Assange bailed by London court

[kallipolis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

I am very happy with the judge's reasoning and decision.

I note that it was the UK prosecutor who opposed bail.

So far, so good. Sweden will have to wait.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

Thanks for the info. I think he is being setup. I haven't been following this too closely, but I haven't seen anything that I didn't know.

 

[PATMAN]

The X-Files was always right... "The Truth is Out There"

Assange is in possession of more documents that are WAY larger than anything that has been leaked so far.

Things could get quite interesting in the next little while.

 

[unloadonme]

Here's the BBC on the story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's the BBC on the story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930

Thanks -- I couldn't find anything about it in the original link.

I see in there that Palin hates him -- good enough reason to cheer for him right there.

 

[Apollo]

I hope he burns personally. I was whatever on the diplomatic cables, then he released info on sites outside the US that are vital to our infrastructure. I kind of had to stop cheering him on after that. Especially if a terrorist decides he wants to make a name for himself.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Yipyips

 

[andysayshi]

I hope he burns personally. I was whatever on the diplomatic cables, then he released info on sites outside the US that are vital to our infrastructure. I kind of had to stop cheering him on after that. Especially if a terrorist decides he wants to make a name for himself.

Which documents are you referring to?

 

[MoltenRock III]

Assange needs to disappear to Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia, or another country without extradition to the back world country known as the UK, much less the bankrupt, impotent, inept, United States.

 

[andysayshi]

I suspect if the US mounts an extradition order against Assange, that's exactly what he will do.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suspect if the US mounts an extradition order against Assange, that's exactly what he will do.

Given the news coming out about how the women initiated things, enjoyed it, and only afterward started thinking about blackmailing him, I hope everyone in the world laughs at a US extradition request.

Maybe the US should offer him funds for a staff to go through US leaked materials to sort the risky stuff, and some funds to make iot easier for him to go after others.

 

[unloadonme]

I hope he burns personally. I was whatever on the diplomatic cables, then he released info on sites outside the US that are vital to our infrastructure. I kind of had to stop cheering him on after that. Especially if a terrorist decides he wants to make a name for himself.

Whether these sites are vital to US interests or not is beside the point. This is information which was in the public domain already. One of the UK sites mentioned in that piece was BAE Systems in Lancshire. Wikileaks didn't give the precise location, but if you check BAE's own site they give you the exact address and even helpful link to google maps.

It's hard to think what more a terrorist wanting to make a name for himself would need.

http://www.baesystems.com/WorldwideLocations/UnitedKingdom/Locations/index.htm

 

[Apollo]

Which documents are you referring to?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

A list drawn up by U.S. officials of companies and installations around the world regarded as "critical" to the security of the United States has been published online by controversial website WikiLeaks.
The list includes factories, ports, fuel companies, drug manufacturers, undersea cables, pipelines, communication hubs and a host of other "key resources."
A Danish insulin plant, a company making anti-snake venom in Australia and a Cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo are also included.



...


The document was drawn up after the State Department asked diplomats in February 2009 to identify "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."

I was all for Assange before this. It only hurt politicians, and the documents weren't really that important or sensitive. But this is a level i'm not comfortable with personally.

 

[Apollo]

Whether these sites are vital to US interests or not is beside the point. This is information which was in the public domain already. One of the UK sites mentioned in that piece was BAE Systems in Lancshire. Wikileaks didn't give the precise location, but if you check BAE's own site they give you the exact address and even helpful link to google maps.

It's hard to think what more a terrorist wanting to make a name for himself would need.

http://www.baesystems.com/WorldwideLocations/UnitedKingdom/Locations/index.htm

All of these sites were in the public domain yes. And I am willing to bet they all have websites with contact numbers and what they do and even pricing info if you want to use their services.

But this document lists these sites and companies as important to infrastructure and security. Something that isn't advertised on that companies website. I mean if that companies site is bombed or attacked, British lives are lost, and the US is compromised economically and otherwise.

 

[unloadonme]

But this document lists these sites and companies as important to infrastructure and security. Something that isn't advertised on that companies website.

You'd have to be a pretty incompetent terrorist to be unable to figure out what were strategic targets in the UK or elsewhere without the Wikileaks piece.

 

[JB3]

You'd have to be a pretty incompetent terrorist to be unable to figure out what were strategic targets in the UK or elsewhere without the Wikileaks piece.

Not true, actually. There were many sites in there that were not widely known as being strategically important.

 

[Apollo]

You'd have to be a pretty incompetent terrorist to be unable to figure out what were strategic targets in the UK or elsewhere without the Wikileaks piece.

Actually you'd have to be pretty sophisticated to piece all these sites together. A lot of these companies are simple companies, and an American contract with them is probably not uncommon as America has contracts with tons of companies for different reasons.

It'd take a dedicated team of terrorists with the right contacts, and money to piece together which ones are important and vital to American infrastructure and security. Because one can assume, any company America does business with is important, but not all are vital to our safety and the safety of our infrastructure. This list puts it in black and white.

 

[andysayshi]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/





I was all for Assange before this. It only hurt politicians, and the documents weren't really that important or sensitive. But this is a level i'm not comfortable with personally.

Errrmm... really? A Danish insulin factory? A - not secret. B - one of several hundred insulin manufacturers on Earth today.

"a company making anti-snake venom in Australia?" A - not secret. B - Let me know when terrorists attack the world with Australian brown snake venom.

"a Cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo" A - not even close to a secret, B - funded by US corporate interests,.



The article you linked is 6 months old - no relevance to the current Wikileaks articles. I'm ready to accept Wikileaks criticism, but your refs are ridiculously old, and pretty much irrelevant.

I re-iterate my question - what has Wikileaks output that is dangerous?

 

[Kulindahr]

I re-iterate my question - what has Wikileaks output that is dangerous?

In terms of terrorists -- probably not much.

 

[Apollo]

Errrmm... really? A Danish insulin factory? A - not secret. B - one of several hundred insulin manufacturers on Earth today.

"a company making anti-snake venom in Australia?" A - not secret. B - Let me know when terrorists attack the world with Australian brown snake venom.

"a Cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo" A - not even close to a secret, B - funded by US corporate interests,.



The article you linked is 6 months old - no relevance to the current Wikileaks articles. I'm ready to accept Wikileaks criticism, but your refs are ridiculously old, and pretty much irrelevant.

I re-iterate my question - what has Wikileaks output that is dangerous?

Refer to post 17 please. Like I stated, none of these companies are secret. Their contracts with America aren't either, but no value was placed on how important these companies were the US until this list was released.

And that article is a few weeks old. Written after he released the secret diplomatic cables. What time stamp were you looking at?