Assange arrested in London (BBC)(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Assange arrested in London (BBC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110
107 comments
Use the Guardian thread, it has the most comments.
Guardian http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978645
MSNBC http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978690
BBC http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978651
TheNextWeb http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978656
Sky http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978613
CNN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978636
NY Times http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978692
Guardian http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978645
MSNBC http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978690
BBC http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978651
TheNextWeb http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978656
Sky http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978613
CNN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978636
NY Times http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978692
Not anymore. This thread now has more comments.
With Assange in the courtroom: http://twitter.com/#!/newsbrooke
I wonder why the Guardian version didn't make it to the front page.
Many of these threads are dead.
Am I just cynical, or does anyone else get the overall impression that this is a bunch of geeks running around fantasising that they're in 'The Matrix' or something. And doing it thanks to the efforts of a single confused 22 year old (Manning), who is now screwed.
Some of the material I've read so far is interesting. Very little surprises me. None shocks me.
There is no technological achievement here, either in the original leak, or the distribution of the material. If anything, I get the impression that Wikileaks is fairly inept.
I'm not really against the leak - I've enjoyed reading the material. One of the things (genuinely) that I've found fascinating is the quality of the writing - I wish some of the people I work with could write as well.
Irritating people do get to me though, and I'm beginning to lump Assange in with Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia, and Wikileaks both have larger than life, seemingly egocentric figureheads. Both services depend heavily on the efforts and religious-level fervour of other people who often do things for free or near-free.
Weird? I mean, if I ran a web site that distributed material which might get a governmental back up, I would probably keep a low profile.
Looking forward to some robust comments on my thoughts!
Some of the material I've read so far is interesting. Very little surprises me. None shocks me.
There is no technological achievement here, either in the original leak, or the distribution of the material. If anything, I get the impression that Wikileaks is fairly inept.
I'm not really against the leak - I've enjoyed reading the material. One of the things (genuinely) that I've found fascinating is the quality of the writing - I wish some of the people I work with could write as well.
Irritating people do get to me though, and I'm beginning to lump Assange in with Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia, and Wikileaks both have larger than life, seemingly egocentric figureheads. Both services depend heavily on the efforts and religious-level fervour of other people who often do things for free or near-free.
Weird? I mean, if I ran a web site that distributed material which might get a governmental back up, I would probably keep a low profile.
Looking forward to some robust comments on my thoughts!
Assange is 39, not 22 (though, admittedly, he does not look his age).
Assange explains why he is a figurehead in his Q&A session with CNN: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-03/world/wikileaks.assange.q...
Assange explains why he is a figurehead in his Q&A session with CNN: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-03/world/wikileaks.assange.q...
I find it telling that the one actually interesting and critical question from an actual diplomat, about to what extent he feels his leaks are undermining the diplomatic process, is the one question he refuses to answer.
Given that Assange wants to bring down secretive government, it's pretty obvious he wants to undermine diplomacy.
If that was the case, then why doesn't he have balls to admit it?
I hadn't actually read that Q&A - very interesting and a reasonable point in his answer to the figurehead question (although I would suggest that Wikileaks could simply lower its profile and become an anonymising conduit, thus negating the need for verified comms with the public at all).
Keeping with my 'The Matrix' / Philip K. Dick geek fantasy rant though, check out the last few sentences from his interview:
"History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you."
Love the drama!
Keeping with my 'The Matrix' / Philip K. Dick geek fantasy rant though, check out the last few sentences from his interview:
"History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you."
Love the drama!
Assange willingly showed up at a police station and was arrested by appointment. He probably has a plan.
I think the plan is fairly simple: to clear his name by showing these absurd trumped-up charges for what they are, the machiavellian machinations of the US via a disturbingly compliant Swedish legal system.
I read a good article on why the charges against Assange are absurd: http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
And a more recent follow up: http://rixstep.com/1/20101202,01.shtml
And a more recent follow up: http://rixstep.com/1/20101202,01.shtml
Is there a better source? I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe anything rixstep says.
I'm not inclined to believe anything regarding Wikileaks or Assange. I'm sure more than a few people have seen those tweets and some Twitter crawlers/indexers have them stored somewhere. We'll see how it plays out, no need to speculate at this point.
Wow, a conspiracy theory that would make sense. The US government finds the leak in may, knows wiki leaks has it. Knows that they'll not be able to directly attack the organization on free speech grounds so they create a character assignation plot and create a rape plot.
How are they absurd and how do you have such intimate knowledge of this case?
I think the plan is fairly simple: to clear his name by showing these absurd trumped-up charges for what they are, the machiavellian machinations of the US via a disturbingly compliant Swedish legal system.
I'm sorry, but there is simply _nothing_ he could ever say to them that would make those charges go away. How is the name clearing supposed to happen?
I'm sorry, but there is simply _nothing_ he could ever say to them that would make those charges go away. How is the name clearing supposed to happen?
Traditionally, by starting with "Not guilty, Your Honor," and going from there, but things might be different in Sweden.
I'm fairly certain that running from the law in this instance would do more harm than good to his cause.
If he's not guilty, then he's got nothing to hide. The sooner he clears his name here the quicker he can go back to doing his thing.
They would've found him anyway, so he's just complying with the inevitable.
If he's not guilty, then he's got nothing to hide. The sooner he clears his name here the quicker he can go back to doing his thing.
They would've found him anyway, so he's just complying with the inevitable.
> If he's not guilty, then he's got nothing to hide.
This assumes the other side plays fair. This assumes that the judge and jury will be rational. This assumes that it's really about sexual assault, and not about politics.
Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.
This assumes the other side plays fair. This assumes that the judge and jury will be rational. This assumes that it's really about sexual assault, and not about politics.
Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.
When a rape trial starts out with something that is not a rape then 'level-headed' went out the window before the trial got started.
Isn't the job of an x-trial to find out, whether x has happened?
Yes, normally it is. In this case the definition of 'rape' has apparently been stretched well beyond the breaking point, to where the victim will throw a party for the perp only to go to the police several days later after colluding with another victim. Let's just say that I find the charge sufficiently heavy that I would expect the bar for being charged with this crime to be considerably higher than what is seen so far.
And that's totally besides my views on wikileaks, Julian Assange or anything else.
And that's totally besides my views on wikileaks, Julian Assange or anything else.
Wikipedia: "it is alleged that while having consensual sex his condom broke and he either did not disclose the breakage to his partner or continued after his partner asked him to stop."
"Continued after his partner asked him to stop" is rape by definition. "Did not disclose the breakage to his partner" may not technically be rape, but I'm comfortable characterizing it as sexual assault. In either case, it sounds like an allegation worth prosecuting--and that's totally besides my views on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, or anything else.
"Continued after his partner asked him to stop" is rape by definition. "Did not disclose the breakage to his partner" may not technically be rape, but I'm comfortable characterizing it as sexual assault. In either case, it sounds like an allegation worth prosecuting--and that's totally besides my views on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, or anything else.
I'm with you so far.
According to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-req...
Which has the actual charges in it there was a second occasion with the same lady, this stretches credulity I believe, one count of rape with one person according to this definition I could believe, but two are at a minimum a little strange and would require some pretty fancy footwork to be explained away. Especially with the victim throwing a party for the perp between the two occasions.
The fact that the witnesses colluded and that Assange apparently was at their places at their invitation and that he undoubtedly was not aware of any of these laws and that at least one of the women definitely was (and tweeted all over the place about it) makes this all very sordid (pardon the pun) indeed and not nearly as clear-cut as you might think at first glance.
Personally I think Julian Assange is an idiot for behaving like this while knowing he's under the microscope but given that the flesh is weak and that these women apparently only decided to go to the police after comparing notes makes the whole thing something that may have been harder to avoid than it looks.
The case is so shaky that one Swedish prosecutor already overruled another and dropped it only to have it revived again without knowledge or consent of the victims.
Pretty weird if you ask me.
According to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-req...
Which has the actual charges in it there was a second occasion with the same lady, this stretches credulity I believe, one count of rape with one person according to this definition I could believe, but two are at a minimum a little strange and would require some pretty fancy footwork to be explained away. Especially with the victim throwing a party for the perp between the two occasions.
The fact that the witnesses colluded and that Assange apparently was at their places at their invitation and that he undoubtedly was not aware of any of these laws and that at least one of the women definitely was (and tweeted all over the place about it) makes this all very sordid (pardon the pun) indeed and not nearly as clear-cut as you might think at first glance.
Personally I think Julian Assange is an idiot for behaving like this while knowing he's under the microscope but given that the flesh is weak and that these women apparently only decided to go to the police after comparing notes makes the whole thing something that may have been harder to avoid than it looks.
The case is so shaky that one Swedish prosecutor already overruled another and dropped it only to have it revived again without knowledge or consent of the victims.
Pretty weird if you ask me.
The fact that the witnesses colluded
...is not in the least bit suspicious, if you know anything about the psychology of rape survivors. Believe it or not, most people who have been through that situation don't really want to relive it over and over again throughout a prolonged trial. (Conversely, it's pretty easy to psychologically pressure a rape survivor into not pressing charges, or into dropping charges.) One of the only things that will actually motivate a survivor to press charges is if they discover their rapist attacked someone else, because then it's a pattern of behavior and one feels responsible to come forward so he won't rape anyone else.
If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you. Frankly, I think that's in the same realm of plausibility as the idea that Julian Assange just happens to be a rapist. And, more to the point, this kind of uncertainty is exactly why we have trials to begin with.
...is not in the least bit suspicious, if you know anything about the psychology of rape survivors. Believe it or not, most people who have been through that situation don't really want to relive it over and over again throughout a prolonged trial. (Conversely, it's pretty easy to psychologically pressure a rape survivor into not pressing charges, or into dropping charges.) One of the only things that will actually motivate a survivor to press charges is if they discover their rapist attacked someone else, because then it's a pattern of behavior and one feels responsible to come forward so he won't rape anyone else.
If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you. Frankly, I think that's in the same realm of plausibility as the idea that Julian Assange just happens to be a rapist. And, more to the point, this kind of uncertainty is exactly why we have trials to begin with.
> If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you.
I intend no such thing.
I intend no such thing.
Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.
This isn't exactly to the detriment of Assange. It's easy to get away with rape if you're willing to completely tar your victim's reputation. And if you're a popular public figure, your fans will completely go along with this. Just ask Kobe.
EDIT: Although, Swedish culture might be different in this respect.
This isn't exactly to the detriment of Assange. It's easy to get away with rape if you're willing to completely tar your victim's reputation. And if you're a popular public figure, your fans will completely go along with this. Just ask Kobe.
EDIT: Although, Swedish culture might be different in this respect.
Come on, really? So suddenly, because it's Assange, the justice system will conspire against him. He has a world of sympathizers...this thread is proof of that.
I think he'll be fine.
I think he'll be fine.
The prosecution's case has several puzzling flaws - so obvious! Come on!! Those are NOT the reactions to rape and sexual assault. However, sorry, I do think the recent release endangers people's lives in wars.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju...
Unless they actually charge him with something in Sweden -- which I believe is actually a requirement for this sort of warrant to be issued -- they won't be able to move him to Sweden.
Hopefully sanity doesn't desert the British legal system as well.
Hopefully sanity doesn't desert the British legal system as well.
Spoken by someone who doesn't know the British legal system well at all. The lack of sanity in the system is breathtakingly clear. We recently convicted someone for making a joke via Twitter, and he didn't have the resources of a government(s?) behind the conviction:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/11/with-conviction-of-...
The British legal system is extremely thorough, but excrutiatingly slow. The problem with this approach to justice is that we tend hand people off to foreign governments and then it's too late to recall them. Lessons be will learned, no individual blame will be attached, and Assange will be ruined.
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/11/with-conviction-of-...
The British legal system is extremely thorough, but excrutiatingly slow. The problem with this approach to justice is that we tend hand people off to foreign governments and then it's too late to recall them. Lessons be will learned, no individual blame will be attached, and Assange will be ruined.
If that is indeed his plan then he is incredibly naive.
If I take the high-profile “rape” trials I know about as a guide (mere allegations, scant or no evidence, a hungry press and tons of lawyers) this could take a long, long while with much opportunity for Assange to say whatever he wants and a lot of pressure for all involved parties. It’s not as though Sweden can lock him up and throw away the keys. He is relatively safe in British or Swedish custody, if anything were to happen to him the respective governments would get massive problems and there would be no plausible deniability.
"It’s not as though Sweden can lock him up and throw away the keys."
Don't be too sure. To quote from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-julian...):
"Assange has also said that he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial, and prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado."
The age of democracy is now officially over...
Don't be too sure. To quote from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-julian...):
"Assange has also said that he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial, and prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado."
The age of democracy is now officially over...
Not only has there been nothing resembling an "age of democracy" in modern times, but Julian Assange doesn't stand for democracy in any way, shape, or form.
He has indeed demonstrated that modern technology combined with antiquated practice can enable a single person to control our institutions for his own purposes.
Not really sure how that got mistaken with democracy. Let's use our words carefully and precisely. Did you mean the "age of free speech"?
He has indeed demonstrated that modern technology combined with antiquated practice can enable a single person to control our institutions for his own purposes.
Not really sure how that got mistaken with democracy. Let's use our words carefully and precisely. Did you mean the "age of free speech"?
Agreed - What happens in the next few days will tell a lot about the position the UK really has in this matter.
The optimist in me is hopeful the UK is helping him to get the Interpol heat off of him and set him free on bail.
After all, Assange might help the UK in anticipating future Wikileaks releases. There's plenty of potential for deals.
The optimist in me is hopeful the UK is helping him to get the Interpol heat off of him and set him free on bail.
After all, Assange might help the UK in anticipating future Wikileaks releases. There's plenty of potential for deals.
How is this relevant to whether or not he committed a sexual assault?
If there's a weight of evidence showing he's guilty then he should be extradited and tried.
If there's a weight of evidence showing he's guilty then he should be extradited and tried.
> If there's a weight of evidence showing he's guilty then he should be extradited and tried.
Agreed. The corollary of that is that if there isn't he should be set free.
Agreed. The corollary of that is that if there isn't he should be set free.
A possible blunder. This is way bigger than McKinnon and he had to fight tooth and nail. If Assange is not extradited to Sweden there is a good chance he will be sent to the US (maybe as an enemy combatant).
On what possible legal grounds?
If you are officially accused of being a terrorist (or aiding a terrorist organisation) by the states, they can hold you indefinitely. The UK can hold you as well without reason for a specified period as well (90 days?).
The UK has very little to gain from his release and much to lose - it will injure US/UK relations.
The UK has very little to gain from his release and much to lose - it will injure US/UK relations.
I think (hope) there would be a fairly strong backlash against any suggestion that he is to be extradited to the US on anything associated with terrorism.
I'd have thought a charge of espionage or treason would be more likely.
He's Australian - I can't see how he could be extradited to the US for treason.
[Edit: On second thoughts I think I'm expecting a bit too much rational behavior from our legal system, they'd probably extradite him if he was accused of shooting Abraham Lincoln]
[Edit: On second thoughts I think I'm expecting a bit too much rational behavior from our legal system, they'd probably extradite him if he was accused of shooting Abraham Lincoln]
You cannot be held for 90 days in the UK. That was where the previous government tried to get to, but they were blocked. It currently stands that you can be held for 28 days without trial, and the government have to renew that every 6 months.
You assume there needs to be legal ground.
But of course there does! Why, you need legal ground to issue an arrest warra.... Oh wait - now I see your point....
Despite my low level of contribution to this site, I must say I'm tired of seeing WikiLeaks/Assange on the Hacker News front page. Granted, all this may be newsworthy, but going by the Hacker News Guidelines, it feels more "Off-Topic" than on, in that it's about politics and would be covered on TV news, like the TSA submissions a while ago.
I don't think this story is off-topic. Most of us are interested in how technology is changing the world around us. That means something on-topic can be about how new technology is affecting medical practice (for example, potential advances against tooth decay) or about how it is affecting politics (in this case, increasing governmental vulnerability to widespread dissemination of secret information).
It looks like more people agree with you than me, so I'll take the opportunity to at least explain my point of view.
I come to Hacker News to see people talk about technology, innovation, trends, start-ups and tiny projects that pop up that do things that seem so obvious in hind-sight, but are in fact really clever. This recent news about WikiLeaks and Assange I feel don't really fit in any of these categories.
The Hacker News Guidelines [1] may be open to interpretation, but it does explicitly state:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
and
> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There is a bit after the first quote that states "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon," which I suppose is where we disagree. Nonetheless, if you and others feel it fits here, I'll respect your opinions.
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I come to Hacker News to see people talk about technology, innovation, trends, start-ups and tiny projects that pop up that do things that seem so obvious in hind-sight, but are in fact really clever. This recent news about WikiLeaks and Assange I feel don't really fit in any of these categories.
The Hacker News Guidelines [1] may be open to interpretation, but it does explicitly state:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
and
> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There is a bit after the first quote that states "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon," which I suppose is where we disagree. Nonetheless, if you and others feel it fits here, I'll respect your opinions.
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The world is changing around us. Thanks, in large part, to a hacker. It doesn't get much more on topic than that. It's also a very interesting new phenomenon.
When your startup is terminted on PayPal or AWS on dubious ground, come back and leave a comment.
>When your startup is terminted on PayPal or AWS on dubious ground, come back and leave a comment.
If that was what this post was about then you'd have a point. Wikileaks and Assange's private life are almost entirely orthogonal IMO.
If that was what this post was about then you'd have a point. Wikileaks and Assange's private life are almost entirely orthogonal IMO.
You mean as opposed to say mountain climbing, dietary habits or aspirin ?
I don't see you complaining about things being 'off topic' in those threads.
I don't see you complaining about things being 'off topic' in those threads.
Come off it, you expect him to comment in every thread that he believes is off-topic?
This sort of argument should have a name (I'm sure it does) - "but gov, you didn't complain last time I cleaned your windows badly".
This sort of argument should have a name (I'm sure it does) - "but gov, you didn't complain last time I cleaned your windows badly".
No, it's just that those are far more off-topic than this one.
Off-topic is largely subjective though and there were about a million submitted posts on the same topic. One post can be ignored, multiple posts on the same topic that one finds off-topic probably warrants a comment.
Oh and one more thing: topic, topic, topic topic.
Oh and one more thing: topic, topic, topic topic.
I might if there are another 20 of them over the next week or two, and they aren't about combining them into an astonishing new mountain climbing strategy that involves aspirin-based dietary habits. :)
I also don't see countless near-dupes of those threads being upvoted
And then killed.
I think what you find on HN is that these fit into grey areas, and basically the community decides on if they stay on the home page or not.
How I look at it is that you are never going to be reading all the articles on the front page right? So if this doesn't interest you it is as simple as skipping it. If one day there is 15+ of these type of grey area links on HN, then that will be a problem, but I just don't see that happening.
How I look at it is that you are never going to be reading all the articles on the front page right? So if this doesn't interest you it is as simple as skipping it. If one day there is 15+ of these type of grey area links on HN, then that will be a problem, but I just don't see that happening.
I suppose you're right. I just felt frustrated seeing the same topic over and over, and wondered if anybody agreed.
On the whole, Hacker News is a great place, arguably the best of the news aggregation sites on the Internet. Even people who disagree with me here have upvoted other excellent submissions and posted excellent comments, so I'll at least thank them and the community as a whole for those.
On the whole, Hacker News is a great place, arguably the best of the news aggregation sites on the Internet. Even people who disagree with me here have upvoted other excellent submissions and posted excellent comments, so I'll at least thank them and the community as a whole for those.
The great thing about HN: there's so many good submissions. Don't like what's on the front page? Check out a page or two after it, or put a feed on new submissions. You don't have to read the stories and comment threads about Wikileaks, you know. And when you get more karma, you can even start flagging things! (I don't know the karma threshold.)
Assange is a hacker and WikiLeaks is a start-up though not in the usual money-making PG-esque business sense.
The site had - and I guess it still has - some non-trivial (at least at such scale of pressure and exposure) operational issues: DoS attacks, denials of DNS service, hosting refusals, bank-accounts freezings, institutional threatening reactions from the mightiest states in the world... ...and yet it's still on-line under different URLs and mirrors.
Isn't that a true hackers' achievement worthy for discussing here at length?
I'm not quite sure, of course, but maybe hundreds of future PhDs in the history and political sciences - getting their degrees in the very same elite universities whose alumni now rule in US & UK - will be indebted to this man and this project that shed light on all the data.
Just think about that.
The site had - and I guess it still has - some non-trivial (at least at such scale of pressure and exposure) operational issues: DoS attacks, denials of DNS service, hosting refusals, bank-accounts freezings, institutional threatening reactions from the mightiest states in the world... ...and yet it's still on-line under different URLs and mirrors.
Isn't that a true hackers' achievement worthy for discussing here at length?
I'm not quite sure, of course, but maybe hundreds of future PhDs in the history and political sciences - getting their degrees in the very same elite universities whose alumni now rule in US & UK - will be indebted to this man and this project that shed light on all the data.
Just think about that.
I don't agree, since wikileaks is all about freedom of information, which has the highest possible value for a hacker; while TSA stuff is more about law and law enforcement.
Both of those topics have nice subtle 1984-ish smell, though.
Both of those topics have nice subtle 1984-ish smell, though.
"wikileaks is all about freedom of information..."
I don't want to hurt any hacker's emotions but I feel "freedom of information" should end where it endangers those people's lives who are working for their countries, whether soldiers or diplomats.
Freedom of information and expose MUST be for common man's good, not just for gaining publicity.
Expose the wrong, not the mundane.Otherwise it's pure eavesdropping and bragging about your power to do so.
Diplomacy IS "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations" (as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary). That is precisely what all the exposed diplomatic cables were doing.Anything wrong with that?
If I study hard to get a job in foreign services and someday, somewhere, someone decides to divulge my confidential, professional conversations just for the heck of it, and it destroys my reputation then what it should be called? Expose or public titillation?
And if freedom of information or "openness" is so vital then why WikiLeak's founder guards his privacy so fiercely? One rule for others, one for himself?
... I feel "freedom of information" should end where it endangers those people's lives who are working for their countries ...
Who exactly has been endangered by the leaks? No concrete example has been given so far, and if there had been any, the US government would have jumped on the occasion to demonize Wikileaks even more. Without any proof, those allegations amount to FUD and hypocrisy, since the death toll caused by the US government is considerable.
Taking the Irak war as an example (but others abound, e.g. Chile or Vietnam): Bush attacked Irak based on lies, and, by 2006, the war had caused 654,965 excess deaths (direct and indirect casualties) [1]. I couldn't find a more recent estimate, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number had doubled by now.
Now that is a big death toll caused by hidden information, isn't it?
--
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casu...
Who exactly has been endangered by the leaks? No concrete example has been given so far, and if there had been any, the US government would have jumped on the occasion to demonize Wikileaks even more. Without any proof, those allegations amount to FUD and hypocrisy, since the death toll caused by the US government is considerable.
Taking the Irak war as an example (but others abound, e.g. Chile or Vietnam): Bush attacked Irak based on lies, and, by 2006, the war had caused 654,965 excess deaths (direct and indirect casualties) [1]. I couldn't find a more recent estimate, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number had doubled by now.
Now that is a big death toll caused by hidden information, isn't it?
--
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casu...
I believe, Wikileaks emailed the government on the matter of redacting the sensitive information and they [the government] rejected doing so.
For fear of making it a political debate, I will humble refrain from any more comment.
Only one point: Neither Iraq war nor War in Afghanistan is justified by ANY argument at all.
If WikiLeak is so powerful then it should have exposed how Bush conspired to destroy these two countries, kill millions of people over there and get its own soldiers killed in a war no one can justify.
Michael Moore did more to expose the wrongness of Iraq war through his book "Dude, Where's my Country" then WikiLeak can claim to have done. Michael Moore was the first American celebrity who opposed Iraq war from Oscar podium and for that he was booed. He stood against the general public sentiment and two years down the line, people realized how right he was. Please read that book if you can, you can find some information about that book in Wikipedia, here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude,_Where%27s_My_Country%3F regards.
Only one point: Neither Iraq war nor War in Afghanistan is justified by ANY argument at all.
If WikiLeak is so powerful then it should have exposed how Bush conspired to destroy these two countries, kill millions of people over there and get its own soldiers killed in a war no one can justify.
Michael Moore did more to expose the wrongness of Iraq war through his book "Dude, Where's my Country" then WikiLeak can claim to have done. Michael Moore was the first American celebrity who opposed Iraq war from Oscar podium and for that he was booed. He stood against the general public sentiment and two years down the line, people realized how right he was. Please read that book if you can, you can find some information about that book in Wikipedia, here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude,_Where%27s_My_Country%3F regards.
"Endangers peoples lives" ... if you came to this conclusion yourself, can you PLEASE share with the rest of us how did they do that?
"Freedom of information and expose MUST be for common man's good,"..... spoken as someone who's been brainwashed (pardon the use of that word) to be spoonfed information by those who control it. Who decides what's for "the common man's good" ? Why can't we see all the information and then decide for OURSELVES what's for our good?
"...and it destroys my reputation " .... just listen to yourself, man! Stop being scared of openness! Please, do us all a favor, go through the 1000+ cables and point us to 1 where someone's reputation is being destroyed.
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO SCARED OF WIKILEAKS??
"Freedom of information and expose MUST be for common man's good,"..... spoken as someone who's been brainwashed (pardon the use of that word) to be spoonfed information by those who control it. Who decides what's for "the common man's good" ? Why can't we see all the information and then decide for OURSELVES what's for our good?
"...and it destroys my reputation " .... just listen to yourself, man! Stop being scared of openness! Please, do us all a favor, go through the 1000+ cables and point us to 1 where someone's reputation is being destroyed.
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO SCARED OF WIKILEAKS??
[deleted]
You make two points:
* "freedom of information should end where it endangers...people's lives"
* "expose the wrong, not the mundane"
I think it’s mostly a problem with how Hacker News works and that, to a certain extent, there is no way around it. I would think that a detailed 10,000 word article about recent Wikileaks developments every three months or so with an accompanying extensive discussion would be entirely appropriate. Not too much and not too little. The problem is that social news sites don’t have that kind of foresight.
That’s why we so often end up with this uncomfortable decision between accepting a topic and the accompanying occasional article avalanches or locking out a topic completely, neither of which seems entirely appropriate Wikileaks on Hacker News.
That’s why we so often end up with this uncomfortable decision between accepting a topic and the accompanying occasional article avalanches or locking out a topic completely, neither of which seems entirely appropriate Wikileaks on Hacker News.
One very on-topic part of this wikileaks saga is Amazon and PayPal's reactions. If you are running your start up on them, you have to be careful now.
Head to the new page and vote on some stuff you like.
Do not downvote if you don't agree. He raises a valid point (with which I myself don't fuly agree but it's a valid point nonetheless).
Why this is important:
The world is changing, the definition of "journalist" is changing. In a different time such leaks would have come from a spirited and lively free press, but today our traditional forms of journalism (newpapers, radio, tv) are utterly mainstream, moribund, and very much part of the establishment. Wikileaks throws the new order into sharp contrast and raises questions about what is journalism, what legal protections journalism deserves, etc. Some of these questions had been answered (especially in the US) but the question now is to what degree and in what way do those decisions carry over to the brave new world of the internet.
The worst case scenario is that courts, the public, etc. decide to keep an antiquated cargo cult definition of journalism, restricted to newspapermen and television reporters. The danger there is that the flourishing of journalism on the internet in unfamiliar forms will lack the protections (legal and societal) that traditional journalism has had.
This is all the more sensational because Assange and wikileaks have become the poster boy / touchstone for these issues. This is troubling to me because wikileaks is not the best archetype for nouveau journalism. Firstly he has a very significant political ax to grind (though he has not been grinding it as sharply as in the past such as with "Collateral Murder"). Secondly the revelations that have come from wikileaks have tended to be comparatively minor, especially when judged against the cost of obtaining the leaked information. This sets him up as the perfect target for governments and traditionalists to tar and feather him and use him as an archetypal example of why new media is not journalism and does not deserve the same protections as traditional journalism.
The world is changing, the definition of "journalist" is changing. In a different time such leaks would have come from a spirited and lively free press, but today our traditional forms of journalism (newpapers, radio, tv) are utterly mainstream, moribund, and very much part of the establishment. Wikileaks throws the new order into sharp contrast and raises questions about what is journalism, what legal protections journalism deserves, etc. Some of these questions had been answered (especially in the US) but the question now is to what degree and in what way do those decisions carry over to the brave new world of the internet.
The worst case scenario is that courts, the public, etc. decide to keep an antiquated cargo cult definition of journalism, restricted to newspapermen and television reporters. The danger there is that the flourishing of journalism on the internet in unfamiliar forms will lack the protections (legal and societal) that traditional journalism has had.
This is all the more sensational because Assange and wikileaks have become the poster boy / touchstone for these issues. This is troubling to me because wikileaks is not the best archetype for nouveau journalism. Firstly he has a very significant political ax to grind (though he has not been grinding it as sharply as in the past such as with "Collateral Murder"). Secondly the revelations that have come from wikileaks have tended to be comparatively minor, especially when judged against the cost of obtaining the leaked information. This sets him up as the perfect target for governments and traditionalists to tar and feather him and use him as an archetypal example of why new media is not journalism and does not deserve the same protections as traditional journalism.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101202,01.shtml
Is this correct?
Is this correct?
It's a dubious source but it raises interesting points for independent verification.
Someone in the mainstream media (one of those investigative journalists that they have so many of there) should dig in and find out.
Someone in the mainstream media (one of those investigative journalists that they have so many of there) should dig in and find out.
This can be better for him in terms of his safety now. Hope everything will end safely for Assange.
Sad. I really wanted to see the promised documents about UFOs. In my opinion, it would raise much more noise in the society.
If you have the "insurance" file, you likely already have them on your computer.
Why would Julian's arrest/conviction/disappearance affect whether or not you see the documents? He has nothing to do with the leaking effort.
http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/12163859271917568
Why would Julian's arrest/conviction/disappearance affect whether or not you see the documents? He has nothing to do with the leaking effort.
http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/12163859271917568
The documents will continue to be released as usual. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/12114747864391680
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I'm enthralled by the world's obsession with this man. Sure, I get that some people like that he plays reluctant hero up against the "evil" US, but come on. The guy is charged with sexual assault. If there's any chance he did it, then he should go to trial. Why would we treat him any differently than other criminals?
If there was no misconduct, then we will find out, and the charges will be dropped.
If there was no misconduct, then we will find out, and the charges will be dropped.
I keep reading that the sex was consensual and that it's the fact he didn't use protection that made it a crime. I don't really understand how this can be the case though, but it seems to be all over the place if you google it. Sweden must have a very strange law.
I scoured the web and read a bit about the case. It seems that one of the "victims" isn't complaining, though the 2nd is.
I'm not going to play PI, but it seems to me that if a woman is that upset after sex, then something went wrong. Maybe he refused to spoon.
I'm not going to play PI, but it seems to me that if a woman is that upset after sex, then something went wrong. Maybe he refused to spoon.
Whatever it was, it doesn't sound like anything which could be classified as an assault, sexual or otherwise.
Isn't that what the trial is supposed to find out? I don't know a lot about the UK justice system, but I imagine they wouldn't issue a warrant without something to bring to the trial.
I just seems too convenient that he would be accused of rape now.
There are many rape cases in the world. You don't put a person on interpol's list of this. He should be put on trial but putting him Interpol's wanted list. Not fair.
yawn...
The Swedish police decided to drop the case irrespective of ample CCTV evidence and both men having pleaded guilty. Quoting prosecutor Thomas Holst: "Were we to try to get everyone suspected of a less serious crime extradited, we would have to work around the clock."