures from the administration. At what stage of the wikileaks case, if there will be one, would the peoples involvement be plausible?

The only way where I can see the public's involvement is with referendums either to enact or deny legal statues, but I fail to see how that can apply to the Wikileaks case. This is done in several countries, including my own, and it's beneficial in some issues, other times detrimental. It's an interesting topic, generally I'm against too much direct involvement since I don't trust the public to make informed decisions, nor do I think they're much interested. What is the level of involvement in Switzerland?

I believe if you look at the past rulings of the Surpreme Court you will find that that sentence is not true. For one thing, the votes are rarely unanimous. As the judges obviously discuss the cases among each other and therefore have the same knowledge, that only difference is their opinion. Considering the judges are installed by the president that is also a political matter!
On top of that, the Surpreme Court has taken back their own rulings on conformity with the constitution. For example, criminalisation of homosexuality in 1986 vs. 2003.
The constitution did not change, only the public opinion and the judges.


As a disclaimer, I am not saying the Supreme Court will certainly rule in a biased way! All I am saying is that there is that risk.

It's difficult to discuss this in a general way since different countries have different legal systems. If we're talking about Common Law, as with England and the US, but not Civil law, as with Germany and Iceland, the law is largely set by judge rulings and precedents which hold an enormous value in deciding what is the law. What this means is that judges are generally bound by previous rulings, in order to maintain conformity between similar cases. Or how would you know what is the law? Yes, the Supreme Court has often overturned old rulings, but then they have a good reason for it, and often times cases aren't the same even though they appear to be on the surface. That doesn't mean they don't believe that in certain cases they are bound by a certain decision, it certainly does not make untrue the statement that judges do not have the power to interpret the law as they see fit, regardless of precedents or the will of the legaslative, or the wording of statue, or the many other sources of law, and legal theory they are bound to use to reach their conclusion. They have different views on certain aspects of jurisprudence which dictactes how they may see the law in different ways, but you can't say they're not bound by anything other than their own will, or who they "root for" in a case, in relation to ethics or whatever non-objective non-materialistic sources the general public would apply. Their objective is to apply the law as they see it, not create it. You also won't see a lower court rule in contrast to a previous ruling from a superior court in a similar case.

And I agree the US judicial system is highly politicized, which is why I really don't have absolute faith in the US courts. The sitting president hand-pick his Supreme Court nominee based on his politics, and that person is then up for a zoo-like public display in the senate. And as I understand it, lower level judges and prosecutors are voted by citizens in general election, presumably based on their "performance". I wonder why the US has more people in jail than any other country, when prosecutors and judges are at the will of the people to get elected. It's a mystery.

As a disclaimer, I am not saying the Supreme Court will certainly rule in a biased way! All I am saying is that there is that risk.

Whenever there is human involvement there is risk. But the risk is substantially less in a court setting than in a public vote.

what becks means i suppose is, that the constituion was only a placeholder for the time under allied / soviet control, and should have been replaced by a proper one after reunifiction, which never happend, they just wont let us vote for one, thus we dont have a legal constitution, this goes on with the oder-neisse border with poland, and other legal remainigs from the german empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_th...of_Germany

It's called democracy

no, that's called "representative democracy" as opposed to "direct democracy" or other forms of governemnt.

lol@ random pedophilia charges and politicians getting pissed off and wanting him locked up for treason :)))

http://www.amazon.co.uk/WikiLeaks-documents-e...amp;sr=8-2

Anyone know of something like a 3 page summary of the most important leaks?

Lazy.

Can't justify to myself "officially" spending time with wikileaks now 3 days before examn, but if someone happens to reply with an interesting article, then that's just fate deciding I should read it :3

the ways of procrastination are mysterious indeed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables

This is a nice site for a recap.

nooooooooooooooo, you monster, now i will get :F

(<3<3<3<3)

I thought the US diplomats came out looking pretty good. They seem genuinely frustrated/concerned by irrational/corrupt peers all over the world. Anyways, that's what my apolitical eyes took in at a glance.

I'm loving the US's diplomats candidness in describing what they find out. They're actually a pleasure to read. Like one European source said, who envies the US of their cables, since they're so much different from the EU bureaucrats cables, which are dry and boring since nobody can offend anyone. But that doesn't mean there's nothing seriously wrong with the US state departement policy.

Spying??? THE US!? Blasphemy!

alas, i got sick, do no know wat do, halp T_T

i'll try down this ol' redbull ere,
then write up sum storm,
then in lapse-col style shall i fall :(

wait on just hold just a minutte!

aren't the UN the ones passing defamation laws left and right? my posts assumes a new level of irony

now the BULL is kicking in, gotta write todays load in 50min GOGO

The US can never again criticize Russia or China for censorship, or even government interference into free business. They're not so free, after all.

Your premise makes no sense... but extra credit for hyperbole.

Bradley Manning, the New York Times, Der Spiegel? Pretty defensible. Wikileaks releasing the names of a bunch of poor Afghan informants and a list of "globally strategic sites"... not so much.

What poor Afghan informants are you referring to? The names of informants were reducted from the files. So the names neither appeared on the Wikileaks website nor Der Spiegel. Even the Pentagon recently admitted that not a single person has been harmed over the release of the documents. So have Afghani officials, which implies the reduction was successful. Regarding the "globally strategic sites" there was nothing on there that could possibly be of use to anyone meaning harm. No architectural structures, it was merely a list of well-known locations. Ironically some of the locations were shown on television. I hope the terrorists weren't watching. That list has also been proven old and irrelevant.

So what's the difference between Der Spiegel and Wikileaks again?

You can at least be honest...

"But the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers’ names."

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/t...nformants/

"In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with handing intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and, in many cases, their fathers' names."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/le...5898206990

And are you really defending releasing lists of strategic sites?

That article was written in July 30th and is purely speculative. The other article you linked was from July 29th. The files were released on July 25th, so what you're linking is just an immediate reaction from the Pentagon to get people like you all riled up.

Lets see what has happened since, and we'll use US and Afghani assertions:

October 17, 2010 Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

And remember Wikileaks offered the Pentagon to help them with the redaction, but they declined. So they must have been worried about the poor Afghani informants.

Am I defending releasing the list of strategic site? I'm saying the list is irrelevant and not a threat.

The article was written after looking through the available files. It's not speculative at all; it's timely reporting. There were at least dozens of identifiable people, some of whom could easily be informants. Did Wikileaks have any idea what they were doing? No, they just wanted to release info. It's at best reckless endangerment. Who should have the responsibility to decided what random people get their names released? You seem pretty happy with that person being Julian Assange.

And as far as that list of strategic sites, the question is really what is the point? The situation is much the same as with the Afghan names. It's either useless and not worth releasing, or potentially useful in which case leaking it is indefensible.

This leads to the question of what really is Wikileaks doing? Either haphazardly leaking pointless information for the sake of ... whatever... or callously leaking information that has the potential to cause real harm.

Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants
We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces. We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them.

The articles are hyperbolic sensational reporting written before any meaningful research could have taken place, based on speculations that we know now turned out not be true. The fact that after the Pentagon reviewed the files and no sensitive intelligence sources or methods were disclosed(and you know they will have tried), and no special precaution have been deemed necessary by Afghani officials, points to the fact that the redaction was successful. So it would appear as if they knew what they were doing.

Who could best decide what to redact regarding informant information? The Pentagon, but they were so immensely worried about the poor Afghani informants that they refused cooperation, I assume based on principle.

You seem the think the term list of strategically important sites in itself has any meaning. It's either strategically important or it isn't. It isn't.

What are they doing and why are they doing it? They are releasing information. Why do governments keep secrets? For the same reason anyone keeps secrets. To protect themselves, in this case from their citizens. So far it has exposed massive corruption, espionage, lies to parliaments in various governments. The amount of information is massive and only a portion (0.5%) has been released. It's a fascinating never before seen insight into the world of diplomacy. It is not the private business of governments. Government are supposed to act in service of the people. World affairs is the business of the people.

With regards to the Afghan war files it is an illegal war. The longest war in US history. It has accomplished nothing but installing a corrupt government and killing tens of thousands of civilians. In a few years the US military will leave and the Taliban, who are still immensely influential will most likely take over again. So what was accomplished? Is the progress of the war really the private affair of the US government? Among the secrets uncovered are civilian death coverups by coalition forces, European leaders questionable motives for participation in the war, Pakistani aid to the Taliban.

You speak of reckless endangerment by WikiLeaks, but you think what Bradley Manning and Der Spiegel did was defensible. That is an interesting view despite its obvious contradictions. But who were reckless really? It has been reported that 3M people had access to embassy cables. Among them an analyst in Iraq. What is he doing with that information? So why do you blame WikiLeaks for the leak and not your own government, who in fact leaked them?

My original post was to point to US hypocrisy in regards to their advocation of free speech while actively working against it in an manner using not only calls for execution of the editor by two US presidential candidates and several senior political pundits, threats of extradition from state department officials and the abuse of free businesses to illegally cut out the money supply to a foreign publishing company without any laws broken or any charges pressed. You said the premise didn't make any sense. Here's the premise for you, I didn't put it in hide this time so you can read it:

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, expressed concern at a press conference today over political pressure aiming to discourage provision of hosting and other services to WikiLeaks.

Ms Pillay said: "I am concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies including banks, credit card companies and Internet service providers to close down credit lines for donations to Wikileaks, as well as to stop hosting the website."

"This can be interpreted as at attempt to censor the publication of information, and potentially constitutes a violation of WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression," she said, according to Le Monde.

The UN rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, said in an interview with ABC.net.au that he did not think the US government had grounds to charge Julian Assange or request his extradition. "If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it," he said. When asked whether he agreed that Assange is "a martyr for free speech," he said "It certainly is (true)."

Mr La Rue said that "in reference to what has been published in WikiLeaks I think there is no criminal responsibility for being the medium." He noted that there are cases that have to be looked at, but "having said that just the fact that the information is embarrassing information to a government does not make it subject to be blocked or filtered or reprisals to the director/founder of the service." He added: "I have made it clear that just the fact that the information is leaked should not be the excuse to pressure any of the enterprises that are serving that information."

Brazilian President Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday expressed solidarity with Julian Assange, criticising his arrest as a blow against freedom of expression, reports AFP. "Assange has 'exposed a diplomacy that had appeared unreachable,' said Lula, who criticised of a failure of other governments to challenge Assange's detention. 'They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression,' he said."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, also on Thursday, that the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange showed the West was hypocritical in its criticism of Russia's record on democracy, reports Reuters.

According to a report by The Guardian, Kremlin officials are urging NGOs to nominate Julian Assange for the Nobel Prize: "'Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him,' the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: 'Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate.'"

My original point is still true. You didn't address it other than to say "hey look, we don't think anything happened". It's a random organization making stuff public without having any idea or care about what it's doing, combined with zero accountability. It's akin to driving drunk, having unprotected sex when you're at risk for stds, or whatever. "Hey look, nothing happened" isn't a justification.

To get back to your first post, the logic is flawed. Whether or not one entity is hypocritical has nothing to do with what another entity is doing. Yeah sure, maybe the US, or Sweden, or whoever can be considered hypocritical because they profess one thing and do another. That doesn't mean the ethical system being espoused is flawed or they are wrong to promote it, it just means their actions are also in violation of it.

I'm not generically against the release of the diplomatic cables, but as far as organizations go Wikileaks is pretty shitty, and I don't see the point of glorifying them.

Who are you to say they have no idea or care about what they are doing and what do you base that on? Is it true just because you claim it is? Your original point was that WikiLeaks were wrong in publishing the materials because it could do harm to Afghani informants. I agree that just because it hasn't happened isn't evidence enough to deem it right, just like drunk driving isn't made proper just because by chance no harm occured. The drunk driver is just as guilty as he would have been if he had killed someone.

So how do we determine if they are guilty? We examine the files and find out whether or not the the WikiLeaks security precautions were sufficient in protecting intelligence. Better yet we have a world super-power examine the files, who had an enormous vested interest in reaching a contrary conclusion. They designated a 120 people task force to scrutinize the files but they reach a conclusion contrary to what they would have so much hoped for, WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.. This in addition to the fact that not a single person has been harmed points to the conclusion that WikiLeaks, unlike Assange, were wearing a condom.

To get back to your first post, the logic is flawed. Whether or not one entity is hypocritical has nothing to do with what another entity is doing. Yeah sure, maybe the US, or Sweden, or whoever can be considered hypocritical because they profess one thing and do another. That doesn't mean the ethical system being espoused is flawed or they are wrong to promote it, it just means their actions are also in violation of it.

Naturally the US's despicable surpression of free speech doesn't in any way validate China's or Russia's own free speech violation and that wasn't my point. But you can't preach moral superiority to someone without yourself practicing what you preach. They're not wrong to promote it, but they would be hypocritical and thus lose any credibility to do so.

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan

Atmar warned any publication of the story would "endanger lives," and requested the U.S. suppress the story.

A familiar rhetoric, eh?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101211/tpl-ouki...677c0.html

Just as I said, now you get random people you have no clue about spreading leaks. Many of whom by the way have been launching DDOS attacks in support of wiki.

The irony is, the more they do this the more they invalidate the credibility of the leaks because now the source has been well and truly compromised, it gives the US leverage for denial and gives defenders of wikileaks the opportuntiy to create spoof cables to balance out the apparent truth.

Does anyone else not find it scary a bunch of angry script kiddies online seemingly in charge of important information and spreading it?

Before it was remotely OK because it seemed to be contained to wikileaks, they had a realeively solid reputation, but everyday these leaks lose credibility and worth.

Let's be honest, if you come across some random FTP space with cables in how do you know they are real?

If someone takes the cables, adds a Buysh blowed up twin towers, then zips it all back up, are you going to believe it?

No brainers.

Yes because obviously, supporters = staffers. I'm sure that 16 year old dutch kid who got arrested for the DDoS was Assange's right hand man, and not just someone from 4chan entirely irrelevant to the site. Their credibility is impeccable but that isn't the point and you still don't get it - nobody is disputing the validity of the documents. The argument is regarding whether they are right in publishing the documents - not if they're forging something.

Just [...] brainers.

* you are unable to comprehend a yahoo news post, mirror'ing != ddos. how do you come up with something like that?!

* you can't grasp how anonymous is organized and why random blog posts or "interviews" mean little if anything at all.

* you do not understand how mirror'ing sites works and therefore who is spreading the "leaks". see: http://wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html

I didn't say everything I was talking about was in that newspost.

Its also funny how you've demonstrated your seemingly 100% trust in wikileaks.

This is information that was released by someone whose main concern was having his picture all over the internet.

From then, no one knows how many sources the info has been through, what their political, religious motives are.
When paedophiles kill children they often lure them with initial kindness, whose to say the real motive of wikileaks is to surpass the GVT? 250k of leaks would give them years of authority and material. Whose to say this was always the plan?

Its a stupid forumla which is open to abuse.

I would rather trust the GVT and my own judgement than a bunch of random people I know nothing about mostly leaking boring GVT gossip and showing no concept of privacy.

Where does it end?

you can defend it all you wanty, it doesn't matter if wikileaks has been right or it has truthful info.

You fail on a shocking basis to recognise that obtaining information like this underhand and sets a dangerous precedent for digital information.

What next?
A torrent with everyone's medical records.
A google employee dumping the idaddress of every user and website and search term they've used?

You have to draw the line somewhere and its already been crossed.

If you care so much about the truth go work in politics and make a real difference.

no, you're liar.

you said a) now you get random people you have no clue about spreading leaks and b) Before it was remotely OK because it seemed to be contained to wikileaks, they had a realeively solid reputation and i proved you wrong (again).

now you're suddenly claiming the opposite (quote: Its also funny how you've demonstrated your seemingly 100% trust in wikileaks.)? just stop, you're only going to further embarass yourself.

on a slightly unrelated note: it' s interesting how you seem to have quite some knowledge about abuse cases and things related to them, like how to rid oneself of collected dna samples.