This is not a game. A human being is being hunted down for revealing the truth.

He is on the run fighting for his liberty and information liberty.

:shrug: clearly something is very staged here..we're being played

It's your assertion. Prove it.

I imagine there are quite a few intelligence services that have been keeping tabs on him for a while now and I doubt it's been very difficult to do so. No, I cannot prove it -- but it seems like common sense to me :)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I suspect he'll be arrested within the next few days. and frankly, that my be the safest thing for him.

Cancer and other diseases are injectible. Jack Ruby was injected with cancer cells.

Also people in detention have had things done to make their brains not work.

A medical professor had lent me a book titled "Journey Into Madness" by British journalist Gordon Thomas. It is about CIA directed neuroscience experiments, including torture of incarcerated persons.

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-into-Madness-Gordon-Thomas/dp/0553284134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291399680&sr=1-1

Unfortunately I had to give it back.

This is an illuminating frightening read, but well worthwhile, if you can find it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He isn't hiding from Scotland Yard.

He's hiding from the Americans who want him assassinated.

Especially when more facts about the charges - including that he was already questioned about them in Sweden and then given permission to leave - come out?

question. That is a dangerous approach to "justice."

you have to break a law. Even the morons in Congress can't seem to find a statute to prosecute him under.

He has revealed information about other governments also. If there was an International law, he would have been prosecuted under it long ago.

I'm sure however, our government will do what they did with the Fisa Bill and make a law that is 'retroactive'.

What's odd is how everyone is focusing on HIM.

Why is the focus not on the State Dept.'s violation of the law by using our Diplomatic agencies to conduct espionage?

Has Congress or the DOJ started looking in that yet? There ARE laws forbidding this, they don't have to make them up.

So, my first question is: what did Assange do other than publish information that was conveyed to him by some third person (presumably).

What laws did he break? (Remember, he is not an American citizen and did not perform any acts on American soil as far as we can tell, so you need to explain how you would get him under the jurisdiction of an American court if you want to accuse him of breaking American law.)

I don't know of any international law against publishing state secrets. In fact, our government (as we see form the Wikileaks) goes to great trouble to try to find out the secrets of other people -- especially envoys to the UN.

Usually the laws of one country protect that country's secrets but not those of other countries.

Most of the stuff on the Wikileaks thus far has been hearsay and rumor. (It may be true, but hard to say whether it really is. Apparently our diplomatic corps thinks the "information" it transmits is true.)

In fact, this information was not very well protected since many, many people were given access to it if what I have read is true.
Ironically, these secrets may have been the true "Fair Game."

Maybe more evidence will emerge, but at this point, I don't think there is much the government can do about him that is itself legal.
Either Assange is a truly brilliant man and strategist or he had a really sharp lawyer helping him out.

Do you seriously think anyone has been harmed by these leaks? The only person harmed by the leaks I have read is Berlusconi, and he probably deserves it.

So, I am waiting, HipChick to know your answers to my questions. My questions are sincere. I have actually been trying to think of charges on which he could be indicted.

As a postscript, I remember when so many DUers were all excited about Blagojevich and how what he was done was illegal. I could only see maybe one charge against him and said so. Very few of us were realistic about the claims against him. We see how that went down.

I really want to know if you have any legal theories under which he could be indicted.

After all, Bush authorized torture including the torture of at least one completely innocent person. That was a clear violation of international law, human rights and decency. He is walking free to brag about his exploits. I haven't been able to think of a legal recourse against Assange. Good luck to you in trying to find some actionable charge.

guilty until proven innocent...probable cause in reverse...show us probable cause of your innocence.

It's one of the laws that we have going for us.

Meanwhile, Assange is quite a hero in my book and would be DEAD if his whereabouts WERE known.

with them?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

apprehend him, and a warrant, per se, hasn't been issued.

But I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I was think the same thing when I read the articles - the whole wide world is coming down on this guy, just because he exposed their secrets.

n/t

These people have to know that. Maybe they hope they can scare the crap out of everyone but they won't.

The noose. A global lynch mob.

and their media lapdogs are trotting right at their heels as usual.

All they're doing is proving how right Wikileaks has been and they're doing it right in our faces.

Even my mother (a staunch Dem) is rooting for his capture. Madness, anyone?
I'm surprised the chase hasn't already become a feature on Faux News.

Lets say somebody robs a store, they leave the stuff at your place

Now the owners of the store finds out you have the stuff and ask you to return it to them and you refuse.

Would you say that you are doing nothing wrong?

note: not saying you WOULD keep it, its just an example :)

is afforded specific Constitutional protections. And that is that. By the way, the government still has possession of the cables. Wikileaks has copies. But, if Wikileaks received stolen money, then they could and would be compelled to return it.

This a well established United States of America concept. A concept that has been reinforced by the Supreme Court. The government can ask, but the press is afforded a Constitutional right to refuse.

I don't believe for a second that he's done anything except piss off a lot of powerful people.

them in NY and said they were like a pack of rabid murderers all but calling for Julian's assassination.

The woman on MSNBC yesterday pissed me off so bad, I will never watch MSNBC again..I put them on child block!That way I am assured they never get a rating from my home again!

Fox News's "reporting" over the last 2 to 3 years at least. . .fearmongering, lies, and misleading half-truths!
That hasn't been the case for MSNBC!

During the Cold War he would have been stopped without a second thought.

The blowhards in the media keep saying that but the DoJ doesn't today have a way to charge him with espionage. HE didn't steal anything anyway and he wasn't working for a foreign power. And if they say he shouldn't have received it, then they also have to charge every single newspaper that did.

What is it that anyone is claiming he did that is illegal? I mean as far as being given the documents and revealing them... not anything about Sweden's wanting to question him about sex crime charges. I don't see him doing anything that any other journalist does... revealing information however they got it. And if these other publications like the Guardian and New York Times or whatever are also revealing the same info from the same documents, how is it that they aren't being chased down as well? What's the difference?

I can see that it was illegal for whoever it was that took the classified documents and gave them to Wikileaks, but I'm not understanding what it is about Wikileaks revealing them is illegal.

I really don't get this at all. I mean, I get that information was revealed that pisses off powerful people, but I don't get what it is that Assange/Wikileaks did that gives those powerful people any legal leg to stand on. And how can they go after Assange without some kind of actual charge anyway? And why just Assange seeing as there's a whole lot of people involved in revealing the documents besides him?... I don't see him as anything more than a spokesperson.

This is so whacky.

But, this public lynching of Assange is a great illustration of how much privilege means to the powerful and how we are so utterly used to their privilege trumping our LAWS. :shrug:

Just look at all the people buying into the bs. :shrug:

Why is no one chasing down the New York Times? :shrug:

This isn't my country. America doesn't think it's perfectly acceptable and legal to hunt someone down for no other reason than they pissed you off when that person hasn't done anything illegal in what it is that you're pissed off about and isn't any different than anything anyone else already does. For years I've felt like I wake up every day in a bizzaro world America, and this is just more icing on that cake.

I don't understand how anyone can justify this and I'm more surprised that's it's coming from other supposedly respectable countries as well like Canada.

This is just totally fucked up.

He is getting a lot of help from someone.

People know little about wikileaks because their leaks have never touched them personally. In Iceland, wikileaks exposed the banks that caused the meltdown and as a result, there are new whistle blower laws there. Greenwald was running this down today on Amy's show. In Peru, they exposed corruption in the oil industry. In Australia, exposed government using a porn law to suppress political dissent. Spain is in convulsions over the news their government conspired with the Obama administration to close down the investigation of a Spanish journalist's death because it would damage the Pentagon, who killed him.

It would be interesting to find out how many people are keeping wikileaks going. But no government is going to do that. When it comes to the privilege of the powerful, they all circle the wagons.

Most major news orgs can't afford much investigative reporting and rely outside sources such as Wikileaks.

not the press.

Why isn't he sitting in a Starbucks right now? Where are his US offices? Where's the law firm defending him?

"Oh well, tough shit for us, I guess."

Um, no. The US AG doesn't just sit there...he has to rattle his saber.

It's more of a slogan.

Because he knows exactly how likely justice is in this country, in part thanks to the entrenched corruption his heroic act has exposed? Because he's far smarter than the detractors who scream invective at him for bursting their hypocritical, delusional little bubble of American Exceptionalism rather than at those whose criminal doings he's courageously uncovering?

a lot of DUers wanted the head of the person who published stolen secret files.

I imagine those DUers are well aware of context, realizing that not all things are precisely the same regardless of first looks, despite any awkward implications made...

ed: sp

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

I see no difference.

NT!

EAU's CRU data files and emails.

were not debating the hacking. Rather they were debating the significance of the content and cherry picking of that content.

cru data file site:www.democraticunderground.com

But, I followed that debate closely and my statement is true. I wasn't taking issue with your op. I simply noted the different attitudes on DU to very similar events.

http://www.google.com/search?q=eau+cru+site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=cru+data+file+site:www.democraticunderground.com&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b9141da4f416ce8


Show me the different attitudes.

I don't take orders.

Burden of proof was on you for making the assertion, and you failed utterly.

call facts much less secrets. They are tidbits of gossip, innuendo and hearsay. It shocks me that our government classifies a lot of this stuff as "secret" and various degrees of "secret." Most of what I have read is interesting but harmless.

since the diplomats in my view should be able to be frank in their views of those they have spoken with.

Thats partly why some of the 'harmless' info is classified, its helpful to the state department in regards to being able to know how to best make agreements with said country/leadership, its harmful if the view of some of the leaders are negative and thats made public, and its totally useless for the public overall.

labeled secret. The public would do well to know that.

criminal activity, corruption or crimes.

I don't object in the slightest to the release of any and all information that actually brings such things to light(even if they were about Norway).

anyone who has followed the increasingly difficult efforts to gain access to FOI material knows how idiotic and inconsistent it is. I have always felt that the workplace doings of public employees should be universally public, unless absolutely necessary. Its like having employees but being forbidden from knowing what their jobs are.

"Classified" is abused all of the time but there is a legitimate need for state secrets. Perhaps an updated review process is needed but I would like to have the decisions made by someone that is at least a US citizen. It is not a job that you really want to offshore.

:kick:

If he has a defense, why not show up and face the charges?

After all, we KNOW these guys did something wrong...correct? :eyes:

NT!

Would it be illegal for me to receive the secrets of a foreign state -- a state of which I am not a citizen. Do I have to obey British law with regard to British secret documents? I think Britain would have a hard time getting jurisdiction over me to bring a charge.

Further, in my view, these documents belong to the American people. Our government should not be keeping so much of the trash talk they exchange in the modern equivalent of diplomatic pouches secret. That stuff should be available to the press within a reasonable time after exchange. These people are supposed to be doing the people's work, not entertaining each other with idle gossip.

... even when they are late to their brown shirt fittings.

Who do you represent???

But the learned dehumanization is pervasive and terribly effective.

:scared:

I hope beyond hope that he has some really cunning security. While I respect everything that he's doing and support him 100%, I'm this is turning into one giant game of chicken that will turn out badly .... for him.

he is being "hunted down" for revealing classified information and no lame excuse or pity can change that.

He also knew what he was getting into.

Let's piss on the leg of the EU, Russia, China and the US and see what happens....

I seriously doubt he had clearance. Sorry. The press is absolutely free to publish such info. How is Assange different?

Perhaps you might want to educate those posters, above, by citing the laws he broke.

Wikileaks is no less a media organization than the NY Times.

because PUBLISHING classified information by a media organization is Constitutionally protected.

revealed it. As I said above, if I obtain classified information of the government of Mexico or Peru, I am not breaking any law to which I am subject if I publish it. Assange is not an American citizen. He gave information that he came by to the press. He tried to give the US government a chance to edit it and take out information they did not want released.

I don't think he revealed the classified information of Iceland or Sweden or Australia in this batch. He just has to stay out of the US, and he is. Even here, they could make life miserable for him but as with Blagojevich, I would have to learn more facts before I could determine whether he could actually be convicted of anything.

under American law. None, zip. They can't even find a law he's broken.

... and apparently there are some laws in Sweden about that.

But I assume authority lovers don't find that their enemy #1 is being hunted down for unprotected sex all that exciting, so by all means make up whatever justification sounds more "professional."

http://gizmodo.com/5705457/wikileaks-julian-assange-is-not-a-rapist?utm_medium=twitter

Dec 3, 2010 01:52 PM
Updated: The Swedish prosecution office has now issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He has been "detained in his absence". Here's the notice:

The matter concerning Mr. Assange

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.


The notice comes from Sweden's Prosecution Authority site:
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/


Very recently some media have been reporting that apparently one of the women claimed she had several sexual encounters with him and one of them he didn't use a condom and when she told him to stop because of that he didn't. That would explain the reason for the rape charge since even though sex has already commenced either partner can withdraw their consent and if the other continues anyway it becomes rape at that point.

be emphasized--and also that he is being hunted down specifically by the government of the country that claims to be the the shining city on the hill, the beacon of democracy, human rights, and all things good and pure.

Go Julian!! Gimme some Truth!!

after him. After all, they're not members of the bush family evil empire for nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_David_Kelly

Stay safe, Mr. Assange!

Secrecy is bad right? We all have a right to know everything, correct?

I want the specifics of Assange's security detail, everyone who has leaked him information, his emergency plans to keep his website up, etc. Who is Julian to decide what secrets should be kept and which shouldn't?

I have a right to know! And besides, Nigerians, Nepalese, Thai's, etc aren't US tax payers but Assange decided they have a right to see US secrets.

I also immediately want the internal deliberations of President Obama's morning intelligence report, real time minutes from his strategy meetings, etc.

Who are you or Julian or anyone else to decide what should be secret?

I am a taxpayer of the United States and a citizen of the world - and through my tax dollars that go to the UN I now demand ALL the world's secrets. Assange needs to tell us all where he is, every name of anyone who has leaked anything to his site, etc. I have a right to know!

What are you waiting for? :rofl:

Our government looks at all our internet transmissions (if it wants to). Why should our governments keep secrets from us?

It is the very definition of authoritarianism to spy on citizens and then retaliate when citizens pry into what you (the government) are doing supposedly on behalf of the citizens.

This plot is thickening. For the life of me, I can't figure out what charge could be brought against Assange in a country that would have jurisdiction over him.

The Adults are trying to have a conversation.

Shoo!

... and practice the goose step at the same time!

LOL

Sorry, but wanting to know the whereabouts of an individual can come across as a bit creepy-stalkerish. He's not operating on taxpayer dollars, and you have no right to demand anything from him...

The US government and Interpol, et all, are being used as dogs by the Bank (s) he has said he'd spill the beans on.
The State Department and Diplomatic Cables were pretty much open secrets, nothing really new, nor nothing really important there. Far less important or dangerous to associated individuals than the earlier leaks on the US in Iraq.

But the Banking leaks that are due to come out soon - now those have some repercussions in countries where banking fraud is considered actionable.

And even if the corporate media tries to turn a blind eye on them, I think that there will be more than a few wealthy "bosses" facing the potential for jail time and sanctions put on their businesses for fraudulent and outright treasonable actions; tearing down national economies for their own profit.

That's why he's being hunted. Tear him down, make him insignificant, whatever it takes to ensure that the information he has is either destroyed or ignored.

Haele

The theft of the secrets might be illegal, but printing the information -- I don't know that it is illegal. It might not be admissible evidence in a lawsuit. And the person who took the information might be guilty of a crime. But Assange is essentially part of the press. If the New York Times gets a leak from a company of the company's proprietary information, it is protected by the First Amendment in printing that information I do believe. Why should Assange be treated any differently than the NY Times?

"Tell him what he's won, John-eeeeeeee!!!" You better believe that compared to the world of finance and the Masters of the Universe, diplomacy is nothing but an interesting diversion. No one suggested hanging UNTIL Assange indicated that the banks were next. As far as I can tell, these documents are nowhere near as damaging as the tranche about the wars. Yet, he was just mildly cursed then. Now that we're hearing about Gadaffi's big titted nurse, he's a terrorist organization?! Puh-leeze!

Assange knew this wasn't a game when he decided to make himself a part of it. What did he think he was going to get, extra Christmas cards from government officials worldwide?

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.


:nopity:

You should try presenting your argument to the issue at hand, not the one you that are having with your imaginary friend.

It's perfectly ok to hunt this man for telling the truth because he knew what he was getting into. That's an acceptable justification for the hunt?

RL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4R5lSahoc&feature=player_profilepage

Then watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOCIfNQXP0&feature=related

Those who speak the truth become criminals.

As our government continues to go insane, it will become dangerous to appear sane.

Welcome to tyranny.

We now have world tyranny.

is now going to be turned on U.S. citizens

To the ruling class, a peasant is a peasant is a peasant.

The American Dream is being exposed as a myth. Force is becoming necessary to control the masses.

What do you expect?

I don't think its for what he is releasing. A lot of what he is releasing we already know or sorta had some insight to build a clear line of thought. So there is no reason our Government should be hunting him. I fear Mr. Assange has something just a little bit more damaging stashed somewhere and it may implicate our Billionaires Boys Club and they sorta of don't,kinda not,pray without religion,trying their best,to find a way to either shut him up or discredit him so no one will believe the information.!! Whenever you see repugs harp on something its usually their ass they are protecting!!!!!!Remember they do nothing for us!!!

... about a large American bank, all hell broke loose.

But here is the problem for the people who don't want the leaks to happen - they can murder Assange but they cannot stop the leaks. WikiLeaks is not a one-person operation. Assange is the public face but he is not the whole thing.

Also, they HAVE to be SCARED SHITLESS about the insurance file. Can you imagine their angst - which skeleton or skeletons are popped out of the closet should that be released? I am GLEEFUL at the prospect of their criminal fear.

The reaction that we are getting shows you just how fucked up our country is. They will do ANYTHING to keep the sunshine from revealing what most of us here already know.