Julian Assange in the sh*t...apparently literally!
Comments
-
Imposter wrote: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.
I don't! UK or US. Do you?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.
Which do you think? Would you do it?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.
How is spending years in exile in an embassy gaining anything?0 -
sam anon wrote:I don't! UK or US. Do you?
On balance, yes I think it is.sam anon wrote:Which do you think? Would you do it?
Doesn't matter if I would do it or not. That is what he is being charged with. If I did do it, I certainly wouldn't expect to get away with it.sam anon wrote:How is spending years in exile in an embassy gaining anything?
It isn't, obviously..0 -
0
-
Spending 7 years in the same building could not have done much for anyone's sanity. Still, all of his eccentricities would have been tolerated further had he not decided to fall out with his Ecuadorian comrade host and publish his and his families email and mobile communications.
You can almost hear a sigh from Kremlin 'if only humans didn't crack'.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote: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 .
So how do you think they should operate? Should everything be put into the public domain? Leaking things you think might be wrong without having sight of the full picture can be extremely damaging. Blind trust seems to have done most Western governments fairly well for the last 70 odd years, it could be argued that recent destabilising effects have been partly due to leaks!0 -
"in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain"
It's pretty clear I don't think everything should be in the public domain but I would rather more information was. Some of the stuff wikileaks released should gave been and wasn't.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:"in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain"
It's pretty clear I don't think everything should be in the public domain but I would rather more information was. Some of the stuff wikileaks released should gave been and wasn't.
Aside from 'cover-ups' - which often don't end well, there are usually very good reasons why some information is kept out of the public domain..0 -
Pross wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote: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 .
So how do you think they should operate? Should everything be put into the public domain? Leaking things you think might be wrong without having sight of the full picture can be extremely damaging. Blind trust seems to have done most Western governments fairly well for the last 70 odd years, it could be argued that recent destabilising effects have been partly due to leaks!
"Most western governments" = a tiny percentage of the world's population. What about those who don't fit that criteria?
I'm sure the destabilisation primarily stems from a couple of possibly illegal invasions and bad judgements during those conflicts.
Anyhow, happy Friday!0 -
Imposter wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:"in general (obviously there are exceptions) I'm all for information being in the public domain"
It's pretty clear I don't think everything should be in the public domain but I would rather more information was. Some of the stuff wikileaks released should gave been and wasn't.
Aside from 'cover-ups' - which often don't end well, there are usually very good reasons why some information is kept out of the public domain..
Yes there are usually reasons why stuff is kept out of the public eye and sometimes these are genuinely for the greater good but sometimes they aren't and a lot of stuff wikileaks has released falls into the latter category.
My view is that the balance between secrecy and a right to know is tilted too far towards secrecy - sometimes public disclosure may be inconvenient for government but the basis of democracy is access to information.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
As I understand it, Assange is wanted in the US to answer a charge of hacking and not leaking, so your views on the merits of the subsequent leaks are academic in this case.
As hacking is illegal in this country, as seen here,
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-misuse
and has been for nearly 30 years, I can't see on what grounds the UK would refuse the US application.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Yes there are usually reasons why stuff is kept out of the public eye and sometimes these are genuinely for the greater good but sometimes they aren't and a lot of stuff wikileaks has released falls into the latter category.
My view is that the balance between secrecy and a right to know is tilted too far towards secrecy - sometimes public disclosure may be inconvenient for government but the basis of democracy is access to information.
My main issue with Wikileaks has been a complete lack of 'released' information which would cause a problem for Trump and/or the republican party. Plenty of leaks against Hillary and the Dems though. As I said earlier, this is either because there isn't any (very unlikely, as we know) or that Wikileaks has an agenda. If it has an agenda other than complete transparency, then you have to regard the organisation as biased, and you have to take the allegations that it is a shill for Russia/GRU a bit more seriously.0 -
Imposter wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Yes there are usually reasons why stuff is kept out of the public eye and sometimes these are genuinely for the greater good but sometimes they aren't and a lot of stuff wikileaks has released falls into the latter category.
My view is that the balance between secrecy and a right to know is tilted too far towards secrecy - sometimes public disclosure may be inconvenient for government but the basis of democracy is access to information.
My main issue with Wikileaks has been a complete lack of 'released' information which would cause a problem for Trump and/or the republican party. Plenty of leaks against Hillary and the Dems though. As I said earlier, this is either because there isn't any (very unlikely, as we know) or that Wikileaks has an agenda. If it has an agenda other than complete transparency, then you have to regard the organisation as biased, and you have to take the allegations that it is a shill for Russia/GRU a bit more seriously.
Yeah well that is a fair argument if that is the case. I did add the caveat that it's not a story I'm particularly on top of but theprinciple that the public should be trusted with more than it is one I'd stand by.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
It will be interesting to see if Assange fights extradition if the Swedes charge and issue a European arrest warrant.
His previous arguments drop away now he’s in UK custody as it’s easier given the one way extradition agreement already in place with US and UK.
Let’s crowd fund a flight and engage a football agent who isn’t now a football agent to book a private night time flight on a single engined aircraft?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0
