Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Dude, being a dick is one thing, and molestation and rape is another. Face it, assange has a "star" problem.

Hmm... well...

Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose, while Miss W said the unprotected sex act had been without her consent.

This is slightly ambiguous.  I think the charges are intentionally ripping a condom and not being protected when he said he would be... I think?

I mean, it's a serious crime, but... interpol seem to be pursuing it rather more than you'd expect them to.  I mean, if you compare this to the Polanski case (rape and sodomy of a 13 year old girl)...

[ChairmanPoo]

how the hell do you prove that such a thing has happened on purpose? Sad fact of life: condoms rip.

[SalmonGod]

Dude, being a dick is one thing, and molestation and rape is another. Face it, assange has a "star" problem.

That's some pretty strong conviction concerning a really vague story concerning personal interactions that were clearly more complex than your typical rape charge.  He didn't exactly pounce them in a dark alley.

And even if it were that clear-cut, I'd bet my life Interpol would not issue an international arrest warrant.

[smjjames]

There are definetly political reasons behind interpol wanting Assanage so badly, he did piss off more than just the US.

[Aqizzar]

You speak of "how can we do a better job of it not getting out" and "how can we destroy the person who did it" as if they are completely unrelated things. Not only does doing the latter to someone prevent them from doing the former again, it also provides a disincentive to dissuade other people from doing the former. It won't prevent all such incidents, but saying that we shouldn't bother because incidents like that will still occur is like saying that we should scrap the entire policing system since people still commit crimes anyway.

While I think you're certainly taking the worst kind of camelnose comparison, I'm perfectly aware that it's a position with a lot of dangerous nuance.  I don't particularly have a problem with that.  It is my honest belief that governments should not have legal secrets, or the ability to unilaterally withhold information; that keeping dangerous information secret should begin and end at the purview of keeping it away from people who shouldn't have it by physical and personal means, not by the threat of legal retribution.  I consider it fundamental that calling out bad government practice should be better protected than the government's safe operation.

I'm likewise perfectly aware that probably nobody in the world agrees with me on that, and I'm more than willing to accept that.  I'm just describing my view on the question, not really offering a policy solution.

[smjjames]

Camelnose comparison? Never heard of that term.

[Aqizzar]

It's the Arabic version of "slippery slope" - if you let a camel's nose into your tent, you will soon have a whole camel in your tent.  The term "slippery slope" gets tossed around so frequently it's lost most of its meaning and more of its respect, so I use a different term.  Besides, I hate alliteration and I like camels.

[ed boy]

It is my honest belief that governments should not have legal secrets, or the ability to unilaterally withhold information; that keeping dangerous information secret should begin and end at the purview of keeping it away from people who shouldn't have it by physical and personal means, not by the threat of legal retribution.  I consider it fundamental that calling out bad government practice should be better protected than the government's safe operation.

I'm sure that you agree that the government should try to regulate who has access to drugs or weapons - if they find that someone has a gun who shouldn't, they shouldn't just say "ah well" and leave it at that. How is information significantly different?

I must commend you for your use of the term "camelnose comparison", and I resolve to use it more in the future.

[olemars]

FWIW, I've followed the swedish coverage of this case a bit, and there isn't really anything indicating the swedish police is pushing this case because of his ties to wikileaks. It's more about a rather complicated domestic political issue regarding sex-crimes legislation. Seems like the prosecutor wanted a hgih-profile target to get some presedence for a few untried areas in the penal code. The case seems very weak though, so noone really understands why the prosecutor and her politician/lawyer ally dare push it so fervently.

The media frenzy around wikileaks has expedited things a lot though, especially the international arrest warrant (note that the warrant isn't issued by interpol itself).

[Sowelu]

I'm sure that you agree that the government should try to regulate who has access to drugs or weapons - if they find that someone has a gun who shouldn't, they shouldn't just say "ah well" and leave it at that. How is information significantly different?

You horrify me.

For one thing, you CAN take a gun away from someone.

[Aqizzar]

It is my honest belief that governments should not have legal secrets, or the ability to unilaterally withhold information; that keeping dangerous information secret should begin and end at the purview of keeping it away from people who shouldn't have it by physical and personal means, not by the threat of legal retribution.  I consider it fundamental that calling out bad government practice should be better protected than the government's safe operation.

I'm sure that you agree that the government should try to regulate who has access to drugs or weapons - if they find that someone has a gun who shouldn't, they shouldn't just say "ah well" and leave it at that. How is information significantly different?

Again, I never said the government shouldn't decide who to trust with information, or shouldn't try to keep sensitive information under wraps.  I'm saying that making it public shouldn't be a crime; grounds for firing and never being trusted again yes, but not legal punishment.  I'll head off the obvious argument of information being a weapon - I'm certainly not going to make some ridiculous argument that not being a physical object somehow exempts information from being potentially dangerous.  And my response is, deal with it.

Yes, if a person publishes information about an embassy or something, and somebody dies as a result of that information, that's a personal and strategic tragedy warranting the full retribution for the act itself on the people who perpetrated it.  The guy who originally held the information, no.  "But what if he's a spy?"  He should have been caught, and its the government's fault for not keeping a better lid on him.  Start trying harder.

[Sowelu]

If you work at a bank, and you give some criminals the vault combination and they steal a bunch of cash that they couldn't otherwise have obtained, are you responsible?  Yes.  Yes you are, you're an accomplice.

[Leafsnail]

There were apparently millions of people with access to the database that was linked...

[Aqizzar]

If you work at a bank, and you give some criminals the vault combination and they steal a bunch of cash that they couldn't otherwise have obtained, are you responsible?  Yes.  Yes you are, you're an accomplice.

Once again, private versus public.  And again, do a better job of vetting who has the combination.  And again, I know I'll never have my say on this, I'm presenting it for the principle of the point, that the government is complicit in its own leaks by virtue of trying to call so much information "secret", and giving access to it to so many people.

And what the heck for a further again, that hypothetical is not a public leak, it's using the information for personal gain in a surreptitious fashion.  You're not putting the combination in a Letter to the Editor, you're conspiring for a specific action.  And if you don't think the federal legal system can carve the distinction between those concepts, just watch the government's head spin over Assange.

[olemars]

The important aspect in my eyes, is that classification rules are meant for information sensitive for public safety, not to enable politicians and public servants to deceive, lie and cover up. That's why politicians are angry about the leak, not because of any perceived danger to anyone's life but because it shakes up their lifelong MO to say one thing publically and another behind closed doors.

It's a bit amusing to read the stories about politicians whose shady deals have been exposed, and how they all respond the same way. Apparently all US diplomats are lying imbeciles, since they misunderstand everything they're told or lie about it in their reports to look more important back at foggy bottom.