Julian Assange in the sh*t...apparently literally!

crispybug2

So Julian Assange has been arrested by British police after having his asylum rescinded by the Ecuadorean government after increasingly erratic behaviour by Assange which includes electronically blocking security cameras and smearing sh*t over walls of the embassy

He is now in custody, charged with skipping bail and facing extradition to the USA with regard to secret files published online on the Wikileaks site

I find myself conflicted about this, whilst I feel that governments should be held to account and wrong-doings should be exposed Assange himself is a loathsome individual, possessed, it seems to me, of extreme narcissistic tendencies and a very inflated sense of entitlement and ego, so much so that I find it impossible to have sympathy for situations entirely of his own creation

john80

Got any sources for these claims.

imposter2.0

john80 wrote:

Got any sources for these claims.

Widely reported in the news media. You only need to look...

Matthewfalle

Imposter wrote:

john80 wrote:

Got any sources for these claims.

Widely reported in the news media. You only need to look...

this.

check the front page of the guardian for one.

#losttheplot

slowmart

Comrade Jezza has already stated Assange shouldn’t be extradited to the US.

On another note, there’s one charge that can still crystallise in Sweden which would mean Sweden issuing a European arrest warrant for Assange and would make a more compelling case for extradition.


That is, once he’s served his sentence here in the UK.

pinno

This is an interesting read.

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/201 ... a-contacts

More for the fact that it underlines Farage as an arseh0le but for the fact he met with Assange and didn't reveal what they discussed.

Pross

crispybug2 wrote:

So Julian Assange has been arrested by British police after having his asylum rescinded by the Ecuadorean government after increasingly erratic behaviour by Assange which includes electronically blocking security cameras and smearing sh*t over walls of the embassy

He is now in custody, charged with skipping bail and facing extradition to the USA with regard to secret files published online on the Wikileaks site

I find myself conflicted about this, whilst I feel that governments should be held to account and wrong-doings should be exposed Assange himself is a loathsome individual, possessed, it seems to me, of extreme narcissistic tendencies and a very inflated sense of entitlement and ego, so much so that I find it impossible to have sympathy for situations entirely of his own creation

Yep, whilst exposing the wrongdoing of Governments because you dislike what they are doing may be laudable the feeling with Assange is that it was entirely about him. Others are serving life prison terms for passing on the information he published and there really was a genuine risk to the lives of others as part of the information leaked. Not to mention the possibility of fake news being spread through misinformation supplied to him.

imposter2.0

Also needs to answer for the allegations of collusion between him, Russia and the Trump campaign to coordinate the release of info damaging to Hillary in 2016. The guy is most likely a crook, not some kind of free speech warrior.

One of the reasons why Trump is now suffering from selective memory loss (more so than usual) over Wikileaks..

Ben6899

john80 wrote:

Got any sources for these claims.

Are you for real?

Lagrange

I think that he was absolutely right to assemble and disclose the secrets and do recall how he passed a copy to a newspaper - the journalist was arrested immediately - before any of the content was revealed. This was in Britain. Yes people may have comitted crimes to have got the content - but some of the content was criminal anyway. There is no way that any spies were compromised - these organisations know how to manage that sort of data.

If he is doing weird stuff now that is a separate matter - you don't offset one against the other. For once I agree with Diane Abbott that the 'system' is motivated by seeking revenge for his data exposure and establishing wikileaks rather than addressing the alleged crimes.

bianchimoon

As he was someone who helped Trump get elected “lock him up”

imposter2.0

Lagrange wrote:

I think that he was absolutely right to assemble and disclose the secrets and do recall how he passed a copy to a newspaper - the journalist was arrested immediately - before any of the content was revealed. This was in Britain. Yes people may have comitted crimes to have got the content - but some of the content was criminal anyway. There is no way that any spies were compromised - these organisations know how to manage that sort of data.

If he is doing weird stuff now that is a separate matter - you don't offset one against the other. For once I agree with Diane Abbott that the 'system' is motivated by seeking revenge for his data exposure and establishing wikileaks rather than addressing the alleged crimes.

Ask yourself why Wikileaks has never ever released any compromising information relating to Trump or the Republican movement. It's either a) because there isn't any - or b) because Wikileaks is simply a front for Russian active measures and Assange is a willing co-conspirator.

drlodge

I have zero sympathy for Assange, its not for him to decide what information should be leaked, we have laws democratically put in place by elected officials and if he fails to abider by them, let the courts decide what punishment is appropriate.

sam_anon

drlodge wrote:

I have zero sympathy for Assange, its not for him to decide what information should be leaked, we have laws democratically put in place by elected officials and if he fails to abider by them, let the courts decide what punishment is appropriate.

So who should decide what is leaked?

Do you really think the elected officials who manage the US military would release the video of Apache pilots "lighting up" civilians and reporters?

imposter2.0

sam anon wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I have zero sympathy for Assange, its not for him to decide what information should be leaked, we have laws democratically put in place by elected officials and if he fails to abider by them, let the courts decide what punishment is appropriate.

So who should decide what is leaked?

Do you really think the elected officials who manage the US military would release the video of Apache pilots "lighting up" civilians and reporters?

Doesn't alter the fact that he broke the law. Let the courts decide.

sam_anon

Imposter wrote:

sam anon wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I have zero sympathy for Assange, its not for him to decide what information should be leaked, we have laws democratically put in place by elected officials and if he fails to abider by them, let the courts decide what punishment is appropriate.

So who should decide what is leaked?

Do you really think the elected officials who manage the US military would release the video of Apache pilots "lighting up" civilians and reporters?

Doesn't alter the fact that he broke the law. Let the courts decide.

I don't think you can live by what is strictly legal or not.

Killing people is surely murder, are those responsible held to account for that?

Lagrange

[quote="Imposter"

Ask yourself why Wikileaks has never ever released any compromising information relating to Trump or the Republican movement. It's either a) because there isn't any - or b) because Wikileaks is simply a front for Russian active measures and Assange is a willing co-conspirator.[/quote]


I do agree with your caution over the content of the leaked information but then let that be the issue. Let him be charged with helping the Russians - let the charge be specific.

DeVlaeminck

It's not a story I'm really on top of but in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain so I'm a little uncomfortable at someone being prosecuted for making that happen whether it was illegal or not.

Am I right in thinking if he'd seen out another year or so the statute of limitations for the accusations would have expired.

kingstongraham

Lagrange wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Ask yourself why Wikileaks has never ever released any compromising information relating to Trump or the Republican movement. It's either a) because there isn't any - or b) because Wikileaks is simply a front for Russian active measures and Assange is a willing co-conspirator.

I do agree with your caution over the content of the leaked information but then let that be the issue. Let him be charged with helping the Russians - let the charge be specific.

The charge is specific. It's about hacking, not about publishing.

imposter2.0

sam anon wrote:

I don't think you can live by what is strictly legal or not.

Killing people is surely murder, are those responsible held to account for that?

If you don't agree with the law, then go to court and challenge it. That is how a reasonable society evolves. Without a rule of law, it will descend into anarchy.

sam_anon

Imposter wrote:

sam anon wrote:

I don't think you can live by what is strictly legal or not.

Killing people is surely murder, are those responsible held to account for that?

If you don't agree with the law, then go to court and challenge it. That is how a reasonable society evolves. Without a rule of law, it will descend into anarchy.

My last post wasn't clear!

I meant I don't think you can always consider things by legal consideration. How can you challenge what is being purposefully hidden?

imposter2.0

sam anon wrote:

How can you challenge what is being purposefully hidden?

By leaking it - if you feel that leaking it may be in the public interest. But if you do that in the full knowledge that you are breaking the law, then you should expect to be prosecuted. The court will decide if your 'public interest' defence is valid or not.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's not a story I'm really on top of but in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain so I'm a little uncomfortable at someone being prosecuted for making that happen whether it was illegal or not.

Am I right in thinking if he'd seen out another year or so the statute of limitations for the accusations would have expired.

In this country at least we have whistle blowing laws so if anyone uncovers anything genuinely illegal those are the channels that should be followed rather than publishing unchecked data that could be damaging to security and if you've signed the Official Secrets Act you have to ensure that what you do doesn't contravene the requirements of that Act. Like it or not, all countries sanction things that would otherwise be criminal 'for the greater good'. It's a great big can of worms to start opening especially when the leaks are seemingly so one sided. I suspect most of us would be shocked at what our Government sometimes has to sanction but we aren't in a position to understand the full reasoning for those decisions.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's not a story I'm really on top of but in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain so I'm a little uncomfortable at someone being prosecuted for making that happen whether it was illegal or not.

Am I right in thinking if he'd seen out another year or so the statute of limitations for the accusations would have expired.

He's currently got three problems. None of them officially relate to his "publishing".

1) The rape allegation from Sweden meaning that he had an arrest warrant out. This was dropped because there was no prospect of him being extradited to Sweden, but can be reactivated as the statute of limitations for the charge has not expired yet.

2) He skipped bail while waiting for extradition on the above. That's what he was arrested for.

3) There's now an extradition request for him from the USA (requested in 2017). This is for helping Chelsea Manning crack password protection to get access to information.

Alejandrosdog

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's not a story I'm really on top of but in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain so I'm a little uncomfortable at someone being prosecuted for making that happen whether it was illegal or not.

Am I right in thinking if he'd seen out another year or so the statute of limitations for the accusations would have expired.

He's currently got three problems. None of them officially relate to his "publishing".

1) The rape allegation from Sweden meaning that he had an arrest warrant out. This was dropped because there was no prospect of him being extradited to Sweden, but can be reactivated as the statute of limitations for the charge has not expired yet.

2) He skipped bail while waiting for extradition on the above. That's what he was arrested for.

3) There's now an extradition request for him from the USA (requested in 2017). This is for helping Chelsea Manning crack password protection to get access to information.

yes thats right, the US extradition isnt saying anything about leaking, that would be challenging for them constitutionally but it appears he may have broken a string of other minor laws.

Also Corbyn is on his side. If that doesnt lump him with terrorists i dont know what will.

Pross

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tries to cancel the US extradition warrant!

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tries to cancel the US extradition warrant!

He's claiming he doesn't know anything about Wikileaks now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 85680aa980

cycleclinic

If he been smeering shit over the walls he fit right in in prision. He broke the law, it 's up to the courts now if his defense is a valid reason.

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's not a story I'm really on top of but in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain so I'm a little uncomfortable at someone being prosecuted for making that happen whether it was illegal or not.

Am I right in thinking if he'd seen out another year or so the statute of limitations for the accusations would have expired.

In this country at least we have whistle blowing laws so if anyone uncovers anything genuinely illegal those are the channels that should be followed rather than publishing unchecked data that could be damaging to security and if you've signed the Official Secrets Act you have to ensure that what you do doesn't contravene the requirements of that Act. Like it or not, all countries sanction things that would otherwise be criminal 'for the greater good'. It's a great big can of worms to start opening especially when the leaks are seemingly so one sided. I suspect most of us would be shocked at what our Government sometimes has to sanction but we aren't in a position to understand the full reasoning for those decisions.

That kind of blind trust in government never ends well .

sam_anon

Imposter wrote:

[The court will decide if your 'public interest' defence is valid or not.

Yes, they will, but I think the court is unlikely to be unbiased from political pressures.

Classified info has to be accessed/stolen before it's leaked, which clearly takes a level a courage.

I think we need more people who put the greater good ahead of themselves.

imposter2.0

sam anon wrote:

Yes, they will, but I think the court is unlikely to be unbiased from political pressures.

Either you trust that we have an independent judiciary - or you don't.

sam anon wrote:

Classified info has to be accessed/stolen before it's leaked, which clearly takes a level a courage.

Or a level of criminality. The court will decide which, on the basis of the evidence presented.

sam anon wrote:

I think we need more people who put the greater good ahead of themselves.

We also need less people who put personal/political gain before the greater good. As I said before, the courts will decide which is more likely.