You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
October 22 2021 5.37pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 10 of 14 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

 

Pinky Flag Kent 26 Feb 13 6.46pm

New Statesman has a lot of stuff about Assange by a variety of writers (not all supportive, by any means), covering the legal arguments in some depth and even indulging in a little character assassination along the way.
This John Pilger piece cuts through the obfuscation:
[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 7.38pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 6.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

You know this 'illegal' tag is pretty silly.

The world isn't a state, international law doesn't operate like a national court.

Calling a war illegal in a way is just nonsense....All war is illegal in a sense. If it was officially proven to be 'illegal' which isn't going to happen then who is going to enforce this so called breaking of 'international law'?

The UN is pretty clear on what is an isn't legal in terms of war, and has prosecuted a number of war criminals for statute crimes, most notably in result to the conflicts in the Balkans. War Crimes are on the UK statute of laws, and are enforcable, as are crimes against humanity, and even less offences regarding the abuse of public office and fraud offences relating to lying to parliment.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

Are we going to somehow jail a former president and Prime Minister? How about the other twenty of so countries involved, how culpable are they in this 'illegal war'?.....Sounds very French revolution to me.

Yes, we should, even if its only in relation to relatively minor offences, or complicity/conspiracy charges relating to the deaths of UK service men. And we should also pursue cases against others involved if they enter our jurisdiction. I don't care if the US would permit it, I'm not a US citizen, the alleged crimes relating to the UK government and agencys associated are our responsibility to resolve.

Ethically, we have a responsibility, as a lawful democracy to present ourselves us such, rather than taking the easy route of sweeping the deaths of innocents and UK citizens under the carpet of convenience.

We as a nation seem happy to intervene in the affairs of other nations (Libya) and yet when it comes to the home, we protect the guilty because of their station and status, not their innocence.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm
Even if the US would let it happen...Which it won't The US, who basically fund the UN as we know it would isolate themselves far more. It would be just the excuse that many Republicans would like....The country that attracts all that hate feeds more poor children than most of the rest put together.

I don't care what the states does, just because everyone else acts in a manner of moral hypocracy to the deaths of foriegners and our own service men, doesn't mean we should.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

Everything is a balancing act, we can't have the world just as we'd like it.

Well you can, it seems, if you're wealthy enough or powerful enough. In fact it seems if you are the Tony Blair or George Bush and cronies, you can have the world the way you like it.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm
Really, if the reality that some push for actually happened then I think the world would be far more dangerous than it currently is......Probably be forced to be Chinese within a generation if the world were run by 'world government' idealists like yourself.

You think the invasion of Iraq made the world safer. Afghanistan and Iraq removed the two major opponants of Iran from the world stage, weakened the security of pakistan, a nuclear power and essentially created a situation that has positively encouraged Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear capability as a matter of necessity.

If anything, the actions of the West in the pursuit of 'democracy in the middle east' has done far more harm than good, and led to massive improvements in the position of Islamist movements (many of whom ultimately will end up looking to the Russians and Chinese for support, and enriching their coffers for arms and technology).

Rather than protect us from the tyranny of china, it has promoted Chinese interests world wide.



I completely disagree with your summary of the result of the Gulf wars.....Your idea that Iran is more powerful because of Iraq is misplaced. Blimey, the leadership in Iran have problems even shoring up their own terrible regime. What is true is that Iran lost an enemy, but this isn't the same as saying it's made them more powerful.....They're bloody skint for a start and losing Syria as an effective ally.....Iran still have many enemies in the Middle East.

Iraq for example voted against Iran over Syria, they are not Iran's puppet in any sense. Considering America will have a constant base in Iraq I view your opinions as typical of investing in ideas that have some truth in them and expanding them away from the reality on the ground. The truth is that Iraq has never been very pro-American (Israel) but that's migrated by the fact that future is now heavily invested with them.

The Gulf wars had a significant if indirect affect on the promotion of democracy in the middle east. This was something the neo cons were right about long ago and the left hate them even more about it (those that recognise it, which is about 30/70)....If indeed they could possibly hate their bogey men any more than they already do.

I don't claim that this indirect affect justifies the wars but I regard it as an element closer to the truth than any opposite claim. It's effect has been noted in the middle east.

Wars always have mixed results to a certain extent, much as you seem convinced that these wars as purely negative. I'm of the view that you as are blind to the actual long terms results of those wars.

They were always going to have a short term spike in deaths and instability. However the suggestion that the removal of the regime could have been any other way was unrealistic.

I've seen statistics on Saddam's rule that put the annual death toll from him at levels near post-war 'civil war' levels anyway. Well, the realistic ones.....The difference between Saddam and the war was eventually those numbers were going to vastly reduce.....Under Saddam he was horribly constant and effective with his secret service.

Now Iraq has no sanctions, selling oil and increasing its yield. Deaths are way down, economic activity far higher. Iraq now has the opportunity of actually becoming far richer still due to its oil....That oil that everyone said the West were stealing.

By no means is it ideal but the future is far brighter for Iraq than it was before.


Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 8.10pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 26 Feb 13 8.02pm Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

One particular thought in defence of wikileaks is the risible nature of our own press - even though I would say that the British press is one of the best in the business.

However, when you read 'Flat Earth News' you get a quite frightening reminder of who is in the box seat here - have any of you read it?

[Link]

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 8.03pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote tome at 26 Feb 2013 8.02pm

One particular thought in defence of wikileaks is the risible nature of our own press - even though I would say that the British press is one of the best in the business.

However, when you read 'Flat Earth News' you get a quite frightening reminder of who is in the box seat here - have any of you read it?

[Link]


I must admit this is a book I keep meaning to read.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 10.09pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 7.38pm

I've seen statistics on Saddam's rule that put the annual death toll from him at levels near post-war 'civil war' levels anyway. Well, the realistic ones.....The difference between Saddam and the war was eventually those numbers were going to vastly reduce.....Under Saddam he was horribly constant and effective with his secret service.

Now Iraq has no sanctions, selling oil and increasing its yield. Deaths are way down, economic activity far higher. Iraq now has the opportunity of actually becoming far richer still due to its oil....That oil that everyone said the West were stealing.

By no means is it ideal but the future is far brighter for Iraq than it was before.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 8.10pm)

Apart from the militas, the bombings and the death squads, a corrupt police force, sectarian politics, increasing fundermentist movements, privitised resources, persicution of women and gay men, its looking really bright.

Iraq will not become a stable modern democracy. The country might not even avoid a full scale civil war. The government is barely functioning.

As for the other arabic nations, those uprisings will deliver increasingly fundermentalist and anti-secular, anti western governments.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View SloveniaDave's Profile SloveniaDave Flag Tirana, Albania 26 Feb 13 10.26pm Send a Private Message to SloveniaDave Add SloveniaDave as a friend

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding on this thread about what Assange has done. He is not a whistleblower - he is indescriminately leaking (or providing an outlet for leaking) confidential information, simply on the basis that he does not believe that anyone should know something he doesnt.

If some of the information does show illegal activity then of course it deserves to be exposed but his approach does far, far more harm than good, both to international security and to the concept of whistleblowing. If whistleblowing is considered simply the act of revealing anything which is secret, then it will never work and states will (quite rightly) make it harder for real whistleblowers to reveal things which do really matter.

Of course, we would all love to see every confidential memo that the foreign office sends out (actually you wouldnt, most are tedious in the extreme) but to allow it to happen is the route to anarchy.

Assange is a self-seeking, irresponsible anarchist. As I said earlier in the thread, I would warmly welcome his trial in the US or anywhere that will expose him as such.

 


Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 10.39pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 10.09pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 7.38pm

I've seen statistics on Saddam's rule that put the annual death toll from him at levels near post-war 'civil war' levels anyway. Well, the realistic ones.....The difference between Saddam and the war was eventually those numbers were going to vastly reduce.....Under Saddam he was horribly constant and effective with his secret service.

Now Iraq has no sanctions, selling oil and increasing its yield. Deaths are way down, economic activity far higher. Iraq now has the opportunity of actually becoming far richer still due to its oil....That oil that everyone said the West were stealing.

By no means is it ideal but the future is far brighter for Iraq than it was before.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 8.10pm)

Apart from the militas, the bombings and the death squads, a corrupt police force, sectarian politics, increasing fundermentist movements, privitised resources, persicution of women and gay men, its looking really bright.

Iraq will not become a stable modern democracy. The country might not even avoid a full scale civil war. The government is barely functioning.

As for the other arabic nations, those uprisings will deliver increasingly fundermentalist and anti-secular, anti western governments.


I see no civil war in Iraq, that period has passed. Of course there are tensions, attacks and problems but you are over stating them. The country has been progressively reducing in tension.

Its problems will reduce further once its economy improves.

I remind you, Iraq is in a far better position than it was before the war. That is undeniable only to those obsessed with emotion over the war. Half the time I suspect that they wish it were true just for the sake of their worldview.

As for the Arab spring nations. Are you suggesting that these countries weren't all these things before their uprisings? What on earth can we do about their culture? We can talk about women's and homosexual rights but what else can we do?

Regardless, the West should support the democratic process in as many instances it can....The past has taught us that supporting corrupt regimes is a long term folly.

I disagree with your idea that these nations are 'anti-western'. Those elements are not the majority even in Iran. Of course there is a proportion of the population who are all these things but you are characterizing countries in ways that don't reflect the majority of the populations.

Anti-secular yes, anti Israeli yes, anti-western, no not in anything like the same fashion. Most of them are not extremists. Many of the jobs, influences and investments they have are western.

Most of the middle east actually works with the West and wishes to continue to do so.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Feb 2013 11.45am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Pinky Flag Kent 27 Feb 13 9.04am

Quote tome at 26 Feb 2013 8.02pm

One particular thought in defence of wikileaks is the risible nature of our own press - even though I would say that the British press is one of the best in the business.

However, when you read 'Flat Earth News' you get a quite frightening reminder of who is in the box seat here - have any of you read it?

[Link]

An excellent book by a proper journalist whose constant probing and chipping away over many years eventually brought News International's 'one rogue reporter' phone hacking defence crashing down and sent the Murdoch cockroaches scurrying from the light.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View binchaud's Profile binchaud Flag New Addington 27 Feb 13 9.21am Send a Private Message to binchaud Add binchaud as a friend

Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.52pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Feb 2013 3.45pm

Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.38pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Feb 2013 3.31pm

Quote Stuk at 22 Feb 2013 3.20pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Feb 2013 3.04pm

Or he could be given safe passage to a Quito bound plane from Heathrow if evidence from Sweden is suspect rather than hand him over to the Americans via Stockholm and a 50 year prison sentence for speaking freely.

We'll just ignore international law then will we? If we're gonna do that I'd rather storm the embassy and accidentally kill him.

Come on you bleeding heart lefties. That's 2000 baby incubators he's cost, or 28,000 weeks of state pension.


So you want to hand him over to, possibly, the US - not so great international law abiders themselves? 50 years in prison there will pay for 20000 incubators.


I couldn't care less. I said at the very start that this prick would get his comeuppance for thinking he is untouchable.

Should never have come to the UK to start with and his own nation doesn't want to get involved.

It also will not happen. Enjoy:

[Link]


"In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom."

But he is not in the UK, is he?

Also, he has been accused of rape. Not been found guilty of but accused of. If he has a case to answer then fair enough but until then isn't it obvious and wise to presume innocence and to presume some very powerful people want him put away for a very long time. But not for rape.

Yes he is in the UK, I suggest you read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations. Enjoy: [Link]

Not a good argument against being extradited from the UK to Sweden when you stand more chance of what you're fighting against, by staying where you are.

Who said he'd been found guilty? I want him to go and face trial but more specifically to f*** off and stop costing us money.

Wonder why u complain about any money being saved by the government as you'll never personally gain from it, probably redirected to Kabul, so u' d rather have someone unfairly locked up for money u ll never ever spend? Says a lot about u mate

Edited by binchaud (27 Feb 2013 9.25am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 28 Feb 13 3.23pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Oops wrong thread.

Edited by Mongo Like Clunge (28 Feb 2013 3.24pm)

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 28 Feb 13 5.41pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 6.05pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 5.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 10.50am

Quote banksy at 26 Feb 2013 12.59am

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that vilified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!


Public service! All he's done is promote himself and his own self importance. He's not important, nor elected as Stirling has pointed out.

All he really is, is a serial law breaker hiding being a fake political stance.

Isn't that what governments have done in their pursuit of him and the consequent media coverage? I'd never really paid much attention to wikileaks or Assange prior to the 'gulf war' revelations, and increasing persicution by assorted embrassed governments.

I'd suggest that since its inception in 2006, Wikileaks has served the public interest.



No. Which ones have persued him exactly? Other than ones where he's broken laws or due to face trial (ie UK and Sweden)

I'd suggest they're no more a public service than the other hackers.

They're not hackers, they commit no crime in the obtaining of information, its hosted by them online. They don't actually steal the information, they rely on others to provide it for them.

Much in the way news media operates with leaks and informants.



That old chestnut huh. No better than "I didn't steal them, I brought them off a bloke down the pub."

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 Feb 13 5.44pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Feb 2013 5.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 6.05pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 5.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 10.50am

Quote banksy at 26 Feb 2013 12.59am

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that vilified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!


Public service! All he's done is promote himself and his own self importance. He's not important, nor elected as Stirling has pointed out.

All he really is, is a serial law breaker hiding being a fake political stance.

Isn't that what governments have done in their pursuit of him and the consequent media coverage? I'd never really paid much attention to wikileaks or Assange prior to the 'gulf war' revelations, and increasing persicution by assorted embrassed governments.

I'd suggest that since its inception in 2006, Wikileaks has served the public interest.



No. Which ones have persued him exactly? Other than ones where he's broken laws or due to face trial (ie UK and Sweden)

I'd suggest they're no more a public service than the other hackers.

They're not hackers, they commit no crime in the obtaining of information, its hosted by them online. They don't actually steal the information, they rely on others to provide it for them.

Much in the way news media operates with leaks and informants.



That old chestnut huh. No better than "I didn't steal them, I brought them off a bloke down the pub."

Not really the same, as the exercise there is the theft for profit. Its no different than how every newspaper in the country operates (except for the stings and paying for stories). It strikes me that people who have an issue with wikileaks deflect away from the idea that it serves the public interest in an era where newsmedia companies have become very 'cosy' with government and the state.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 10 of 14 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange