If you have "no place to go," come here!

Greg Mitchell's Day 24 WikiLeaks Blogging

Late post -- RL getting hectic. Travel soon for Christmas -- if car is repaired in time....

Lots of interesting stuff today and late last night. Assange is doing quite a few interviews with papers around the world. The BBC interview is described as probing and hostile. Such as asking Assange if he sees himself as a sexual predator and how many women had he bedded. "A gentleman doesn't count," he responded.

The hot topic, for me, is that the coming release of docs about a big bank has not just banksters worried, but also the SEC. Suggests they have some things to be worried about, eh?

Inside the Securities and Exchange Commission, the organization is bracing for a public outcry, according to people who have recently spoken with some high-ranking officials about the prospect of a WikiLeaks release of bank documents.

“The S.E.C. could be on the horns of a dilemma,” said Mark C. Zauderer, a veteran corporate litigator at Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer.

This could be very interesting:

4:55 Bradley Manning's attorney, on his blog, outlines his upcoming Article 13 move. "If a military judge determines that a servicemember has been illegally punished prior to trial, she has substantial discretion to grant administrative credit, usually in the form of additional pretrial confinement credit, or even grant an outright dismissal of the charges"

Salon has dueling columnists on WikiLeaks and its, well, leaks. Or. legality and ethics of leaks and leaking.

8:00 MIchael Lind in Salon hits America's loss of respect for the rule of law, leading the left, among other things, to embrace WikiLeaks.

9:15 New from Glenn Greenwald: NYT once again spills classified secrets that could cause danger right on its front page today, this time re: Pakistan and Afghan war efforts, but will they be prosecuted? "After all, which WikiLeaks disclosure has ever helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda as much as announcing that the U.S. intends escalated ground operations in Pakistan?" He also takes time to slam fellow Salonist Michael Lind for his article today.

Greenwald also asks why major credit cards aren't refusing to do business with the NYTimes. Heh.

McClatchy has a dedicated WikiLeaks page, Mitchell admits just learning about it. (And I've been meaning to check as they do some good reporting....)

Should be lots of good reading at the McClatchy link.

Ok, gotta do dishes..

And do keep checking: Stuff like this pops up:

10:00 Michael Moore on Maddow show points to new cable showing that U.S. shut down screening of his film "Fahrenheit 911" in....New Zealand. A cabinet minsiter had the nerve to want to host a screening. Here's the cable.

Cable is from 2004 and the attitude is stunning: is probable that this potential fiasco may only have been averted because of our phone calls - it is apparent to us that neither the Minister nor anyone else in the Labour government seems to have thought there was anything wrong with a senior Minister hosting such an event. Ambassador will use a scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister to tell Clark of the near instantaneous press queries for USG comment in this matter and remind her that we would really rather not get dragged into internal NZ political issues, such as Ministerial fundraising events for Clark's Labour Party.

Wow!!!! (Edited for formatting and typos, 12/22)


Submitted by lambert on

... if I had time to pull out the checkable claims from that interview. Then just go down the list and assess them.

Submitted by hipparchia on

if it's something you really want...

Submitted by lambert on

I'm not into having my own time allocated, so I try not to allocate the time of others. If you want to, do; if not, not.

No point listing what isn't verifiable one way or another, I don't think.

There's a wonderful quote from one of Gibson's books which seems a propos here: "It isn't about who's an asshole; if it were, our work would never be done." Certainly the fucking jerk number in that interview was greater than one.

Submitted by hipparchia on

Certainly the fucking jerk number in that interview was greater than one.

heh. you won't get any argument from me on that one.

Submitted by jawbone on

prosecutors providing such information.

I was kind of amazed he was told he would help icommunicado, if he returns.

And they have asked, as part of their application that, if I go to Sweden and am arrested, that I am to be held incommunicado. Entirely incommunicado. They have asked that my Swedish lawyer be gagged from talking about the evidence to the public.

Is this usual and customary?

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

in the U.S. it's not uncommon for judges to issue gag orders in notorious cases. The idea is to prevent the case from being tried in the media (ha!). If you google "judge issues gag order" you can see gag orders are applied in a variety of cases. They are usually only for the length of proceedings and limited to the attorneys and parties in the case. Sometimes they are not imposed until after the parties/attorneys start behaving badly.

This "held incommunicado" thing I don't know about. If Assange is refering to the gag order, that's not really being "held." Given that the Swedes are seeking extradition, and they opposed his bail in the U.K., it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that if extradition is successful, they'd request he be "held" without bail (it might get messy if he's really still only under investigation and not charged but that's another issue.) But even that would not be the same as being held "incommunicado".

Submitted by jawbone on

usage. Too bad the interviewer didn't pick up on several things Assange said to get clarification. But it did seem there was a trend in his questions which tended toward somewhat aggressive and hitting the sexual nature of the charges rather heavily.

I didn't see it, but apparently Assange got up and left a US morning show interview when it got like these questions.

Submitted by hipparchia on

thanks for that link, even if it's making me grind my teeth as i listen to the interview.

Submitted by windy on

he says he stayed there for a period of time after the allegations.

Submitted by hipparchia on

it seems he may have done both. he first arrived in sweden in august and left in september. i can't find find any mention of his return to sweden, but there are mentions that in early november, the prosecutor in the sex crimes case said he was free to leave sweden [apparently the prosecutor's expectation was that he would voluntarily return for further questioning, a hearing, whatever the next step might be].