I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about this situation. I think that for better or worse, it has completely changed the way governments will go about communications, and has thrown a lot of things into the open. A lot of it seems like petty trivial stuff (is anyone really surprised that every world leader doesn't get along with every other world leader?), but stuff like this being revealed makes it worthwhile.

I thought of starting a thread on Wikileaks but I see you have beat me to it. I personally think Julian Assange has done and is doing a fine job in this world, I could care less if he has sexually abused someone in the past. It's not my business anyway. I approve telling people how this things actually are and what kind of bullshit all the fatass politicians are talking behind our backs while smoking their cigars. The other side of the coin is that all the revealed documents may cause instability between countries. My thoughts here.

Some say that currently the first Cyber War is going on, with the Anon people on the front and on the loose. What they have been able to achieve so far is pretty impressive and shows the potential of the Internet and of an organized public.

Wikileaks has done and is doing a fine job in exposing information that the politicians want to keep out of sight of the 'ordinary people'. I am really curious about the cables on the banks, which will supposedly be released next year.

this picture is also quite amusing:

As long as this website reveals unfair practics of the contemporary elite, it is right then.
Only I am afraid that those and possible next activities of Wikileaks could serve as an excuse for radical internet censorship.

As far as the sex scandal for Julian goes, I heard that what happened was that Julian fucked a girl one night, and then fucked another one the next night. Both of the girls were pissed, because they wanted to form a relationship with him, so they claimed that they were raped. Don't know if its true, but it would be hilarious if it is.

Wikileaks is one of the best things to happen in recent times. Finally, we get the real story's, and not what politicians and media journalists want us to know.

I'm interested in seeing what can happen, depending on the nature of the leaks-to-come, should more scandalous things be revealed. Even if the true nature of things is ugly, I'm all in for the idea of disclosing things to the public.

Certainly, a "cyber war" - which might be what is going on now - is interesting, most interesting thing I've seen in a long while. Whether or not this will result in severe actions (such as the censoring of the internet as someone said) from the goverments etc. is going to be interesting, not to mention the "common people" actually fighting back. So far, the anonymous have done well.

I don't know about their motivations, but I did read that they only came forward after learning that he slept with both of them. For his part, he admits to having unprotected sex with both, but claims it was consensual. I don't know more about it than that, but I have to say that these claims seem very conveniently timed for those wanting to shut WikiLeaks down. How hard would it really be for a government to find women he's slept with and bribe (or force) them to claim he raped them? Russia did directly threaten him, and the Russian gubmint has certainly done more outlandish things to people.

As for the subject, I wholeheartedly support his efforts regarding WikiLeaks. The fewer secrets governments can keep, the harder time they'll have exploiting individuals.

This is the most exhaustive article I've found:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

I think it's fascinating how we the people are supposed to give up every little bit of integrity and privacy in the name of "security", but when the "naked-scanner-camera" is turned on those who are the loudest proponents, the panic is total.

Well, if the govt. did bribe women to charge Julian with rape, then maybe the documents would show up on Wikileaks

There is a certain question of revealing military strategy options; whether its good or not. If the govt had documents saying, "Ok, here's how we stop the Taliban in 4 easy steps", and it was released by Wikileaks... Well the plan is ruined. I don't know if Wikileaks revealed any sort of military plans though, aside from some conspiracy with the U.S and Israel to take out Iran and Lebanon.

No wikileaks have released about 1000 out of about 250 000 leaked documents they thought was of public interest, after asking new's bureaus.

*double post*

Wow. I thought these accusations had suspicious timing, but if everything in that article is true, they are indeed complete bullshit.

Ok the bit where they put up the two girls faces and then blurred them out was hilarious. Such a fail. Then again this is the Mail that we're talking about. Still, he's done a good thing bringing all of this to the light and he's more than entitled to a bit of nookie along the way is how I see it

They did leak some CIA documents about Wikileaks, with some agents discussing various ways to smear it and Assange

That article is cloying, misogynist garbage. But what else should be expected from a rag like The Daily Mail?

This whole thing just reveals the true face of the world leaders. It's funny that everybody who has been caught in a lie think Wikileaks is dangerous. Why are people so afraid of the truth?

About the sexual charges one of the women said that he had "raped" her because he had made a hole in the condom. She's a known feminist and has posted several methods to make one's ex-boyfriend look bad by making false accusations.

I agree, it starts out pretty straight but toward the end when they start "interpreting" events, they get pretty offensive. I'm on the fence about his guilt in this matter (innocent until proven guilty, I guess) but that article certainly didn't convince me.

Also in that photo he's wearing a fucking Belstaff jacket, which means he must be pretty loaded and makes his convincing the second woman to pay for his train tickets pretty sleazy regardless of circumstances.

The daily mail article does not even mention that Anna Ardin ('Sarah') has previously reported a university student for sexual harassment for an incident where he was using male "master suppression techniques" against her by staring at his notes instead of looking at her during her lecture, thereby making her feel invisible. He contacted her to apologize when he found out about it and she reported him again for using this "master suppression technique" by belittling her feelings, presumably by making her feel guilty for her asinine behavior? In any case this woman is a very obvious misandrist and the fact that these charges can be laid essentially over hurt feelings reflects poorly on Swedish feminism.

I think Wikilinks is a very useful tool for exposing corruption. The only reason governments want to shut it down is to hide their corruption. Anyone who is against it is either ignorant or has something to hide/something to gain by keeping something hidden.

As for the rape thing I have no idea whether he did it or not. It does seem a little fishy though. Seriously, right now he gets charged with rape? I would not be surprised if this is someone's ploy to stop him.

Anyone doubting the authenticity of the material being leaked by Wikileaks should really pay attention to the response from the United States government. They are saying it's an attack against national security and it ruins military operations, that Wikileaks should be labeled a terrorist group, among many other things. They wouldn't be making such a fuss and becoming so worried if none of it was true.

This is a good thing.

Yeah, totally agree here.

While I have no problems with the general principle of freedom of information, I find nothing wrong with the idea of keeping things secret. A completely open government would not be a very good government.

Much of what has been reported, especially crucial details like "sex by surprise" (a complete myth, apparently) that have gained traction, about the case against Assange (and the media coverage has typically become about building a case against his accusers) is bogus: http://jezebel.com/5711600/how-aol-news-started-the-sex-by-surprise-lie
See also: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html

Both contain links to additional sources (this is a good one, too) that should indicate that there's an awful lot of bullshit involved in the campaign to marginalize the accusers.

Then again, Jezebel is a known feminist (the horror!) website and the Salon article is by a woman (how do they allow this!?) who admits to being a feminist (what about the male writers, huh?), so maybe you should all just disregard the facts presented there.

and how do you bring democracy into play here? How is the public ought to know and understand what is going on, when the government keeps certain aspects secret? It does not make much sense, when you take a close look what democracy actually means.

because there's no outright benefit to the public knowing military secrets, and a lot of disadvantages. For an obvious example, imagine the allies discussing the normandy invasion openly amongst the public.

Besides, we're a representative democracy. Well, most of us here anyway. There's a pretty obvious difference.

Military secrets is one thing, but corrupt bullshit politics is something entirely different.

sure sure. Of course it's never that cut and dry as to what should be released/exposed and what shouldn't be. I was just saying that governments do have the rights to keep some things secret from the public, that's all.

The problem is most of the secrets the government keep are the ones that the public need to hear and know about the most. I do see where you are going, though, however, I don't know if I entirely agree with your last statement. There needs to be transparency and honesty, I think, for a government to gain the trust of the people.

and a miss. In times of war the democracy is basically suspended for a central military command, so your argument does not hold here. The military itself is merely embedded in the democratic process, but generally kept out ot it on order to guarantee its functioning.

Yes, but what are the politicians representing these days? The will of the people or that of a small wealthy elite? Look at the polls in regards of the military interventions in Afghanistan or Iraq and how these are perceived by the public; or take the bail outs ... etc.

The little anarcho in me is quite happy with all this. Especially with the parts about SriLankan atrocities as well as the leaks about the cover ups and atrocities in Iraq and Afghan wars. That being said, this causes a big problem when it comes to countries and departments talking to each other and integration of national departments since 9/11, for better or worse(usually),has been broken down. Like Caspian said, the release about important US sites all around the world has really just made a list of potential targets for terrorists. Certainly has made the field of international relations fun again

The leaks were all of older stuff, best as I can tell, nothing about currently ongoing operations, like where troops are attacking tomorrow. There's nothing wrong about details of the Normandy invasion being known openly amongst the public years after it's happened. And there definitely is outright public benefit to the public knowing military secrets; even in a representative democracy, the public has to be able to tell if those they have chosen to represent them are actually doing a good job. If the military (or government in general) can totally botch things and cover it up, or do something horrible and sweep it under the rug, how are people supposed to find out and vote accordingly?

I've heard a lot of what is being leaked about the most recent wars in the middle east are first-hand accounts of dishonorable killings and other embarassing US military operations that are not initially reported to the public correctly. Like failsafeman said, there isn't much being leaked that would put current operations in jeopardy. So although I agree with caspian in terms of strategic military operations being kept secret while they are in effect, that's really not the case here.

I was going to link to these exact things.

Is it so hard for you fucking cretins to believe that, despite the good he has done with WikiLeaks, Assange RAPED women??

It is difficult to believe that a raped woman would tell her friends on twitter that her rapist who raped her less than 24 hours earlier is one of the 'coolest people on earth', then throw a party for him, buy him breakfast, train ticket. Then, there only being a question of rape when it is discovered by the women days later that he was acting like a womanizing cad by sleeping with both of them them within a few days, which prompts a visit to police 'asking for advice' because apparently they didn't know if they were raped or not, only Swedish lawyers can distinguish that. The whole thing is a farce.

Also, the article that points out that there is no direct mention of men in Anna Ardin's translated blog post thing (and thus implying that everyone making this accusation that she posted a blog about 'getting revenge on romantic cheats' is just rumor mongering) about getting revenge is disingenuous.

here is the google translated blog post by Anna Ardin:

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... g-hamnd%2F

As you can observe by the picture, the context is obviously of a man cheating, the implication is that that is the intention with which Anna posted this blog. Apparently the Anna-defenders think there is no connection between the picture and the text, but this is obviously bullshit. Anna DID post a blog about using legal means to get revenge with cheating men in mind, this is a fact, and it ought to be kept in mind regarding the Julian Assange charges.

While it seems drastically atypical considering both the West changed its paradigm on rape drastically and both women have adamantly declared their positions on women's rights, it is still possible that she didn't want to talk about being raped until recently. I don't know how Swedes perceive discussions about rape, but it doesn't strain the imagination to presume someone would prefer to be silent about being sexual assaulted than openly discuss it; after all, it's a humiliating experience.

As far as the rape allegations are concerned, it's, for the sake of my integrity and honesty, impossible for me to cast a single judgment of guilt or innocence. Until ironclad evidence confirms or disproves Assange raped/sexually abused either Ardin or Wilen, I'll assume nothing.

As far as Wikileaks is concerned, one question still festers in my mind. Is the government truly the shadowy puppet regime monster our literary tropes present it to be, or is our government, as it is run by humans and thus capable of failure and incompetence, not nearly as threatening as we perceive it to be? Don't misinterpret me; if you try to take on the government, odds are, you'll lose. However, the recent events leave me, at best, ambivalent.

I don't think it's exactly "cretinous" to hold some skepticism about these accusations, due to them popping up at a very convenient time. Really, it's not like governments haven't pulled shenanigans of this kind in the past to covertly silence or otherwise "deal with" people they perceive as threats. Look at all the times the US tried to off Castro.

Exactly. The timing is suspect, the details are suspect. What's not to be sceptical about? Besides, innocent til proven guilty, correct? And he's definitely not found guilty yet.

[quote="Muhammadabbadabba"][/quote]

The lesson is that we live in a world of mundanity.

One example of many - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/conger3.html

Yeah, apparently J.A. is a scumbag when it comes to his view of "dating", but if these charges are true or not is hard to say. Being from Sweden and knowing the kind of academic "desk-feminists" one of the women represents, and the damage they do to the cause of the women's rights movement, I reserve my right to be sceptical about her accusations ("cry wolf" anyone?).
But the fact is, that these accusations and charges has nothing to do with wikileaks i.m.o. So let's not sit around the table and gossip like the neighbourhood busybodies.

Wether or J.A. is an asshat towards women has got nothing to do with the importance of wikileaks, or the ongoing struggle for transparency of government.

And I agree that some posters seem to have misunderstood what it is that has been published. It's not any "secret plpans of current operations" but information after the fact. Politicians and military representatives say the leaked material hurt them and the nation's interest. Well I would hope that it hurts them when the public gets to know they have used tax-money to buy underaged prostitutes.

That's the thing, though; it seems quite possible that they are related to Wikileaks. IE, that it's some agency trying to get rid of him.