Your opinion please.

[ducatiz]

Go ahead and read the whole article. I'll wait.

sac

I did

There is scant evidence â€" in the public domain at least â€" of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion

It's not unusual for prosecutors to withhold certain evidence until trial ESPECIALLY where a sex crime is involved.

What are the laws in Sweden regarding evidence? 

[derby]

It's not unusual for prosecutors to withhold certain evidence until trial ESPECIALLY where a sex crime is involved.

however, if you DO read what's in the public domain, it sounds that these women were quite personable with assange after the alleged events. not how i'd think you'd treat your "rapist," no?

[SacDuc]

I did

It's not unusual for prosecutors to withhold certain evidence until trial ESPECIALLY where a sex crime is involved.

What are the laws in Sweden regarding evidence? 

I saw a lot of quotes from the accusers and not so many from Assange. Don't quite understand how you figure this is "what Assange says happened."

I know nothing of Swedish law. It will be interesting to see if he gets charged, what he gets charged with and on what evidence he gets charged. Surely the authorities have some information the public does not.

Although considering the hate for this man, I wouldn't be surprised if he accidentally fell down twelve flights of steps before a trial took place.

sac

[ducatiz]

however, if you DO read what's in the public domain, it sounds that these women were quite personable with assange after the alleged events. not how i'd think you'd treat your "rapist," no?

sounds very typical for young women who simply don't know how to react in a situation like that.

you see sexually abused children doing the same thing.

I saw a lot of quotes from the accusers and not so many from Assange. Don't quite understand how you figure this is "what Assange says happened."

comments from his attorney

I know nothing of Swedish law. It will be interesting to see if he gets charged, what he gets charged with and on what evidence he gets charged. Surely the authorities have some information the public does not.

that's the basis of my whole point.

This isn't Uganda -- it's SWEDEN.  as in one of the most liberal socialist democracies in history, with a VERY activist judiciary and having some of the most profoundly absurd safe-harbor laws.  These aren't judges in Turdswallow looking to grind an axe, these guys have a history of being uber liberal in favor of defendants and protecting the order of law.

My guess is that the prosecutors have some kind of evidence that they don't have to release to the public.

Although considering the hate for this man, I wouldn't be surprised if he accidentally fell down twelve flights of steps before a trial took place.

sac

that's probably better for everyone involved.  the last thing we need are stories of Assange in an American jail being assraped daily.

[ungeheuer]

...that's probably better for everyone involved.  the last thing we need are stories of Assange in an American jail being assraped daily.

What, exactly is it that you are advocating here would be "better for everyone involved"? 

And why worry about Assange ending up in a US jail?  Has he committed any offence in the USA?  Or been charged with any offence in the USA? Or had any warrant issued for his arrest in relation to any alleged offence in the USA?  I dont believe that at the time of writing he is wanted for any offence in the USA is he?  His "crime" is to have caused serious embarrassment to the US and other governments internationally by being amongst those willing to publish information showing these administrations to be hypercritical liars.  Like we didnt already know.

[mitt]

And why worry about Assange ending up in a US jail?  Has he committed any offence in the USA?  Or been charged with any offence in the USA? Or had any warrant issued for his arrest in relation to any alleged offence in the USA?  I dont believe that at the time of writing he is wanted for any offence in the USA is he?  His "crime" is to have caused serious embarrassment to the US and other governments internationally by being amongst those willing to publish information showing these administrations to be hypercritical liars.  Like we didnt already know.

I am guessing inside so many documents, there has to be something posted that violated some law.  Personal privacy laws, copyright laws, intellectual property laws, etc.

That was the simple clause that Amazon used for dumping him off their cloud.  Their agreement states you must own or be the originator of the hosted content.  Clearly he (wikileaks) is neither.

Him posting private communication is a lot different than having the BBC, Al Jazerra, or NY Times on the ground reporting the real truth.  A) - Wikileaks didn't create the content, so it is not their right to distribute it.  B) private communication is based on the context of the conversation.  It is might not be ny closer to the truth than when Fox news reports on a Middle East story w/o any local reporters.

The people that are saying he is a hero are probably the same ones that don't support traditional media reporting (30 something internet addicts).  I think the lack of independent journalist on the ground is one reason why our news today is biased and agenda full, not really the government censoring or filtering what we see.   Want more truth, put more Dexter Filkens on the ground where the news is happening.


mitt

[ducatiz]

So far, the concensus is that he could be charged under terrorism laws.

Its academic at this point, whether he will be charged.

[ungeheuer]

I am guessing inside so many documents, there has to be something posted that violated some law.  Personal privacy laws, copyright laws, intellectual property laws, etc.

And if your guess is valid, then the law was violated by those who stole the information.  Yet the lynch-mob wanna hang a guy who AFAIK (and I've not yet been contradicted) has broken no US law.

So far, the concensus is that he could be charged under terrorism laws.

Along with the editors/publishers of some of the world's major new organisations then I presume.  And consensus? What consensus would that be?  More contentious than consensus.

Its academic at this point, whether he will be charged.

But lets condemn him anyway? 

[ducatiz]

Along with the editors/publishers of some of the world's major new organisations then I presume.  And consensus? What consensus would that be?  More contentious than consensus.

I'm an attorney, I talk to other attorneys.  Whether it can be proven is another issue, but the general consensus of folks I talk to is that there is prima facie evidence sufficient.

Put it this way.  If I steal a car, I am guilty of car theft.  If you accept that car from me as a gift, you're not guilty of car theft, you're guilty of receiving stolen property.  If you then take that car and run over a carload of nuns and kill them all, you're guilty of murder.

Likewise, Mr Assange has received property of the US government which is (under law) classified and possessed only with clearance.  Mere possession of classified material can expose you to prosecution.  However, he didn't merely possess it, he put it out into the open.  If he is charged, I doubt they will have a problem finding a way to convict him.

So, yes, he has likely broken US law by receiving material which, under the law, is only possessable by those with clearance.  Likewise, if he transmitted it to anyone else (which he did by posting it to /world), he is also liable.

But lets condemn him anyway?  

CROWD:
    A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her!
    Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
    We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
    Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
    How do you know she is a witch?

===8< snip===
VILLAGER #1:
    She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
    [cough]
BEDEVERE:
    What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
    Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
    A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
    I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
    Burn her anyway!

[SacDuc]

Mitt, from what I heard today, the U.S. Justice department is most actively persuing the Trafficking of Stolen Goods angle. Also, the Judge at his hearing today did not release him on bail. The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Sweden but apparently extradition from Sweden is much much easier. It looks fairly certain that he will be kept in prison without being charged until the US can request extradition.

But the British judge did mention in his ruling how flimsy the evidence for the sexual assault charges is and admonished the prosecution for missing deadlines to hand over evidence (namely texts between the two women) to the defense.

sac

[bigiain]

So far, the concensus is that he could be charged under terrorism laws.

Its academic at this point, whether he will be charged.

Can I just point out, from my outside the US point of view, that the very idea of accusing someone of "terrorism" for revealing the behaviour of the government/military is _quite_ odd.

(And yeah, you didn't actually say he was a terrorist, but either somebody is saying that, or they're intentionally using "terrorism laws" to charge someone who isn't a terrorist...)

big

[ducatiz]

Can I just point out, from my outside the US point of view, that the very idea of accusing someone of "terrorism" for revealing the behaviour of the government/military is _quite_ odd.

(And yeah, you didn't actually say he was a terrorist, but either somebody is saying that, or they're intentionally using "terrorism laws" to charge someone who isn't a terrorist...)

big

It's an interesting point, but the rationale would likely be that he is aiding and abetting groups like al Qaeda by doing so and has implicated himself in some sort of scheme to hurt the USA.  That is wholly separate from any potential charges related to his receiving classified information.

The real question is how much actual "bad behavior" has he revealed?  Everything I've read has indicated most of the cables are just embarrassing, not insidious. 

Can someone point to something revealed that shows horrible behavior?  I mean, apart from the normal sorts of cloak and dagger bit.

Just seems like embarrassing stuff such as you'd not want your friend to hear after you'd just criticized his fat wife to another person.

[bigiain]

The real question is how much actual "bad behavior" has he revealed?  Everything I've read has indicated most of the cables are just embarrassing, not insidious. 

Can someone point to something revealed that shows horrible behavior?  I mean, apart from the normal sorts of cloak and dagger bit.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/wikileaks_cables_reveal_us_tried_to
http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/secret-files-reveal-allegations-of-prisoner-abuse-by-american-troops-after-abu-ghrai/
http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/human-bomb-detectors/
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/07/report-wikileaks-cab.html

I'm the first to admit I've never been to war, and I can't judge what is and isn't appropriate on the spot, BUT, if my country was going to do some of that stuff in my name, I'd at least want to know it's going on and have the opportunity ask someone to justify it and to oppose it.

big ( see also http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/ )

[bigiain]

Interesting Scot Adams blog post about the sexual abuse charges:

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/sweden

To be fair, I don't know if Assange's alleged broken condom is because the product was defective. We have good evidence that Assange has the world's biggest set of nuts, so assuming some degree of proportionality, he'd put a strain on any brand of condom that didn't have rebar ribs.

big

[il d00d]

Can I just point out, from my outside the US point of view, that the very idea of accusing someone of "terrorism" for revealing the behaviour of the government/military is _quite_ odd.

His intent was not to embarrass the US government, or any of the things that have or haven't happened as a result of the leaks.  Just like Bin Laden didn't target the World Trade Center because he just hated those two particular buildings, he sought to maximize the effect of the weapons he had at his disposal, in pursuit of some bigger goal.  Embarrassment might be a win in Assange's book, but he did not specifically seek out embarrassing material to shame the US and other governments.  He released these documents because he had access to them, and they served his ultimate goal. More maximizing.

His stated intent is to overthrow "the conspiracy."  A government, by Assange's definition, is a conspiracy unless it addresses the needs of the constituency exactly, however the hell we might define those. 

At the moment, I am content to regard him as a nutcase with leverage, but ultimately harmless one of those.  But we can't rightly ignore his motivations.  I can't help but wonder what he might do with more leverage.

He's done a half good thing in pursuit of doing, in my opinion, an apparently fully bad thing.  The irony of terrorism charges is not lost on me, though