You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
October 16 2021 3.49pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


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

 

View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 28 Feb 13 5.48pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote binchaud at 27 Feb 2013 9.21am

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)


Why would I want to personally gain from it. I don't know whether you've noticed or not but this country is in a financial s*** storm. My first or second posts explains a few areas where it could be better sent.

Also he'd be very fairly locked up even if he successfully defends himself in Sweden as he's now broken multiple UK laws.

Your prose says even more about yourself.

 


Optimistic as ever

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 5.51pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 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 bought 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.

Not for the bloke in the pub claiming he bought them.

Newspapers break the law too, don't use them as a shining example.

It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

 


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 6.08pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Feb 2013 5.51pm
Not for the bloke in the pub claiming he bought them.

Newspapers break the law too, don't use them as a shining example.

It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

Self promotion? The assumption that Julian Assange is actually wikileaks is a bizarre one, given its part of the Iceland Sunshine Press, set up in conjunction with a number of other individuals. He's become promoted by the US pursuit of him for publishing information. He's famous for what, being accused of rape and espionage...

In terms of laws of the land, he hasn't actually committed any crime in the UK or the US thats demonstrable (even the US are concerned that he, or wikileaks haven't actually committed a crime, what with them not being US citizens).


 


"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
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 Feb 13 6.15pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Feb 2013 5.51pm
It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

What, like the offical rules and regulations for detainees of the states in Guantanmo Bay or Abu Gharib? or the 758 files on the prisoners held in Guantanmo bay, that bank of America utilised private security firms to plan cyberattack on wikileaks, Iraqi war logs.

Indeed so much of its in the public interest that every time theres a big 'wikileak' dump, the national newspapers source stories from it.

What governments, corporations etc and how they do it, and go about it is always in the public interest.

Its not just the US and UK, wikileaks covers just about every country in the world.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (28 Feb 2013 6.17pm)

 


"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 tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 28 Feb 13 10.41pm Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 6.08pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Feb 2013 5.51pm
Not for the bloke in the pub claiming he bought them.

Newspapers break the law too, don't use them as a shining example.

It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

Self promotion? The assumption that Julian Assange is actually wikileaks is a bizarre one, given its part of the Iceland Sunshine Press, set up in conjunction with a number of other individuals. He's become promoted by the US pursuit of him for publishing information. He's famous for what, being accused of rape and espionage...

Agreed. Have you seen the latest from Manning? I think there is a powerful argument that in demonstrating the kind of activity the military are involved in, the motive becomes to act better militarily through being less idiotic. Unless they are exposed for idiocy they probably won't change. A more intelligent policy and implementation is better for everyone. Except perhaps for the idiots in power...

[Link]

Personally, I happen to think he deliberately became a public figure to avoid being disappeared.

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kev64's Profile kev64 Online Flag Cambs 01 Mar 13 12.27pm Send a Private Message to kev64 Add kev64 as a friend

Unsure why it is costing the tax payer 3 mill or so to have Security sat outside the embassy. Call them off and if he wants to leave then arrest at Airport etc.

If he manages to get smuggled out in a diplomatic bag even better. Who realy gives a s***.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SloveniaDave's Profile SloveniaDave Flag Tirana, Albania 01 Mar 13 12.49pm Send a Private Message to SloveniaDave Add SloveniaDave as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 6.15pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Feb 2013 5.51pm
It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

What, like the offical rules and regulations for detainees of the states in Guantanmo Bay or Abu Gharib? or the 758 files on the prisoners held in Guantanmo bay, that bank of America utilised private security firms to plan cyberattack on wikileaks, Iraqi war logs.

Indeed so much of its in the public interest that every time theres a big 'wikileak' dump, the national newspapers source stories from it.

What governments, corporations etc and how they do it, and go about it is always in the public interest.
Its not just the US and UK, wikileaks covers just about every country in the world.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (28 Feb 2013 6.17pm)

Fundamentally disagree. Both Governments and companies need, and have the right to privacy in decision making. Of course if there are substantive cases of abuse of power, corruption or possible criminal acts then they should be exposed but the problem with WIkileaks is that it is indescriminate and the vast majority of what they have published is most definitely not in the public interest. All Wikileaks has achieved, is to make Governments more secretive, in that they are much less likely now to put things in writing - especially in terms of information which informs decisions and opinions - and who can blame them.

 


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 npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 01 Mar 13 1.15pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 5.44pm

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.


I don't, personally, have an issue with Wikileaks.
I don't even have an issue with Assange (aside from the facts that he seems overly arrogant and cocksure, he may be a rapist, and he shafted his friends financially without a second thought for his onwn benefit by getting them to stump up bail money for him in good faith and then doing a runner).

My issue is purely with the rule of law.

Sweden have asked for his extradition legally to face court for a crime committed in their country, as they are entitled to. Their claim has been tested in court and been found to be valid (or at least valid enough to warrent him facing their courts), and he's run off - everything about what the US may or may not do once he's in Sweden is pure conjecture (it strikes me that they'd be far more likely to get the UK to extradict him than Sweden, since we are more likely to bend over and say "thank you, sir, may I have another" but even that is largely irrelevant).

He's been before the court of the land and they have deemed it right that he should go to Sweden to face trial, and he's run off and is hiding - everything else is irrelevant to this particular case.

"Don't send me to Sweden or the nasty Amercians will get me" is not a basis for evading justice.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 01 Mar 13 1.20pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 01 Mar 2013 12.49pm
Fundamentally disagree. Both Governments and companies need, and have the right to privacy in decision making. Of course if there are substantive cases of abuse of power, corruption or possible criminal acts then they should be exposed but the problem with WIkileaks is that it is indescriminate and the vast majority of what they have published is most definitely not in the public interest. All Wikileaks has achieved, is to make Governments more secretive, in that they are much less likely now to put things in writing - especially in terms of information which informs decisions and opinions - and who can blame them.

They do, as anyone does, but that isn't the case really here. Whilst some of the information released by Wikileaks is clearly not public interest, a lot of the Iraq and Guantanmo bay stuff is clearly public interest, and typically information that governments have slapped 'National Security' on, not because its actually central to the security of the nation, but that its essential to the image of that government.

Remember, these documents are their own published materials for circulation (and in theory are subject to the Freedom of Information act anyhow). Slapping 'national security' over Apache gunship camera recordings because its embrassing to the military isn't what protecting secrets is supposed to be about.

Rights to privacy as far as governments and companys go, should be used to protect them from criticism, embrassment or shame of their actions.


 


"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
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 01 Mar 13 1.25pm

Quote npn at 01 Mar 2013 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 5.44pm

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.


I don't, personally, have an issue with Wikileaks.
I don't even have an issue with Assange (aside from the facts that he seems overly arrogant and cocksure, he may be a rapist, and he shafted his friends financially without a second thought for his onwn benefit by getting them to stump up bail money for him in good faith and then doing a runner).

My issue is purely with the rule of law.

Sweden have asked for his extradition legally to face court for a crime committed in their country, as they are entitled to. Their claim has been tested in court and been found to be valid (or at least valid enough to warrent him facing their courts), and he's run off - everything about what the US may or may not do once he's in Sweden is pure conjecture (it strikes me that they'd be far more likely to get the UK to extradict him than Sweden, since we are more likely to bend over and say "thank you, sir, may I have another" but even that is largely irrelevant).

He's been before the court of the land and they have deemed it right that he should go to Sweden to face trial, and he's run off and is hiding - everything else is irrelevant to this particular case.

"Don't send me to Sweden or the nasty Amercians will get me" is not a basis for evading justice.

I agree with you there. Even though the charges seem remarkably convient in timing, if theres a case to answer then he should be extradited to Sweeden, with an offical undertaking from the US and Sweeden that no further extradition be sought.

I'm inclined to agree with you that its just an excuse because he might actually be guilty (in the current spotlight, its hard to see Sweeden actually extraditing him).


 


"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
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 01 Mar 13 1.29pm

Quote npn at 01 Mar 2013 1.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Feb 2013 5.44pm

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.


I don't, personally, have an issue with Wikileaks.
I don't even have an issue with Assange (aside from the facts that he seems overly arrogant and cocksure, he may be a rapist, and he shafted his friends financially without a second thought for his onwn benefit by getting them to stump up bail money for him in good faith and then doing a runner).

My issue is purely with the rule of law.

Sweden have asked for his extradition legally to face court for a crime committed in their country, as they are entitled to. Their claim has been tested in court and been found to be valid (or at least valid enough to warrent him facing their courts), and he's run off - everything about what the US may or may not do once he's in Sweden is pure conjecture (it strikes me that they'd be far more likely to get the UK to extradict him than Sweden, since we are more likely to bend over and say "thank you, sir, may I have another" but even that is largely irrelevant).
He's been before the court of the land and they have deemed it right that he should go to Sweden to face trial, and he's run off and is hiding - everything else is irrelevant to this particular case.

"Don't send me to Sweden or the nasty Amercians will get me" is not a basis for evading justice.

Its actually looking doubtful as to whether he's actually guilty of any crime in the US anyhow. I'm not sure that the US would be able to extradite him from us, let alone Sweeden. Technically speaking he may not have even actually committed a crime in the US, what with not being a US citizen and not being in the US at the time.


 


"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 01 Mar 13 1.40pm Send a Private Message to SloveniaDave Add SloveniaDave as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Mar 2013 1.20pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 01 Mar 2013 12.49pm
Fundamentally disagree. Both Governments and companies need, and have the right to privacy in decision making. Of course if there are substantive cases of abuse of power, corruption or possible criminal acts then they should be exposed but the problem with WIkileaks is that it is indescriminate and the vast majority of what they have published is most definitely not in the public interest. All Wikileaks has achieved, is to make Governments more secretive, in that they are much less likely now to put things in writing - especially in terms of information which informs decisions and opinions - and who can blame them.

They do, as anyone does, but that isn't the case really here. Whilst some of the information released by Wikileaks is clearly not public interest, a lot of the Iraq and Guantanmo bay stuff is clearly public interest, and typically information that governments have slapped 'National Security' on, not because its actually central to the security of the nation, but that its essential to the image of that government.

Remember, these documents are their own published materials for circulation (and in theory are subject to the Freedom of Information act anyhow). Slapping 'national security' over Apache gunship camera recordings because its embrassing to the military isn't what protecting secrets is supposed to be about.

Rights to privacy as far as governments and companys go, should be used to protect them from criticism, embrassment or shame of their actions.



Fully agree. On the point about disclosure though, all countries have degrees of classification which will include a level where the FoI Act would not apply, and quite rightly.

If, for example, our Ambasasador in Molvania wants to provide an open and accurate assessment of the Government and politicians where he is based, this will almost certainly include his opinion and/or information on the level of corruption in the country. This is information which, if it were to be leaked, would damage relations. For full and honest information to be provided, the documents must be protected from disclosure or they would not be written at all.

A very substantial part of the UK-related wikileaks are FCO telegrams whose disclosure does nothing except harm the UK.

 


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

 

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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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