Topic: Julian Assange: the end is nigh?

[Nobby Reserve]

I was hoping you or whoever wrote that piece would expand on this, but there was never an explanation about what you thought was misinformation?

The 'misinformation' is the narrative that Assange just indiscriminately dumped the entire data file onto the net, possibly out of some temper tantrum, with no regard for the safety of the people mentioned in those files.

As that timeline summary I wrote shows, it was a lot more complicated than that - by the time Wikileaks made the decision to put the entire file online, it was already online anyway, and certainly in the hands of 'security' forces around the world. And, as Greenwald says: "government intelligence agencies were able to find and read the files, while ordinary people-including journalists, whistleblowers, and those directly affected-were not. WikiLeaks took the view that sources could better protect themselves if the information were equally available."


If you want further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-a-dispatch-disaster-in-six-acts-a-783778.html
https://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/wikileaks_28/

[Kenny's Jacket]

Not sure I follow If you mean publishing I'd presume he did it to to highlight the fact the Saudis compiled a list of those they suspect of been gay or atheist in order to embarrass them.
Personnally I think they're beyond that and dont give a fuck. Yeah I do, but he's not facing extradition for that is he.
And at the risk of dragging this even further off topic and adding a bit more 'whataboutry' .Are you pissed our own Gov sold off millions of UK citizens medical records to the highest bidder and some of which found their way on to the silk road ?

Sorry, yes, I meant publishing the compliled list

[classycarra]

The 'misinformation' is the narrative that Assange just indiscriminately dumped the entire data file onto the net, possibly out of some temper tantrum, with no regard for the safety of the people mentioned in those files.

As that timeline summary I wrote shows, it was a lot more complicated than that - by the time Wikileaks made the decision to put the entire file online, it was already online anyway, and certainly in the hands of 'security' forces around the world. And, as Greenwald says: "government intelligence agencies were able to find and read the files, while ordinary people-including journalists, whistleblowers, and those directly affected-were not. WikiLeaks took the view that sources could better protect themselves if the information were equally available."

I guess I just don't see why you think those two things are a good defence for wikileaks?

"it was already online anyway"
So they couldn't handle basic information governance and were responsible for a gigantic unintentional data breach.

already "certainly in the hands of 'security' forces around the world"
And? Can you expand on why it's a good thing (or at least defensible) to also share information about rape survivors, people hiding their sexuality for fear of stigma and personal records with the general public?

Unsurprisingly the Greenwald quote is seriously stupid (not to mention, negates the excuse it was accidentally leaked), and doesn't seem to align with what his own paper has published (in the article I shared). Those people quoted were horrified to see Wikileaks shared their personal information.

Sadly ironic that an organisation making their name off sharing a video titled 'collateral' seem to share the same values - about how expendable people are in the pursuit of political goals ('ends justify the means) - as those withholding this information that they claimed to be holding to account

[Nobby Reserve]

I guess I just don't see why you think those two things are a good defence for wikileaks?

"it was already online anyway"
So they couldn't handle basic information governance and were responsible for a gigantic unintentional data breach.

already "certainly in the hands of 'security' forces around the world"
And? Can you expand on why it's a good thing (or at least defensible) to also share information about rape survivors, people hiding their sexuality for fear of stigma and personal records with the general public?

Unsurprisingly the Greenwald quote is seriously stupid (not to mention, negates the excuse it was accidentally leaked), and doesn't seem to align with what his own paper has published (in the article I shared). Those people quoted were horrified to see Wikileaks shared their personal information.

Sadly ironic that an organisation making their name off sharing a video titled 'collateral' seem to share the same values - about how expendable people are in the pursuit of political goals ('ends justify the means) - as those withholding this information that they claimed to be holding to account

My initial post gives a timeline summary that answers your first two questions (ie, how the breach came about), and the Der Speigel article gives more detail.

It happened due to a catalogue of fuck-ups by several people/organisations. Including Assange (who should have changed/deleted the decryption key code)

[classycarra]

My initial post gives a timeline summary that answers your first two questions (ie, how the breach came about), and the Der Speigel article gives more detail.

It happened due to a catalogue of fuck-ups by several people/organisations. Including Assange (who should have changed/deleted the decryption key code)

Indeed. Certainly enough in there to safely conclude that the likes of Assange and Greenwald are not the kind of people civilians can rely on to act either effectively or in the public interest

As much as Greenwalds quote suggests the self-belief that they are/were well-placed arbiters of the truth and know what's good for us, I'd suggest hindsight (and, tbf, plenty of foresight at the time) shows that him and Assange were more malevolent actors working in the interests of Jair Bolsonaro and his fascists in trying to smear the left in Brazil (for the former), and Lukashenko and his fascists (one of a number of examples for Assange).

[Nobby Reserve]

Indeed. Certainly enough in there to safely conclude that the likes of Assange and Greenwald are not the kind of people civilians can rely on to act either effectively or in the public interest

As much as Greenwalds quote suggests the self-belief that they are/were well-placed arbiters of the truth and know what's good for us, I'd suggest hindsight (and, tbf, plenty of foresight at the time) shows that him and Assange were more malevolent actors working in the interests of Jair Bolsonaro and his fascists in trying to smear the left in Brazil (for the former), and Lukashenko and his fascists (one of a number of examples for Assange).

Greenwald has been a consistent and outspoken critic of Bolsonaro from the start 

He's subsequently incurred the vindictive wrath of Bolsonaro, after Greenwald used data about key figures of Bolsonaro's regime (allegedly obtained through hacking)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/21/brazil-charges-glenn-greenwald-freedom-press
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/americas/greenwald-cybercrimes-brazil-intl/index.html


WRT Lukashenko, he's never supported him once. Whilst simultaneously condemning the Lukashenko regime for their forced landing of a plane carrying Roman Protasevich, he pointed out the parallels with the the US forcing the landing of a plane they suspected Edward Snowden to have been aboard - and scorned the hypocrisy of both western governments and media.


You have a bizarre habit of accusing people who speak out against the actions of the US, as being supporters of [insert bogeyman figure] and/or fascism. It's like you struggle to view nuance and grey areas.

[classycarra]

Greenwald has been a consistent and outspoken critic of Bolsonaro from the start 

Apologies, seems I have confused Greenwald with another journalist who - as I recall - was keen to promote the Lavo Jato investigation as part of the wider anti left movement that led to the misinformation fueled campaign that opened the door for an 'outsider' candidate like Bolsonaro.

I knew that he had moved to a strongly opposed situation since then, but I was under the impression his starting position was similar to his view on Trump - promoting right wing outsiders while castigating all ills on them 'liberals' or lefties

WRT Lukashenko, he's never supported him once

Incorrect on this one
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2012/03/belarus-assange-lukashenko
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/wikitargeted

You have a bizarre habit of accusing people who speak out against the actions of the US, as being supporters of [insert bogeyman figure] and/or fascism. It's like you struggle to view nuance and grey areas.

Funnily enough I stopped short of getting personal earlier, but I think you're somewhat projecting there.

I read your posts in this thread earlier and you've spent some time talking about various figures that it's fair to say are not going to be loved on this site. Like Trump, Putin, Assange and others. The only time you applied any invective that I can remember was about the United States - "an utter scumbag of a country" you called it.

I think the bizarre habit here is yours - although it's become more prominent in UK politics in the last five years - from a starting position of 'does it oppose the US? if so, can forgive most other indiscretions'

[Nobby Reserve]

Incorrect on this one
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2012/03/belarus-assange-lukashenko
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/wikitargeted

I was on about Greenwald, not Assange.

I can't read the NS article (I don't subscribe), but the other article doesn't mention Greenwald once

I read your posts in this thread earlier and you've spent some time talking about various figures that it's fair to say are not going to be loved on this site. Like Trump, Putin, Assange and others. The only time you applied any invective that I can remember was about the United States - "an utter scumbag of a country" you called it.

I think the bizarre habit here is yours - although it's become more prominent in UK politics in the last five years - from a starting position of 'does it oppose the US? if so, can forgive most other indiscretions'

I've called Putin a c*nt on many occasion. And that's my position. In case you need it repeating, he's a mass-murdering, human rights-oppressing, kleptocratic, dictator piece of steaming shit. I'd delight in pulling the trigger myself. But all this is a given, and it's hardly worth repeating it every post.

I also said, in this very thread, about Assange: "Is he a c*nt for desperately turning to Putin for protection against a vindictive Pentagon? Pretty much." I initially admired his Wikileaks crusade (and don't care if it was narcissism and egomania that drove it), but his actions since the US decided to target him have ruined his reputation and he's subsequently acted like a twat. I posted the account of what actually happened WRT the diplomatic cables incident to set out the facts of the matter, as there was abroad assumption that he'd just dumped the entire database for no reason.

The reason I said that about the US is because many/most people still view the US as a benevolent state, when it really isn't. Since WW2, its overt and covert meddling in the affairs of other countries have led to the deaths of millions of people; have toppled democratic and/or progressive governments and replaced them with murderous and tyrannical dictatorships; they have funded, trained and armed terrorist organisations to destabilise countries and governments; they have trained, funded, armed and propped-up murderous and dictatorial regimes; they have directly waged wars against progressive forces who were trying to overthrow despotic and undemocratic regimes.

And still sycophantic suckers kiss their star-spangled hoop and believe them to be the land of free and the protector of democracy.

Are they worse than the USSR/Russia or China? No! But then, we all rightly demonise Russia and China.

It's the double-standards of far too many people that I detest.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Apologies, seems I have confused Greenwald with another journalist who - as I recall - was keen to promote the Lavo Jato investigation as part of the wider anti left movement that led to the misinformation fueled campaign that opened the door for an 'outsider' candidate like Bolsonaro.

I knew that he had moved to a strongly opposed situation since then, but I was under the impression his starting position was similar to his view on Trump - promoting right wing outsiders while castigating all ills on them 'liberals' or lefties
Incorrect on this one
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2012/03/belarus-assange-lukashenko
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/wikitargeted
Funnily enough I stopped short of getting personal earlier, but I think you're somewhat projecting there.

I read your posts in this thread earlier and you've spent some time talking about various figures that it's fair to say are not going to be loved on this site. Like Trump, Putin, Assange and others. The only time you applied any invective that I can remember was about the United States - "an utter scumbag of a country" you called it.

I think the bizarre habit here is yours - although it's become more prominent in UK politics in the last five years - from a starting position of 'does it oppose the US? if so, can forgive most other indiscretions'

to be honest, much as I disagree with him on a lot more political matters than I originally envisioned, Nobby has never, at least to me, seemed like someone who is anti-US for the sake of it. Where he has criticised them, it has always followed a reason or been followed by one. And, I must admit, I cannot think of an occasion where it has been different for anyone he has criticised.

If he is deemed anti-US for the sake of it then the standard for that is very, very low.

[bigbonedrawky]

Sorry, yes, I meant publishing the compliled list

No worries I've also edited my post to clarify whom I think it was meant to embarrass ie the Saudi Gov and those who deal with them. Not those they suspected of been Gay or Atheist.

to be honest, much as I disagree with him on a lot more political matters than I originally envisioned, Nobby has never, at least to me, seemed like someone who is anti-US for the sake of it. Where he has criticised them, it has always followed a reason or been followed by one. And, I must admit, I cannot think of an occasion where it has been different for anyone he has criticised.

If he is deemed anti-US for the sake of it then the standard for that is very, very low.

For some people the simplist answer is always the correct answer . In this case critisise the US you must hate the US it's all very binary and it avoids any complexity but it can also help avoid mental stress caused by any cognitive dissonance.

[Yorkykopite]

I remember reading about a debate in which the question was 'Has the United States done more harm than good to mankind or more good than harm?' It's a decent question. I forget who argued for "more harm" but Salman Rushdie was one of the speakers for "more good". Apparently, judging by the cheers, he won the argument in the first ten seconds. His first words, spoken not sung, were 'Be-Bop a-Lula, she's my Baby, Be-Bop a Lula, I don't say maybe.'

America is a superpower. That alone condemns it in many people's eyes. And, for sure, historically speaking Great Powers or superpowers do more harm than good. The question wouldn't be interesting if it were asked of China today, say, or Germany and Russia (or indeed China) in the 20th century. The harm they do vastly outweighs the good. The same would be true of the Ottomans or the Mongols or of Spain during 'The Golden Age'. But it is an interesting question when applied to America. The balance sheet is much more even.

For my own tuppence-worth I'm glad that I've lived in 'the American century' rather than a 'Russian' one or a 'Chinese' one. The reasons are so blindingly obvious they don't need pointing out. I know about the list of American crimes - from slavery and lynching to Vietnam and Trump. But I also know about the American antidotes to such things - from abolitionism and civil rights to the peace movement and Biden.

Plus there's Be-Bop a Lula. Or "Once upon a time you dressed so fine..." if you prefer. And all the other fantastic stuff. On the whole the world is a better place for having the United States.

[Sangria]

No worries I've also edited my post to clarify whom I think it was meant to embarrass ie the Saudi Gov and those who deal with them. Not those they suspected of been Gay or Atheist.
For some people the simplist answer is always the correct answer . In this case critisise the US you must hate the US it's all very binary and it avoids any complexity but it can also help avoid mental stress caused by any cognitive dissonance.

Having experienced other, non-western countries, as a liberal I am very, very glad that I live in the west. I'm probably closer to Europe than to the US, but both are so much closer to liberal ideals compared with the non-west that to point out the differences is nitpicking.

Do you have significant experience of the non-west that you can compare your experience of the west with?

[Sangria]

I remember reading about a debate in which the question was 'Has the United States done more harm than good to mankind or more good than harm?' It's a decent question. I forget who argued for "more harm" but Salman Rushdie was one of the speakers for "more good". Apparently, judging by the cheers, he won the argument in the first ten seconds. His first words, spoken not sung, were 'Be-Bop a-Lula, she's my Baby, Be-Bop a Lula, I don't say maybe.'

America is a superpower. That alone condemns it in many people's eyes. And, for sure, historically speaking Great Powers or superpowers do more harm than good. The question wouldn't be interesting if it were asked of China today, say, or Germany and Russia (or indeed China) in the 20th century. The harm they do vastly outweighs the good. The same would be true of the Ottomans or the Mongols or of Spain during 'The Golden Age'. But it is an interesting question when applied to America. The balance sheet is much more even.

For my own tuppence-worth I'm glad that I've lived in 'the American century' rather than a 'Russian' one or a 'Chinese' one. The reasons are so blindingly obvious they don't need pointing out. I know about the list of American crimes - from slavery and lynching to Vietnam and Trump. But I also know about the American antidotes to such things - from abolitionism and civil rights to the peace movement and Biden.

Plus there's Be-Bop a Lula. Or "Once upon a time you dressed so fine..." if you prefer. And all the other fantastic stuff. On the whole the world is a better place for having the United States.

American historical crimes are things the upcoming new powers want to do in the future or are already currently doing. American antidotes to these crimes are things the upcoming new powers despise as weakness.

If one wants to look at American atrocities, one studies history. If one wants to look at Chinese atrocities, one studies current affairs.

[bigbonedrawky]

Having experienced other, non-western countries, as a liberal I am very, very glad that I live in the west. I'm probably closer to Europe than to the US, but both are so much closer to liberal ideals compared with the non-west that to point out the differences is nitpicking.

Do you have significant experience of the non-west that you can compare your experience of the west with?

Ah the 'The Western World "fallacy amazing how often this pops up when trying to defend the actions of a tiny minority of a specific country, in this case the US.
When you talk of "The West" or indeed "anti Western" I think you mean Europe, Scandinavia, North America and  Australasia right ? A more accurate way to describe the things that bind these countries is predominantly Caucasian or of a Christian foundation and IMO it's the latter, which as led to most of the turmoil we've inflicted on the rest of the World...The white man's burden eh.
Now tell me what is it that countries such as Iceland, New Zealand, Leichtestein, Noway, Sweden, Switzerland etc ever done to be tarred with the same brush as the US ? So why drag them into it when discussing topics like the things published in the diplomatic leaks involving warcrimes, spying, corruption, and all manner of nefarious acts carried out by a tiny rich and powerful minority within a specific country ?
You often cite Liberal Democracy as something to aspire to and to a certain extent your right and things like The end of slavery civil rights, workers rights, the right to vote, the welfare state, the right to education and heathcare etc are hallmarks of a Liberal Democracy...Along with freedom of speech, freedom of expression, legal right's, a fair trial and importantly the right to critisise our Governments.
Now all these things didn't happen by accident, they was'nt handed to us on a platter by the rich and powerful. They came about by moaning, critisising, protesting and fighting for a better way of life. Of course these things came at a price skulls were cracked, protesters would be silenced, ostracised, ridiculed, blacklisted, incarcerated or even murdered that's the price they paid.
So when it comes to living in a liberal democracy I consider it my duty to defend the values my forefathers fought so hard for and fuck anyone who uses the BS "If you don't like it fuck off to Russia or China" kind of post. Nah I'll stay and fight because ultimately it's an ongoing battle and the rich and powerful want it all back...  So what about you Sangria? 

Then again you may be one of the rich and powerful ...

If one wants to look at American atrocities, one studies history. If one wants to look at Chinese atrocities,one studies current affairs.

Prince Charles in da house who'd of thought it  . Do you talk like this in real life ? is this a product of your public schoolboy days ?  Or is it a case of imitation been the most sincere form of flattery ?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Then again you may be one of the rich and powerful ...

If one wants to look at American atrocities, one studies history. If one wants to look at Chinese atrocities, one studies current affairs.

Prince Charles in da house who'd of thought it  . Do you talk like this in real life ? is this a product of your public schoolboy days ?  Or is it a case of imitation been the most sincere form of flattery ?

Good grammar is not the sole prerogative of the Prince Charles, public schoolboys, or the 'rich and powerful'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun)

One is an English language, gender-neutral, indefinite pronoun that means, roughly, "a person". For purposes of verb agreement it is a third-person singular pronoun, though it sometimes appears with first- or second-person reference. It is sometimes called an impersonal pronoun.

@Sangria was not referring to you or himself. Rather, anyone. So, yes, the use of 'one' was the correct pronoun.

Ordinarily, I would not bother to post a correction of this nature. But since you were being so fucking petty...

[Sangria]

Prince Charles in da house who'd of thought it  . Do you talk like this in real life ? is this a product of your public schoolboy days ?  Or is it a case of imitation been the most sincere form of flattery ?

Good grammar is not the sole prerogative of the Prince Charles, public schoolboys, or the 'rich and powerful'.@Sangria was not referring to you or himself. Rather, anyone. So, yes, the use of 'one' was the correct pronoun.

Ordinarily, I would not bother to post a correction of this nature. But since you were being so fucking petty...

I first encountered the pronoun in French lessons in my comprehensive. "On".

[Sangria]

Ah the 'The Western World "fallacy amazing how often this pops up when trying to defend the actions of a tiny minority of a specific country, in this case the US.
When you talk of "The West" or indeed "anti Western" I think you mean Europe, Scandinavia, North America and  Australasia right ? A more accurate way to describe the things that bind these countries is predominantly Caucasian or of a Christian foundation and IMO it's the latter, which as led to most of the turmoil we've inflicted on the rest of the World...The white man's burden eh.
Now tell me what is it that countries such as Iceland, New Zealand, Leichtestein, Noway, Sweden, Switzerland etc ever done to be tarred with the same brush as the US ? So why drag them into it when discussing topics like the things published in the diplomatic leaks involving warcrimes, spying, corruption, and all manner of nefarious acts carried out by a tiny rich and powerful minority within a specific country ?
You often cite Liberal Democracy as something to aspire to and to a certain extent your right and things like The end of slavery civil rights, workers rights, the right to vote, the welfare state, the right to education and heathcare etc are hallmarks of a Liberal Democracy...Along with freedom of speech, freedom of expression, legal right's, a fair trial and importantly the right to critisise our Governments.
Now all these things didn't happen by accident, they was'nt handed to us on a platter by the rich and powerful. They came about by moaning, critisising, protesting and fighting for a better way of life. Of course these things came at a price skulls were cracked, protesters would be silenced, ostracised, ridiculed, blacklisted, incarcerated or even murdered that's the price they paid.
So when it comes to living in a liberal democracy I consider it my duty to defend the values my forefathers fought so hard for and fuck anyone who uses the BS "If you don't like it fuck off to Russia or China" kind of post. Nah I'll stay and fight because ultimately it's an ongoing battle and the rich and powerful want it all back...  So what about you Sangria? 

Not all of us solely have experience living in the west. Some of us have experience living in the world outside the west too. And can compare the two.

[Yorkykopite]

You often cite Liberal Democracy as something to aspire to and to a certain extent your right and things like The end of slavery civil rights, workers rights, the right to vote, the welfare state, the right to education and heathcare etc are hallmarks of a Liberal Democracy...Along with freedom of speech, freedom of expression, legal right's, a fair trial and importantly the right to critisise our Governments.

I read that with a John Cleese voice. Hope that's ok.

[TepidT2O]

I read that with a John Cleese voice. Hope that's ok.

You look down on him because you are upper class….

[bigbonedrawky]

I read that with a John Cleese voice. Hope that's ok.

Of course he's a national treasure and a product of a Liberal Democracy from the sublime to the ridiculous it's no coincidence that the UK the US and the English language/ literature in general have spawned some of the greatest comedy...
But the comedian's are the Canary in the coal mine when it comes to freedom of speech. And the way things are going, the little fascists, will get their way with their cancel culture and another hallmark of a Liberal Democracy will be eroded away.
Nothing sadder than an angry response to a joke especially when it doesn't involve them and the offense is on behalf of another.
I get that because of the way some people are wired ( attempt to keep on topic ) Like Assange for example don't see humour the way most of us do, they don't recognize the structure of the joke they miss the sublime and fixate on the ridiculous or some irrelevant detail.
But for the vast majority it's ideology and it's corrosive, not only to society but their own wellbeing.           

Right now comedy is somewhere between a Rock and a hard place...Like Kiev.   

You look down on him because you are upper class….

Sublime
Without the need for a smiley too.

[Nobby Reserve]

Ah the 'The Western World "fallacy amazing how often this pops up when trying to defend the actions of a tiny minority of a specific country, in this case the US.
When you talk of "The West" or indeed "anti Western" I think you mean Europe, Scandinavia, North America and  Australasia right ? A more accurate way to describe the things that bind these countries is predominantly Caucasian or of a Christian foundation and IMO it's the latter, which as led to most of the turmoil we've inflicted on the rest of the World...The white man's burden eh.
Now tell me what is it that countries such as Iceland, New Zealand, Leichtestein, Noway, Sweden, Switzerland etc ever done to be tarred with the same brush as the US ? So why drag them into it when discussing topics like the things published in the diplomatic leaks involving warcrimes, spying, corruption, and all manner of nefarious acts carried out by a tiny rich and powerful minority within a specific country ?
You often cite Liberal Democracy as something to aspire to and to a certain extent your right and things like The end of slavery civil rights, workers rights, the right to vote, the welfare state, the right to education and heathcare etc are hallmarks of a Liberal Democracy...Along with freedom of speech, freedom of expression, legal right's, a fair trial and importantly the right to critisise our Governments.
Now all these things didn't happen by accident, they was'nt handed to us on a platter by the rich and powerful. They came about by moaning, critisising, protesting and fighting for a better way of life. Of course these things came at a price skulls were cracked, protesters would be silenced, ostracised, ridiculed, blacklisted, incarcerated or even murdered that's the price they paid.
So when it comes to living in a liberal democracy I consider it my duty to defend the values my forefathers fought so hard for and fuck anyone who uses the BS "If you don't like it fuck off to Russia or China" kind of post. Nah I'll stay and fight because ultimately it's an ongoing battle and the rich and powerful want it all back...  So what about you Sangria? 

Then again you may be one of the rich and powerful ... Prince Charles in da house who'd of thought it  . Do you talk like this in real life ? is this a product of your public schoolboy days ?  Or is it a case of imitation been the most sincere form of flattery ?

Brilliant post, BBR

 

[Yorkykopite]

You look down on him because you are upper class….

I was thinking more Reg and Loretta.

[TepidT2O]

I was thinking more Reg and Loretta.

Haha!

[bigbonedrawky]

Brilliant post, BBR

 

It's amazing how principles go out the window whith some people who personally don't like a certain individual,,while claiming to espouse the values of a Liberal Democracy at the same time..
3 years locked up without a trial or conviction in a maximum security prison...Not a problem.
 "A free press, it's the bedrock of democracy. It's how the public stay informed and how governments are held accountable. Around the World, press freedom is under threat"
 in this case by the US Gov, (whose President actualily muttered those words ) Again...Not a problem.
On a separate note another Journalist was murdered the other day by the Israeli's war machine, our vocal critics of the murderers of Saudi or Russian journalists will most
 likely remain silent. Once again... Not a problem.

On the subject of comedy another canary Dave Chappelle this time, got attacked on stage last week...   

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's amazing how principles go out the window whith some people who personally don't like a certain individual,,while claiming to espouse the values of a Liberal Democracy at the same time..
3 years locked up without a trial or conviction in a maximum security prison...Not a problem.

He skipped bail. If you skipped bail, you'd be locked up too.

"A free press, it's the bedrock of democracy. It's how the public stay informed and how governments are held accountable. Around the World, press freedom is under threat"

Journalists write stuff. They don't just dump a load of data on the Net given to them by any Tom, Dick or Harry with who knows what agenda. Data which compromises all kinds of innocent people. Assange performed no due diligence, and is accused of assisting Chelsea Manning in the hacking of US security systems - a crime, irrespective and whether or not the perpetrator is a journalist.

in this case by the US Gov, (whose President actualily muttered those words ) Again...Not a problem.
On a separate note another Journalist was murdered the other day by the Israeli's war machine, our vocal critics of the murderers of Saudi or Russian journalists will most
 likely remain silent. Once again... Not a problem.

Whataboutery nonsense.

On the subject of comedy another canary Dave Chappelle this time, got attacked on stage last week...   

No idea of your point there. Not that I am asking for an explanation - as I expect it has no relevance to the discussion  at hand.

[classycarra]

3 years locked up without a trial or conviction in a maximum security prison...Not a problem.

Are you sure you're right to suggest he's not been able to have his protestations heard in court? Maybe you're not too familiar with the case?

Probably worth giving the "Procedural History (UK)" section of the second to most recent court hearing for his various alleged crimes.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

More hearings in the last 12 years than I care to count. More opportunity to fight charges than the average defendant in the UK, I'd hazard a guess.

Worth noting the dates of this penultimate court hearing (the High Court appeal was heard for two days in October 2021):

"The evidential hearing took place in February and September 2020, with the first part heard between 24 February and 28 February 2020 at the Woolwich Crown Court and the second part between 7 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 at the Central Criminal Court."

With regards to not being able to access bail, I expect that would apply to anyone with his history of trying to evade police and trials in various countries. I'd rather people were able to access bail where it's deemed reasonable and safe, but I can understand why that doesn't apply for Assange.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Yeah he is in jail because he is a known risk & he is getting a flight to America because he IS NOT a journalist,he's a twat who decided it would be fun to do Russian midgets bidding and dumped unvetted,unredacted data on the WWW.

It's not funny how certain people don't give a flying fuck about the rape victims & other victims of crimes right to anonymity,not to mention the people whos lives he put in danger.


Fuck him.

[Linudden]

Why not just deport him to Australia after him signing an agreement that he can't be involved with Wikileaks or leave Australia again then? There are no good guys in this story, but crocodile tears from the UK and US intelligence services will never get any sympathies from me. Even if he did something terrible at some point, he's done his time now. The Ecuadorian embassy in all those years was basically a prison cell of his. Time served, get some concessions, be done with it.

[Yorkykopite]

Due process is being observed. That's what counts.

(PS Which, incidentally, is more than the Ecuadorian government ever extended to its wretched citizens during the time they allowed the fugitive Assange a den to hide in.)

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Why not just deport him to Australia after him signing an agreement that he can't be involved with Wikileaks or leave Australia again then? There are no good guys in this story, but crocodile tears from the UK and US intelligence services will never get any sympathies from me. Even if he did something terrible at some point, he's done his time now. The Ecuadorian embassy in all those years was basically a prison cell of his. Time served, get some concessions, be done with it.

Because he refused to be deported to Australia.

And that embassy was more like a bedsit & justice doesn't work like that.

[bigbonedrawky]

Are you sure you're right to suggest he's not been able to have his protestations heard in court? Maybe you're not too familiar with the case?

Probably worth giving the "Procedural History (UK)" section of the second to most recent court hearing for his various alleged crimes.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

More hearings in the last 12 years than I care to count. More opportunity to fight charges than the average defendant in the UK, I'd hazard a guess.

Worth noting the dates of this penultimate court hearing (the High Court appeal was heard for two days in October 2021):

"The evidential hearing took place in February and September 2020, with the first part heard between 24 February and 28 February 2020 at the Woolwich Crown Court and the second part between 7 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 at the Central Criminal Court."

With regards to not being able to access bail, I expect that would apply to anyone with his history of trying to evade police and trials in various countries. I'd rather people were able to access bail where it's deemed reasonable and safe, but I can understand why that doesn't apply for Assange.

I know plenty of people who have absconded whilst on bail, even whilst on home leave from prison, they still get bail and none of them apart from a couple ( after a triall,convictions and violence against prison officers) have ever seen a max security prison.
I can't read your pdf but He's had a trial and conviction for jumping bail and served his time but are the rest of them not hearings due to extradition ? ie not trials and convictions.   
But yeah we get it you dont like him...

Why not just deport him to Australia after him signing an agreement that he can't be involved with Wikileaks or leave Australia again then? There are no good guys in this story, but crocodile tears from the UK and US intelligence services will never get any sympathies from me. Even if he did something terrible at some point, he's done his time now. The Ecuadorian embassy in all those years was basically a prison cell of his. Time served, get some concessions, be done with it.

Deport !! dont you mean 'transport' it's what we used to do with those who expected human rights. 

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Deport !! dont you mean 'transport' it's what we used to do with those who expected human rights.

No it's definitely deport,being deported back to a safe home country is NOT against your human right.

[Nobby Reserve]

.Journalists write stuff. They don't just dump a load of data on the Net given to them by any Tom, Dick or Harry with who knows what agenda. Data which compromises all kinds of innocent people. Assange performed no due diligence, and is accused of assisting Chelsea Manning in the hacking of US security systems - a crime, irrespective and whether or not the perpetrator is a journalist.

It's more complex than that. He didn't just "just dump a load of data on the Net given to them by any Tom, Dick or Harry with who knows what agenda"

I wrote these earlier in the thread, which give a summary of the circumstances as to how that came about:

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=342454.msg18299666#msg18299666
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=342454.msg18301417#msg18301417

Out of interest, do you deem all whistle-blowers to be committing criminal acts? Manning took data that showed the murderous and often illegal actions of the US state/military, and handed it to someone who they believed could disseminate and distribute that information to expose the evil doings of the US.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Ah the old "It wasn't me guv" defense.

[Nobby Reserve]

Ah the old "It wasn't me guv" defense.

Ah, the old 'I'll deliberately twist what was said to dismiss it'

It's fact, fella. The Der Spiegel article goes into a lot of detail.

Wikileaks and Assange are not blameless - their IT incompetence created the gateway for the datafile to be exposed. But there was a chain of events and people that came together, which allowed the datafile to be published online - but it wasn't initially published by Wikileaks/Assange.

Sorry if the facts don't match your own agenda.

[bigbonedrawky]

Out of interest, do you deem all whistle-blowers to be committing criminal acts? Manning took data that showed the murderous and often illegal actions of the US state/military, and handed it to someone who they believed could disseminate and distribute that information to expose the evil doings of the US.

You'd have to presume so, on their principle they'd of deported that British autistic lad who hacked into the US defence dept and Nasa about 20 years ago and 50 years on the guy who published the Pentagon Papers would still be in prison to this day.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Ah, the old 'I'll deliberately twist what was said to dismiss it'

It's fact, fella. The Der Spiegel article goes into a lot of detail.

Wikileaks and Assange are not blameless - their IT incompetence created the gateway for the datafile to be exposed. But there was a chain of events and people that came together, which allowed the datafile to be published online - but it wasn't initially published by Wikileaks/Assange.

Sorry if the facts don't match your own agenda.

Other than thinking he's a twat of the highest order,I have no agenda.He could and should've acted more like Anonymous but he reached for stardom,all whilst doing the bidding of some of the most odious c*nts on planet Earth.

And no,I think that whistle blowers are an essential tool to bring scumbags to the wider population,in an ideal world they wouldn't be needed.

Sadly our world is far,far,far from ideal.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's more complex than that. He didn't just "just dump a load of data on the Net given to them by any Tom, Dick or Harry with who knows what agenda"

I wrote these earlier in the thread, which give a summary of the circumstances as to how that came about:

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=342454.msg18299666#msg18299666
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=342454.msg18301417#msg18301417

Out of interest, do you deem all whistle-blowers to be committing criminal acts? Manning took data that showed the murderous and often illegal actions of the US state/military, and handed it to someone who they believed could disseminate and distribute that information to expose the evil doings of the US.

Assange is charged with conspiring to hack US government computers. If he did indeed assist Manning to do this, that's a serious chime in the US. Did Assange conspire to commit such an act? well, that's the point of the trial.

Your conflation of 'whistle-blowers' (which is protected in US law) with the charge against Assange of conspiracy to hack government computers does not even rise to the level of being specious.

[classycarra]

You'd have to presume so, on their principle they'd of deported that British autistic lad who hacked into the US defence dept and Nasa about 20 years ago and 50 years on the guy who published the Pentagon Papers would still be in prison to this day.

Interesting examples you bring up.

The UK high court ruled against deporting Lauri Love to the US but thought it essential he still stand trial in UK. He said this of their ruling: “Very happy, relieved, very thankful for the High Court, for the judges”

The Pentagon Papers were put together and released by Daniel Ellsberg. Following their release, he admitted he gave the papers to the press saying: "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision". He was freed as a result of a mistrial, given the mitigating circumstances of those trying to prosecute him.

I'm not seeing how either of these situations sound similar to Assange. Both of them seemed more intent on facing judgment for their actions than Assange, who has repeatedly fled various charges. You aren't making extradition to the US seem like something he ought to fear, and I'm inclined to think that facing due process in the Swedish judicial system - and their investigations into his (in his own words) decision to have unprotected sex with a woman without her consent - also sounds like something he didn't have a valid reason to avoid.

[Nobby Reserve]

Assange is charged with conspiring to hack US government computers. If he did indeed assist Manning to do this, that's a serious chime in the US. Did Assange conspire to commit such an act? well, that's the point of the trial.

Your conflation of 'whistle-blowers' (which is protected in US law) with the charge against Assange of conspiracy to hack government computers does not even rise to the level of being specious.

It's again quite complex.

Manning had legitimate access to the top-secret data anyway, through their own security clearance. There was a kind of generic account on the base that Manning wanted to use because she believed it would have hidden who actually downloaded the data. But it was password-protected and Manning asked Assange for help cracking it. Manning sent a 'hexadecimal string' to someone called Nathaniel Frank (alleged to be Assange) to try to crack the full password. 'Frank' is reported to have passed the string to an expert, then later reported back to Manning to say 'no luck so far'.

Manning then used his own login to download the data files, which he passed to Wikileaks/Assange.

Here's a good, impartial account of what actually happened:

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252489645/Forensic-expert-questions-US-claims-that-Assange-conspired-to-crack-military-password

It's not a clear-cut case by any means, and we can but hope for a fair trial (and that the US military doesn't pull any stunts to find a way to punish Assange outside of the judiciary if he's found innocent)


The whistle-blowing question is interesting. If someone knows a corporation/organisation is committing illegal/morally reprehensible acts, but has to 'hack' a computer system to get proof, does that turn them being a whistle-blower to a criminal?