Wikileaks to Start 2013 will world reaching data release

[ryacko]

This is interesting. While I'm a bit irritated by Assange, and I believe he should stand trial, I wonder what documents he has this time.

WikiLeaks will release one million documents next year affecting every country in the world, founder Julian Assange said in a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Thursday.
In a "Christmas message" marking six months since he sought asylum in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden over claims of rape and sexual assault, Assange also said the door was open to negotiations.
Assange said to cheers from around 100 supporters that despite spending half of 2012 holed up in the building it had been a "huge year" in which his anti-secrecy website had released documents about Syria and other topics.
"Next year will be equally busy. WikiLeaks has already over one million documents being prepared to be released, documents that affect every country in the world -- every country in this world," he said to applause.
The Australian former computer hacker thanked Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa for granting him asylum and hit out at the United States and other Western governments.
"True democracy is not the White House, true democracy is not cameras, true democracy is the resistance of people armed with the truth against lies from Tahrir to London," he said.
But the 41-year-old added that "the door is open, and the door has always been open, for anyone who wishes to speak to me" to resolve the situation.
He raised his hand in a clenched fist salute at the end of the speech.
A statement issued by the Ecuadorian ambassador said: "At a time of year when people come closer together, Ecuador reaffirms the solidarity that our country gave six months ago to a person who was being persecuted for thinking and expressing themselves freely.
"Now is a moment for reflection and togetherness. On behalf of my country, I reiterate our support for Julian Assange.
"Julian has become a guest in this house that we all have learned to appreciate," added the statement.
Supporter Blake Cohen, an unemployed father-of-one, told AFP: "I don't know about his personal life -- I'm not a fly on the wall -- but I know that WikiLeaks is an organisation that promotes peace and justice.
"The rape allegations seem like a classic honeytrap," he added.
It was Assange's first public appearance since he addressed a crowd from the same balcony -- now festooned with fairy lights -- on August 19 and Ecuadorian officials have since said that he is suffering from health problems.
Britain has refused to grant him safe passage to either Ecuador or to hospital, saying it has a legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden after Assange lost his final battle in the British courts in June.
Assange claims that if he is extradited to Sweden he could eventually be sent to the United States for prosecution over WikiLeaks' controversial release of secret US military and diplomatic files.
He says he could face life in prison or even the death penalty in the US.

[Flagg]

What should he stand trial for?

[Terralthra]

The sexual assault charges?

[AMT]

The sexual assault charges?

You mean the sexual assault charges they want to just question him, not charge him on which leave him wide open to extradition to the US? Or did that change since he had to hole up in the embassy to protect himself?

[Thanas]

He should be questioned (though there is no reason why they cannot do so in the embassy) and if there is enough ground and extradition to the US is off the table then he should stand trial.

[Flagg]

The sexual assault charges?

To my knowledge he hasn't been charged with anything, they just want to question him. So again, stand trial for what? And that's directed at ryacko.

[Spoonist]

Seriously people we've had the Assange thingie up several times, just search for it and see that what AMT and Flagg is talking about is a misunderstanding of the Swedish legal system. Its been covered thoroughly before so could we please look at what Wikileaks is doing without mixing in the non-particiapating figurehead?

[Aaron MkII]

Well there doesn't seem to be much in the article, it's mostly about Assange. So...what do you want to discuss?

[ryacko]

The sexual assault charges?

To my knowledge he hasn't been charged with anything, they just want to question him. So again, stand trial for what? And that's directed at ryacko.

Endangering collaborators with the US backed regime in Afghanistan.

Well there doesn't seem to be much in the article, it's mostly about Assange. So...what do you want to discuss?

Speculate what Assange could possibly have?

My bet is on CIA accounting documents.


If this thread turns out to be an increasingly bad idea, I wouldn't mind it being moved to testing.

[aerius]

I'll believe it when I see it. I can't remember if it was last year or early this year when he said he was going to release a whole bunch of incriminating documents on the big banks. It never happened. The deadline passed and nothing happened. I'll be shocked if he can live up to his claims this time.

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought the British government could get a guarantee from the Swedes that they wouldn't pass Assange on to the US after he goes there for questioning, but since they were refusing to do that, Assange (rightly) wasn't going to risk it.

A million documents is pretty massive, and it's why I think he's bluffing. Maybe if they just dumped them all raw without any organization . . .

[bobalot]

The sexual assault charges?

You mean the sexual assault charges they want to just question him, not charge him on which leave him wide open to extradition to the US? Or did that change since he had to hole up in the embassy to protect himself?

Ah, this load of bullshit again.

1) The British High Court has already ruled that the investigation in Sweden was at the equivalent stage of charging a suspect if the investigation was being conducted in the UK. This was the basis for their ruling.
2) The US, despite not liking Assange, did not even bother to request for his extradition while he was in the United Kingdom, where it would be far easier to extradite him (see below). Keep in mind, the UK recently allowed the extradition of some guy for the relatively trivial offense of facilitating internet piracy.
3) If Assange were extradited to Sweden, it would require the authorisation from both the Swedish and British legal systems to extradite him to the US due the extradition arrangement between Sweden and the UK.
4) Sweden cannot extradite somebody for a something that it is not considered a crime in Sweden. What Assange did is not.

People seem to turn off their brains as soon as Assange's name is mentioned and believe in convoluted conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence. Vague declarations of a shadowy US conspiracy with a healthy dose of Anti-AMERIKKKA jerking will suffice.

[Thanas]

So again, stand trial for what? And that's directed at ryacko.

Endangering collaborators with the US backed regime in Afghanistan.

Please point me to the relevant law he violated.

[weemadando]

So again, stand trial for what? And that's directed at ryacko.

Endangering collaborators with the US backed regime in Afghanistan.

Please point me to the relevant law he violated.

And also the US DoD has explicitly stated that there was no threat to sensitive sources/methods.

http://mashable.com/2010/10/18/wikileak ... elligence/

And there were reported cases of there being "revenge" attacks based on wikileaks info, but I don't recall how widespread or correct they were.

[CJvR]

...which leave him wide open to extradition to the US?

Only to a paranoid mind, fortunately Assange is just that so now he is in prison without it costing us anything!

[ryacko]

So again, stand trial for what? And that's directed at ryacko.

Endangering collaborators with the US backed regime in Afghanistan.

Please point me to the relevant law he violated.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists joint resolution, violation of Title V of the USA Patriot Act in regards to computer crimes, and perhaps others. I've only cited those two laws after a brief read through of wikipedia. A more known law is the Espionage Act of 1917. There are many widely encompassing laws that would allow the Federal Government to prosecute any enemies.

I'm not a legal expert, but the US government could also file a civil suit against Assange.


On another note, his insurance file used a lousy password, endangering US collaborators.

[Terralthra]

Being neither a US citizen, nor within the USA's jurisdiction when these supposed crimes (which you've yet to point out exactly what he's committed, by the way), the US doesn't have much of a leg to stand on for indicting him for...wait, what exactly did he do again? How did he violate the AUMFAT? The USA PATRIOT Act? The Espionage Act?

You can't just waltz in and name some (exceedingly long and/or much-amended) bill and say "oh, he totally violated it." Burden of proof is on you, cupcake.

[Aaron MkII]

Clearly the pentagon saying nothing important was leaked is just a ploy to lull him into a false sense of security.

[Zaune]

People seem to turn off their brains as soon as Assange's name is mentioned and believe in convoluted conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence. Vague declarations of a shadowy US conspiracy with a healthy dose of Anti-AMERIKKKA jerking will suffice.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Assange was questioned about the indecent assault charges at the time of the initial accusation, but the Swedish police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant pressing charges and the matter was dropped. But lo and behold, immediately after Assange makes a number of extremely powerful enemies, the Swedish authorities are suddenly claiming that new evidence has come to light. Does that really look like a coincidence to you?

[ryacko]

Being neither a US citizen, nor within the USA's jurisdiction when these supposed crimes (which you've yet to point out exactly what he's committed, by the way), the US doesn't have much of a leg to stand on for indicting him for...wait, what exactly did he do again? How did he violate the AUMFAT? The USA PATRIOT Act? The Espionage Act?

You can't just waltz in and name some (exceedingly long and/or much-amended) bill and say "oh, he totally violated it." Burden of proof is on you, cupcake.

I see, so you want me to take the role of prosecutor as opposed to arm chair lawyer.


Under 18 USC § 793, which prohibts and criminalizes "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," it is evident that Assange engaged purposefully to collect defense information as part of the Wikileaks spyring, in an attempt to malign the United States government and her foreign policy objectives.

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

Evidence of Assange's ill intentions can be found within "Conspiracy as Governance," a manifesto of sorts written by Assange. Excepted below is it.

A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence the actions of the state is near its end. To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them since the actions themselves can not be dealt with. We can deceive or blind a conspiracy by distorting or restricting the information available to it. We can reduce total conspiratorial power via unstructured attacks on links or through throttling and separating. A conspiracy sufficiently engaged in this manner is no longer able to comprehend its environment and plan robust action.

This text is the heart of his world view, he wishes to release information to disrupt state conspiracies, and perceives the United States as one. He also wishes to do harm to the United States, as evidenced in this following comment:

The total annihilation of the current U.S. regime or any other regime that holds its authority through mendacity alone could be accelerated or advanced by several years if WikiLeaks does its job right.

Assange furthermore has published via a peer-to-peer filesharing network an "insurance file," whose password was released inadvertently. This insurance file contained unredacted information regarding the names of collaborators and their locations. While previous cases involving the publishing of classified information were protected under the first amendment, this case is not. The release of the names of informants presents a threat of imminent lawless action of retribution against them, and is an example of the defendent's reckless disregard for US law and interests.

Furthermore under AMFAT, the United States is in a state of emergency to defeat terrorist threats, and Assange is attempting to destroy US institutions engaged in defeating those who so slaughtered three thousand American lives in 9/11.





Now who will take Assange's defense?

---

I don't think that's entirely fair. Assange was questioned about the indecent assault charges at the time of the initial accusation, but the Swedish police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant pressing charges and the matter was dropped. But lo and behold, immediately after Assange makes a number of extremely powerful enemies, the Swedish authorities are suddenly claiming that new evidence has come to light. Does that really look like a coincidence to you?

Personally, I think the Swedish prosecution attempts are a bit dodgy.

[bobalot]

People seem to turn off their brains as soon as Assange's name is mentioned and believe in convoluted conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence. Vague declarations of a shadowy US conspiracy with a healthy dose of Anti-AMERIKKKA jerking will suffice.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Assange was questioned about the indecent assault charges at the time of the initial accusation, but the Swedish police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant pressing charges and the matter was dropped.

What? A police investigation sometimes changes its mind about charging a person depending upon the evidence and circumstances? Or that an investigation maybe reopened because a prosecutor felt that the original case did have sufficient evidence? That has never happened before... except for the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of times) it has happened.

....Does that really look like a coincidence to you?

Yes. Your pointless conjecture has literally no evidence of a world wide conspiracy involving no less than the following:

• The co-operation of two different soverign governments with the Americans in this grand legal conspiracy
• Two former wikileak colleagues of Julian Assange who accused him of sexual assault (they must be sleeper agents or something)
• Swedish law enforcement and politically independent legal system who apparently have been subverted by the Americans. The sheer enormity of this claim is always glossed over.
• The independent British legal system which approved Assange's extradition to Sweden

All of the above are extraordinary claims and all you have is "Hey, the police want to re-charge a suspect, who happens to be famous and annoying to the Americans!".

This is the biggest anti-AmeriKKKa jerk I have ever seen taken seriously by so many people.

[Mr Bean]

Okay Bobalot I was going to ignore this thread but then you posted the following.

Yes. Your pointless conjecture has literally no evidence of a world wide conspiracy involving no less than the following:

• The co-operation of two different soverign governments with the Americans in this grand legal conspiracy
• Two former wikileak colleagues of Julian Assange who accused him of sexual assault (they must be sleeper agents or something)
• Swedish law enforcement and politically independent legal system who apparently have been subverted by the Americans. The sheer enormity of this claim is always glossed over.
• The independent British legal system which approved Assange's extradition to Sweden

All of the above are extraordinary claims and all you have is "Hey, the police want to re-charge a suspect, who happens to be famous and annoying to the Americans!".

When the US government official position is that we want to extradite Assange and the Swedish government despite over two years of being asked refuses to say they won't extradite Assange to the US you know something is up. When Sweden has previous bowed to America in the deporting of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery you know there exists precedent.
When Brandly manning who's be in isolation for over a year in a federal penitentiary tells the media after he's allowed to talk to them for the first time that US interrogators were obsessed with trying to get him to confess to Assange asking for the documents, then there are legal issues.
There exist a reasonable suspicion that because of Assanges status and lack of formal charges Britain can not legally turn him over to the US without the current government being tossed out of power for an electon or two over the issue. Sweden is not in the same boat if Assange never arrives in Sweden which is why he's in that Embassy to begin with. This is going on two years now and Swedish authorities twin dedication of duty to tracking Assange down despite the relative moderate nature of his alleged crime and their commiserate inflexibility is highly suspect.

The amount of effort and Swedish tax dollars being put in is not equivalent with the actions of those involved. Equador has at this point offered to fly the ENTIRE Swedish prosecution staff to London at Equadors expense to question Assange and Sweden replied that it was out of the question and they are refusing to question him at any time except when he's back on Swedish soil. They have offered to have him questioned by teleconference, by proxy and have even offered to return him to Sweden if Sweden is wiling to say in writing they will not extradite Assange to the US. And in exchange Sweden has refused all offers and said in August they would not extradite Assange to America if he was going to face the Death Penalty but otherwise refused to make any promises.

That is not the actions of someone concerned with the guilt or innocents of the accused.

[bobalot]

When the US government official position is that we want to extradite Assange and the Swedish government despite over two years of being asked refuses to say they won't extradite Assange to the US you know something is up.

1) You seem to forget that that it's far easier for U.S government to attempt extradition from the UK, rather than from Sweden which would required the authorisation of both the relevant Swedish and British courts. A point brought up numerous times and as usual is ignored (and without fail again) by the "Julian Assange is the victim of an international conspiracy" brigade.

2) No government will ever give such a guarantee that they won't ever in the future ask for a person's extradition. Not for you, not for me, not for anybody.

When Brandly manning who's be in isolation for over a year in a federal penitentiary tells the media after he's allowed to talk to them for the first time that US interrogators were obsessed with trying to get him to confess to Assange asking for the documents, then there are legal issues.

Such as?

There exist a reasonable suspicion that because of Assanges status and lack of formal charges Britain can not legally turn him over to the US without the current government being tossed out of power for an electon or two over the issue.

1) Guess what? They will be exactly in the same position if Assange is extradited to Sweden and if the US asks for his extradition due to the terms of the UK-Sweden extradition agreement.
2) What "reasonable suspicion" are you talking about? It sure looks like unsupported conjecture that you pulled out of your ass.

Sweden is not in the same boat if Assange never arrives in Sweden which is why he's in that Embassy to begin with.

This literally means nothing.

This is going on two years now and Swedish authorities twin dedication of duty to tracking Assange down despite the relative moderate nature of his alleged crime and their commiserate inflexibility is highly suspect.

So your evidence that there is an international conspiracy against Julian Assange involving the subversion of two national governments, two independent legal systems, two former wikileaks colleagues and the involvement of the US government is that Swedish law enforcement is diligently trying to charge somebody over the "moderate" crime of sexual assault. Astonishing.

BTW, I didn't realise that sexual assault doesn't warrant extradition.

The amount of effort and Swedish tax dollars being put in is not equivalent with the actions of those involved.

I didn't realise extraditions for serious (or in your opinion "moderate") crimes such as sexual assault should be dropped if it becomes too expensive. Please, explain the norms of the Swedish legal system to us.

Equador has at this point offered to fly the ENTIRE Swedish prosecution staff to London at Equadors expense to question Assange and Sweden replied that it was out of the question and they are refusing to question him at any time except when he's back on Swedish soil.

1) As pointed out by the fucking BRITISH HIGH COURT, the Swedish investigation is at the equivalent stage of charging somebody if the investigation were in the UK. This was the basis of their judgement for allowing extradition. This is not mere questioning as we are used to in the US, UK, etc.

2) Regardless, since when does a suspect in sexual assault get to dictate to the investigating authorities the manner that he is "questioned" (or in this case charged)?

if Sweden is wiling to say in writing they will not extradite Assange to the US.

No government can give such a guarantee. Every extradition request is judged on its each individual merit. No legal authority (outside third world shitholes) will ever give a guarantee regarding future extradition requests. It violates legal principles.

Basically, you still don't have a shred of evidence this conspiracy other than baseless conjecture. You (and your fellow Assange apologists) are claiming there is a international conspiracy involving two governments, the subversion of two independent legal systems (including the fucking British High Court), two wikileaks colleagues and the US government... and you have next to nothing.*

On top of that, you expect national governments to throw laws and legal principles out the window the give Julian "the Saint" Assange special treatment.

*It's hilarious see this on SD.NET, a place where people routinely mock conservatives for believing in ideas without evidence.

[Grumman]

I don't think that's entirely fair. Assange was questioned about the indecent assault charges at the time of the initial accusation, but the Swedish police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant pressing charges and the matter was dropped.

What? A police investigation sometimes changes its mind about charging a person depending upon the evidence and circumstances? Or that an investigation maybe reopened because a prosecutor felt that the original case did have sufficient evidence? That has never happened before... except for the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of times) it has happened.

Wrong. An investigation may be reopened because circumstances have changed to justify reopening it. There is no new evidence here, and the nature of the supposed crime means there never can be, even if he did do it. There is no justification for believing the reopened investigation will achieve anything more than the last time, which means there is no justification for expecting someone to yoyo back to Sweden every time the Swedish police are feeling capricious.

[Spoonist]

What the fuck Bean, all of this was already pointed out to you in the old thread. You are like a truther that rehashes the same shit every time regardless of how debunked they have already been.
Could you at least come up with something new this time around?

...There is no new evidence here, and the nature of the supposed crime means there never can be, even if he did do it. There is no justification for believing the reopened investigation will achieve anything more than the last time, which means there is no justification for expecting someone to yoyo back to Sweden every time the Swedish police are feeling capricious.

Actually that would not be accurate. At the first questioning Assange admitted to most of the circumstances, he just didn't understand the implications that that would be illegal in Sweden. It was after the newly assigned prosecutor reviewed his given statement/testimony that the warrant was issued.
And while you might be correct that a court might not convict him due to lack of physical evidence for the highest charge the amount of testimonies (sp?) and his own admittance should at least make the lesser charge stick.