Wikileaks owner arrested

[A.Nonymous]

For the record, I have to say I'm not overly pleased with the guy releasing all the information he did in the first place. That being said, I think the feds reaction to it is practically terrifying.

Without being charged with any crime in the US, he's been kicked off his web host and had his domain name seized. Not only has he not been charged with a crime, but he hasn't been accused of one either. How is this not censorship of free speech?

Not to mention that after he releases all these documents mysteriously a woman comes forward alleging sexual assault. She was content to keep this all to herself until he leaked these documents. Now he's being arrested for it. Am I the only one who's a wee bit horrified about the free speech implications of all of this? Let's not forget that this guy has not even been accused of a single crime related to leaking these documents.

 

[w_bovine]

For the record, I have to say I'm not overly pleased with the guy releasing all the information he did in the first place. That being said, I think the feds reaction to it is practically terrifying.

Without being charged with any crime in the US, he's been kicked off his web host and had his domain name seized. Not only has he not been charged with a crime, but he hasn't been accused of one either. How is this not censorship of free speech?

Not to mention that after he releases all these documents mysteriously a woman comes forward alleging sexual assault. She was content to keep this all to herself until he leaked these documents. Now he's being arrested for it. Am I the only one who's a wee bit horrified about the free speech implications of all of this? Let's not forget that this guy has not even been accused of a single crime related to leaking these documents.

Sorry A.Nonymous...can't agree with you on this one. First, it has nothing to do with free speech really. Those web hosting companies...they're not their to ensure people's free speech rights. They're there to make money. They have every right to boot someone they believe is detrimental to their business. Mr. Assange has every right to put up his own servers and distribute what he wishes to. Unfortunately in this case it's illegally-obtained material he has no business possessing in the first place.

You mention politics...of course it's politics. Do you not see that it is also politics on Mr. Assange's part to release the documents?

What do you expect the Feds to do? Smile and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?" You're surprised they're retaliating?

I get tired of people thinking free speech means you can say anything you want in any manner you want. It just doesn't work that way. There are limitations; there must be limitations, whether one agrees or not.

There are reasons why governments have secrets. Those secrets are for the protection first of the government and, though only ostensibly in some cases, for the protection of the people under the government. We simply can't have everyone knowing everything. Does not a given individual have secrets? Would he mind if those secrets are released for everyone to know? I mean, under the assertion that everything should be out in the open for all to know...

Personally, I hope this Assange guy gets nailed to the wall. I'm rather surprised he's still alive. And even more so, I hope the soldier that copied this information is placed Leavenworth for the rest of his life.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Sorry A.Nonymous...can't agree with you on this one. First, it has nothing to do with free speech really. Those web hosting companies...they're not their to ensure people's free speech rights. They're there to make money. They have every right to boot someone they believe is detrimental to their business. Mr. Assange has every right to put up his own servers and distribute what he wishes to. Unfortunately in this case it's illegally-obtained material he has no business possessing in the first place.

They kicked him because they were leaned on by the feds. The feds leaned on them because they didn't approve of his speech. As I said, Assange hasn't even been accused of a crime. It'd be one thing if the feds accused him of leaking illegally obtained documents and then dropped the hammer on him. Instead the dropped the hammer with no due process at all.

I get tired of people thinking free speech means you can say anything you want in any manner you want. It just doesn't work that way. There are limitations; there must be limitations, whether one agrees or not.

So unpopular speech must be censored. I guess that's what you're saying. What Assange did is unpopular therefore it must be censored. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right. I'm just saying the government is drop dead wrong to drop the hammer on him just because what he's saying is unpopular. Unpopular speech is what must be protected. Popular speech has no need of protection.

 

[hakr100]

When does Dick Cheney get arrested?

 

[EarlyMon]

DailyTech - Wikileaks Loses Its Domain Name, Chief is Arrested

Many have died due to the leak of classified information.

And we wasted billions of defense dollars thanks to the Walker leaks alone.

And yet so many political careers have be saved by classifying info secret and above that should never have been.

I seem to recall Nixon saying that people leaking his information were threatening our national security.

I think my issue so far is that they're going after him, but not head on.

If they have a case - as you strongly believe - they should bring it.

According to the article above and the one linked inside it, his domain name wasn't lifted because process was followed (DCMA violations allows domain takedowns for example) but because his site was being flooded and because of denial of service attacks.

These tend to be separate issues - servers and their names. Per your argument, you're saying that an ISP that doesn't want to host his stuff doesn't have to for economic reasons - I agree.

But removing the name is another story. Name services are queried, cached and distributed. The name removal smacks of backdoor dealing.

Note from the article that you can still get to the actual server and the information quite easily.

So - things are not as they necessarily appear in this case.

In my opinion.

 

[EarlyMon]

When does Dick Cheney get arrested?

When you and I decide to go bird hunting with him.

 

[jonhcox]

I'm just saying the government is drop dead wrong to drop the hammer on him just because what he's saying is unpopular. Unpopular speech is what must be protected. Popular speech has no need of protection.

I personally am glad the gov't squashed him with a hammer. I have a cousin and a good friend serving in Afghanistan. Should their safety be impacted by something he has posted- the jerk deserves to be punished.

I'm a "rules are meant to be broken" guy but not at the expense of security. The earlier information released that related to the State Department upping its monitoring of overseas officials was nothing new. In fact, we have been doing it since WW2, officially. Once the Japanese PM duped us we began (in earnest) to monitor all things related to what our diplomats were doing and who they were talking to. The media typically over exaggerated it. During the cold war we were watching EVERYTHING. The whole "THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW" cause is absolute bullshit. As was posted above- there are many good reasons why they don't tell us everything. Many people likely either couldn't handle the responsibility or the kind of knowledge they would learn. I'm not referring to the idiotic secrets- who killed JFK, or Roswell. The world is a lot uglier than what we see and there are people far worse than OBL as well.

I say, squash the <expletive modified>.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I personally am glad the gov't squashed him with a hammer. I have a cousin and a good friend serving in Afghanistan. Should their safety be impacted by something he has posted- the jerk deserves to be punished.

I'm a "rules are meant to be broken" guy but not at the expense of security. The earlier information released that related to the State Department upping its monitoring of overseas officials was nothing new. In fact, we have been doing it since WW2, officially. Once the Japanese PM duped us we began (in earnest) to monitor all things related to what our diplomats were doing and who they were talking to. The media typically over exaggerated it. During the cold war we were watching EVERYTHING. The whole "THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW" cause is absolute bullshit. As was posted above- there are many good reasons why they don't tell us everything. Many people likely either couldn't handle the responsibility or the kind of knowledge they would learn. I'm not referring to the idiotic secrets- who killed JFK, or Roswell. The world is a lot uglier than what we see and there are people far worse than OBL as well.

I say, squash the <expletive modified>.

As someone mentioned earlier, Nixon claimed that the information leaked about him was related to National Security. Let's not forget that the information Woodward and Bernstein got was arguably obtained illegally as well.

 

[w_bovine]

They kicked him because they were leaned on by the feds. The feds leaned on them because they didn't approve of his speech. As I said, Assange hasn't even been accused of a crime. It'd be one thing if the feds accused him of leaking illegally obtained documents and then dropped the hammer on him. Instead the dropped the hammer with no due process at all.



So unpopular speech must be censored. I guess that's what you're saying. What Assange did is unpopular therefore it must be censored. Again, I'm not saying what he did was right. I'm just saying the government is drop dead wrong to drop the hammer on him just because what he's saying is unpopular. Unpopular speech is what must be protected. Popular speech has no need of protection.

Didn't approve of his speech? It wasn't his speech. It was stolen government information, clear and simple.

Censorship isn't the issue here. He isn't being censored because his speech is unpopular. Again, it's not his speech. You can say you hate the U.S. all you want, you can do that. You can say you hate its policies, its government, its people, you get to do that. But you do not get to release secret documents without repercussions. Your argument is not logical.

But I still like you. You're a good forum member to have around.

 

[w_bovine]

I personally am glad the gov't squashed him with a hammer. I have a cousin and a good friend serving in Afghanistan. Should their safety be impacted by something he has posted- the jerk deserves to be punished.

I'm a "rules are meant to be broken" guy but not at the expense of security. The earlier information released that related to the State Department upping its monitoring of overseas officials was nothing new. In fact, we have been doing it since WW2, officially. Once the Japanese PM duped us we began (in earnest) to monitor all things related to what our diplomats were doing and who they were talking to. The media typically over exaggerated it. During the cold war we were watching EVERYTHING. The whole "THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW" cause is absolute bullshit. As was posted above- there are many good reasons why they don't tell us everything. Many people likely either couldn't handle the responsibility or the kind of knowledge they would learn. I'm not referring to the idiotic secrets- who killed JFK, or Roswell. The world is a lot uglier than what we see and there are people far worse than OBL as well.

I say, squash the <expletive modified>.

Be sure to thank your cousin and friend for their service on behalf of an anonymous stranger.

 

[EarlyMon]

I personally am glad the gov't squashed him with a hammer. I have a cousin and a good friend serving in Afghanistan. Should their safety be impacted by something he has posted- the jerk deserves to be punished.

That's just the problem you should be having - they didn't squash him with a hammer.

They froze his Swiss account for lying on the bank application.

They arrested him on a rape charge.

They're vilifying him prior to bringing any action regarding our national security.

And with enough vilifying moves, they won't have to bring anything security-related.

How do you want history to remember this day?

• The people supported the government that security leaks of this nature cannot be tolerated in our society and sent a clear message to that effect.

Or:

• Hey, nothing to see here, that guy that was in that leaked document bruhaha was just a rapist and a liar.

Because right now you're being handed the second one - and are aligned to believe you're getting the first choice - and you're really not.

And I don't believe going after him at any cost is the way to go - go after him head on without tiptoeing around. Let due process decide this issue.

These are my personal views.

I say, squash the <expletive modified>.

I know your blood's up. Note I changed the first expletive to jerk and the second I'll just let you modify creatively. That's my mod view - thanks.

~~~~

PS - I used a synonym for tiptoe that our auto-censor killed a piece of without knowing the nature of the word. lol

 

[A.Nonymous]

Didn't approve of his speech? It wasn't his speech. It was stolen government information, clear and simple.

Censorship isn't the issue here. He isn't being censored because his speech is unpopular. Again, it's not his speech. You can say you hate the U.S. all you want, you can do that. You can say you hate its policies, its government, its people, you get to do that. But you do not get to release secret documents without repercussions. Your argument is not logical.

But I still like you. You're a good forum member to have around.

And the documents that Woodward and Bernstein leaked were stolen government information too. Logically, you would have to say that they were wrong as well and Nixon should've never had to resign.

 

[w_bovine]

That's just the problem you should be having - they didn't squash him with a hammer.

They froze his Swiss account for lying on the bank application.

They arrested him on a rape charge.

They're vilifying him prior to bringing any action regarding our national security.

And with enough vilifying moves, they won't have to bring anything security-related.

How do you want history to remember this day?

• The people supported the government that security leaks of this nature cannot be tolerated in our society and sent a clear message to that effect.

Or:

• Hey, nothing to see here, that guy that was in that leaked document bruhaha was just a rapist and a liar.

Because right now you're being handed the second one - and are aligned to believe you're getting the first choice - and you're really not.

And I don't believe going after him at any cost is the way to go - go after him head on without tiptoeing around. Let due process decide this issue.

These are my personal views.



I know your blood's up. Note I changed the first expletive to jerk and the second I'll just let you modify creatively. That's my mod view - thanks.

~~~~

PS - I used a synonym for tiptoe that our auto-censor killed a piece of without knowing the nature of the word. lol

I'm not entirely sure I follow you or where your sympathies lie. Then again I never claimed to be a genius of any sort.

If you do think he should be confronted head on, how might we go about it? I was thinking we could ask the Israelis for a favor and have them take him out and destroy any of his computer locations.

I do think it very interesting about his supposed "poison pill," the files that have already been downloaded just waiting to be decrypted with the key yet to be released.

To me Mr. Assange is something of a cyber-terrorist, but by all accounts he's one smart guy.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'm not entirely sure I follow you or where your sympathies lie. Then again I never claimed to be a genius of any sort.

Me either.

If you do think he should be confronted head on, how might we go about it? I was thinking we could ask the Israelis for a favor and have them take him out and destroy any of his computer locations.

Interpol and international extradition. If we believe there are jurisdictional issues with that, we can appeal to nations bound by treaty to act on our behalf.

We've done it with mere hackers - often - for threatening or compromising our banking system, for example.

Why should this be handled in any lesser fashion?

And the actions where this has all happened so far - the UK, France, and Switzerland. Not exactly hiding in a cave and covered by armed, militant radicals, is he?

I do think it very interesting about his supposed "poison pill," the files that have already been downloaded just waiting to be decrypted with the key yet to be released.

To me Mr. Assange is something of a cyber-terrorist, but by all accounts he's one smart guy.

Then he should be appropriately charged, so a competent court can confirm your finding and punish him - or set free if there's something we missed.

So far the only message being sent to those that would follow him is, if you're gonna do this sort of thing, just be clear on your residency with your Swiss bank and watch how you treat the ladies.

I'm not ok with that.

Either we have a case or we don't - and his being overseas simply means that we use other legal mechanisms, not legal subterfuge.

This shouldn't be playing out like a case from Law&Order (da chung!).

That's where my sympathies lie.

 

[byteware]

For the record, I have to say I'm not overly pleased with the guy releasing all the information he did in the first place. That being said, I think the feds reaction to it is practically terrifying.

Unfortunately, you have most of the facts wrong in this case.

Without being charged with any crime in the US, he's been kicked off his web host and had his domain name seized. Not only has he not been charged with a crime, but he hasn't been accused of one either. How is this not censorship of free speech?

BBC News - Cyber attack forces Wikileaks to change web address

He wasn't "kicked off" by the US. Wikileaks was under such a massive DOS (Denial of Service) attack that it was interrupting service to the ISP's other customers. The ISP had to choose between keeping Wikileaks and potentially losing all of their other customers, or dumping Wikileaks. They chose to dump Wikileaks.

Not to mention that after he releases all these documents mysteriously a woman comes forward alleging sexual assault. She was content to keep this all to herself until he leaked these documents. Now he's being arrested for it. Am I the only one who's a wee bit horrified about the free speech implications of all of this? Let's not forget that this guy has not even been accused of a single crime related to leaking these documents.

I'm going to correct a few things here:

1) Two women accussed Arrange of Rape, not one.

2) The rapes were reported within a week of the date they supposedly occurred (Not unusual).

3) Assange has admitted to having had sex with both of these women.

4) One of the women was hosting the conference, and put him up in her home for the length of the conference.





I can see the idea that the CIA could have gotten two women to have sex with Assange and then accuse him of rape... but getting a woman to plan, coordinate, and host a conference for Assange, then have sex with him, and then accuse him of rape. Well, that plan would have had to be in place before Assange even received the documents in the first place. That's not all that likely.

 

[byteware]

And the documents that Woodward and Bernstein leaked were stolen government information too. Logically, you would have to say that they were wrong as well and Nixon should've never had to resign.

Are you really relating what they took in regards to Watergate to what Assange took (and he wasn't just the recipient. His staff worked that Marine to get him to deliver those documents).

But I don't think you can really compare the information regarding Watergate to a list of locations vital to our national security, and things of that nature.

 

[A.Nonymous]

BBC News - Cyber attack forces Wikileaks to change web address

He wasn't "kicked off" by the US. Wikileaks was under such a massive DOS (Denial of Service) attack that it was interrupting service to the ISP's other customers. The ISP had to choose between keeping Wikileaks and potentially losing all of their other customers, or dumping Wikileaks. They chose to dump Wikileaks.

So they dump the American site because of DDoS attacks, but somehow manage to keep DNS up for the French site? WTF? And it has nothing to do with the feds leaning on them to drop the DNS name. Sure it doesn't.

I'm going to correct a few things here:

1) Two women accussed Arrange of Rape, not one.

2) The rapes were reported within a week of the date they supposedly occurred (Not unusual).

3) Assange has admitted to having had sex with both of these women.

4) One of the women was hosting the conference, and put him up in her home for the length of the conference.

I can see the idea that the CIA could have gotten two women to have sex with Assange and then accuse him of rape... but getting a woman to plan, coordinate, and host a conference for Assange, then have sex with him, and then accuse him of rape. Well, that plan would have had to be in place before Assange even received the documents in the first place. That's not all that likely.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the guy is guilty as sin. They claim they've been raped. Assange claims he had consensual sex with them. I haven't seen/heard any evidence, so at this point it's a he said/she said thing. But let's assume that he's 100% guilty of raping both of these women in Switzerland. That doesn't give the US government the right to lean on his web host to drop the site and lean on the DNS service to drop his domain name. The guy has not been accused of anything illegal related to releasing these documents yet this is what the feds are punishing him for.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Are you really relating what they took in regards to Watergate to what Assange took (and he wasn't just the recipient. His staff worked that Marine to get him to deliver those documents).

But I don't think you can really compare the information regarding Watergate to a list of locations vital to our national security, and things of that nature.

So if it was top secret information about corrupt government officials it would be ok. But if it's just routine classified cables about us using diplomats to spy on people, it's not?

 

[EarlyMon]

So if it was top secret information about corrupt government officials it would be ok. But if it's just routine classified cables about us using diplomats to spy on people, it's not?

That's how I'd vote.

Diplomatic channels and all other foreign intelligence activities - I'm presuming in this case that human intelligence and signal intelligence is at play - must remain absolutely sacrosanct.

 

[byteware]

So they dump the American site because of DDoS attacks, but somehow manage to keep DNS up for the French site? WTF? And it has nothing to do with the feds leaning on them to drop the DNS name. Sure it doesn't.

The DNS name provider claims it was because the attack was threatening the business of it's other 500,000 customers. Which, if you understand networking, makes sense. Just as the DoS attacks were bringing down Wikileaks.com, they were also being routed by EveryDNS... which would have been hurt just as much.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the guy is guilty as sin. They claim they've been raped. Assange claims he had consensual sex with them. I haven't seen/heard any evidence, so at this point it's a he said/she said thing. But let's assume that he's 100% guilty of raping both of these women in Switzerland. That doesn't give the US government the right to lean on his web host to drop the site and lean on the DNS service to drop his domain name.

we leaned on the host, not the DNS service. They dropped his name because they were being bombarded just as much as Wikileaks was from the DoS attack.

The guy has not been accused of anything illegal related to releasing these documents yet this is what the feds are punishing him for.

So, we should just let him go on publishing material that will get people killed until we formally file charges? Really?

 

[byteware]

So if it was top secret information about corrupt government officials it would be ok. But if it's just routine classified cables about us using diplomats to spy on people, it's not?

There is a difference between released information on Nixon's illegal activities, and us talking bad about foreign dignitaries....AND locations around the world that could bring destroy our national security.

I'm certain you can see the difference.

Personally, I think charges will be filed and he will be dealt with. I also think that anyone working with him will be dealt with as well. He'll likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So, we should just let him go on publishing material that will get people killed until we formally file charges? Really?

**le sigh** What information in these cables will get people killed? Please specify.

 

[EarlyMon]

So, we should just let him go on publishing material that will get people killed until we formally file charges? Really?

You're missing something important.

It's still being published. Right now. The full leak is still easily downloadable.

As the article I linked stated - simply google for wikileaks - it's not hard.

 

[byteware]

**le sigh** What information in these cables will get people killed? Please specify.

Easy one... the list of sites that are vital to our national security.

More specifically there is information about an Iranian helping the US diplomatically. I listened to this story on NPR, and am having a hard time finding a link to it. It doesn't help that I don't remember. He was a former star athelete (I want to say polo, but I don't remember... and getting through all of the information about Iran and wikileaks... well forget it). There were three or four different descriptors. And there just can't be that many former sports stars who chaired that particular sports organization.

Someone help me out here, my memory is killing me and google is no help.

And we haven't even finished going through all 250,000 documents yet... what more is there to find.

 

[byteware]

You're missing something important.

It's still being published. Right now. The full leak is still easily downloadable.

As the article I linked stated - simply google for wikileaks - it's not hard.

I am, unfortunately, aware.