Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Today's WikiLeaks News

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the all-wrapped-into-one dept.

The Internet 312

In today's episode of As WikiLeaks Turns we learn that WikiLeaks's main web site is back up less than 10 days after EveryDNS terminated the domain name over stability concerns. A 16-year-old Dutch boy suspected of being involved in the pro-WikiLeaks attacks on MasterCard and Visa has been arrested. But Dutch teenagers aren't the only Assange fans in the news. Many top journalists in Australia have sent a letter(PDF) to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support of WikiLeaks. The Sydney Police have written their own letter however to organizers of a pro-WikiLeaks rally saying that the police oppose a planned demonstration. Finally, special correspondent for The Times, Alexi Mostrous and freelance reporter Heather Brooke were given permission by the judge in the Julian Assange trial to post Twitter updates about the proceedings.

cancel ×

312 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Looks like the makings of another spectrial... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564176)

This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.

but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.

Hasty Assembly Permit (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564376)

This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.

but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.

Let me help you:

The assistant commissioner added that without a court notice authorising the rally, protesters and organisers would not have the support of the NSW Police Service.

I don't know about Australia but in America you need a permit after your party gets to be a certain size on public property. The assistant commissioner stated:

"Under Section 26 of the Summary Offences Act, I am advising you that I oppose the holding of your public assembly,"

Doesn't that just sound like some fishy shit? Not supported by the NSW Police Service because you don't have a permit? Or massive government conspiracy?

It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses. The police don't oppose it, the assistant commissioner said that they oppose it because they didn't follow the law to get authorization to assembly. All this is going down immediately (this evening). The complaint from the commissioner is that the paperwork wasn't submitted in a timely manner.

When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped ...

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564524)

I can understand that-- (I have read the linked article now, btw. I posted in true slashdot tradition by not reading it first.)

But I would follow up your post a little-- I don't know about Australia, but in the US we also have these 'nosebleed section' areas that the local politicians call "free speech zones." [wikipedia.org] The fact that these even exist at all speaks contrary to the "No, the current enforcement is good and wholesome, if you would just file the paperwork on time!" rhetoric.

Like all galvanized media events, I would say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565266)

Politicians have no interest in free speech: it interferes with the exercise of their power, which is all they every care about.

If you don't think politicians act in your interests or in the interest of democracy, then you probably should be working on the Metagovernment. it is the only realistic way to get politicians out of our lives entirely.

http://www.metagovernment.org/ [metagovernment.org]

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565298)

I am not very well versed in that concept, but I did see this sentence in the article.

The police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.

So the police tried to help them out. But the protestors simply didn't want to listen. It's like any other major city thoroughfare - if you want to march down, say, third avenue in New York or Broad Street in Philadelphia or Theobald's Road in the Bloomsbury section of London, it's disruptive and has to be properly planned out. Detours and road closures so you don't get carnage, for instance.

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564540)

The assistant commissioner added that without a court notice authorising the rally, protesters and organisers would not have the support of the NSW Police Service.

Wow. So the NSW Police Service is considering supporting a pro-Wikileaks protest? I would have thought they'd stay firmly neutral. If they do support it then whose going to police it to make sure they don't get out of hand?

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit (3, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565118)

It's logistical support. In fairness, the original zdnet article is not particularly well written either; but if you read it carefully, it's clear enough what's going on. Here are the most important three paragraphs from the article.

The NSW Police said in a statement that the reason the assistant commissioner opposed the march in his correspondence was due to the organisers of the event failing to submit complete paperwork in a timely manner.

"The group gave one day's notice before the march saying that they intended to march on George Street to Martin Place in peak hour, but this was not acceptable to the police," the service said in a statement.

The police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.

Get that? The protestors gave one day notice that they were going to march down crowded city streets during peak hour. That is clearly not something you can just set up on a whim. The police responded that, with insufficient notice provided, they were concerned about being able to ensure the safety. Try doing a search on map george street sydney [yahoo.com] to get an idea of where they want to march.

The Australian police is not for or against the protest politically. They don't care if these people protest, but they do care that it's done in a safe manner (both for the sake of the protestors and for the sake of the general public).

Which is a long way of saying - total non-story except that the protest organizers are not especially organized, and so instead of doing things properly decided to start whining.

Police, like it or not? Are "enforcers" 4 the scum (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564382)

"Police oppose a planned demonstration?" - by wierd_w (1375923) on Wednesday December 15, @01:59PM (#34564176)

Per my subject-line above, IF you haven't realized it that yet in your lifetime? The police simply do, what they are TOLD TO DO, by their political puppet masters!

(Who, in turn, do what THEY ARE TOLD TO DO, by their "KORPORATE AMERIKA" overlords, who in turn, respond to & do what THEY ARE TOLD, by the banks (WMF - the biggest crooks on the planet)).

It's not the "regular joe" cop, or even the police chief though & I want to STRESS THAT... they are people, ordinary working stiffs, & they too KNOW what's going on as well!

However: They too, are in FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES & KIDS etc., due to things like THIS where "the powers that be" even THREATEN OTHERS for fear of your job even http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/0038211/Air-Force-Blocks-NY-Times-WaPo-Other-Media [slashdot.org] occuring now for gov't. employees.

Everyone KNOWS what's going on, & the "scum at the top"? They pretty much are like "Yes, 'F-U' slaves - we run the show, NOT YOU, so 'know your role'" etc.!

Still - they don't want people like Assange around, so they try to "frame him up" on some b.s. "rape" charge (you can't "rape the willing" & the women Assange banged wanted it - they made some NEW LAW though that says if a condom breaks during sex, it's rape... Oh, please: Give us a f'ing break already! We're NOT that stupid!)

I will say 1 thing here though - the "powers that be"? They are AFRAID this time... look at them pressuring AMAZON, EveryDNS, PayPal (they admitted it), & others who either hosted wikileaks or took donations... why are the frightened this round?? Because they are NOT IN CONTROL OF THE INTERNET, they hate it, in fact - and they made the mistake of trying to "kill an idea"... impossible to do.

Re:Police, like it or not? Are "enforcers" 4 the s (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564554)

Regards the "Kill an Idea" statement. I have what I consider parallel circumstance to draw. Some 60 or so years ago a shepherd in the Qumram area of Palistine unearthed some scrolls. We now know these as the Dead Sea Scrolls. After being reported as "Find of the Century" a small group of scholars started to work on them. and that was it. Few reports, no translations of the more interesting ones. Nothing. Fairly recently a second group of scholars obtained copies and "leaked" the actual scrolls to the Internet. The "Scrollary" scholars were very upset, threatened law suits copyright infringement and everything. But the data was out there now. It could be viewed by MANY people some official some not. But available. One could draw a parallel circumstance with FOIA2009.zip and the global warming argument. When Data is free, many minds can look, determine, and decide. When few know, few control. Internet is Freedom and information DEMANDS to be free. Wikileaks performed a very needful service before all this and, in spite of diplomatic egg on face STILL performs a needful service. As I said: Information DEMANDS to be free.

One down (4, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564192)

One "hacker" down, 4,999,999 to go!

Re:One down (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564666)

Yea, and probably 2.5 million of them will be peeing their pants by morning so there goes a bunch of them as well.

Computer courage disappears quickly once you realize you aren't nearly as 'anonymous' as you think you are.

Whoo, typos (1)

IllusionalForce (1830532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564210)

WikiLeakss's

Last time I checked it was WikiLeaks with one s, not WikiLeakss.

Re:Whoo, typos (3, Funny)

gerddie (173963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564322)

... but it's our preciouss.

tweets? Damn (2, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564238)

I can't think of a more useless medium to give updates about a trial.

OMG! Ass. is up for Qs. Its gonna be bad. He's vervus. SHORT.URL?XVHEHWK

Re:tweets? Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564284)

OMG! Ass. is up

That's how I like my women.

Re:tweets? Damn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564402)

What a coincidence.. so does Julian Assange.

Re:tweets? Damn (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564318)

For one, your example isn't journalism by a long shot. For another, it's only about half the Twitter limit.

Re:tweets? Damn (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564702)

You're right! A proper journalist would be more subtle than that. Let's fix it.

Alleged rapist and terrorist Julian Assange has been brought in for questioning. Extradition by the end of the week? #rape #terrorism #news

Re:tweets? Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564358)

Scoop is coming out...

Re:tweets? Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565284)

I can't think of a more useless medium to give updates about a trial.

OMG! Ass. is up for Qs. Its gonna be bad. He's vervus. SHORT.URL?XVHEHWK

And yet, it has happened before. Thousands of people were happy to see these short updates during breaks (it wasn't allowed inside the court in this particular case) and weren't anal about it like you.

Can we get a category? (1, Interesting)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564266)

Can we get a category for wikileaks news? Because I honestly do not care. And that's the point of Slashdot categories: seeing only what I want to see.

Over the last six months, every time something is posted on Wikileaks, there's a Slashdot article. Now they're coming multiple times a day.

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564334)

Because WikiLeaks affects all of us, maaaaaan! Do you not bow before the image of our messiah and savior Jesusian Assange? HEATHEN!

Re:Can we get a category? (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564372)

This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags?
I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*

If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.

Re:Can we get a category? (2)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564784)

This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags? I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*

If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.

I think the tags are mainly used for searching right now. Would be nice if you could use them for filtering as well. As for me, I don't bother to filter anything, as it's simple enough to just skip over posts I'm not interested in. Some people have difficulty with that.

Re:Can we get a category? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564486)

A category, maybe?

I'm amazed that there are people like you that don't care that we are living in the prequel to "1984". We may be witnessing the birth of the new dark ages.

Moderator

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564588)

Habeeb it. Intelligent people disagree about how the times compare to Wellesian dystopia.

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564984)

A category, maybe?

I'm amazed that there are people like you that don't care that we are living in the prequel to "1984". We may be witnessing the birth of the new dark ages.

Moderator

Of course not. We're aiming more for Animal Farm. Or Lord of the Flies, though that wasn't Orwell.

Re:Can we get a category? (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564504)

most people don't try to close their eyes to the world, especially when the results of things like this do affect the IT/technology world.

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564598)

You're not living in the world. You're living in some fantasy inside your head.

Re:Can we get a category? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565008)

I think you're being awfully idealist... in my experience, people are only too happy to close their eyes to the world, even on things that directly affect them.

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565276)

most people don't try to close their eyes to the world

You are about to see a link that cannot be unseen.

youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont care (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564826)

wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.

had this been any newspaper, none of these news would make the headline. had they made, rest would be suppressed.

we are seeing internet show its power, through people, even if the establisment tries to suppress it.

see :

http://46.59.1.2/mirrors.html [46.59.1.2]

2100+ mirrors. that many people put up private server space to help wikileaks. that is, not even counting the people who are spreading messages, links, articles.

it interests all of us. its internet in its purest form, as how it should be. if it doesnt interest you, or you are unable to understand, maybe you should try other sites like digg, or facebook.

Re:Can we get a category? (2)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565022)

It is kinda funny (or hypocritical but that seems the norm with regards of wikileaks) you have a signature about "free speech and freedom". But don't care about something that is fundamentally about those 2 things... .

Re:Can we get a category? (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565044)

Wikileaks stories need a category and an identifying icon, as updates are becoming much more frequent. If someone wants to use this to ignore wikileaks updates because they are apolitical and short-sighted, that's their problem—let them. Preferably the icon could be something other than Julain Assange or the wikileaks logo. Ideas?

Re:Can we get a category? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565210)

I have bad news for you, you sorry myopic fool.

Most of us DO care, and in fact many of us know this is
the most important thing happening in the world right now.

If you don't understand this, you probably need to spend your internet
time somewhere else. The sooner you're gone the sooner you quit
wasting space with your whining. GET LOST, asshole.

Bradley Manning (5, Informative)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564274)

Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months [salon.com] . And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

Re:Bradley Manning (2, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564374)

If he's lucky, they'll give him time served for that, but it's likely to be a sliver of his sentence.

Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work. What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area. He was trained in how to deal with improperly classified information, and instead of doing that he tossed it over the wall to someone he didn't even know, and along with it tossed a pile of properly classified information.

People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security.

Re:Bradley Manning (5, Interesting)

gerddie (173963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564500)

Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work. What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area. He was trained in how to deal with improperly classified information, and instead of doing that he tossed it over the wall to someone he didn't even know, and along with it tossed a pile of properly classified information.

From the linked article:

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

Re:Bradley Manning (1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564672)

Seriously? Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?

That legal ship sailed a long time ago.

He's been charged. A judge has ordered him held. The law is being satisfied, as are his rights to due process.

He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

Fer fuck's sake, people with tiny minds have lost what little they had over this junk.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564734)

"He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more."

By the USA ?
Laughable, especially the second part of that statement.

Re:Bradley Manning (5, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564830)

He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

You do realize that's what the USG claimed last time around, right? And then this organization named WikiLeaks documented that they were lying: [csmonitor.com]

The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to the Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera, which was given early access to the cache. "It was one of the stated aims of the war to end the torture chambers. But the secret files reveal a very different story. In graphic detail they record extensive abuse at Iraqi police stations, Army bases, and prisons."

US troops reported the abuse to their superiors on more than 100 occasions, according to the documents, but the military – at the highest levels – ordered troops not to intervene.

The Monitor has detailed the alleged torture and abuses that have continued in Iraqi prisons since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know. If it were you, I'm guessing you'd convince yourself that he deserved it every time you went to cash your paycheck. Because that's the type of human being you are.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565356)

Really? It was wikileaks who documented that? What about all the photos and news footage and George Bush's freaking autobiography before that?

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565030)

Well, at least the US isn't hampered by silly little things like the right to a speedy trial. Oh wait...

Re:Bradley Manning (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565170)

I distinctly remember reading something about a right to a speedy and public trial, and access to council. Mr Manning has had neither.

Re:Bradley Manning (2)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565204)

The point of the article that GP quoted from is that solitary confinement of the kind he's being kept under is torture, according to most of the civilized world (and a few US court decisions, to boot).

Re:Bradley Manning (2)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565242)

Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?

No. Read the link before attempting to refute it in ignorance.

He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

He's being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, with limited outside contact.

That's considered torture by a lot of people -- nations, even.

Read the linked article. The author went into some detail about why it's considered torture in some places, and the deleterious effect it can have on a person.

You may disagree with the author's opinion that solitary confinement is torture. But what you have claimed they are arguing, is not what they are arguing. Your claim, and refutation of your claim -- I believe this is called a straw man.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565286)

If you don't think that solitary confinement is torture, then you haven't experienced it for yourself.

Congratulations. (1, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564658)

Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564862)

That's nice and all, but he's still entitled to a speedy trial. For someone who rants so much about how the law is whenever anyone suggests something should be different, you're surprisingly silent on this fact.

Re:Bradley Manning (2)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565322)

"People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security." If you are American tell it to our founding fathers. Heroes aren't heroes because they do the easy thing. Hopefully it will be worth it for him.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565400)

Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work.

Bradley Manning did what he was morally and legally supposed to do:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

        i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees...

        i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against...

- Ref: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html [salon.com]

His employers failed both him and Iraq. Unfortunately the U.S. government failed to live up to their moral and legal responsibilities. Many people, including Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby lied and broke laws (in reguards to Iraq) and yet they were not sent to jail. A young private risks his own freedom to help Iraq and he is jailed and tortured by his own government. This is not right no matter what type of excuses you can think of.

To repeat what you said, "Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work.". Unfortunately if you cannot trust your leaders (i.e. immediate supervisors on up), then this is not a failure of the employee, this is a failure of Leadership. You may want to read up on other people who have spoken up about corruption and illegality with their employers, like with Richard Barlow [wikipedia.org] or Patrick Tillman [wikipedia.org] or Frank Olson [wikipedia.org] , etc, etc and so on...

What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area.

WRONG! It wasn't Bradley Manning who was untrustworthy, it was his supervisors. I would trust Bradley Manning with my life, more than I would his superior officers. If I was a corrupt individual I wouldn't trust Bradley Manning, but somehow I doubt that he was told his job was to help suppress the freedom and dignity of Iraqis.

People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security.

This is just flamebait. The people who have publicly proclaimed Manning a hero are highly educated, and generally very experienced in government (like Daniel Ellsberg). You appear to be the one who is ignorant.

Re:Bradley Manning (5, Informative)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564406)

And meanwhile, Roman Polanski [wikipedia.org] is still free, and it took almost thirty years for the United States to get around to having an international warrant for his arrest issued despite his having actually admitted to sex crimes involving a thirteen year old girl. I guess that doesn't count very much compared to embarrassing powerful people.

And why exactly is Assange being harrassed for doing something that is far less serious than what this English woman has admitted doing in a major newspaper [thesun.co.uk] : having sex with men using condoms deliberately tampered with so she can get pregnant?

Is the government of England really concerned with the sexual integrity of Swedish womanhood? Or are they just using the legal system to harrass someone who has made them look like the bunch of wankers they are?

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564828)

Is the government of England really concerned with the sexual integrity of Swedish womanhood? Or are they just using the legal system to harrass someone who has made them look like the bunch of wankers they are?

This sounds like the type of question my wife asks me, when she says 'Do you want to hang this shirt up now?' or 'Do you feel like a cup of tea?'

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564950)

The English are honoring a Swedish request so that if the tables are turned, the Swedes will honor an English request to arrest someone they want.

Sweden issued an European Arrest Warrant, so the United Kingdom had to show good faith towards arresting him per the framework all EU members agreed to

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564512)

Well, I don't know if he should be mingling with the other prisoners. They may have committed crimes to warrant their detention but I'd bet most of them hate Manning's guts and would jump at the chance to hurt him. The only point from the article I'd press as well would be a swift start to legal proceedings.

Re:Bradley Manning (5, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564522)

Does anyone in the USA actually believe the constitution has power anymore? I mean, I regularly see Americans argue from the position of "You can't do that, it's unconstitutional" yet the right to not be imprisoned without charges and a trial is the only right that is included in the original text, sans amendments.

If Manning ends up in a Guantanamo type limbo nobody will be surprised. Very sad. Especially given how unreliable a witness Lamo is. If Lamo is the only thing they have on Manning then a good defence lawyer could make great progress with his case.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564656)

No. But we didn't believe it had power in the early 1900s either.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564622)

Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months [salon.com] . And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

And the legal defense funding promised by Wikileaks hasn't found its way [cbsnews.com] to Manning's attorney. I wonder if they've found a 'better' use for it.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565236)

You caught the news about all Wikileaks' accounts being frozen, didn't you? My bet is, if they haven't passed it along, it's because they don't have it themselves. But that's just speculation on my part. Much like your own post, I guess.

Re:Bradley Manning (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564638)

Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564678)

Well, he volunteered for the Army, submitted to the security check and swore an oath, then he broke the rules governing security, assaulted another soldier, and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so why are you surprised he is in confinement still?

He pissed off the Army something fierce and by his actions have made it harder for other, loyal techs in the services, to use logical work arounds like gmail, flash drives, external hard disks for mundane tasks.

Of course the Army is going to put him in solitary and take away his pillow.

Wikileaks for it's part has contributed nothing to his defense fund, guess it's more important to keep Assange out of jail and his name in the press.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565326)

He pissed off the Army something fierce and by his actions have made it harder for other, loyal techs in the services, to use logical work arounds like gmail, flash drives, external hard disks for mundane tasks.

Even in the Army, whistle-blowers have protected status. His mistake was whistle-blowing to the public instead of to superiors up the chain of command. Arguably, though, he would have known going up the chain of command would have been useless... and so public disclosure was the only way to blow the whistle.

Wikileaks for it's part has contributed nothing to his defense fund, guess it's more important to keep Assange out of jail and his name in the press.

Or, you know, to keep operating. Wikileaks doesn't have deep pockets. Protecting their sources is not their responsibility, anyway. The responsibility they have assumed is that of providing a means of dissemination of erstwhile secret information.

Re:Bradley Manning (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565360)

Oh, fuck me. I hadn't realized that Wikileaks had promised funding for Manning's defense.

Please ignore my posting out of ignorance above.

Re:Bradley Manning (2, Informative)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564746)

Greenwald is an idiot. A military prosecutor has 120 days to bring a case to trial. If the delay is longer than that, it's at the request of the defense. Manning could have demanded a speedy trial months ago, and there's not much the government could have done about it.

More likely, he's in solitary for his own protection. If he was put in the general prison population, he probably wouldn't last a week. Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

Re:Bradley Manning (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564988)

Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

Actually, they can end up with their own TV shows. It just depends on who they commit treason for. If it's the American public, or even worse, the world's public, you are correct. If they are good little soldiers and stomp on throats at the request of the powerful, well... how else do you think they get promoted?

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34565124)

...And as every U.S. military recruit is taught before going to boot camp...the punishment for treason in times of war is death. He's getting off easy so far.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564802)

He's an american, his rights can be violated with ease. He's also part of the army, which means it can be done away from public view.

Re:Bradley Manning (0)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565174)

If Manning is indeed a real person and NOT part of a larger (fictitious) US PsyOps disinformation ploy, (like the 911 truthers), he will probably be kept in a windowless concrete box with a light burning 24 hours a day continually watched by camera (if he's lucky he'll be shot before his 40th birthday)!

Wikileaks coverage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564276)

...is becoming more annoying than the Google coverage.

Re:Wikileaks coverage (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564414)

Short attention span is going to ensure that information flow is absolutely controlled by the powers that be, it seems.

Best drama in years! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564286)

Is there really no one making a movie/TV show about this? Whichever side you're on, it's a far more compelling story than anything currently on TV or in theaters.

Re:Best drama in years! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564390)

Being better than TV doesn't make it any good. It sucks less, but the drama still sucks. Remember when Slashdot used to discuss programming? No? That must have been a dream.

The Good Wikileaks Does (-1, Flamebait)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564294)

is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

There are better ways to do it.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564336)

And until the people know the truth, we can not change a thing.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564484)

I just told you the truth.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564696)

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564348)

is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

What is no justification for the bad Wikileaks does?

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564380)

So go build an army and start a fascist revolution. If enough people support you, we'll get the sort of world you want.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564466)

I'm the least fascist person you've ever encountered. And the least communist. But I know the difference between what should and shouldn't be secret, and Assange doesn't.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564552)

The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say. But the person who believes he is the least fascist is very likely to think so.

Like the man said, every anarchist is a baffled dictator.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564396)

Yeah, like voting for Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, Eric Holder and Joe Liberman. That ought to secure freedom for the foreseeable future. Fuck, yeah!

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (4, Insightful)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564454)

is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

Well, you can't have the good without the bad...

There are better ways to do it.

Like what? Wear buttons with sloagans about love, put bumper stickers on your car?

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does (0)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564592)

Like what?

oh yeah (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564880)

there are better ways to do it. that is the reason why it has never been done and successful before.

wake up. if it was possible to do it in any other way, it would have been done.

Is there still an online WikiLeaks IRC anywhere? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564328)

WikiLeaks used to have a chat running online at https://chat.wikileaks.org/ . With that chat apparantly missing, does anyone know if WikiLeaks have an official IRC chat running at all?

The proof is in the Opposition (5, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564330)

Step back and look a bit. Assange may be more ape than angel, but he still has rights various powers are working hard to deny him -- why? It appears they've caved on bail, and eventually the British system grinding slowly and ever-so-carefully will get around to reviewing some substance of the matter. I'm a bit surprised extradition for "material witness" warrents is included, or to a place without traditional protections (right of silence). Even more unusual would be extradition for an offense which is not a crime in the holding country. But hey, it is their treaty, and the Brits did goofy things when they were after the IRA.

At a higher level, this just indicates the extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields. Just why would Sweden (of all places) dance to Hillary's tune? Their politics runs more the opposite. Some feminists might like the broadening and exposure of sexual misconduct laws, but the more thoughtful might consider this stretch happens on the backs of women who are indisputably abused. Dubious claims and outright false allegations justify unfortunately piercing scrutiny of victims and further humiliation.

Britian is similar. First we had the unbelieveable spectacle of a Labour government supporting the American invasion of Iraq, and maintaining support after WMD unfound and Tony Blair putting down three quite representative backbencher revolts. They will grind it all through very carefully, trying to stay reasonable lest they suffer the voter backlash that Sweden is almost certain to see.

Astonishing how the US gets people to jump in front of a bus. Proof more Wikileaks are needed.

Re:The proof is in the Opposition (-1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564602)

extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields.

Its astonishing that you assume the US is the one putting pressure on them.

If anything you should have gotten out of the retarded 'cablegate' crap is that most of the time what appears to be the agenda of the US is really the agenda of someone else that the US doesn't seem to care about taking the blame for.

American politicians just happen to be the ones that have the balls to call him a douche in public, they certainly aren't the only ones to think it and you're an idiot if you think they are the only ones that want to shut him up.

Its fairly clear you've already made up your mind however and are fine with ignoring facts in favor of seeing only things that fit in line with your view of how the world works. Thats your business, but don't be surprised that you can never seem to understand how the world works and why everyone does things you don't think make sense.

Re:The proof is in the Opposition (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564926)

What balls do you need to call a single person without any physical power over you sitting in a cell in another country a douche?

If that's all you can say about the balls of American politicans, you are doing them a disservice. They probably can better than that.

I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ (1)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564420)

Can we have Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau play parts? pleaaaase!

Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564508)

Summer Glau being banged by an (acted) Assange? I feel violated.

Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ (1)

pyalot (1197273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565214)

and then there'll be some sex by surprise and many small nathans or summers

Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564526)

I believe that movie was set in a sci fi universe and called "Serenity."

Re:I can't wait for "Wikileaks" the movie \o/ (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564548)

Nope. You're getting Carson Kressley [wikipedia.org] .

Police Letter (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564460)

What the hell is the point of a letter from the police stating they oppose the demonstration? Does Australia protect the right of people to peacefully assemble, or does it not? A letter from the police on this subject is ominous for Australia's political and economic security.

30 comments... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564642)

...and not one reference to Dutch boys putting their fingers in dikes. Those Swedish prosecutors must be scary...

Re:30 comments... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34564722)

Isn't that be something Dutch girls would be doing?

Re:30 comments... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565154)

Not according to legend [pantheon.org] . Besides, 100 Euros will buy you just about anything on the Reeperbahn...

Also (2)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34564648)

Don't forget! There was also an XKCD comic published about this. Or is that just common knowledge?

How close are the US and Sweden? (5, Informative)

Somewhat Delirious (938752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34565042)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html [telegraph.co.uk]

I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>