More WikileaksFollow

I understand the second charge, but wtf on the first one.

The bolded portion is presumably a quote from the Metropolitan Police spokesman.

I'm pretty sure its couldn't care less.

Have you met a new mother on sleep dep? I'm pretty sure I don't want to assume either way when on the receiving end of the potential stream of hate and invective that might spew forth at a moment's notice.

I lol'd. I shudder to think your reaction if these words ever fell off Obama's tongue.


Really?


Such as what?

What? Malta?

Hows the bub? All good? 8)

Obvious extradition setup is obvious. I think this the one time where anger from the Swiss populace could foil a plot.

We'll see.

What specific information has been given that is a direct threat to US soldiers? I asked you this already...

The original warrant predates the latest leaks. I don't think cause & effect works that way.

To be clear: I don't doubt that a special interest was taken in apprehending Assange or that anyone in the respective governments is upset about it. But that doesn't preclude the warrant and case against him being legitimate.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 4:19pm by Jophiel

lilwoc,

Why should I bother?

So, it seems that the democracies in the West are only now realising that the internet and its information distribution capabilities can be used to target their shortcomings too. All that criticism from the 'enlightened' western leaders directed at the likes of the Chinese and others about their stranglehold on information that should be freely availiable were just political blah.

It would appear that those in power in the West have two choices...they either learn to live in a world where Wikileaks and others do their thing (which means that the politicians and others in office have to live with the implications of that and behave accordingly) or they can shut the Interwebz down.

Putting Julian Assange out of action will achieve nothing if the intention is to stop information being disseminated to the masses. I wonder if that has occured to them yet....?

I'm still suspicious as to the actual intention of this whole fiasco. Especially given the latest release of "potential terror targets" attributed to wikileaks, which is interesting considering their website has been brought down. The timeline of events is curious.

-Wikileaks teases the public relatively quietly for a few years with some under-the-radar stories and publishings. No one but conspiracy theorists on the web pays attention.
-Wikileaks becomes a bit more vocal, heavily criticizing the Iraq war and other Middle-East issues, creates a stir with the publication of the US helicopter/collateral damage video.
-Vague rumblings from circulate around the internet about Washington wanting to put a stop to wikileaks.
-Wikileaks distributes an "insurance policy" file, encrypted, that will be unlocked if anything happens to them.
-The media begin to take notice of wikileaks.
-Wikileaks publishes several batches of high-security files, with no real theme. Some are damning, some are unremarkable.
-The media screams "traitor" (even though the supposed progenitor of wikileaks isn't an American citizen), the government appears furious
-Assange is suddenly and suspiciously accused of sex crimes, Amazon is suddenly and suspiciously ashamed of having hosted wikileaks and pulls the plug.
-Wikileaks publishes a list of potentially critical targets within the United States...why?

It sounds a lot like a Dan Brown novel in the making, to be honest. The series of events and motivations behind them is inconsistent and puzzling.

Well, we could always check that "Bill of Rights" thing and see what it says.