Julian Assange should be LOCKED UP! ASAP!

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now he has allowed the leakage of names and information of informants which is over the top. It is his responsibility to protect their information, and in not doing so, he has put the lives of informants in sure jeopardy and jeopardized future intelligence gathering against suspected terrorists. There is no question now, it is time to prosecute him.

___________________________________________________________________________________

'WikiLeaks docs exposing Mossad agents' names leaked'

German press reports original cables kept by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accidentally released online. Information exposes identities of US sources as well as Israeli, Iranian intelligence agents

Ynet

Published:  08.30.11, 08:37 / Israel News

The original US State Department documents obtained by WikiLeaks were accidentally leaked online revealing the names of sources that have thus far remained anonymous, German newspapers Der Spiegel and Freitag Der reported Monday. The names include possible Israeli, Iranian and Jordanian intelligence agents. The unedited cables could put the sources in danger as many of them are located in countries whose governments are hostile to the US. The classified documents were edited before their distribution over six months ago, but the original key file which has been leaked reveals information originally censored by WikiLeaks editors.
According to the German reports, one of the documents quotes an Iranian informant as saying that the Iranian people have always tried to maintain the impression they were following the "stupid and crazy ayatollahs."

Internal struggles

The uncensored documents were exposed in the backdrop of internal disputes between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and some of his colleagues who had left the site. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Assange's former deputy and spokesman, was the only person to have access to the original cables which were kept on an external server and locked with a password.

At the end of 2010, Domscheit-Berg returned documents he had taken with him back to WikiLeaks, including the original copy of the unedited cables. A group of Assange's supporters uploaded the information, which was encrypted, to the internet without noticing the documents had not been edited and include the names of the US administration sources.

Several months ago, an associate of Assange revealed the code which allows access to the original documents. He never imagined that the password would enable access to documents which were already online, as he thought they were saved on an external server. The accident went undetected for weeks before WikiLeaks' competitors exposed it.

Domscheit-Berg's news site OpenLeaks exposed the blunder to prove that Assange's site was unprotected.

Views: 294

Tags: Assange, Julian, Wikileaks

Comment by Gaytor on August 31, 2011 at 3:20am

Assange has a falling out with the guy who wrote his code. Guy leaves with code and documents then hacks into his site and exposes names that were not actually showing and Assange should go to jail, not Domscheit-Berg? What am I missing here? Daniel could have done this privately yet he chose to put lives at risk. One is inept, the other is self-promoting at the expense of lives. Additionally, since revealing names is a serious offence, Cheney gets the cell next to him.  

Comment by Sassan K. on August 31, 2011 at 5:49am

Another, this time from Australia:

______________________________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks cable leak 'irresponsible', says Australia

Attorney general condemns publication of names of 23 Australians security services accuse of having terror links

  • Alison Rourke in Sydney
  • Wednesday 31 August 2011 07.44 BST
  • Robert McClelland
    The Australian attorney general, Robert McClelland, said WikiLeaks was 'incredibly irresponsible' to publish the cable. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

    Australia's attorney general has described WikiLeaks as "incredibly irresponsible" for publishing the names of 23 Australians accused by security services of having links to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The cable, emanating from the US embassy in Canberra in January 2010, recommended that 11 Australians be placed on a no-fly list and a further 12 on a terrorism watch list.

    "The publication of any information that could compromise Australia's national security – or inhibit the ability of intelligence agencies to monitor potential threats – is incredibly irresponsible," said the attorney general, Robert McClelland, breaking the government's longstanding position not to comment on WikiLeaks' material.

    "On occasions in the past, WikiLeaks has decided to redact identifying features where security operations or safety could be put at risk," he said. "This has not occurred in this case."

    WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, hit back, saying McClelland "bemoans having his department being publicly caught ratting out 23 Australians to the US embassy without due process".

    Assange said if McClelland was unhappy about being "caught out" perhaps he should consider cancelling his Australian passport again.

    "It [the passport] has not, after all, proven terribly useful to me in the last 267 days of my detention without charge. Or perhaps he could do us all a favour, cancel his own passport and deport himself?" said Assange.

    The one common element linking those named in the classified cable is an alleged connection with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, now considered to be one of its most deadly franchises. Many are accused on having direct contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born cleric allegedly connected to high-profile attacks.

    Many of those named in the classified cable are either related by blood or marriage, including a mother and her two sons.

    A lawyer acting for her dismissed the allegations as baseless in an interview with a Sydney newspaper. Others named have also rejected any wrongdoing.

    McClelland said Yemen had become an incr

Comment by Sassan K. on August 31, 2011 at 5:50am

A lawyer acting for her dismissed the allegations as baseless in an interview with a Sydney newspaper. Others named have also rejected any wrongdoing.

McClelland said Yemen had become an increasingly important hub for al-Qaida-associated terrorist activity, particularly as al-Qaida encountered mounting pressure in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

"Australian authorities are working together with international partners to identify and mitigate threats, including by preventing Australians to travel overseas to undertake terrorism-related activity," he said.

Comment by Nina van der Roos on August 31, 2011 at 5:59am

Sassan is making some big assumptions and also making the mistake of swallowing fact at face value, completely ignoring the dirty tricks probably being perpetrated by the US agencies in their effort to exact revenge on a body that has committed the appalling crime in their eyes of making them look like a bunch of murdering, callous and amoral chumps. I do not doubt for one second that if seeing a chance to discredit Wikileaks the CIA would not hesitate to sacrifice some of its own people (and hesitate even less to sacrifice agents of other nations) if it furthered their own aims in the pursuit of Wikileaks. The bottom line is that Assange is not a US citizen and the US does not have the right to go around demanding the arrest of people for breaking their laws when they have not broken the laws of their host country, as much as the US thinks it should have that right. 

 

Let us keep a sense of proportion here, the world's governments have no right to act all self righteous over Wikileaks. Most of them (my own included) are guilty of far worse crimes, violence and abuses  than anything Wikileaks could ever produce. Before anyone goes demanding to "bring  Assange to justice" first of all let us bring real criminals like Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc into court, then bring in Assange and require him to defend his actions, the contrast would be striking. Speaking of Cheney, did he not reveal state secrets in his time in office, where is Sassan's outrage over the lack of a trial  for him?

Instead of pursuing bogus legal claims, torturing the like of Bradley Manning in the process, why does the American government not deal with Assange in the same way it deals with 3rd world dissenters and send in the drones. Of the course the reason they do not is because it would once and for all highlight to the rest of the world the hypocrisy of their world view.

 

Comment by Sassan K. on August 31, 2011 at 6:36am

The problem Nina, is your whole worldview is distorted. President Bush is a liberator who has helped two nations liberate themselves from bloody oppressors and an evil tyrant. Those nations now have a future in which they can build their country in a sovereign manner in having a future without tyranny (or at least less tyranny). The U.S. would not leak the names of their informants and agents as this would directly hurt national security. Look at the comments by the Australians; are they in this too?

"Torturing the like of Bradley Manning"

Really? Torture? No, he has not been tortured. And he committed treason and he will be facing trial in the near future for the crimes he has committed. The United States can try Julian Assange in absentia and request his extradition and I believe that they will do so now that he has crossed the ultimate barrier. You do understand, he has put the lives of informants in jeopardy and hurt our national security? When future civilians in Afghanistan for example have information, do you think they will feel secure to share information with coalition troops?

Comment by Michael Klein on August 31, 2011 at 7:35am

The U.S. would not leak the names of their informants and agents as this would directly hurt national security.

 

ORLY

Also: both nations are still occupied...

Comment by Sassan K. on August 31, 2011 at 9:01am

Nope, they have sovereign governments.

Comment by Michael Klein on August 31, 2011 at 9:45am

They also had sovereign governments before without several thousand troops in their country

Comment by Sassan K. on August 31, 2011 at 9:52am

You call the Taliban and Saddam Hussein sovereign governments? Governments that were among the worst human rights violators of the world (especially the Taliban) governing against the rule of their people by murdering innocent people who did not conform to their worldview? Governments that were defying the international community in all sorts of illegal actions such as human rights abuses and not cooperating with weapons inspectors? A government that was harboring and aiding Bin Laden? A government that was paying the family of suicide bombers money for a "job well done". You call these types of governments sovereign??

Comment by Rick on August 31, 2011 at 11:30am

Bush the liberator, huh? Well, he did want to liberate all that oil. I guess if the people happen get liberated in the process that’s an added bonus. Do you remember the impetus for W. to go to Iraq? It wasn’t to liberate its people. The main reason was to address the development of WMD’s, but 9/11 also prompted Bush to allege that there was a possible conspiracy between Hussein and al-Qaeda to attack the US (despite the findings of the 9/11 commission to the contrary)… oh, and on a side note, let’s say that we want to liberate some people for that feel-good effect.

 

Direct from W.’s radio address to the nation:

 

“… our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”

 

A little later in the same address:

 

“Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

 

Basically Bush made up an excuse to get us in and then figured out the appropriate way to spin it so Americans would get behind him.

 

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service