171 replies to this topic

[TAP]

Is it just me, or is there nothing remotely surprising to come out of the latest leaks yet?

[Mr. Roboto]

Apparently a warrant has been issued for this guy's arrest for "Sex Crimes."

[PERM BANNED]

Two women claim that he raped them. Now it is true that they both approached the police at the same time, and Sweden's definition of rape is very more liberal than other nations. What is considered sexual assault in most western nations can garner a rape charge there from what I understand. Now he claims that he had consensual sex with both women who later found out about one another, and are crying rape to get revenge. I don't know what the truth is regarding this and certainly won't speculate as in my opinion, people are all too quick to believe the "victim" in a case like this, when it later turns out to be bogus. Now I personally find this guy to be the scum of the earth. He's living the life on the pain and suffering of others. People will be killed if they haven't already for the releases coming from this stuff. The American(s) who leaked this information deserve nothing less than treason and should be shot. I'd volunteer to do the deed. I'm hoping some accident happens to this guy or he just vanishes. He already goes underground for months at a time, so maybe this time he just never comes back? I have no probelm in principle with an informed public, but I disagree that no context or discression is being observed on any level. The NY Times refused to release the Climategate Scandal last year saying that the information was obtained illegally and not meant for public observation. Don't you find it a little hypocritical that they don't apply the same standard to the wikileaks where thousands of lives are put in danger, to include national security rather than just the reputation and belief in climate change?

[freedom78]

Two women claim that he raped them. Now it is true that they both approached the police at the same time, and Sweden's definition of rape is very more liberal than other nations. What is considered sexual assault in most western nations can garner a rape charge there from what I understand. Now he claims that he had consensual sex with both women who later found out about one another, and are crying rape to get revenge. I don't know what the truth is regarding this and certainly won't speculate as in my opinion, people are all too quick to believe the "victim" in a case like this, when it later turns out to be bogus.

Now I personally find this guy to be the scum of the earth. He's living the life on the pain and suffering of others. People will be killed if they haven't already for the releases coming from this stuff. The American(s) who leaked this information deserve nothing less than treason and should be shot. I'd volunteer to do the deed. I'm hoping some accident happens to this guy or he just vanishes. He already goes underground for months at a time, so maybe this time he just never comes back? I have no probelm in principle with an informed public, but I disagree that no context or discression is being observed on any level. The NY Times refused to release the Climategate Scandal last year saying that the information was obtained illegally and not meant for public observation. Don't you find it a little hypocritical that they don't apply the same standard to the wikileaks where thousands of lives are put in danger, to include national security rather than just the reputation and belief in climate change?

I mostly agree. Knowing nothing about his rape case, I have no opinion on it. As with most such issues, if he's truly guilty then I hope he's punished; if he's innocent I hope he's exonerated. Either way, it won't change my opinion about him having leaked this info.

This, to me, is NOT about an informed public. Transparency in government is a good thing and I'm all for it, but there's a difference between the public's need to know who is meeting with whom at the WH or in Congress, how laws are made and which parties are involved, on the one hand, and classified material that may be important for national security on the other. If our officials, elected or otherwise, can't afford to be truthful and candid, for fear of some asshole leaking it and causing a fuss, then they can't do their jobs. And that's bad enough. But if people are actually killed because of the choice you make to leak classified material, then that's another thing entirely. That one of our soldiers apparently leaked this to this internet asshole is disappointing. I can't imagine why you would do such a thing. Was he simply incapable of considering the consequences (not for him...for others, the country, etc.)? It would be one thing to leak material which was evidence of corrupt or criminal acts and, even if it potentially was harmful, I could potentially support it. But some diplomat calling Medvedev "Robin to Putin's Batman" (hilarious by the way...transfer that diplomat somewhere sunny, with umbrella laden drinks) only hurts our ability to effectively deal with other countries.

As for the Times...yes the reasoning is hypocritical. However, this is certainly more newsworthy than those climate emails, both as a breach of security (i.e. national, rather than Yahoo!Mail) and as a wealth of new governmental information.

[Mr. Roboto]

Not that I'd jump to defend somebody accused of rape, but I do find the timing of the charges to be suspect.

[freedom78]

Not that I'd jump to defend somebody accused of rape, but I do find the timing of the charges to be suspect.

I'd find it suspicious if the US were behind it, but he's got Interpol after him.

[freedom78]

I keep seeing internet heroes advocating the arrest of the Wikileaks guy on treason charges (not the soldier/leaker...the website publisher). But that dude isn't even an American, unless I'm mistaken. Why are people so retarded? You can't commit treason against a country to which you owe no loyalty.

[TAP]

http://www.thedailym...e-201011293295/

[TAP]

[freedom78]

http://www.thedailym...e-201011293295/

Fair enough, I suppose. Not that two wrongs make a right (usually...).

[TAP]

I keep seeing internet heroes advocating the arrest of the Wikileaks guy on treason charges (not the soldier/leaker...the website publisher). But that dude isn't even an American, unless I'm mistaken. Why are people so retarded? You can't commit treason against a country to which you owe no loyalty.

That's almost as shocking as embarrassed government officials pretending that a million billion zillion people are going to die as a result instead of facing up to their incompetence and entitlement complex.

[Mr. Roboto]

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's "universal jurisdiction" law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.

Soon after the request was made, the US embassy in Madrid began tracking the matter. On April 1, embassy officials spoke with chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who indicated that he was not pleased to have been handed this case, but he believed that the complaint appeared to be well-documented and he'd have to pursue it. Around that time, the acting deputy chief of the US embassy talked to the chief of staff for Spain's foreign minister and a senior official in the Spanish Ministry of Justice to convey, as the cable says, "that this was a very serious matter for the USG." The two Spaniards "expressed their concern at the case but stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary."

Two weeks later, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the embassy's charge d'affaires "raised the issue" with another official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, Zaragoza informed the US embassy that the complaint might not be legally sound. He noted he would ask Cándido Conde-Pumpido, Spain's attorney general, to review whether Spain had jurisdiction.

On April 15, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who'd recently been chairman of the Republican Party, and the US embassy's charge d'affaires met with the acting Spanish foreign minister, Angel Lossada. The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials. Lossada replied that the independence of the Spanish judiciary had to be respected, but he added that the government would send a message to the attorney general that it did not favor prosecuting this case.

The next day, April 16, 2009, Attorney General Conde-Pumpido publicly declared that he would not support the criminal complaint, calling it "fraudulent" and political. If the Bush officials had acted criminally, he said, then a case should be filed in the United States. On April 17, the prosecutors of the National Court filed a report asking that complaint be discontinued. In the April 17 cable, the American embassy in Madrid claimed some credit for Conde-Pumpido's opposition, noting that "Conde-Pumpido's public announcement follows outreach to [Government of Spain] officials to raise USG deep concerns on the implications of this case."

Still, this did not end the matter. It would still be up to investigating Judge Baltasar Garzón—a world-renowned jurist who had initiated previous prosecutions of war crimes and had publicly said that former President George W. Bush ought to be tried for war crimes—to decide whether to pursue the case against the six former Bush officials. That June—coincidentally or not—the Spanish Parliament passed legislation narrowing the use of "universal jurisdiction." Still, in September 2009, Judge Garzón pushed ahead with the case.

The case eventually came to be overseen by another judge who last spring asked the parties behind the complaint to explain why the investigation should continue. Several human rights groups filed a brief urging this judge to keep the case alive, citing the Obama administration's failure to prosecute the Bush officials. Since then, there's been no action. The Obama administration essentially got what it wanted. The case of the Bush Six went away.

Back when it seemed that this case could become a major international issue, during an April 14, 2009, White House briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from the Spaniards for information and documents related to the Bush Six. He said, "I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals." What he didn't disclose was that the Obama administration, working with Republicans, was actively pressuring the Spaniards to drop the investigation. Those efforts apparently paid off, and, as this WikiLeaks-released cable shows, Gonzales, Haynes, Feith, Bybee, Addington, and Yoo owed Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thank-you notes.



http://motherjones.c...e-investigation

[PERM BANNED]

So we're supposed to hand over our leaders to some Spaniards? Even you can't support such a notion SLC. What if France finds Obama's continued use of Guantanamo two years after he promised to close it some type of war crime and demanded he be brough in for trial? People who refuse to play by the laws of war can't cry foul when they aren't treated like POWs.

[freedom78]

So we're supposed to hand over our leaders to some Spaniards? Even you can't support such a notion SLC. What if France finds Obama's continued use of Guantanamo two years after he promised to close it some type of war crime and demanded he be brough in for trial? People who refuse to play by the laws of war can't cry foul when they aren't treated like POWs.

The laws of war are SOOOO incredibly outdated. We haven't updated Geneva for 60 years. It desperately needs doing.

However, I find the premise that, because someone fights out of uniform, they don't deserve protections to be silly. If you were a civilian you wouldn't defend your country against invaders? By our current standards, most of our beloved revolutionaries were just illegal combatants. Not to mention those fuckin' Red Dawn kids.

[Mr. Roboto]

Red Dawn kids...haha