Wikileaks: Goooone

**digger** · 10th December 2010, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Ned Kelly was a murderer. And your point is???

I don't know about Mick, but yes Kelly was a murderer and it is disgraceful that because he and his 'co horts' were able to fashion some armour from plough shares etc that they are lauded as heroes.

He was a cold blooded murderer, unjustified and should be remembered as such.

what of the people he killed? _ we hear very little.

Kelly was a killer.
Assange is releasing stolen documents, therefore he is party to this whole thing (yes, as are the newspapers etc etc.) But the bloke who stole these
originally whilst serving (under the secrecy acts) needs to "go a row".

other than that, I am not buying into any of this!!

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 10th December 2010, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jamo

That's nice!

But what's it got to do with my post?

Originally Posted by DeanoH

From what's been published to date...........................embarrassing, yes, but a ..'clear and present danger', hardly. Even in that screwiest of legal systems you'd be pulling a pretty long bow to carry that one off.
Deano

Deano and Jamo
You need to look at what the original case was about, Charles Schenck, was the head of the socialist party (pretty much like all subversives including the Wikileaks people) what he was convicted of was presiding over a organisation which decided to print leaflets telling people to dodge the draft. They didn't print the leaflets and they didn't hand them out, they merely decided to do it. US was successful in convicting and imprisoning Schenck. If they can do that to someone for deciding to publish think about Wikileaks who HAVE Pubished documents. Think about the clear and present danger to the US of the discussion of blowing Iran off the Map, think about the clear and present danger to US Troops of publishing the gunship video etc etc etc.

None of it may be protected under the first amendment.

By the way I'm not agreeing with this potential limiting of free speech or freedom of the press I'm merely suggesting that if the US does prosecute Assange, as an Australian Citizen he may have very limited personal protection from such a grand document as the US Constitution.

The power of public opinion may be his only protection.

**spudboy** · 10th December 2010, 08:35 AM

I think he's doing good work. They seem to be vetting the documents (redaction?) they publish for militarily sensitive items. Brings a lot of the diplomatic machinations out into the open and we can see what the US really think, rather than what they epouse publicly.

The Swedish sex allegations are a separate issue, but the idea of exposing dodgy policy, corruption, war crimes etc. is fine with me. (think: "Collateral Murder" video of the journalists being gunned down by US helicopter soldiers in Iraq...)

**KarlB** · 10th December 2010, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by juddy

This guy should be be shot, if he had come up with who shot JFk, or Aliens did land in New Mexico then that would be good reading, posting information on pipe lines, military installations, under sea cable locations etc etc etc, is hardly the brightest thing to do. So what if the US did this and that, or the uk or Oz, why should we then general public need to know this, anything that impacts on the troops on the ground doing there job, is a bad thing, who's side his he on.....

You don't need to go to WikiLeaks for much of this 'critical infrastructure' information. The Australian government thinks the general public does need to know at least some of these things. Here is the undersea cable location you exampled: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets...e_cable_pz.pdf

You may like to have a look at ‘Critical infrastructure’ = hysterical reaction | Crikey to see what a yawn and massive over reaction by news.com it is.

Cheers
KarlB

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 10th December 2010, 08:42 AM

Does anyone know what the sex charges were? Apparently they translate to "surprise sex" and they relate to the fact that the condom broke by surprise.

It was consensual sex and not rape at all, or at least that is what has been reported in some sectors.

**KarlB** · 10th December 2010, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Does anyone know what the sex charges were? Apparently they translate to "surprise sex" and they relate to the fact that the condom broke by surprise.

It was consensual sex and not rape at all, or at least that is what has been reported in some sectors.

The following link will probably provide the info you are after: Letters: Rape claims, WikiLeaks and internet freedom | Media | The Guardian.

You may also find the following intersting: Julian Assange rape case: complainant Anna Ardin might not co-operate with police. | Crikey.

Cheers
KarlB

**MickS** · 10th December 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by alittlebitconcerned

Yes really.
I think you underestimate the known risk he has taken. I also think you may be unaware of what it is he has done. To describe him merely as a computer hacker is naive. By your rational a fire fighter is a guy standing around with a hose making warm things wet, the guy who saves a kid is having a quick dip and some kid got in the way which he removed from his swimming spot, and the farmer is a bloke having a spot of bother growing stuff because the soil is a bit dry or wet.

Will I, won't I....no CBF

**MickS** · 10th December 2010, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Does anyone know what the sex charges were? Apparently they translate to "surprise sex" and they relate to the fact that the condom broke by surprise.

It was consensual sex and not rape at all, or at least that is what has been reported in some sectors.

Found this FWIW...

Assange charges: Consensual sex or rape? - U.S. news - WikiLeaks in Security - msnbc.com

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 10th December 2010, 09:15 AM

Thanks Mick

Sexual politics and crimes are such emotive issues - I guess we should all await the determination of the courts.

**DeanoH** · 10th December 2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

............................., Charles Schenck, was the head of the socialist party (pretty much like all subversives including the Wikileaks people) what he was convicted of was presiding over a organisation which decided to print leaflets telling people to dodge the draft. .............................. Think about the clear and present danger to the US of the discussion of blowing Iran off the Map, think about the clear and present danger to US Troops of publishing the gunship video etc etc etc.

None of it may be protected under the first amendment.

By the way I'm not agreeing with this potential limiting of free speech or freedom of the press I'm merely suggesting that if the US does prosecute Assange, as an Australian Citizen he may have very limited personal protection from such a grand document as the US Constitution.

The power of public opinion may be his only protection.

I understand your point but I think you'll find the 'Clear and Present Danger' test used against Schenck in 1917 has been dis-credited. And rightly so, as it was ultimately used to restrict free speech and association in the McCarthy era for example. What the US now has is the Brandenburg Test which replaces Holmes 'Clear and Present Danger' decision.

The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

from Freedom of Speech

This (bold) bit isn't an either or thing, all three criteria must be met for American law to be broken. I don't think Julian Assagne has a problem here.

Deano

Thread: Wikileaks: Goooone

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions