Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 111

Thread: why is there no wikileaks thread?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Why unexpected? The Washington Times is extremely conservative and is owned and funded by Sun Myung Moon. I think it loses millions each year.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    19,657

    Default

    i think da powers dat be are wise enough to know that killing assange wouldn't stop the wikileaks movement. it may be worth doing even so, to set an example, but i doubt it. i think it may well make the situation worse for them. they'll probably just make loads of fucked up stupid laws to deal with it like they usually do and the world will be a little less free again....

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevied View Post
    Why unexpected? The Washington Times is extremely conservative and is owned and funded by Sun Myung Moon. I think it loses millions each year.
    Doh! Didn't look closely, thought it was WaPo.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    56

    Default

    No problem. The Washington Post is certainly a different kind of newspaper and obviously renowned for breaking Watergate. But it too has moved significantly to the right over the years. Sure, there are a some honest and good journalists still there, but it also employs plenty of hacks and shills for the State Department and corporate America: it was trying to outdo the NYT in pro-war fervour in the run-up to Iraq; publishes dissimulations by Peter Peterson, Wall Street billionaire and Nixon administration cabinet member, on the "need" to gut Social Security and Medicare; and last year was involved in a scandal about journalists being available for corporate hire. Thanks!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    berlin
    Posts
    8,477

    Default

    nvermind
    Last edited by zhao; 07-12-2010 at 05:20 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toughmanistan
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Arrested - thoughts?

    I always though Sweden liked to thumb it's nose a bit to the US of A, seems as though these charges are kind of... conveniently timed to say the least however...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,521

    Default

    I bet the poor guy's been put off having sex ever again.

    I distinctly remember he was up against a rape charge when the charges were first made, but now they're calling it "sexual assualt" - so does that mean a horribly violent rape, or a pinch on the arse? Of course, for all we know maybe the allegations are true - which is why it's such an effective way to smear someone, if they're not...
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  8. #38

    Default

    No bail granted.
    In custody till later this month.

    John Pilger was gonna put up some of the bail.


    " Assange smiled twice in court. Once when giving Australian PO box as his address. Then when judge said Wikipedia instead of Wikileaks. "
    Last edited by Sectionfive; 07-12-2010 at 02:59 PM.

  9. #39
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    I bet the poor guy's been put off having sex ever again.

    I distinctly remember he was up against a rape charge when the charges were first made, but now they're calling it "sexual assualt" - so does that mean a horribly violent rape, or a pinch on the arse? Of course, for all we know maybe the allegations are true - which is why it's such an effective way to smear someone, if they're not...
    He was charged, the charges were dropped.

    Now theyre back again. The allegation is that he either failed to wear, or took off/broke a condom during consensual sex. It all seems extremely dodgy.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,521

    Default

    If the sex was consensual, how can it be considered "rape", condom or no condom?

    He should get one of these for the next time he has a hot date:

    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 07-12-2010 at 04:41 PM.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  11. #41
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    If it's just that they didn't use one in the first place, how on earth is that his 'fault' any more than hers? And something you can be legally charged with? The mind boggles.

    He should get one of these for the next time he has a hot date:

    Afaik the act was in progress when the condom was either removed or broken in either case.

    Fair enough. I guess the ladies were just trying to avoid any sticky-leaks!

    BOOM BOOM BOOM!!!
    Last edited by droid; 07-12-2010 at 07:27 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    116

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    He was charged, the charges were dropped.

    Now theyre back again. The allegation is that he either failed to wear, or took off/broke a condom during consensual sex. It all seems extremely dodgy.
    His lawyer on C4 News now. Apparently still no charges, he's just wanted for questioning and the lawyer who's revived the case is a right-wing politician.

    This is barely a pretence of proper legal proceedings.

  14. #44

    Default

    I cannot believe this shit - gibsonian.

    More than one person, in more than one country is being seriously leaned on here.

    Following from the guardian:

    The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, who is wanted in Sweden over claims he sexually assaulted two women, was in Wandsworth prison tonight after a judge refused him bail at an extradition hearing in London. The 39-year-old Australian, who denies the allegations, was driven away in a white prison van after an extraordinary one-hour hearing at City of Westminster magistrates court. The district judge, Howard Riddle, ruled there was a risk Assange would fail to surrender if granted bail.

    Despite Jemima Khan, former wife of Pakistan cricketer Imran Khan, the campaigning journalist John Pilger, the British film director Ken Loach and others offering to stand surety totalling 180,000, the judge said Assange's "weak community ties" in the UK, and his "means and ability" to abscond, were "substantial grounds" for refusing bail.

    He was remanded until 14 December, when the case can be reviewed at the same court. His legal team said he would again apply for bail at that hearing.

    The move against Assange came on a day when increasing pressure was brought to bear in the US on companies and organisations with ties to WikiLeaks.

    As Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, urged businesses to sever their ties with the website, Visa suspended all donations through its credit card.

    Asked about the New York Times's role in publishing the leaked cables, Lieberman told Fox news the newspaper "has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. Whether they have committed a crime I think bears very intensive inquiry".

    Assange, wearing a black suit and open-necked white shirt, stood in the glass-panelled dock as more than 50 journalists from around the world packed into the well and more than 20 supporters and friends crammed into the public gallery. Outside, the pavement was swallowed up as more photographers and camera crew jostled with angry protesters gathered at the building's main entrance.

    After the ruling with supporters waving A4 printouts reading "Character Assassination" and "Protect Free Speech" his solicitor, Mark Stephens, emerged on to the court's steps to claim the prosecution was "politically motivated" and pledged that WikiLeaks would not be cowed. Assange was entitled to a high court appeal, he said, adding the judge was "impressed" with the number of people prepared to "stand up" on his client's behalf. "[Those supporters] were but the tip of the iceberg," he said. "This is going to go viral. Many people believe Mr Assange to be innocent, myself included. Many people believe that this prosecution is politically motivated."

    Pilger, who told the judge he did know Assange and had "very high regard for him", said outside court: "Sweden should be ashamed. This is not justice this is outrageous."

    Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 9.20am after a European arrest warrant was received by the Metropolitan police extradition unit yesterday. He appeared in court at 2pm, where he spoke to confirm his name and date of birth and to tell the court: "I do not consent to my extradition."

    There was confusion when he initially refused to give an address except a Post Office box number. When told this was unacceptable, his lawyer, John Jones, read out an address at 177 Grantham Street, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. Assange is wanted in connection with four allegations including of rape and molestation.

    Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, said the first involved complainant A, who said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

    The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

    The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

    Lindfield argued there was a "high risk of flight" because of Assange's "lifestyle, connections and potential assets".

    He had access to funds, through PayPal donations to the WikiLeaks website, had a "network of international contacts", lived a "nomadic" lifestyle, and spent his time in "hiding", she said. The court later heard that for the past three weeks he had been staying at a UK address, and before then had spent two months living at the Frontline media club in Paddington.

    There was no record of him entering the UK in the first place. He had displayed an unwillingness to co-operate, refusing to be photographed, fingerprinted or give a DNA sample on arrest, she added.

    No details were given about the strength of evidence, with Lindfield saying it "is not a factor in relation to bail". She also opposed bail for reasons of his personal safety, saying if granted "any number of unstable persons could take it upon themselves to cause him serious harm".

    "This is someone, simply put, to whom no conditions, even the most stringent conditions, could be imposed that would ensure he surrendered to the jurisdiction of this court," she said.

    John Jones said the case must be "shorn of all political and media hysteria" associated with WikiLeaks.

    Assange was of previous good character, and had voluntarily handed himself in to Kentish Town police station in London. His refusal to be photographed, fingerprinted or give a DNA sample was on legal advice.

    He had stayed in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were made to answer the charges and only left the country after being given "express permission" by the Swedish prosecutor.

    Since he had arrived in the UK he had "consistently agreed to talk to the Swedish authorities". His defence fund had been frozen, and he would also be "instantly recognised" if he tried to leave the country, said Jones.

    "He resists extradition as it is disproportionate to extradite someone under these circumstances. There has been every indication that the point of this warrant is to get him back for questioning."

    The judge said the warrant did state it was for prosecution.

    Others offering surety were Professor Patricia David, and the lawyer Geoffrey Sheen, president of Union Solidarity International, who both said although they did not know Assange they were concerned about human rights. An unnamed relative of Assange offered 80,000.

    But judge Riddle said: "The nature and strength of the evidence is not there, this is normal at this stage in proceedings. What we have here is the serious possible allegations against someone with comparatively weak community ties in this country. He has the means and ability to abscond if he wants to and I am satisfied that there are substantial grounds to believe if I granted him bail he would fail to surrender."

    Downing Street said Assange's arrest was "a matter for the police" and there had been no ministerial involvement.

    A WikiLeaks spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, said it would not stop the release of more secret files. "WikiLeaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before. Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

    Unlike the UK, Swedish rape law is not based on consent but on the aforementioned concept of sexual integrity. There are a number of possible offences against this integrity. Those that involve both penetration and either physical force or a threat of some illegal act, such as violence, are classified as rape. So are assaults on people who are helpless at the time, either as a result of intoxication or severe mental disturbance. The degree of physical force involved need only be very small. It can be enough merely to move the victim's legs apart, according to Gunilla Berglund, at the Swedish ministry of justice. Rape carries a sentence of between two and six years; aggravated rape a sentence of four to 10 years.

    An issue concerning Assange's lawyers is the lack of bail in Swedish criminal procedure. Suspects are remanded in custody when legal grounds can be made out for their detention particularly when they are foreigners who are deemed at risk of absconding.

    However, there are strict limits on the timescale for bringing a suspect to trial, with a formal charge required within two weeks of being remanded into custody, and trial one week after that.

    The Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, dismissed suggestions of a political motive for the rape allegations.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...ge-denied-bail

    Then, on news night Kirsty asked if the distinction between Assange and Wikileaks was important - 'no', Kirsty pressed and explained that Assange has put 'levers' in place so that information would continue to be released even without Assange being around, if he is not actually releasing such leaks directly himself is it still correct to pursue his punishment? Answer : "well that is in the eye of the beholder" - - - - ho ho ho, says a lot about american democracy or justice notions ( or any political force anywhere for that matter ) - impression I took away is that it doesn't even matter if he's guilty, he's hunted, and he's going to be punished because he's upset people.

    Also, the sex crimes are not actually awfully heinous, basically just misunderstandings within consensual sex from what I gather, considering his full co-operation so far such politically driven heavy handedness appears even more conspicuous.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toughmanistan
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Ha.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •