Julian Assange

[39TDS]

I am quite happy to extradite a suspected rapist. (if you really do mean rapist)

Whenever he is mentioned on the BBC and said to be accused of rape, they very rarely if ever point out that he hasn't been accused of what we know of as rape.

 

He says himself he is happy to answer those accusations and why not. It's the bit where he then goes to be whisked off to USA that he's worried about, tbh I don't blame him and it should not happen.

[storme37]

bearing in mind his history these charges are very convenient at the very least suspect

[storme37]

its interesting that the british government is all for offering asylum but get offended when someone asks for it from here. im talking about in principle forget about charges and personalities.

Edited August 21, 2012 by storme37

[Robl]

From what I understand the whole rape charge is mostly nonsense.

(Although I’m happy enough to concede that point.)

 

But, that’s pretty much an irrelevant point in the grand scheme of the story.

 

He’s ****** off the USA in a big way.

He didn’t just post some nasty comments, he’s very publicly posted confidential information online and America isn’t happy about it, and they are going to make a big blond example of him.

 

Someone above said something like ‘Governments do lots of nasty, sneaky and illegal things’.. yes they do.

We know that. It’s naïve to think there aren’t black ops, military censorship and back room deals going on. Personally, I’m relatively happy with that.

So long as my Government is better at being nasty and sneaky than the other countries Governments then they are doing what we voted them in for.

 

I know that apart from personal curiosity I have no need or rights to know military secrets.

Even if the military make mistakes I have no right to know.

Perhaps if I was voted as an MP, joined a military think tank or something then I might have a legitimate need to know.

But just because I’m a bit interested in the news it doesn’t mean I should be given access to this information.

If I really wanted to know and make a change I’d be running for political office or joining the military.

 

Assange knew that the US wasn’t going to be happy when he posted the stuff online.

Basically, he’s smacked a wasps nest with a cricket bat, now he’s hiding in the shed complaining that the wasps want to sting him.

 

He’s was ranting that the US need to take responsibility for their actions.

Well, so does he.

[m3vert]

Or you could look at it this way, if governments know that their lies and deceipt are likely to be exposed maybe they would behave in a more honest manner!! Maybe I am kidding myself on right enough!!

 

I for one dont want a government killing innocent people in my name when there is no justification in doing so!! For the record I aint anti war and I am 100% behind our troops in all of our current conflicts! BUT I hate the fact both ours and the US government told lies to us the people! Wikileaks has gone and shown some of those lies and I for one applaud most of what they have done! Granted I think they should be more careful with documents that will put our troops in danger for starters!

 

If he heads to the US he will be treated in a way that most of us would be appaled at! The lad who gave the leaks to them has been in terrible conditions for almost 2 years, yet they treat murderers and rapists with dignity and care! go figure!

[Robl]

I don’t disagree with you entirely.

 

But, the US didn’t deliberately go and kill innocents.

It was a mistake, or perhaps it wasn’t intentional or wasn’t wanted.

 

It was perhaps a decision that they had to make without having all the facts.

In a combat situation sometimes them make the wrong decision, or have to make a hard decision about acceptable collateral damage.

That’s something that the military needs to deal with, but we have no right at all to know about.

 

We don’t have a right to know. Regardless of what the tabloid or hippies say.

There is no law written anywhere (AFAIK) that says we have a right to know.

In fact, there are lots of laws that say we don’t have a right to know.

 

If Assange wanted to change those laws he could have run for office, but instead he chose to ignore the laws and past classified stuff.

 

IIRC the main elements that the soldier is in jail for, and that Assange is wanted for aren’t illegal activities.

They were tactical operational decisions.

 

This isn’t like the concentration camps in the Boer war where public concern lead to sweeping military changes.

This is a small number of disparate tactical decisions.

[Fisherman Mike]

America, Sweden and GB have all conspired about Lasange for what appears to be just telling the truth...Equador seem to be the only country to have emerged from this debacle with any credit.

 

Anyway I thought it was compulsory to have sex with as many women as possible in liberated Sweden.

 

Its pretty obvious the Yanks have had their nose put out of joint on the world political stage big time by the wikileaks disclosures and the world has seen the American regieme for what it is ...a giant egotistical dominating bully......with little GB marching to step just behind...hanging on to the apron strings... I wonder if William Haig realises that the Americans think hes just a supercillious little *****. ?

[39TDS]

I believe many thousands of "secrets" were leaked. Were there any that actually endangered anybody by revealing them?

What was the most "wrong" thing to be revealed? (as in wrong to reveal it rather than wrong that it happened)

Or was the whole leaking thing just embarrassing.

[Vipa]

I've no idea, and I'm quite happy about it.

 

There wasn't a huge explosion at the olympics. Don't know why, but I'm glad there wasn't. I do know a lot of people put a lot of time into making sure there wasn't an explosion. There must be a billion thing that happen all the time that allow us to carry on our little lives in relative peace and ignorance. Some of those things probably succeed because of some slightly shady things done in our name and for our good. So be it. Being informed about everything that's done to protect us would lead to us not being protected. Freedom of speech and thought comes with responsibilities. Lasagne has stepped over the line and doesn't like it when the time comes to answer for his short sighted, naive rantings.

 

My god... Being willing to 'turn a blind eye' to government acting in a shady or illegal manner in the name of national security and personal freedoms is frankly very disturbing a very slippery slope and is a sure fire slide into living in fear and terror. Think cold war USSR..

[Robl]

He didn’t “tell the truth”.

He disclosed confidential information.

 

There are loads of laws in place against that; official secrets acts, doctors/lawyers confidentiality, banking confidentiality and so on.

He might have posted the truth and posted facts, but they weren’t his to share.

 

Just because something is true, it doesn’t mean it should be available in the international public domain.

 

Even if you could argue that the American people have a right to know what their Government and military is doing; what has that got to do with an Australian?

A private individual has no business publishing private Government documents for the whole world to see.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Robl

[Robl]

My god... Being willing to 'turn a blind eye' to government acting in a shady or illegal manner in the name of national security and personal freedoms is frankly very disturbing a very slippery slope and is a sure fire slide into living in fear and terror. Think cold war USSR..

 

Sorry for the double post –

What about the totally legal activities that although legal may be morally questionable?

If the Security services do use legal methods to find information is there any reason that information should be shared by wiki leaks?

What about if it’s a legal method of surveillance but one that some people think should be illegal? Should they be allowed to publish it on wikileaks?

 

As far as I know, a lot of the stuff published on wikileaks doesn’t show illegal activities from the US.

It does however show morally questionable stuff, or stuff that falls outside any laws.

[four-wheel-drive]

I love it I would never have put those two together but they really do look like the same person at a quick look.

 

I am not at all against America but I must admit that it dose pee me off the way that they seem to make up laws and expect the rest of the world to send there people over to be tried by them for something that it is quite leagl to do in our own Countries.

 

I forgot to add having said that he should be tried for the sex thing that is a different thing altogether.

Edited August 21, 2012 by four-wheel-drive

[Vipa]

 

 

Sorry for the double post –

What about the totally legal activities that although legal may be morally questionable?

If the Security services do use legal methods to find information is there any reason that information should be shared by wiki leaks?

What about if it’s a legal method of surveillance but one that some people think should be illegal? Should they be allowed to publish it on wikileaks?

 

As far as I know, a lot of the stuff published on wikileaks doesn’t show illegal activities from the US.

It does however show morally questionable stuff, or stuff that falls outside any laws.

That ISN'T what I responded to!

[Robl]

That ISN'T what I responded to!

 

Perhaps the quotes aren’t working properly.

 

I believe you posted about the slipperly slope of allowing the Govt to act in a shady or illegal manner.

I then just questioned the lines between legality, morality and shadiness and how that fits with the main topic as a whole.

 

I wasn’t trying to take your post out of context, I was just exploring the issue.

[Vipa]

 

 

Perhaps the quotes aren’t working properly.

 

I believe you posted about the slipperly slope of allowing the Govt to act in a shady or illegal manner.

I then just questioned the lines between legality, morality and shadiness and how that fits with the main topic as a whole.

 

I wasn’t trying to take your post out of context, I was just exploring the issue.

 

Think of the world of Jack Bauer where he constantly crosses the line and uses torture and violence to extract information from people. Totally illegal (unless you are the US, then you just fly your suspect somewhere else and torture them on someone else's soil!)

 

In the movies it's great, it makes for adrenaline pumping action and the guy having the pen inserted under his knee-cap is always the bad guy and always spills the beans and, because of that, the good old US of A is saved from nuclear devastation etc... But in the real world, it wouldn't always be the bad guy it would be innocent people and then what? Incarceration for speaking out against the country's leadership.. Pussy riot anyone? Not long ago, they wouldn't have been put away, they would have just disappeared and been horribly killed, no doubt after suffering some horrendous torture!

 

A return to that, even in the western world is conceivable if we 'turn a blind eye' to that kind of thing and before we know it no one will dare to speak thier mind in fear of 'disappearing!'

 

As to the whole wiki leaks thing.. No, I don't think Assange had any right to publish sensitive documents but, the question is, whe did those documents come from? Did he steal them? Then prosecute for theft. Was espionage involved? Then prosecute for espionage but if someone hands me some information what have I done illegally if I then publish it? If I publish it in the name of free speech and operatives abroad suffer then that is a moral issue not a legal one.

 

The question should really be about the arrest warrant from Sweden... No evidence... No extradition. To my mind it is all a play by the US and if they manage to get him back on us soil then he will just disappear, it will be headline news for a few days and then be forgotten about.... If I was Assansge, I would be very, very frightened!

[Robl]

..... but if someone hands me some information what have I done illegally if I then publish it?

If I publish it in the name of free speech and operatives abroad suffer then that is a moral issue not a legal one.

 

I’d suggest it’s still a legal one.

Although, I’ll accept that different countries have different laws – and that’s where extradition laws come into place.

 

Also, as he’s Australian not American he may be well crossing various lines into spying. I really don’t know.

But I’m pretty sure that a foreign national acquired a load of classified UK military documents we might want to have a few words with them regardless of what country they were hiding in.

 

The question of legality is interesting based on an individual country and on the whole world stage.

He’s clearly broken some US laws, I think that Australia has told him to sod off, he’s hiding in Ecuador because they don’t like the US and gave him asylum – I’m guessing he gave them money in return.

So, I’m not sure exactly how the prosecution and laws would work.

 

I agree that the rape prosecution is questionable.

But, considering what he’s done he’s crazy if he didn’t expect to become a wanted man.

[walshie]

Do you see him as a fighter for free speech or a sex offender who hides behind being the founder of wiki leaks? Genuine question

 

Sex offender

[Vipa]

Sex offender

and yet, even those he has supposedly 'offended' don't think he is!? so why would you?

[walshie]

and yet, even those he has supposedly 'offended' don't think he is!? so why would you?

 

The question was did I see him as A or B. I don't see him as A.

[Vipa]

The question was did I see him as A or B. I don't see him as A.

But what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?' if you cannot see him as A that is fine but, and much more importantly, you cannot see him as B as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, infact, hasn't been to trial and the people he is alleged to have harmed have stated or shown that he didn't.

 

I'm not saying the guy is a top bloke or anything but to just brand him a sex offender pretty much on assumptions made from reading media articles is wholly unfair and just a tad 'lynch mobby!' and is probably exactly the reaction the US were after!

Edited August 21, 2012 by Vipa

[walshie]

But what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?' if you cannot see him as A that is fine but, and much more importantly, you cannot see him as B as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, infact, hasn't been to trial and the people he is alleged to have harmed have stated or shown that he didn't.

 

I'm not saying the guy is a top bloke or anything but to just brand him a sex offender pretty much on assumptions made from reading media articles is wholly unfair and just a tad 'lynch mobby!' and is probably exactly the reaction the US were after!

 

Point taken. O.K. To rephrase: "In my opinion, based on the facts I have to hand, I see him as B". If more "facts" come to light and prove me wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. They don't call me "lynch mob" for nothing.

[Tim Kelly]

My god... Being willing to 'turn a blind eye' to government acting in a shady or illegal manner in the name of national security and personal freedoms is frankly very disturbing a very slippery slope and is a sure fire slide into living in fear and terror. Think cold war USSR..

 

So what have you done to call the government to account as a result of reading all the stuff on Wikileaks?

 

No, me neither. That's the point really.

 

Righteous indignation about what "we" should or shouldn't be doing or have done in our names is one thing, but taking some spurious moral high ground on an internet forum doesn't change anything. The reality is that we have a system of government where our democratically elected representatives hold the secret services to account for their actions. They are the ones who are supposed to uphold our country's moral stance on intelligence gathering and I expect they do a reasonable job. You and I know nothing about what goes on, or the implications of it, so telling us stuff without any context or specialist understanding of what it means and the implications would be both ridiculous and utterly counter productive.

 

Leaking loads of classified information to the world is utterly irresponsible in every way. The only people likely to gain anything out of it are the very people we're trying to defend ourselves from. The chances of our operatives or helpful people from the other side being compromised by careless casual leaking is far greater than any feeble moral high ground being sought by those doing the leaking. The world isn't perfect, Politicians aren't to be trusted any more than anyone else, but we have an imperfect system that has worked adequately so far to keep our national morals in check.

 

The big danger is when you have to take the assurance of someone that they've seen the evidence and you have to trust them that there is an imminent danger. Mr Blair should be in prison for his total misleading of the western world with his assurance that WMDs were a real and present danger and that he couldn't tell you what he knew, but you had to trust him that this was the right course of action.

[ordnance]

He is a publicly seeking a*hole . Ecuador's record when it comes to freedom of speech and free press leaves a lot to be desired. Strange ally for someone that shouts about freedom of speech and press.

[Vipa]

So what have you done to call the government to account as a result of reading all the stuff on Wikileaks?

 

 

 

Well.... actually... nothing. I have never read anything on wikileaks, have no interest whatsoever! and that, is more the point. With no audience there is no demand and therefore no reason for the publication. I'm sure there are sensitive documents out there and I'm sure people were compromised, I haven't got a clue.

 

No, me neither. That's the point really.

 

Righteous indignation about what "we" should or shouldn't be doing or have done in our names is one thing, but taking some spurious moral high ground on an internet forum doesn't change anything. The reality is that we have a system of government where our democratically elected representatives hold the secret services to account for their actions. They are the ones who are supposed to uphold our country's moral stance on intelligence gathering and I expect they do a reasonable job. You and I know nothing about what goes on, or the implications of it, so telling us stuff without any context or specialist understanding of what it means and the implications would be both ridiculous and utterly counter productive.

 

No moral high ground being taken here... the post I was responding to stated that the poster didn't mind 'shady' activity in the name of his personal freedoms.. I DO mind shady activity in the name of my freedom but, as I have no immediate knowledge as to what is being done in my name I have nothing to take anyone to task about, if I did then I would be as reckless as the conspiracy theorists in making dangerous assumptions. If I was made aware of illegal activity being undertaken in my name then I would make representations about it!

 

Leaking loads of classified information to the world is utterly irresponsible in every way. The only people likely to gain anything out of it are the very people we're trying to defend ourselves from. The chances of our operatives or helpful people from the other side being compromised by careless casual leaking is far greater than any feeble moral high ground being sought by those doing the leaking. The world isn't perfect, Politicians aren't to be trusted any more than anyone else, but we have an imperfect system that has worked adequately so far to keep our national morals in check.

 

I agree but I think any thoughts that our nations morals are being kept in check is getting a little over stated. Most people in power are corrupt to some level and those who aren't are only one good evening meal away from being so... remember, we are not necessarily talking huge bungs here but there is plenty of corruption going on all the time. The public are also only too willing to turn a blind eye when it suits... look at last summers riots.. a lot of those involved wouldn't have butter melt in thier mouths before hand or the current PPI misselling debacle... how many fraudulent claims have been made by 'upstanding' people when some claims company waves notes under thier noses?!

 

As a nation, in fact, as a civilisation, we are morally corrupt if not financially!

 

The big danger is when you have to take the assurance of someone that they've seen the evidence and you have to trust them that there is an imminent danger. Mr Blair should be in prison for his total misleading of the western world with his assurance that WMDs were a real and present danger and that he couldn't tell you what he knew, but you had to trust him that this was the right course of action.

 

Whole heartedly agree

 

see above

[ordnance]

But what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?' if you cannot see him as A that is fine but, and much more importantly, you cannot see him as B as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, infact, hasn't been to trial and the people he is alleged to have harmed have stated or shown that he didn't.

 

I'm not saying the guy is a top bloke or anything but to just brand him a sex offender pretty much on assumptions made from reading media articles is wholly unfair and just a tad 'lynch mobby!' and is probably exactly the reaction the US were after!

Hes the one avoiding going to Sweden to clear his name. If hes not guilty.