Wikileaks - Page 40

On December 02 2010 09:34 tnud wrote:

I got this one!
It's fun :D
Edited my above post just pointing at tpb case when looking at the swedish court system.

On December 02 2010 09:41 Nitan wrote:


Ignoring the fact that you no doubt made a gross over simplification, what does one case matter? You cannot claim an entire system corrupt because of one alleged aberration.

On December 02 2010 09:11 tnud wrote:
Don't be naive, something smells rotten about these charges for sure, I mean come on..
Wanted by interpol for alleged rape?

Dropped, reopened. That he somehow managed to rape TWO women in TWO days in Sweden.. Why the hell would this man risk that right smack in his big moment of fame so to speak.

Either way the man is a hero. Stuff like this makes the government fear the people!

On December 02 2010 09:36 Nitan wrote:


What is controversial?

Do you deny the British Empire persisted or that it was atrocious?

Do you deny there was a punitive peace? If not, do you deny it helped lead to WWII?

On December 02 2010 09:47 domovoi wrote:

He's wanted "by Interpol" simply because there is a court order requiring his appearance and he is not in Sweden. As I said in an earlier post, Interpol is not the super police, it's basically a system to give notice to other countries to look out for him so that they can extradite him to Sweden. And most modern countries have extradition treaties with Sweden, probably because of Sweden's sterling reputation?


I dunno, maybe he's a sex freak. Who cares? Leave that sort of speculation to the jury. Given that Sweden is such an awesome country (look at the "Sell me on your country" thread if you don't believe me), I have no doubt he would receive a fair trial. Sure, perhaps the decision to prosecute was politically motivated, but that says nothing about whether he will be fairly indicted and tried.


Which governments are in fear of their people because of the cables? Stuff like this makes governments fear other governments.

On December 02 2010 09:29 Aim Here wrote:

The FBI is America's political police (If you think they're politically impartial, just google for COINTELPRO sometime). And I don't know what you're talking about with 'fake terrorist plots' or being busy - there are mainstream news articles (like this one) saying that the FBI is trawling the lawbooks looking for something to hit Assange with. And if Assange gets caught in an unfriendly jurisdiction, he might end up being extradited to the US afterwards. In fact, he might get deported to Australia without even the need for extradition

Sweden is a western-aligned government and it may be being pressured by the US to nobble the trial or it might just want to do it as a favour

if you want to see an example of a Western, supposedly law-abiding country assuring the United States that an independent tribunal has apparently been nobbled in America's favour, then you can peek at 09LONDON2198 in the cables, where a British civil servant assures the US ambassador that they had "put measures in place to protect your interests" in regards to the supposedly independent Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war.

Whether Sweden is susceptible to this sort of thing, I have no idea, but with the odd timing and conduct of the allegations (they started immediately after one of the previous major leaks, the charges were changed and then dropped and reinstated, and then a warrant issued immedately after this leak), the thought definitely ought to arise in any sufficiently imaginative individual.

On December 02 2010 09:46 tnud wrote:


Yes, I simplified an allegation against a 2x 2weeks case and months of consideration..
It shows that Sweden isn't flawless and America HAS a hold on us. Don't go saying that Sweden can give Americas enemy #2 a fair trial.

On December 02 2010 09:57 Nitan wrote:


I don't understand what you're saying in the first sentence but intellectual property is very complicated so simplifying the case doesn't really help you.

Your second sentence is...odd. No judicial system is flawless and to demand that before answering crimes is to be above the law.

As for America's hold...probably? America has some sort of hold on most nations because we have a global economy. It's silly to think that Sweden is America's client state because of that though.

On December 02 2010 09:14 Half wrote:


So you're citing the leak that allowed U.S. to fight against Germany in World War 1 as a negative consequence of leaking?

rofl. what an atrocity.

TBH I don't think that wikileaks is a good thing at all. Just recently they released some document saying that american diplomats said that the runner up in the election in zimbabwe or some country like that was weak and had no chance to win, which basically just gave the current dictator a huge lead. Seriously I don't give a fuck what diplomats say to eachother, but they might just have destroyed the last hope of democracy during this century in that country.. worth it?

On December 02 2010 09:50 Half wrote:
The Terms of the Treaty of Versaille and the failures of the U.N. were the main causes of WW2. The Treaty of Versaille was opposed by Woodrow Wilson as being too harsh. His original vision of the 14 point plan for creating the U.N were opposed by American conservatives and European nations.

Seeing how the main causes of WW2 were policies that America directly opposed, I'm not sure how your deducting that we caused WW2.

Instead of asking me to prove why your random theory is true, why don't you show some sources or support? To be frank I've never heard of such a ludicrous theory that American intervention caused WW2.

And yes, American intervention propped up a faltering british empire, but non-intervention would have drastically increased the economic damage and sheer length of an already destructive war. The British empires continued existence had very little to do with the start of ww2.

Yeah, America interfering in WWI was pretty bad in that it preserved the atrocious British Empire and created a punitive peace that led to WWII.

On December 02 2010 09:58 tnud wrote:

I'm not saying that, I'm just slightly annoyed that you think so highly of us lol xD
I'm basically astounded that you think just because the trail is in Sweden it can be 100% guaranteed to be totally and completely fair.

I'm somewhat certain the rape charges are partially being brought out of political motivation. That says nothing as to whether Assange will receive a fair trial, and I'm fairly certain Sweden's judicial system gives defendants a fair shot against a zealous prosecutor.

Since when were you a cheerleader for war?

Sorry for ruining it all for you, but you do realize that this guy is about as far from a trusted source as you can be. This information is / could be so corrupted it's not even worth looking at in all honesty.
Wouldn't care too much of this attention whore.

On December 02 2010 10:04 Nitan wrote:
Where did I say America directly caused WWII?

Wilson failed to use his leverage before we broke the German army's back. Then he had to concede most of his 14 points to create the League of Nations. He screwed up and while he didn't create the punitive peace his ineptness created the circumstances that let it be made.

Keeping the British Empire alive was just a general bad thing caused by interfering in WWI.

On December 02 2010 10:13 Half wrote:
You said it was a substantial cause in WW2. I am saying that they are an irrelevant and WW2 would have happened regardless of American intervention.

We certainly didn't help avoid WW2, but you realize that both of those elements would have simply not existed had U.S. not participated at all?

Explain how keeping the British empire alive would be worse then a war that lead to the collapse of the empire, prolonging the war by several years and causing millions of more civilian and military deaths, as well as the tiny possibility that they have not won the war at all?

On December 02 2010 10:09 Half wrote:
Well I'm glad your somewhat certain. However, considering this entire set of allegations are politically motivated, there is little reason or precedent for Assange to be the same.

U.S. involvement in WW1 served only to shorten its length, thus lowering casualties and its economic damages.

I didn't say they were a substantial cause either. I requoted my one line just to make sure. It's a pretty short and unqualified sentence.

Well, it could have been that both sides would have just tired themselves out and made a peace where neither side held all the cards.

There would have been no League of Nations but that was pretty much doomed to failure to begin with.

You have created a rather strange dichotomy here.

On December 02 2010 09:55 domovoi wrote:


The Chilcott inquiry was conducted by Parliament, which is under the control of the Prime Minister. Of course the US would be able to influence it.

On December 02 2010 09:10 domovoi wrote:

No it wasn't. The vast majority of the cables were irrelevant and nonoffensive. It was an attack on the infrastructure of diplomacy. Consequences: (1) less trust amongst nations to broker negotiations, leading to a marginal increase in the probability of armed conflict, (2) increased security of these diplomatic lines of communication, lessening the flow of information between States, (3) nothing important to be said will be written down, causing less transparency in the long run.

It is well recognized that guarantees of privacy increase the flow of candid and honest advice. When those guarantees break down, people are more likely to respond with less information, not more. That, of course, appears to be the goal of a nihilist group like wikileaks. A few years ago, when I first encountered the site, I thought it was a great idea to have a completely anonymous site to make it easier for whistleblowers to disseminate information. Wikileaks no longer serves that function with its leader now so prominent and its whistleblowing function taking a backseat.

The target in this latest dump is especially heinous given that history has shown time and time again what happens when diplomacy breaks down.