The Wikileaks Question

[vanlose kid]

WikiLeaks: Swedish government 'hid' anti-terror operations with America from Parliament
The Swedish government asked American officials to keep intelligence-gathering “informal” to help avoid Parliamentary scrutiny, American diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show.


By Andrew Hough, and Christopher Hope 7:00AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
The secret cables, seen by The Daily Telegraph, disclose how Swedish officials wanted discussions about anti-terrorism operations kept from public scrutiny.
They describe how officials from the Swedish Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a “strong degree of satisfaction with current informal information sharing arrangements” with the American government. Making the arrangement formal would result in the need for it to be disclosed to Parliament, they said.

They disclose officials’ fear that intense Swedish Parliamentary scrutiny could place “a wide range of law enforcement and anti-terrorism” operations in jeopardy.
Under the heading “teams visits to discuss terrorist screening information exchange with Sweden”, they show Dr Anna-Karin Svensson, Director of the Division for Police Issues, saying the Swedish government would strike controversy if its intelligence methods were disclosed.

The cable claimed that the "current Swedish political climate makes any formal terrorist screening information agreement highly difficult". Swedish citizens are said to place high value on the country’s neutrality.

"The MOJ team expressed their appreciation for the flexibility of the U.S. side in regards to memorialising any agreement," said the cable.
"They expressed a strong degree of satisfaction with current informal information sharing arrangements with the U.S., and wondered whether the putative advantages of an HSPD-6 agreement for Sweden would be offset by the risk that these existing informal channels, which cover a wide range of law enforcement and anti-terrorism co-operation, would be scrutinised more intensely by Parliament and perhaps jeopardised.

"Dr. Svensson reiterated MFA concerns about the current political atmosphere in Sweden."
It continued: "She believed that, given Swedish constitutional requirements to present matters of national concern to Parliament and in light of the ongoing controversy over Sweden's recently passed surveillance law, it would be politically impossible for the Minister of Justice to avoid presenting any formal data sharing agreement with the United States to Parliament for review.

"In her opinion, the effect of this public spotlight could also place other existing informal information sharing arrangements at jeopardy."

The publication of the new cables, sent to Washington from the American embassy in Stockholm in 2008, came after Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, was granted bail on Tuesday over sexual assault claims in Sweden.

Despite a judge ordering his release with strict conditions and £200,000 guarantee from high profile supporters, the Swedish authorities appealed, meaning the 39 year-old remains behind bars.

Wikileaks claimed the new cables, which discuss terrorist screening programs, added weight to suggestions that Sweden and America were engaged in “back room deals”.

Mark Stephens, Mr Assange’s lawyer, has claimed his client was facing a “show trial” and his case was politically motivated. The Swedish government denies the claims.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a Wikileaks spokesman, said that the website was “concerned about political influence on the prosecution of Julian Assange”.
“The new revelations contained in the Swedish cables … shed some light on the ferocity of the Swedish prosecutorial process in this case,” he said.
“The prosecutor has said there is ‘no condition’ for bail that will satisfy them.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ament.html

*

[Cosmic Cowbell]

Peak Leak?

Could be, it may indeed become much harder for folks to get this kind of info out, but that was going to happen sooner or later anyway.

Agreed. I just think if had been properly disseminated, it could have been much later. Now it will be sooner.

Remember that Lamo appears to have been targeted for official harassment and was only a couple weeks out of an 5 day 3day involuntary psychological hold (which he got placed in after calling the police to report his backpack being stolen). Anyway, Manning gave himself up, I suspect Lamo was brow-beaten into his role. it's not remotely Assange's fault is it?

I guess it's the "Manning gave himself up" aspect of this that bothers. Is there some WL doc for whistle-blowers that outlines "best practices" and what to watch for and temptations to be avoided at all cost...that kind of thing. If not, why not? In turn, could it be that why not includes the potential for sources to make these mistakes, be captured and thus a particular form of vetting of the source of said information occurs?

I would think a best practices doc from WL exist somewhere...

JA is quite clever. Too bad he can't package it and then trade some of it with those who offer information.

[Simulist]

These types of cases (treason by a member of the military) can take years if not -decades- to sort out, if you get the drift.

One thing that doesn't take too long to sort out is that, in a nation that has made lies the backbone of both domestic and foreign policy, sometimes it takes a traitor to tell the much-needed truth.

[JackRiddler]

.

After posting an excerpt from the Gitmo manual for "behavior modifcation" of prisoners, i.e. on how to break and depersonalize them over days in advance of interrogation, and a report on Assange's imprisonment at Wandsworth...

Does anyone else cringe to his or her very soul to know that in both cases it's happening to a person who's as innocent as you and I are of any criminal act in the eyes of the law under which we ostensibly live?

Does anyone else read both of those with the knowledge that it might yet happen to you?

Does anyone else here realize that from every perspective that means a goddamn thing, it might as well be happening to you?

Does anyone else feel a little less like playing their little games when they read that shit for even one fucking moment?

And it's OBVIOUSLY not a one-to-one comparison.

(meaning, of Gitmo and the conditions for Assange at Wandsworth)

I'm not saying that it is and I don't see why it has to be. It's way, way past anything that anyone should tolerate when it's at the mildest end of the continuum, it's not like there's any gray area there.

He is a person, a person, same as you are. And so are the hundreds who have it worse at Camp Delta and elsewhere.

* * * * * *

Fun's fun and all that, but please try not to lose sight of that and not to block someone else's view of it, okay?

Thanks.

c2w?, to answer your questions: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

The ongoing imprisonment cannot be seen apart from the mainstream politician and media talk about killing, renditioning, disappearing, trying for espionage or "treason," executing and otherwise silencing Assange and Wikileaks, which logically applies to anyone who does not leak but publishes material that government officials wish to designate as classified.

You are identifying the most urgent and important aspect of this affair right now, and its danger to all of us generally and individually. Thank you for the clarity.

Then there is how Assange is described in the mainstream discourse in ways that bear “all the hallmarks,” as they say, of the classic political smear textbook (which, unlike the Gitmo manual, Wikileaks has yet to obtain, as it’s a familiar tradition and anyone can play). How many times have we heard variations on all of the following applied to Castro, or Chavez, or whatever enemy of the day? Assange is said to be vain, unstable, megalomaniacal, in it for money and thrills, motivated by hatred (of America, or the state, or order itself), ostentatiously wardrobed and coiffed, too pale and funny-looking, too good-looking, too smart, snooty to the not-so-smart, brainwashed from childhood, a sex fiend, and a rapist. Interestingly the last accusation, not only the most dreadful but also the only basis for the charges on which he is currently being held, usually goes lost in the invective from those who want him dead, as a minor point, or even admitted as very likely untrue. Most of those calling for his head know why he’s really in prison, and see little reason to make hay of the cover story. They’re just happy to see him in the hole. For a start.

All of which also serves to keep the talk on Assange’s person (or an effigy thereof) and not on his persecution. And also not on the cables release, the resulting stories and fallout, and the multi-front and international repressive reaction with its barely-disguised, universally applicable, totalitarian consequences.

Another revealing argument is that he knew, he had to know, he in fact made preparations in the knowledge that the exercise of press and speech freedoms said to belong to all of us would bring state power down on him. So, really, that’s his fault too. Morally, this is a twin to the “old news” rebuttal with regard to the crimes of state evidenced by the cables.

In this context, we have those who, as ostensible critics of “powers that be,” speak -- with at best little substantiation, but an utter certainty often derived from a “Spidey Sense” that hones in unerringly on their own a priori beliefs -- of Assange as the secret agent of Israel, empire, the 9/11 cover-up, or a sneaky maneuver to prompt the long-planned reining-in of the Internet and press that any how was and is the next item on the Homeland Agenda. What brands this subset is not the discussion of possibly suspicious information about Assange and Wikileaks, but the unrelenting certainty about what it means, and also the coldness to his fate despite the way it is now tied to our own freedom. They are providing yet another ugly side harmony to the big barbarian orchestra.

.

[psynapz]

FWIW, Hactivist assures me he's here just to chat and not to cause trouble. So, chat on.

Hey Hactivist, if you haven't already, why don't you do the White Hat Thing and clue Jeff in on the security vulns you've noticed, and he can decide whether to confer with the on-board web techs about addressing them? For all of us baby...

After what happened over 9/11 weekend this year, I would think we'd all be concerned about the security of this place. If Anonymous members count among our lurkers (or posters, at least now) and find this place to be of value to a shared cause, then let's have a good old fashioned barn-raising here and work together to bolster our ability to persist through a DDoS attack or phpBB exploit, including a loose plan for ongoing audits and maintenance. How is this done elsewhere within the domain of Anonymous?

[The Hacktivist]

Secretly taking DNA from UN officials is new to me, though - they obviously have some use for it, or they wouldn;t have asked.

Very true. There must be a use for it.

Or else they are acting from the rationalizing, standardizing, universalizing, totalizing impulse that inevitably comes to drive all forms of bureaucratic power overreach (state and corporate) once they get rolling. If they can do it, they will. If they do it once, they ultimately try to do it in all cases, and then draw up rules and algorithms for doing it. It is added to the standard programming. If they run into trouble doing it, they draw up more algorithms in response. This is also why one guy with explosive underwear later later translates into thousands of them poking around (by radiation, mostly) in yours.

.

They want the DNA so they can see who the real reptillian shapeshifters are.


No, really, I would say for covert purposes, to plant it somewhere etc if needed. Blackmail.

[The Hacktivist]

FWIW, Hactivist assures me he's here just to chat and not to cause trouble. So, chat on.

Hey Hactivist, if you haven't already, why don't you do the White Hat Thing and clue Jeff in on the security vulns you've noticed, and he can decide whether to confer with the on-board web techs about addressing them? For all of us baby...

After what happened over 9/11 weekend this year, I would think we'd all be concerned about the security of this place. If Anonymous members count among our lurkers (or posters, at least now) and find this place to be of value to a shared cause, then let's have a good old fashioned barn-raising here and work together to bolster our ability to persist through a DDoS attack or phpBB exploit, including a loose plan for ongoing audits and maintenance. How is this done elsewhere within the domain of Anonymous?

I plan to do exactly that if everyone everyone continues to be nice to me and call me baby.


Youre right, this is a good place and not deserving of any shenanigans that I can see so far.

[Project Willow]

Does anyone else read both of those with the knowledge that it might yet happen to you?

Many people who read and post to this board have already been subjected to these kinds of tortures, but I agree your argument.

Welcome back C2W!

[Plutonia]

Plutonia, can we just skip this part? There's no firmament here. We don't need to accept new members at their word, nor do we benefit from interrogating them. Just let 'em post.

I think so, too. In the context of an online forum, the reception of proof isn't worth as much as the exercising of discernment.

Okay. Uncle.

[JackRiddler]

Responses to various...

vanlose kid: Thanks for all the commentary and material you’ve been putting in, notably the New Yorker piece, Tyler Durden’s run-down and “sgt doom” detailing the Swedish political connections. Also, the latest Telegraph piece on cables showing Swedish executive branch attempts to conceal intel cooperation with the US from the country’s legislature.

Several people: Please don’t present a false dichotomy between the different sufferings so far endured by Manning and Assange, as though we should sneeze at one because the other is so much more severe, or (like in that ridiculous Palast piece) between Manning’s heroism and Assange’s “sell-out.” There is no evidence, zero, that Wikileaks in any way is responsible for the exposure and arrest of Manning as the alleged leaker. Or that Wikileaks has ever in anyway suggested that Manning is the leaker.

Doctor, it sounds as if you're arguing against publishing secrets beacuse someone might get mad about it.

Karen Silkwood leaked something that made some people mad, and she paid for it. But it made a big difference in the end. So far, Wikileaks has leaked stuff that gives some people an excuse to be mad, but what difference will the leaks themselves make in the end, other than make us all pay for them?

If nothing positive is done and no changes for the better arise from the leaks, it won't be a failure on the part of Wikileaks' or Assange. It will be a failure of our society - of us. Their only job is to expose secrets. It's up to others to use that new information - to launch FOIA requests now that they have a better idea of what documents to ask for, to alter their vote or their allegiances, to hold their elected representatives to account for the lies they have told, and hopefully to mount prosecutions of any revealed criminals, where possible, somewhere down the line.

Will those things (especially prosecutions) ever happen? I dunno. But if they don't happen, it won't be Wikileaks' fault.

The Collateral Murder video, as an example, was like a stress-test being run on our civil society, our press, and our systems of military justice, to see if they're still functional, if they still work like they're supposed to. They don't. The total non-reaction, on all levels, to that widely disseminated primary evidence of blatant mass-murder is all that anyone needs to see to know that our society, in it's current form, is fucked. The results are in, and they're conclusive.

Ahabs, yes. Although I’m not sure what the “job” of Wikileaks is. They did choose their “job,” something however that falls under the category of press and speech freedom. (That would be true even if there was a psyop element.)

DrVolin, it’s complicated, I’m sure you’ll agree. But are you really saying if the state goes into a rage over the exercise of freedom of speech, with bad consequences for all, then we should (also) blame those who exercised?

Cablegate comics, you know someone had to do it! OK, here is the link:
http://hilobrow.com/tag/cablegate/

anothershamus, that’s great!

The Hacktivist: I think even joking suggestions about your power to track IPs and send pizzas to anyone here (or shut down their ability to post) are really counter-productive. Someone may say very wrong things, but there would be no justice or ethics in vigilante hacktervism for speech on a debate board, and I hope you will agree and make that clear. This is not to question that you can do it, since obviously a lot of people can do that. (If you discover anyone here is working for Master Card or other bad orgs, this still wouldn’t be the place for anything other than a journalistic exposure thereof.)

I think it is wise for you to assure that you won’t try such stunts. Also, if you have found vulnerabilities in the site, like others are saying, to let the management know without making a further deal about it. What’s wrong with creating trust? You have your piece to say, so please just say it.

Above written before I saw this:

then let's have a good old fashioned barn-raising here and work together to bolster our ability to persist through a DDoS attack or phpBB exploit, including a loose plan for ongoing audits and maintenance. How is this done elsewhere within the domain of Anonymous?

I plan to do exactly that if everyone everyone continues to be nice to me and call me baby.

Youre right, this is a good place and not deserving of any shenanigans that I can see so far.

That’s a good start. I’m all for it, if this and everything else you say turns out to be so. And otherwise reserve judgement.

Plutonia, can we just skip this part? There's no firmament here. We don't need to accept new members at their word, nor do we benefit from interrogating them. Just let 'em post.

Wombaticus: True, true, wrt Plutonia aiming the posted piece (back on p. 41) at Hacktivist. But Hacktivist is a big boy, right?

However, Plutonia, your finds from the history and geography of the hacker culture are valuable to me. (As a guy who never got into it very far beyond once knowing a phone phreak and learning BASIC as a teenager.) And, I believe potentially illuminating as to where this Assange, Wikileaks, Anonymous and others are coming from, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches.

.

[JackRiddler]

.

December 14, 2010
Air Force Blocks Sites That Posted Secret Cables
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — The Air Force is barring its personnel from using work computers to view the Web sites of The New York Times and more than 25 other news organizations and blogs that have posted secret cables obtained by WikiLeaks, Air Force officials said Tuesday.

When Air Force personnel on the service’s computer network try to view the Web sites of The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Spanish newspaper El País and the French newspaper Le Monde, as well as other sites that posted full confidential cables, the screen says “Access Denied: Internet usage is logged and monitored,” according to an Air Force official whose access was blocked and who shared the screen warning with The Times. Violators are warned that they face punishment if they try to view classified material from unauthorized Web sites.

Some Air Force officials acknowledged that the steps taken might be in vain since many military personnel could gain access to the documents from home computers, despite admonishments from superiors not to read the cables without proper clearances.

Cyber network specialists within the Air Force Space Command last week followed longstanding procedures to keep classified information off unclassified computer systems. “News media Web sites will be blocked if they post classified documents from the WikiLeaks Web site,” said Lt. Col. Brenda Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Space Command, a unit of which oversees Air Force cyber systems. “This is similar to how we’d block any other Web site that posted classified information.”

Colonel Campbell said that only sites posting full classified documents, not just excerpts, would be blocked. “When classified documents appear on a Web site, a judgment will be made whether it will be blocked,” she said. “It’s an issue we’re working through right now.”

Spokesmen for the Army, Navy and Marines said they were not blocking the Web sites of news organizations, largely because guidance has already been issued by the Obama administration and the Defense Department directing hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors not to read the secret cables and other classified documents published by WikiLeaks unless the workers have the required security clearance or authorization.

“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority,” said a notice sent on Dec. 3 by the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, to agency and department heads.

A Defense Department spokesman, Col. David Lapan, in an e-mail on Tuesday night sought to distance the department from the Air Force’s action to block access to the media Web sites: “This is not DoD-directed or DoD-wide.”

The Air Force’s action was first reported on The Wall Street Journal’s Web site late Tuesday and underscores the wide-ranging impact of the recent release of secret State Department documents by WikiLeaks, and five news organizations, including The Times. It also illustrates the contortions the military and other government agencies appear to be going through to limit the spread of classified information that has become widely available in the public domain.

“It is unfortunate that the U.S. Air Force has chosen not to allow its personnel access to information that virtually everyone else in the world can access,” said a spokeswoman for The Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha. A senior administration official said Tuesday that the administration’s policy contained some leeway, for instance, to allow certain employees to download information in order for them to be able to verify that classified information was leaking into the public domain, and to assess damage to national security and potential danger to sources.

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, a secrecy specialist, said dozens of agencies, as well as branches of the military and government contractors, had issued their own policy instructions based on the Office of Management and Budget memo.

“It’s a self-defeating policy that will leave government employees less informed than they ought to be,” Mr. Aftergood said.


William J. Broad contributed reporting from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15 ... ss&emc=rss

.

Published on 4 December 2010

Close the window
Wikileaks hounded?

Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

Earlier this week, after the publishing several hundred of the 250.000 cables it says it has in its possession, WikiLeaks had to move its site from its servers in Sweden to servers in the United States controlled by online retailer Amazon. Amazon quickly came under pressure to stop hosting WikiLeaks from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and its chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, in particular.

After being ousted from Amazon, WikiLeaks found a refuge for part of its content with the French Internet company OVH. But French digital economy minister Eric Besson today said the French government was looking at ways to ban hosting of the site. WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its domain name provider EveryDNS. Meanwhile, several countries well known for for their disregard of freedom of expression and information, including Thailand and China, have blocked access to cablegate.wikileaks.org.

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Ensign and Scott Brown, and an independent Lieberman, have introduced a bill that would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence agency informants. This could facilitate future prosecutions against WikiLeaks and its founder. But a criminal investigation is already under way and many U.S. politicians are calling vociferously for Assange’s arrest.

Reporters Without Borders can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.

We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.

Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online

Reporters Without Borders defends imprisoned journalists and press freedom throughout the world. It has nine national sections (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). It has representatives in Bangkok, New York, Tokyo and Washington. And it has more than 120 correspondents worldwide.

© Reporters Without Borders - 47, rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris - France

http://en.rsf.org/wikileaks-hounded-04- ... 38958.html

.

Gillard may get me killed: Assange

Exclusive by Kieran Campbell and Bianca Clare | 12th December 2010

This Aug. 14, 2010 photo shows WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Stockholm, Sweden. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday, Nov. 26, 2010 spoke with the Chinese government about the expected release of classified cables by the Wikileaks website. The release of hundreds of thousands of cables is expected this weekend, though Wikileaks has not specified the timing.


WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange says Prime Minister Julia Gillard has put his life and freedom at risk by publicly pre-judging his actions as “criminal”.

In written correspondence between Mr Assange and the Australian Government, made available exclusively to the Sunshine Coast Daily, Mr Assange highlights serious fears that Ms Gillard's statements questioning the legality of WikiLeaks would violate his right to a fair trial.

He said he feared he and his staff could be killed as he was aware senior figures in the United States, including politician Sarah Palin, had been calling for his arrest and assassination.

The 39-year-old Queenslander is currently in solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison in England for his own safety.

He is due to appear in court for a second time on Tuesday after being arrested on a Swedish warrant.

Prosecutors want to question Julian Assange about allegations of rape and sexual molestation made by two women.

WikiLeaks supporters insist the allegations are politically motivated because of the sensitive nature of the leaked cables.

The US Government is considering extraditing Mr Assange for espionage or charges involving obtaining stolen property.

The charge of espionage involves the death penalty. Either charge would be the first of its kind.

Check out Channel 7's interview with Christine Assange

Despite pleas from Mr Assange's Sunshine Coast-based mother Christine, the Australian Government has yet to commit to stepping in and bringing him back to Australia or assuring he won't be passed on to a third country .

Prime Minister Gillard was on holiday yesterday, leaving the Attorney-General's Department to answer a series of questions from the Daily about whether the government's stand was putting Mr Assange's life at risk.

But the answers were less clear than the allegations.

“Mr Assange has the same rights as any other Australian citizen,” a department spokesman said.

“That includes the right to consular assistance from the government and the right to return home to Australia.

“The government is ensuring Mr Assange has access to assistance from consular officials in London.

“They are in regular contact with Mr Assange and his lawyers, over the phone and through face-to-face meetings.”

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has specifically requested the Australian Federal Police examine whether any Australian laws have been breached in the release of classified information on WikiLeaks.

“In conversations I was asked yesterday about issues of illegality. This is a matter which clearly the United States' Government has primary carriage of, given it was their secure information,” he said.

Mr McClelland has compared the saga of leaked US diplomatic cables to former Treasury mole Godwin Grech, who sparked the OzCar affair in mid-2009.

Huh? Can we get more obscure here?

Speaking to reporters in Sydney, Mr McClelland pointed out it took the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions almost 18 months to decide against taking legal action. A member of Mr Assange's legal team said he complained he “does not get any recreation” in the prison and “has difficulties getting phone calls out. He is on his own”.

He is not allowed to have a laptop in his cell, but his lawyers have requested one.

Assange was in “very good” spirits but “frustrated” that he could not answer allegations against him, the spokesperson said.

About 50,000 Australians have signed a supporting statement about WikiLeaks, and members of action group GetUp have contributed $250,000 to book a full-page ad in leading world newspaper, The New York Times.

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/20 ... e-gillard/

No. No. That's enough money to get the "50,000 Australians" networked and on the street, repeatedly. Why would they just give it to the Times for a one-shot paper ad?

Talk about feeding what ails you.

.

[Plutonia]

However, Plutonia, your finds from the history and geography of the hacker culture are valuable to me. (As a guy who never got into it very far beyond once knowing a phone phreak and learning BASIC as a teenager.) And, I believe potentially illuminating as to where this Assange, Wikileaks, Anonymous and others are coming from, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches.

Word. It's what's missing from this discussion IMO.

Sooo...

I've invited a Hacker from 2600 to come and fill us in. Hopefully that will happen soon.

[vanlose kid]

here's a new twist to things. thought it was the swedes?

...

Mark Stephens, Mr Assange’s lawyer, has claimed his client was facing a “show trial” and his case was politically motivated. The Swedish government denies the claims.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a Wikileaks spokesman, said that the website was “concerned about political influence on the prosecution of Julian Assange”.
“The new revelations contained in the Swedish cables … shed some light on the ferocity of the Swedish prosecutorial process in this case,” he said.
“The prosecutor has said there is ‘no condition’ for bail that will satisfy them.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ament.html

*

think again.

Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden
Swedish prosecutor's office says it has 'not got a view at all on bail' and that Britain made decision to oppose it

Vikram Dodd, crime correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 December 2010 20.55 GMT


The decision to have Julian Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden, as previously thought, the Guardian has learned.

The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.

It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.

Lawyers for Assange reacted to the news with shock and said CPS officials had told them this week it was Sweden which had asked them to ensure he was kept in prison.

Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, told the Guardian: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."

As a result, she said, Sweden will not be submitting any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing tomorrow morning. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."

After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction … to make such decisions."

Last week Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest and extradition over sexual assault allegations. On 7 December the British prosecutor, Gemma Lindfield, convinced the senior district court judge Howard Riddle that Assange must be kept in custody because he was a flight risk.

Yesterday the judge accepted that Assange could be released on bail, but he was kept in Wandsworth prison after the CPS said it wanted to appeal against the decision to grant bail to a higher court.

The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... ecision-uk

*

[DrVolin]

Responses to various...
are you really saying if the state goes into a rage over the exercise of freedom of speech, with bad consequences for all, then we should (also) blame those who exercised?.

Certainly not. I am, however, saying that it should lead us to at least wonder about their motivations and/or the extent to which they are being manipulated. One can be upright, praiseworthy, and dangerous all at the same time, just as one can be corrupt, duplicitous, and insignificant.

[Ben D]

That's ok, perhaps the site admin may have a position? If RI members are actually being hacked by other RI members, then I would think that it would be an issue that deserves urgent consideration as to an appropriate response.

Nobody has been hacked, settle down, tiger.

Tough to prove anyway, as far as "urgent consideration as to an appropriate response," goes.

A hack is a full course meal and gourmet at that, different than just a taste, or hors d'œuvre.

People dont believe anything, show me a sign, show me a sign, they beg, then when you do they want to run you off, imprison you, or even worse, kill you.

Off with his head they cry, he isnt like the rest of us!

Thanks Hackie, since you have earned the trust of Jeff and Cuda, as is evident from their rigorous intuitively considered responses, welcome to RI et all.