View Full Version : DickiLeaks
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-10, 07:09
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
The pair went out for dinner together at a nearby restaurant. Afterwards they returned to her flat and had sex. What is not disputed by either of them is
that a condom broke — an event which, as we shall see, would later take on great significance.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17QkDmJqw
She then decided to phone Sarah — whom she had met at the *seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying — and apparently confided to her that she’d had unprotected sex with him.
At that point, Sarah said that she, too, had slept with him.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17QlBs4Xo
The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the *second, concluded that both women were victims: that *Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17Qld6m9y
I guess you can hang out with lefty chicks and they may be pretty loose, but even they have limits. All chicks get hacked off when you start sleeping with other women before the bed is cold.
montanadave
12-07-10, 07:48
Assange may be a traitor, a cyper-terrorist, and a man whore, but based on the information reported in this article, he ain't a rapist. A couple of WikiLeaks groupies screw their hero, get their panties in a knot when they find out they were just another **** for Assange, and decide to sock it to him, using Sweden's draconian sexual assault laws with the tacit support of every government and individual who has a beef with WikiLeaks.
Assange may deserve to hang but I've never been a fan of "the end justifies the means" philosophy. At first blush, these sexual assault charges look like some pretty weak ass shit.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-10, 08:23
Welcome to modern feminism.
It was never a good in college to bang a chick the night before they showed "Date Rape:The Movie". Any buyers/bangers remorse and you were in deep do-do.
jklaughrey
12-07-10, 08:30
I will call it using what was available to get this human garbage behind bars. Throughout history very bad people have been put away on charges other that what they were notorious for. I will give you one very famous example. Al Capone, mobster, murderer, racketeering, bribery, etc...the list goes on with that guy. What did we finally use to put him away? Tax evasion!
In some cases the ends does justify the means if you produce the needed result which benefits mankind in a positive manner. Assange out of circulation will no doubt save lives and shore up waning foreign relations.
I will call it using what was available to get this human garbage behind bars. Throughout history very bad people have been put away on charges other that what they were notorious for. I will give you one very famous example. Al Capone, mobster, murderer, racketeering, bribery, etc...the list goes on with that guy. What did we finally use to put him away? Tax evasion!
In some cases the ends does justify the means if you produce the needed result which benefits mankind in a positive manner. Assange out of circulation will no doubt save lives and shore up waning foreign relations.
There is no case when it is ok to put someone away on charges they are not guilty of. Capone was guilty of what they charged him of. It just wasn't what they wanted to get him on. There is a huge difference between getting creative with the laws and flat out making shit up.
DickiLeaks??
How about DickiPedia:
http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Main_Page
An excerpt:
Tom Cruise is a thetan who became trapped in his current Earthly body on July 3, 1962 in Syracuse, New York. He was first brought to Earth 75 million years ago by Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, and he shares a birthday with Dave Barry and Montel Williams.
Cruise first began acting when sidelined from his high school wrestling team with a knee injury, successfully auditioning for a lead role in Guys and Dolls. After graduating in 1980, he briefly attended a seminary to become a Catholic priest, but moved to LA instead to pursue acting. Despite the conspicuous details of A) wrestling team, B) knee injury, C) Guys and Dolls and D) Catholic seminary, Cruise is definitely not gay. No sir, not one bit.
jklaughrey
12-07-10, 11:07
We need to remember though he is being charged on laws that aren't originating in the US though. We are not responsible, nor can we dictate what another nation does with their criminals. Whether the charges be bogus or not, we are not at liberty to judge those in a sovereign nation. While I agree with your post it is apples to oranges. Now if it were a US charge than there would be grounds for a dismissal of charges based upon our governing laws and statutes. Cheers brother.
I can't believe he was even available to be arrested on such charges. After all the "info" this douche bag has leaked, I can't believe he isn't being tried in the US or UK for more serious offenses.
Or for that matter hasn't just disappeared, to possibly turn up one day the victim of a random mugging gone wrong, possible suicide, or other such thing. What a tragedy that would be.
I am also boggled at the apparent lack of the current administration to do a damn thing about it. How many security breaches releasing classified government cables, info, etc must there be before some action is taken either covert or overt to stop the hemorrhage. It seems every other week there is another WikiLeak.
I'm sure it's much more complex than my simple civilian mind can comprehend so I'm glad that the people in Washington no better than I do.
I read a bit about the accusations:
Case 1: Consensual sex. Condom broke. Girl accuses him of sabotaging it.
Case 2: Consensual sex. No condom. Girl asks po po if then can make the albino take an HIV test.
And this is the stuff of an international arrest warrant???
GW Bush was wise to opt out of that stupid international criminal court. I could see them trying to assert equally ridiculous charges against American soldiers and marines.
GermanSynergy
12-07-10, 16:02
Do women in Sweden go for the slimy 19th century undertaker type look? The most unbelievable aspect is that he actually hooked up with two women.
I can't believe he was even available to be arrested on such charges. After all the "info" this douche bag has leaked, I can't believe he isn't being tried in the US or UK for more serious offenses.
Times v. United States, wikileaks is pretty much a media outlet. They're not the one's who committed the crime, the one's who leaked it are the one's who took an oath and committed the act.
Like Assange or hate him, he really did nothing but publish papers given to him, and just because it's the internet and not a commercial paper doesn't make it any less of a news publication than the New York Post.
The problem isn't Assange, but those who are willing to turn over sensitive information with full knowledge that it'll go public.
Times v. United States, wikileaks is pretty much a media outlet. They're not the one's who committed the crime, the one's who leaked it are the one's who took an oath and committed the act.
Like Assange or hate him, he really did nothing but publish papers given to him, and just because it's the internet and not a commercial paper doesn't make it any less of a news publication than the New York Post.
The problem isn't Assange, but those who are willing to turn over sensitive information with full knowledge that it'll go public.
Understood, but as I understand it he is a foreign national operating a "news" agency outside of the United States. Crime as legally defined it may not be. Crime against the citizens of the United States, I think so. He and his releases as well as those who have disseminated intel to him have arguably caused a danger to the people, infrastructure and government of the United States and I think they should ALL be swiftly dealt with accordingly. Whether he stole the info himself or not seems immaterial to me. He is guilty of receiving, possessing and distributing/broadcasting it. I can't believe he has no culpability.
Even if he is protected under Freedom of the press, his lack of discretion is unreal. He is in my opinion blatantly challenging the current administration and they seem clueless as to what to do. I don't know what his beef is, but just because you CAN publish something doesn't mean you SHOULD!
I think at minimum the Air Force, NSA, and CIA should turn his servers or whoever's hosts his site into the worlds largest Pac Man game. Although my preference would be to drop him into the Hindu Kush Mnts. :D
All that said I'm by no means a legal expert wether domestically or internationally. Just someone who can't wait to see him get what he has coming to him. And if that's some pissed off, butt-lovin Swede in prison I won't loose any sleep over it!
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-10, 18:35
To me Asshat crossed the line when he published to list of critical infrastructure sites around the world. A terrorists shopping list.
To me Asshat crossed the line when he published to list of critical infrastructure sites around the world. A terrorists shopping list.
I'd think the Afghan/Iraq files where a little more danger to life.
The critical infrastructure one was pretty much general knowledge to any one with the internet. Data cables, laboratories etc etc. This is all public information, even if a report discussing such sites is classified by the military.
On the other hand names of informants was never something you could just type in to Google and get an answer.
Either way I don't see how you can blame wikileaks for the leaks, had any new publication got a hold of the leaks first they wouldn't hesitate to publish them. In the end they're not the one's leaking the information, it's those trusted with it who decided to betray that trust.
I haven't seen one major news outlet not publish some part of wikileaks. The best part is you'll have an anchor bitching about how bad this guy is, yet in the next segment he's discussing leaked reports and what their impact will be, yet he doesn't seem himself as a hypocritical asshole for just broadcasting the same information to millions of homes.
Even if he is protected under Freedom of the press, his lack of discretion is unreal. He is in my opinion blatantly challenging the current administration and they seem clueless as to what to do. I don't know what his beef is, but just because you CAN publish something doesn't mean you SHOULD!
They should sue the shit out of his ass and and everyone who funds his organization. He took possession of stolen property to boot, I'm sure you could put a monetary value on the leaked reports, and he was fully aware that they where illegally acquired.
A little on Swedish "equality" and "rape"
--
In Sweden, Sex Assault Gets Little Tolerance - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08sweden.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-08-10, 09:17
Times v. United States, wikileaks is pretty much a media outlet. They're not the one's who committed the crime, the one's who leaked it are the one's who took an oath and committed the act.
Like Assange or hate him, he really did nothing but publish papers given to him, and just because it's the internet and not a commercial paper doesn't make it any less of a news publication than the New York Post.
The problem isn't Assange, but those who are willing to turn over sensitive information with full knowledge that it'll go public.
There was on op-ed in the WSJ today that talked about the Times case. While the court ruled that we couldn't stop them from printing the files, they didn't rule as to whether you could try them after they had printed the information. You can do stupid stuff, you just might have to pay for it.
I'd think the Afghan/Iraq files where a little more danger to life.
The critical infrastructure one was pretty much general knowledge to any one with the internet. Data cables, laboratories etc etc. This is all public information, even if a report discussing such sites is classified by the military.
On the other hand names of informants was never something you could just type in to Google and get an answer.
Wikileaks hides behind the facade of releasing information about what some people see as ranging from illegal to ill-prosecuted war and how the leaks may help end the conflict. Ain't sayin its right, but people get off on that stuff. What possible good comes out of listing critical infrastructure assets? I'm sure that almost all of them are in the public domain, but to have them listed for you is a far easier than trying to glean them yourself. Nothing better than for us tell our enemy what we consider critical. Sure the name of informants are more critical in the short term, but even a rabid anti-war activist can't defend giving a menu to terrorists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.