Julian Assange (Wikileaks) Arrested In London

[SolkaTruesilver]

As to the idea of the U.S. somehow using covert influence to force another sovereign nation into inventing fraudulent charges against Assange: that's a pretty big leap of faith there. Before you take that from "wild thought experiment" to "I could actually believe this," I'd hope you'd provide some evidence or even precedent.

The evidence might be leaked by WikiLeak, you never know

As for precedent, I can't think of one right now. I know the US often send people to third-world countries to have them tortured and interrogated in order to skip their own legal limits, but I don't remember an instance of a country arresting someone to please the US.

[Mikey]

I'm not talking about what we all assume to be true. Yes, we tried to assassinate Castro, etc., etc. I'm talking about this, for example:

I know the US often send people to third-world countries to have them tortured and interrogated in order to skip their own legal limits

Yeah, it probably happens. But to state this definitively, I must ask you for the evidence which you have for this.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm not talking about what we all assume to be true. Yes, we tried to assassinate Castro, etc., etc. I'm talking about this, for example:

I know the US often send people to third-world countries to have them tortured and interrogated in order to skip their own legal limits

Yeah, it probably happens. But to state this definitively, I must ask you for the evidence which you have for this.

You want the truth? You CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I think this example is proof ennough that it happens. Wether or not it happens on a large scale is irrelevant: it happened, it happens, it will happen again.

edit: I hope you take "You cannot handle the truth" as more of a joke than any insults/disregard of your opinion

[Mikey]

While I don't trust Wiki as a faithful factual source any further than I can throw it, the Arar case is a good-enough example. However, there is little similarity between this and the Assange case.

The fact remains that there's a lot of people out there who are willing to exonerate Assange without facts simply because he's an iconoclast. The fact that he is a man who is willing to knowingly endanger lives in order to further his own self-gratification and self-aggrandizement seems to be lost on all these people.

[SolkaTruesilver]

The fact remains that there's a lot of people out there who are willing to exonerate Assange without facts simply because he's an iconoclast. The fact that he is a man who is willing to knowingly endanger lives in order to further his own self-gratification and self-aggrandizement seems to be lost on all these people.

You of all people should know how tempting the "David vs Goliath" archetype is tempting for many stupid teenagers/young adults, which probably consist the majority of Assange's supporter. They don't care about the consequences of his action, they care about his open defiance of the world's #1 power and his complete disregard of what they want of him.

Quite a lot to make stupid geek kids have fantasies of being a "rebel", don't you think? Worst thing is, if that had happened while I was 17, I think I would have been one of Assange's supporters too.

[Mikey]

Exactly my point. Unfortunately, that support - based on the fact that he's an iconoclast, and willing to take on the "big boys" - disregards two things:

1) the fact that he is causing negative consequences for no good reason, and;
2) the fact of his actual guilt or innocence in the crimes with which he is charged.

[Atekimogus]

1) the fact that he is causing negative consequences for no good reason, and;
2) the fact of his actual guilt or innocence in the crimes with which he is charged.

Well maybe the reaction wouldn't quite as strong if one could see any actual harm done by him. (I am only talking about the leaks, not about his supposed rape. Again, this is for a court to decide, not me).

I don't question that those papers are potentially harmfull, but so FAR all he caused was a mild embarrassment to the US-dipomatic chor and that is it. I don't see how this justifies US-OFFICIALS publicly stating that he should be assassinated. So are they at least being honest about it for fear it might be leaked if they draw up another black list? (On that note, I imagine..or at least I strongly hope that a politican here would utter such comments he/she wouldn't be a politcian much longer. Boy...who is this Palin woman and why isn't she shut down by her own party?)

Last I looked you still have to commit a crime before they can charge you with it (minority report anyone?), now have fun measuring the exact damage his leaks did. Compare it maybe to the damage done to the economy by (greedy, incompetent etc.) managers and bank ceo's in the last couple of years and then arrive at a just conclusion.

(As a aside, since I wasn't around at that time, but what is the big difference between those few leaks and watergate? To me, not being a witness of that time, those two instances seem remarkable similar and while I cannot say how the public reaction was at that time it seems to me that the outrage then was with the politicians abusing their power and not with the people who "leaked" this information. So maybe someone older and wiser could clear this up for me)

[Mikey]

Watergate didn't endanger lives that wouldn't have otherwise been endangered.

[Captain Seafort]

It was also limited to the US - this, at the very least, affects diplomatic relations worldwide with the result that while foreign countries will still do business with the US (as Gates pointed out, they need them) they will be doing so with considerably less enthusiasm, and they will be considerably more circumspect in what they tell US diplomats. On top of that, of course, there's the almost perfectly written terrorist targeting list that was published, along with the old Afghan stuff which has probably already lead directly to people being killed.

[Atekimogus]

It was also limited to the US - this, at the very least, affects diplomatic relations worldwide with the result that while foreign countries will still do business with the US (as Gates pointed out, they need them) they will be doing so with considerably less enthusiasm, and they will be considerably more circumspect in what they tell US diplomats.

Certainly true. Yet again I think you overestimate the effects this will have. As you pointed out foreign countries still have to do business with the US, yet even before the leaks neither side were idiots so I guess everyone has a pretty good idea what is really going on during negotiations. Some might use these leaks for a very short moment as leverage but overall I think the effect will be less then minmal. I certainly hadn't heard so far about drastic changes in the stock and/or foreign exchange market due to leaks (granted, I don't check every day).

On top of that, of course, there's the almost perfectly written terrorist targeting list that was published, along with the old Afghan stuff which has probably already lead directly to people being killed.

Here I agree, as far as I can see it such a list should not have been puplished. (Altough as far as I know this list is just one of "targets" deemed important. So maybe its a convienient list but were there any secret stuff revealed any half capable terrorist with internet wouldn't have been able to figure out on his own? Just saying....again as with the diplomatic stuff the reaction seems way exaggerated)

The old afghan stuff I cannot comment, I don't have the knowledge if leaks directly or indirectly lead to deaths or injuries, yet it seems to me if this would have been the case, this would have been a PERFECT opportunity to REALLY discredit the work of wikileaks, instead of this lame attempt to paint him as an asshole which he probably is. Not only that, they finally would even have a real case against wikileaks.(incedently I don't care much that he is a jerk, most journalists are, seems to be a job requirement. At least at wikileaks they have a harm minimization policy, now I don't know how effective this is but how many other news agencies even claim to have such a thing?)

So far no damage was done for which you can really prosecute the guy or wikileaks and CERTAINLY death threats from politicians are in either case inacceptable.

[Captain Seafort]

Yet again I think you overestimate the effects this will have. As you pointed out foreign countries still have to do business with the US, yet even before the leaks neither side were idiots so I guess everyone has a pretty good idea what is really going on during negotiations.

I'm not talking about what's been said about various people - as you say, that's mostly confirming what most people would have already guessed. The serious damage is the very fact that they've been released at all. It shows that you can't tell the Yanks anything without them loosing it, and it being splashed all over the papers.

Here I agree, as far as I can see it such a list should not have been puplished. (Altough as far as I know this list is just one of "targets" deemed important. So maybe its a convienient list but were there any secret stuff revealed any half capable terrorist with internet wouldn't have been able to figure out on his own? Just saying....again as with the diplomatic stuff the reaction seems way exaggerated)

It's probably something that AQ would have been able to put together on their own, but it makes things a lot easier, and more importantly it shows what the US government considers important, rather than them just having to go by best guess.

The old afghan stuff I cannot comment, I don't have the knowledge if leaks directly or indirectly lead to deaths or injuries, yet it seems to me if this would have been the case, this would have been a PERFECT opportunity to REALLY discredit the work of wikileaks...Not only that, they finally would even have a real case against wikileaks

It did discredit them. The problem is that it didn't stop them, because it's very difficult for the US to nail an Aussie for something that didn't happen on US territory.

instead of this lame attempt to paint him as an asshole

What "lame attempt to paint him as an asshole"? I can't imagine the Swedish prosecution authorities inventing rape charges to kow-tow to the US, ergo either a) he's a rapist, and should be locked up as such, or b) the man's attitude towards, and treatment of, women is such as to leave him open to such charges, in which case he's both an idiot and an asshole on his own merit, and the Swedish case is merely demonstrating that fact.

At least at wikileaks they have a harm minimization policy

If their current track record is what they consider to be "harm minimisation", then I shudder to think what they'd do to maximise harm.

CERTAINLY death threats from politicians are in either case inacceptable.

Absolutely. Advocating his execution is one thing, whether you agree with the concept or not. Advocating his murder is another matter entirely and as you say, entirely unacceptable.

[Atekimogus]

It shows that you can't tell the Yanks anything without them loosing it, and it being splashed all over the papers.

Yes, that's a delicate point. I would imagine you would need assurances for a time that you revised and tightened your security considerably so maybe there might even come something good out of it in the long run. (I don't have a problem with tight security for government agencies, I only have a problem with enduring anything short of a cavity search when boarding a train or airplane.) It certainly will have an effect on how such secret transactions of information will take place in the future, yet I doubt those transactions will stop.

What "lame attempt to paint him as an asshole"?

Lame as in that they pretty much got played by him like a piano. Those accusations are not new, they are months old yet the sweden prosecutor first let him go (as far as I can tell they already had him, but let him go because of lack of evidence), then - according to his lawyer - failed to agree on a date for police interrogation at least twice (one time because she was appearantly ill). And when the leaks are big in the news he conviniently walks into a police station and let himself get arrested so that every one and their dog can make the obvious connection between leaks and arrestment. That shouldn't have been allowed to happen imho. The swedes screwed up big time imho.

If their current track record is what they consider to be "harm minimisation", then I shudder to think what they'd do to maximise harm.

Indeed, makes one shudder to think that they released only the "harmless" stuff. Might be interesting in a few decades what other skeletons there were in the closet of the various governments and corporations.

Absolutely. Advocating his execution is one thing, whether you agree with the concept or not. Advocating his murder is another matter entirely and as you say, entirely unacceptable.

Glad we agree on this one.

[Mikey]

"Lame attempt to paint him as an asshole?!" Is this some sort of joke? Assange released delicate information, definitely risking human lives and secondarily threatening important political balances, for no other reason than to shout "Hey, look at me!" to the world. He put himself in a position to make rape charges against himself plausible (we don't know yet if they are true,) and then when he got popped for it he got his supporters to attack innocent businesses around the world because he thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions - as long as those "people" are him.

Assange needs absolutely no help at all to look like an asshole.

[Teaos]

He had to know this was coming. For anyone who hasnt read it this weeks TIME magazine has a good piece on him and his past. Interesting guy, and it would seem that arresting him will achive little.

[Mikey]

More's the pity.