dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
9

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

norwegian

Premium Member

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by norwegian:

It will be interesting.

What I can't understand is Fairfax saying they have documents via the 'freedom of speech' act and have for 18 months but to date I'm sure I've found none posted - what gives?

It is getting to a stage where we need to clarify facts and fiction and comments like that just don't cut it without proof.

It seems there is a document.

»beforeitsnews.com/politi ··· 018.html

An investigative arm of the Pentagon has termed Wikileaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, currently holed up and claiming asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for fear he will be deported to Sweden and thence to the US, and his organization, both “enemies” of the United States.

The Age newspaper in Melbourne Australia is reporting that documents obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act from the Pentagon (PDF) disclose that an investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, a counter-intelligence unit, of a military cyber systems analyst based in Britain who had reportedly expressed support for Wikileaks and had attended a demonstration in support of Assange, refers to the analyst as having been “communicating with the enemy, D-104.” The D-104 classification refers to an article of the US Uniform Military Code of Military Justice which prohibits military personnel from “communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy.”


Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

quote:
.... refers to the analyst as having been “communicating with the enemy, D-104.” The D-104 classification refers to an article of the US Uniform Military Code of Military Justice which prohibits military personnel from “communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy."
Certainly of interest to any US service personnel who might have communicated classified information with Assange or Wikileaks. But it has nothing to do with the US hypothetically charging Assange with something. Which is the (supposed) reason why Assange is currently ducking a Swedish sex assault investigation in a 3rd world embassy.

Link Logger
MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB

Link Logger to norwegian

MVM

to norwegian
May I quote from the article posted on Wikileaks concerning 'labels Assange and Wikileaks as '"enemies" of the US', where does it say that? All I see is:
quote:
(D) Matters Alleged: Communicating with the enemy, 104-D-
Once again there is no drama unless you extend beyond what is actually said, 'Matters Alleged', for a journalist Mr. Assange has an extremely poor grasp of the english language, but Julian you can use the power of the internet to get Merriam-Websters where you can lookup the meaning of the word

Alleged

1: asserted to be true or to exist

2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called

3: accused but not proven or convicted

So how does this genius get from 'alleged' to 'enemy of the state', second who says that they are not just referring to WikiLeaks as nothing more then the transfer mechanism? For example if I'm handing over classified US documents to (insert US enemy of the week here) via the phone, does AT&T get labeled an enemy of the state?

Like I said before, what happens if Julian goes the Sweden and the US does nothing, no charges, no extradition, no midnight commando raid, nothing? Assange eats a ton of crow, wears two tons of sh*t and its the express train to yesterday's forgotten news for him, hence why he doesn't want to go to Sweden as the US isn't going to do a dam thing and he knows it. Better hurry up and get that book out before everyone catches onto your folly Julian.

Blake

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

norwegian

Premium Member

By all means - it is meant to be a free world, free speech etc.

The way I look at it, there seems no real docs to back the play "enemy of the state" by the news that I searched.
It all lead back to the 1 article by the SMH, but then who knows.....the paperwork maybe kept under lock and key for now.

The US if they are to play at taking down the site and it's creator, they won't be leaving the paperwork in the open either and allowing it to create a fiasco such as the issue for Britain at present.
I don't doubt they are after him, he has been a thorn in the side since before we all met here.

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.
What are the long term goals for the man; that is something I've been pondering. I hope he does have good solid facts; as it is hurting his family; and that must cross his thoughts a lot.

History depicts there is a lot of mystery of and men/women, the world over:
Mysterious deaths
Assassinated people of the world

We tread on thin ice at times, and the powers that be; well let's just say can take out anyone at any time.

Arlo Guthrie released a song called Alice's Restaurant and it's under tones are very suggestive of what a group of people who believe in a similar ideology can become to the powers that be, even though it is about 1 man.

Good luck mister in your chosen path is all I can say.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.

yeeeah
@videotron.ca

yeeeah

Anon

said by Ian1:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

AVD

Premium Member

said by yeeeah :

said by Ian1:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.


100% accurate

Link Logger
MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB

Link Logger to Ian1

MVM

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 edit

norwegian

Premium Member

said by Link Logger:

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake

I think the time is drawing closer when this will be. Outspoken is already frowned upon.

Just look at the link posted above on the affects of a prime minister. Our prime minister allegedly commented on Julian being guilty in 2010, and the subsequent shut down of all credit card blocking of donating to an 'illegal organisation" as well as other forms of donating. I'm sure it was discussed here in the topic earlier too.

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

»www.abc.net.au/news/2012 ··· /4300262

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

1 recommendation

Ian1

Premium Member

said by norwegian:

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

Publicity stunt. Nothing more.

»www.theage.com.au/opinio ··· ext-only

"Prominent defamation lawyer Stuart Littlemore, QC, has labelled attempts by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to find ways of suing Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation as nothing more than a stunt.

Mr Littlemore and other legal experts have today said that defamation claims generally must be made within 12 months of the comments."

""For the life of me I cannot imagine that there is a cause of action that WikiLeaks could ever bring, least of all if it had done it within time."

So what exactly did Ms. Gillard say that was so "slanderous"?

"I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.""

Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Assange. It might serve its purpose in deflecting conversation away from his ducking rape charges for a bit though.