Topic: Wikileaks:

[Yorkykopite]

Could charge him per gigabyte of data for all the porn (and hacked russian material) too

God, I hope he did have access to porn. Otherwise that cat had a harder time than we thought.

[CraigDS]

God, I hope he did have access to porn. Otherwise that cat had a harder time than we thought.

Or had access to lube at least.

[Nobby Reserve]

Since he toadied up to the Trump cartel, to Frottage and to Putin, I couldn't give much of a fuck about him.

But let's not forget the amazing work Wikileaks did in exposing the illegal, corrupt and anti-democratic activities by the US and UK governments/intelligence forces.

And the stinking cesspit of anti-democracy and hypocrisy that is the US has been exerting big pressure on Ecuador to boot out Assange so the torturing c*nts can exert their revenge on him

[TepidT2O]

Since he toadied up to the Trump cartel, to Frottage and to Putin, I couldn't give much of a fuck about him.

But let's not forget the amazing work Wikileaks did in exposing the illegal, corrupt and anti-democratic activities by the US and UK governments/intelligence forces.

And the stinking cesspit of anti-democracy and hypocrisy that is the US has been exerting big pressure on Ecuador to boot out Assange so the torturing c*nts can exert their revenge on him

When you say amazing work, it’s now clear that all they were doing was passing on information hacked by the Russian secret services...

Which makes for an uncomfortable paradox

[Nobby Reserve]

When you say amazing work, it’s now clear that all they were doing was passing on information hacked by the Russian secret services...

Which makes for an uncomfortable paradox

Whilst there's no denying the Russians passed some/a lot of documents to WL (and JA seemed a willing stooge to help Russian efforts to get the fat, orange Putin-rimmer elected), I think it does a disservice to many genuine whistleblowers who also contributed. The existence and success of WL also played some part in encouraging other whistleblowers who were definitely not Russian agents - like the Panama Papers, for instance.

[TepidT2O]

Whilst there's no denying the Russians passed some/a lot of documents to WL (and JA seemed a willing stooge to help Russian efforts to get the fat, orange Putin-rimmer elected), I think it does a disservice to many genuine whistleblowers who also contributed. The existence and success of WL also played some part in encouraging other whistleblowers who were definitely not Russian agents - like the Panama Papers, for instance.

True... but much came from Putin..  when you realise the extent of it and realise that it was done to undermine the US, it does make you reflect on the relative sets of ethics...

[classycarra]

Since he toadied up to the Trump cartel, to Frottage and to Putin, I couldn't give much of a fuck about him.

But let's not forget the amazing work Wikileaks did in exposing the illegal, corrupt and anti-democratic activities by the US and UK governments/intelligence forces.

And the stinking cesspit of anti-democracy and hypocrisy that is the US has been exerting big pressure on Ecuador to boot out Assange so the torturing c*nts can exert their revenge on him

First part is true, but it was by his colleagues. Many of who have talked about how terrible an influence he was and how he contributed to ruining an interesting venture.
Let's be clear about him though. Unlike many of his former Wikileaks colleagues, he's not remotely interested in exposing anti-democratic activities. Just look at the work he's done to prop up a dictator in Belarus. Look at which government - knwon for abusing journalists - he ran to to escape justice.

Not sure about the third para either. What big pressure was this? It's a shame it hasn't worked really though, since he's costing the UK and more notably the Ecuadorian taxpayer a shit load of money to fund him being on the lam. Not to mention helped illegally to get Trump elected. Which torturing c*nts were you referring to? UK and US? Ecuador? Russia? Belarus?

[classycarra]

Whilst there's no denying the Russians passed some/a lot of documents to WL (and JA seemed a willing stooge to help Russian efforts to get the fat, orange Putin-rimmer elected), I think it does a disservice to many genuine whistleblowers who also contributed. The existence and success of WL also played some part in encouraging other whistleblowers who were definitely not Russian agents - like the Panama Papers, for instance.

Now I'm really nitpicking, but what success has Wikileaks have? What did those releases achieve?

Funnily enough Wikileaks were critical of the journalists who actually did have success, on the Panama papers, because they didn't release absolutely everything. Something wikileaks had done previously, costing some whistleblowing sources their lives.

[Yorkykopite]

One should also remember that Wikileaks, by dumping secret government documents on to the worldwide web, also put the lives of lots of brave men and women in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt in jeopardy. Assange probably didn’t realise this because he and his team didn’t even bother to read what they were divulging. All they knew was that democratic governments shouldn’t have secrets! A child’s idea of international politics.

That’s to put it charitably of course. As it turns out it’s more true to say that Assange couldn’t care less if his leaks led to murder. He has no love for democracy anyway and clearly felt that if western governments were covertly supporting Arab - or Iranian - democrats against authoritarian regimes that made them a fair target.

[TepidT2O]

Quite...

He has supeceded democractic government with his own value judgement of which documents stolen by the Russian secret services should be released.

Whilst democratic government is riven with pitfalls and shysters.. I’d still have it over any one individual (especially that nasty little I need to use a thesaurus little shit) any day of the week.

[Corkboy]

Whilst democratic government is riven with pitfalls and shysters.. I’d still have it over any one individual (especially that nasty little I need to use a thesaurus little shit) any day of the week.

That's an autocorrect, isn't it?

[TepidT2O]

That's an autocorrect, isn't it?

Err. Yes....! A legal auto correct I suspect..

Sorry mods.

[Corkboy]

Yeah, to be fair, he wasn't convicted of that.

[classycarra]

Presumably it relates to the trial that he’s fled. Or maybe another charge that he’s yet to face trial for

[BoRed]

Now I'm really nitpicking, but what success has Wikileaks have? What did those releases achieve?

Funnily enough Wikileaks were critical of the journalists who actually did have success, on the Panama papers, because they didn't release absolutely everything. Something wikileaks had done previously, costing some whistleblowing sources their lives.

Off topic, but what did the release of the Panama papers achieve? C*nts are still running the world.

[TepidT2O]

Off topic, but what did the release of the Panama papers achieve? C*nts are still running the world.

We knew the details of Bobby Firminos contract...

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Poor fellow.

[TepidT2O]

Ha ha..
 Bonkers eh.

He could come out at any time he wanted.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Ha ha..
 Bonkers eh.

He could come out at any time he wanted.

He is only facing arrest for skipping bail,if I were the bloke who put up his bail I would be taking the twat to court to get my £200,000 back.

[GreatEx]

Poor fellow.

Endless fucking :

[Ray K]

Julian Assange has been charged, prosecutors reveal inadvertently in court filing

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged under seal, prosecutors inadvertently revealed in a recently unsealed court filing — a development that could significantly advance the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and have major implications for those who publish government secrets.

The disclosure came in a filing in a case unrelated to Assange. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” Later, Dwyer wrote the charges would “need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”

It was not immediately clear what charges Assange would face.

-WaPost

[RedBootsTommySmith]

"Trump officials want to put Assange behind bars because he revealed U.S. war crimes. Democrats want to put him behind bars because he revealed corruption at the highest levels of the DNC ", writes @ggreenwald.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/?fbclid=IwAR2WytVJA14wOi11yVUBR5ik0FdTPPqLUNqHRIjmhOXAjIZfMlWxgmqJftg

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Greenwald is a twat.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Greenwald is a twat.

Is that what you call an 'ad hominem' response? He may be, he may not be, but what about his arguments?

[classycarra]

Bless poor Greenwald. He really is easily triggered by anything to do with Hilary or Julian.

Says in his first paragraph that he doesn't know what the charge is. Proceeds to write an article based on a false assumption, to launder Assange's image and to criticise people who don't like him conspiring with Putin (under the amusing generalised label of 'Hillary loving democrats'). Everyone should click the article link just to enjoy the Assange pose for a Guardian picture.

Greenwald could have saved a lot of effort and word count, and just gone to the Ecuadorian embassy to rim Assange in person instead

[classycarra]

Is that what you call an 'ad hominem' response? He may be, he may not be, but what about his arguments?

His argument, in the first two paragraphs

1: 'I don't know what he's being prosecuted for'. 'I can't believe he's being prosecuted for this, press freedom is being eroded by this charge I haven't read'

2: 'When Trump encourages violence against the press on the record, that's not harming press freedom and it's "trivial". But this Assange charge I haven't read is an "actual and real threat" like OMG. How can they charge this lovely angel?! Waaaa'

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Is that what you call an 'ad hominem' response? He may be, he may not be, but what about his arguments?

No,he is just a massive twat.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Bless poor Greenwald. He really is easily triggered by anything to do with Hilary or Julian.

Says in his first paragraph that he doesn't know what the charge is. Proceeds to write an article based on a false assumption, to launder Assange's image and to criticise people who don't like him conspiring with Putin (under the amusing generalised label of 'Hillary loving democrats'). Everyone should click the article link just to enjoy the Assange pose for a Guardian picture.

Greenwald could have saved a lot of effort and word count, and just gone to the Ecuadorian embassy to rim Assange in person instead

As I read it, the crux of his argument is that he considers Assange to be a journalist, and that his prosecution is a threat to all journalists. The rest is padding/ noise, What say ye to his claim that Wikileaks is journalism, investigative journalism that has unearthed sins of various degrees, uncomfortable to both sides of the aisle?  There's no need to attack the character of either Assange of Greenwald in the discussion, which serves to distract, just take that question on its merits.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

As I read it, the crux of his argument is that he considers Assange to be a journalist, and that his prosecution is a threat to all journalists. The rest is padding/ noise, What say ye to his claim that Wikileaks is journalism, investigative journalism that has unearthed sins of various degrees, uncomfortable to both sides of the aisle?  There's no need to attack the character of either Assange of Greenwald in the discussion, which serves to distract, just take that question on its merits.

Assange is also a massive twat,he could walk out of that embassy anytime he wants & only be arrested for jumping bail and costing his supposed friends £200,000.

And no,Assange is not a journalist.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Assange is also a massive twat,he could walk out of that embassy anytime he wants & only be arrested for jumping bail and costing his supposed friends £200,000.

And no,Assange is not a journalist.

Haha, I'll just take my ball & go home.

[classycarra]

As I read it, the crux of his argument is that he considers Assange to be a journalist, and that his prosecution is a threat to all journalists. The rest is padding/ noise, What say ye to his claim that Wikileaks is journalism, investigative journalism that has unearthed sins of various degrees, uncomfortable to both sides of the aisle?  There's no need to attack the character of either Assange of Greenwald in the discussion, which serves to distract, just take that question on its merits.

The idea that Assange cares a jot about the freedom of the press is amusing, to be fair. His actions in Belarus suggest he opposes freedom of the press. Not to mention he shacked up at an Embassy representing a government that abuses its press.

Of course, as a self proclaimed investigative journalist Greenwald should be more than aware of all this. It's public domain, even. But unfortunately he's one of those regressive weirdos who is capable of rationalising any old shite to fit his agenda (as seen in this latest article)

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Sorry, Carra, but again you're attacking the person(s).

I'll need to give my thoughts on the subject to further discussion, maybe. I'm no expert, as I've not religiously followed the theme. It seems to me a decent journalist would not just dump this 'trove' of information, but would himself analyze the information, present a case and publish only the information required to sustain that case. It seems there was so much information available, he couldn't pick his battles and chose to 'crowdsource' further analysis. In doing so, he made a name for himself that appealed to his narcissistic tendencies, but wouldn't be the first or last journalist to take that path. (But, now I'm crossing the subjective red line.)

As the Greenwald article pointed out, the Obama administration determined prosecution would be a slippery slope. The Trump administration appears to be trying to find a law they can catch him on, somewhere in the realm of treason/ espionage. I think the Kavanaugh appointment is a step towards making this case; you'll note the interview questions regarding his position on the application of Civil v Martial law.

Whatever way it shakes, some legal precedents will ensue.

[classycarra]

Sorry, Carra, but again you're attacking the person(s).

I'm aware of that. I dealt with the message in previous posts, and decided to move onto the messenger. I was explaining why it was funny to hear this line of defence from Assange's chief cheerleader

[RedBootsTommySmith]

I need to go back into the back pages to read your position. Sorry I missed it.

[classycarra]

I need to go back into the back pages to read your position. Sorry I missed it.

Nothing to apologise for mate. It's on this page, I summarised his argument (which he admits is speculation in its entirety)

[cdav]

Saying about the Obama administration's decision isn't really a defense in my opinion. Was that decision related to the original wikileaks work from the Chelsea Manning info dump? Subsequently, Assange and his organisation have effectively conspired with a foreign intelligence agency to undermine a US election by releasing hacked partisan info- its no surprise he is now considered effectively a foreign agent as opposed to a journalist (if he ever was one).

As Cara says- he doesn't give a shit about journalists or what dispicable regimes he associates with. His agenda is clear- the enemy of my enemy (The West overall, the US in particular) is my freind.

[Giono]

How much has him living at the embassy cost Ecuador? What is their continued justification? Is there somebody else paying the bill? This part of the story is puzzling to someone who hasn't been following this stuff closely.


How many of us can get Equador to help us? They seem generous beyond belief.

[classycarra]

How much has him living at the embassy cost Ecuador? What is their continued justification? Is there somebody else paying the bill? This part of the story is puzzling to someone who hasn't been following this stuff closely.


How many of us can get Equador to help us? They seem generous beyond belief.

The Ecuadorian and British taxpaying public are footing the bill for him fleeing from justice.

[Giono]

The Ecuadorian and British taxpaying public are footing the bill for him fleeing from justice.

That is what I don't understand. In exchange for what? Or is it really just principle after all these years?

[Alan_X]

As I read it, the crux of his argument is that he considers Assange to be a journalist, and that his prosecution is a threat to all journalists. The rest is padding/ noise, What say ye to his claim that Wikileaks is journalism, investigative journalism that has unearthed sins of various degrees, uncomfortable to both sides of the aisle?  There's no need to attack the character of either Assange of Greenwald in the discussion, which serves to distract, just take that question on its merits.

I’d argue that Wikileaks wasn’t journalism. There was no editorial, no presentation, no verification and no consideration for the impact of what they were doing.

If I hacked in to NatWest bank and just out everyone’s account details on line would that be journalism? I’m sure that somewhere in all of those files you could find something incriminating about someone.

And Assange was providing information specifically to disrupt a political campaign. In the US the first amendment is there to ensure the press is free to hold the executive branch to account.