Ellmeister Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Apparently the judge is still waiting for actual evidence against him. Its so "mysterious" how the charges were dropped but now brought back to life. What a "surprise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 The most ridiculous thing is that he's charged for sexual assault or something. Really, world? You want us to believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 tbh I supported wikileaks with that release about the helicopter pilots, I could see their point with that. But with these releases I am beginning to question what their motives are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Dunno but's it's hilarious people backing wikileaks have brought down the mastercard web-site. In yow face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 I think a few of the releases are a bit troublesome and unneeded though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 The KKK can accept payments via Visa and PayPal, but WikiLeaks cannot. What a just world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The charges against him aren't even for a felony. What he's accused of just carries a $700 fine in Sweden. When you also consider the fact that the woman who's accusing him of this is some feminazi, and the fact that the charges were initially dropped, it just screams setup. The KKK can accept payments via Visa and PayPal, but WikiLeaks cannot. What a just world we live in. Are we talking about the radical KKK (Who actually hate non-whites), or the moderate KKK (Who are basically like any other racial pride organization)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Having sex with a sleeping woman only gets you done for exploitation in Sweden? Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Is that what you've heard? All he did was have sex with a woman without a condom on, which is apparently a crime in sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 In a statement, London police said that he is accused of one count of unlawful coercion, one count of rape and two counts of sexual molestation by Swedish authorities. All of the crimes are alleged to have been committed in August this year, they added. He, of course, denies the allegations, with British attorney Mark Stephens saying that they stem from a row over consensual but unprotected sex. That's what I read, I think what you are saying is his lawyer's defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Consider for a second what qualifies as 'rape' in sweden for a second though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Oh you are saying it is rape to have sex without a condom... That is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The word 'rape' effectively means unconsentual sex. In the case at hand, sex was consentual, but the lady was not aware he wasn't to use a condom, thus it went from consential to unconential, which in the grand scheme of things is not worthy of the FBI most wanted list, and is clearly a distraction that whatever governments are involved are causing in an attempt to villify an individual who has chosen to take freedom of speech to the most extreme that teh maxim allows, yet an extreme to which is naturally woven into every constitution in the western world. This 'rape case' clearly has no relevance to the leaks, which are caused by an american officer. Thus much of the liberal world sees this focus of defacing on the website's leader to be merely a distractive case -- but the point is that legally if he is convicted then, as a criminal, his website and anything under his dictation (which the leaks can be argued by good lawyers) should be discredited and overlooked. It may just be a character assassination - but HONESTLY - in the next generation of citizens, such an obvious subversion of human rights can easily be twisted and spun to produce a different result. The MAIN thing about the leaks is that it has the potential to cripple the west's unity - or, at least, the west's public's opinion of their leaders. The security scares are serious enough because what is supposed to be 'secret' is 'secret' to protect you and I. Countries protect us by witholding the 'truth' - that isn't the same as lying. They are there to protect us, and beurocracy and politics are pointedly not blunt in order to avoid international feuds -- yet these leaks threaten to break these unmentioned promises. On the one hand, it is easily argued that the best relationships are built on honesty -- but relationships of necessity, regardless of which party is in need, are built on politeness as much as anything else. These leaks will serve to break the west. Ideally we'll survive and evolve through this era of information; we'll preach trust in a different way and use such a new-wave philosophy to launch a new attack on 'the east.' Realistically? Who knows. We are just a labour force/voting party. Governments are mostly worried that they're not completely certain about voting patterns. Some may argue that the preliminary leaks cause nothing but a focus on playground politics. While this may be true, it at least forces governments to question their own morals. This is why I'm a fan of the leaks. They prove to the government that we are now aware of their dubious nature. I have no doubt that our secret service saves our lives more often than we could imagine, but I do not care to believe that we are needed protection from mere opinions. The less opinionated people are, the less you ought to trust them. if they are paddying to both sides then they must have their own goals. An individual, or a government that claims to be understanding of differences needs to be able to express this reasonably and externally. Otherwise my Star Trek future will never happen :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Oh you are saying it is rape to have sex without a condom... That is ridiculous. That's not rape, but it is irresponsible. STD's unwanted pregnancy... Should a man be arrested for being irresponsible in the bedroom? No. Should a man be arrested for irresponsilbe leaks of classified documents? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Should a man be arrested for irresponsilbe leaks of classified documents? Absolutely. Wikileaks aren't actively spying on governments in an attempt to get any of this information. Its given to them just like a story would be given to any news agency. If the documents were given to a major news paper instead of wikileaks, they would probably publish a lot of the information as well. Perhaps not in the same way that Wikileaks did, but its likely that they would still report on the information that they had. While some of these documents are somewhat sensitive, and it would probably be best that they were kept classified, as its ridiculous to expect a government to operate completely transparently, some of the information in the documents should not have been kept secret. In a democracy the people have a right to know about how their government operates, if they don't, when it comes time to vote, they cannot make an informed decision. Saying this, I don't have anything against the United States Government. While I sometimes disagree with the way they do things, what they do overall for the world outweighs the bad techniques they've practiced in doing it. I know this will be an unpopular opinion on here, but as a Canadian, I have to acknowledge how much my country benefited from having such a powerful neighbour, and many other countries have benefited from being friendly with the states as well. Without a world power that at least tries to give its citizens proper rights, the world is a much better place than it would be if say, China was in charge. What Wikileaks does will not bring down the United States. Its more about reporting on what they're doing wrong, which ultimately is the only way they will start to practice better methods for doing what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 When did the United States become in charge of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 When did the United States become in charge of the world? They took that position mentally after they "saved europe's ass" in WWII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 And how would the likes of China become in charge and change anything any other country does because of these leaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 At least anonymous are here to make those shiting on Wikileaks pay a little! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 It's actually quite scary how much damage Anonymouse can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Whoa, when did Little Gamers start being funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 A 16-year-old boy has been arrested in the Netherlands in connection with cyber attacks on MasterCard and PayPal by Wikileaks sympathisers. Cybers attacks were partially traced to servers in the Dutch city of Haarlem near Amsterdam on Wednesday. The boy was arrested in The Hague according to the Public Prosecution Office. WikiLeaks supporters across the world have carried out digital attacks on finance companies which have refused to transfer money to Wikileaks accounts. The MasterCard site was down for ten hours on Wednesday. The coordination of the attack was organised from the Netherlands according to Dutch public television news broadcaster NOS. It is not known what the role of the boy, who has confessed, was. His computers have been confiscated. More arrests could follow. A group calling itself "Anonymous" has threatened anyone with an anti-WikiLeaks agenda. The groups says it has 4000 "hacktivists" willing to help the whistle blower site. NOS reports that "hacktivists" are planning to stage a cyber attack on the site of internet retailer Amazon for removing Wikileaks from one of its servers. The founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange was arrested on Tuesday after turning himself in to the police in London. The Australian could be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges under the Scandinavian country's very strict rape laws. Wikileaks publications have recently embarrased the US government, after thousands of cables between the US and its embassies were revealed Source: http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/dutch-16-year-old-arrested-cyber-attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 People seem to be mixing up the two women He allegedly had sex with one of them without condom and the other while she was sleeping. According to the first woman he had condom to begin with but he refused to put on a new one when the first one broke. It was the police who decided to put up the charges. The women contacted the police because they were worried for diseases. Here and here, use google translator or something http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/wikileaks/artikkel.php?artid=10012350 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/wikileaks/artikkel.php?artid=10012376 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) When did the United States become in charge of the world? That's not my point. My point is that their power has influenced the world a lot in a good way. Its also very comforting to be allied with such a powerful country. People seem to be mixing up the two women He allegedly had sex with one of them without condom and the other while she was sleeping. According to the first woman he had condom to begin with but he refused to put on a new one when the first one broke. It was the police who decided to put up the charges. The women contacted the police because they were worried for diseases. Here and here, use google translator or something http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/wikileaks/artikkel.php?artid=10012350 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/wikileaks/artikkel.php?artid=10012376 Regardless, its their word against his. There's no strong evidence against him in either case. If it was anyone else involved, it would all be over after the case was initially thrown out of court. Edited December 9, 2010 by Emasher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts