You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
December 1 2021 10.43pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 8 of 14 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

 

View banksy's Profile banksy Flag Norwich 26 Feb 13 3.54am Send a Private Message to banksy Add banksy as a friend

To Stirlingsays: you raise a very good point about who to trust with data and its dissemination. That said, based upon my deep and extensive research I can only say that at the end of the day you have to trust those who are independent of governments and their tentacles of control. What is really going on behind the scenes is so diabolical that most people would not believe it. Whistle blowers and rebels in an age of increasing state/police/military control should be cherished. We need to encourage more people to stand up and be brave enough to say what's really going on.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 26 Feb 13 10.50am Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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.

 


Optimistic as ever

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


 


"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 26 Feb 13 12.05pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Feb 2013 8.48pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.31pm

You're tying yourself in knots here. You previously accused Assange of taking a pick and choose mentality to international law. So a state can bend international law whenever they choose to, but an individual subject to the same, loose, subjective law or treaty is not allowed an interpretation?

There is no maybe, maybe not on whether Sweden broke its own treaty on extradition. [Link] Guardian bias aside, it's a very well documented case of Extraordinary Rendition and the dismissal of international law as the basis for extradition.

An individual does not get to officially decide upon which laws they do or do not follow....Well, legally.

A democratic state however votes on and creates laws. It frames those laws and creates its extradition laws within its own parliament.

The nut of the problem, if a state acts illegally, they get away with it, if a person calls them to task by acting illegally, they get persicuted.

Wikileaks information on the gulf war presents further fuel to the arguement that a) the war was manufactured from the start b) that governments have broken their own laws in the 'war on terror' c) that war crimes have been committed.

When the government lacks the capacity to be lawful, then it should not be suprised when individuals act accordingly.


 


"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 26 Feb 13 12.09pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.22pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 9.16pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.09pm
They could after all have beaten Sweden to the chase and applied to extradite him from us.

Once they have him, I presume they could try him on all sorts of petty matters the like of which i've mentioned.


No, America has not yet begun extradition with neither Sweden nor the UK. Here is a really good article with three legal opinions on the likelihood and frailties of the case. [Link]


I know, I've said this about 4 times in recent posts. They could have, were they going to do what Assange keeps telling us he thinks they'll do via Sweden.

As it stands there is no case, he should stop using that as his defence against A) going to Sweden and B) breaking our laws.

In all fairness the US could not extradite him until he's extradited to Sweeden, that would prevent the Sweedish extradition from the UK.

 


"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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 26 Feb 13 12.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

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



It has no mandate. It is its own judge and executor with no accountability other than to itself.

I happily concede that there are good aspects to it, however this is surely not a healthy state of affairs.

There are practical reasons to keep some information confidential.

Who's judging Wikileaks?

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 12.21pm)

 


'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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 26 Feb 13 12.20pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.05pm

The nut of the problem, if a state acts illegally, they get away with it, if a person calls them to task by acting illegally, they get persicuted.

Wikileaks information on the gulf war presents further fuel to the arguement that a) the war was manufactured from the start b) that governments have broken their own laws in the 'war on terror' c) that war crimes have been committed.

When the government lacks the capacity to be lawful, then it should not be suprised when individuals act accordingly.

All this is incredibly, hugely subjective.

In the case of saying that states break the law and get away with it that's factually not correct.

Firstly, there is the aspect of it's not you who decides the law is broken but an actual law court.....You show your bias by announcing pre-judgement.

This thread has already dealt with the fact that what people regard as illegal is mostly purely inside their own heads. The actual legal courts haven't given out verdicts for various reasons.

illegality has to be proven in a court of law.

While it's true that individuals break the law or bend it without being caught that is also the case with states.

However the legal system is available to lawyers to use against either and case law is littered with cases brought against aspects of government.


Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 12.22pm)

 


'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 2.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 12.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

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



It has no mandate. It is its own judge and executor with no accountability other than to itself.

I happily concede that there are good aspects to it, however this is surely not a healthy state of affairs.

There are practical reasons to keep some information confidential.

Who's judging Wikileaks?

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 12.21pm)

Arguably it is accountable, given the recent efforts of the US to single out wikileaks, and Assange.

Whilst there are practical reasons for some information to be kept confidential, in most cases this seems to have been to protect 'the cause and reputation of state' rather than to actual national security. Its worth noting that wikileaks redacts information from its leaks as well.

Wikileaks is simply doing the job the 4th Estate is supposed to have performed, holding the state accountable.

 


"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 26 Feb 13 2.12pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 12.20pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.05pm

The nut of the problem, if a state acts illegally, they get away with it, if a person calls them to task by acting illegally, they get persicuted.

Wikileaks information on the gulf war presents further fuel to the arguement that a) the war was manufactured from the start b) that governments have broken their own laws in the 'war on terror' c) that war crimes have been committed.

When the government lacks the capacity to be lawful, then it should not be suprised when individuals act accordingly.

All this is incredibly, hugely subjective.

In the case of saying that states break the law and get away with it that's factually not correct.

Firstly, there is the aspect of it's not you who decides the law is broken but an actual law court.....You show your bias by announcing pre-judgement.

This thread has already dealt with the fact that what people regard as illegal is mostly purely inside their own heads. The actual legal courts haven't given out verdicts for various reasons.

illegality has to be proven in a court of law.

While it's true that individuals break the law or bend it without being caught that is also the case with states.

However the legal system is available to lawyers to use against either and case law is littered with cases brought against aspects of government.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 12.22pm)

Governments have authority and influence beyond that attainable to the individual, and the capacity to protect itself through control of information that is prejudical, and routinely operates to do so (hence the need for whistleblowers and leaks).

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the UK and US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful and in violation of international law, and even then predicated on wholely selectively presented and false information, and that as a result tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives.

I'd be suprised if anyone else really thought otherwise, especially in hindsight.

Also, I think it would be wholely false to suggest that the UK and US were not actively involved in torture, and kidknapping (rendition) and imprisonment without trial, as well as illegal extraditions to states of individual for torture (or complicity to allow their airspace and resources to be used for such).

Thats established fact, and all are criminal actions in violation of UK undertakings under international and domestic laws. It'll never get to court, because ultimately political necessity means self protection.


 


"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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 26 Feb 13 2.24pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 2.04pm

Arguably it is accountable, given the recent efforts of the US to single out wikileaks, and Assange.

Oh come on Jamie, that is risible. Besides most on the left argue that it's persecution and not accountability.

They don't have a mandate and holding them to account as you can a newspaper is very difficult....Not the same thing.

Your point about holding states to account I agree with, though if Wikileaks is the answer then it's a poor one.

Whistle blowing is a good thing......Organized whistle blowing with no accountability....Nope.

I would have more time for Wikileaks if their releases were independently vetted. Not by government but not by their supporters either. But of course that would defeat the purpose of Wikileaks.....Leaks are the operative word.

It's not about 'judgement' it's about free access to all information...It's an agenda, hiding behind a purpose that has some good aspects to it but also some poor ones....Both for a democracy and for fairness...In my view.

It's not fair that all information is open season, confidentially isn't always for malign purpose.....As I say Wikileaks have no mandate to be the 4th Estate or anything else.

Investigative but accountable journalism is a far better modus operandi.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 2.38pm)

 


'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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 26 Feb 13 2.51pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 2.12pm


Governments have authority and influence beyond that attainable to the individual, and the capacity to protect itself through control of information that is prejudical, and routinely operates to do so (hence the need for whistleblowers and leaks).

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the UK and US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful and in violation of international law, and even then predicated on wholely selectively presented and false information, and that as a result tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives.

I'd be suprised if anyone else really thought otherwise, especially in hindsight.

Also, I think it would be wholely false to suggest that the UK and US were not actively involved in torture, and kidknapping (rendition) and imprisonment without trial, as well as illegal extraditions to states of individual for torture (or complicity to allow their airspace and resources to be used for such).

Thats established fact, and all are criminal actions in violation of UK undertakings under international and domestic laws. It'll never get to court, because ultimately political necessity means self protection.



I don't agree with much of your 'established facts'. You use the word 'illegal' out of context. It's not a fact, it's an opinion.

Cases based upon some of your arguments have been taken to different courts.

None of them have succeeded.

The wars were framed to be legal in the context of international law....Or to be more exact, framed to be difficult to prove as anything other than legal.

What is 'legal' in international law has the regular habit of changing to suit the agendas of those setting it.

The word, 'consequences' sufficed for war and in terms of legality that's pretty much that.

 


'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 3.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 2.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 2.04pm

Arguably it is accountable, given the recent efforts of the US to single out wikileaks, and Assange.

Oh come on Jamie, that is risible. Besides most on the left argue that it's persecution and not accountability.

They don't have a mandate and holding them to account as you can a newspaper is very difficult....Not the same thing.

Your point about holding states to account I agree with, though if Wikileaks is the answer then it's a poor one.

Whistle blowing is a good thing......Organized whistle blowing with no accountability....Nope.

I would have more time for Wikileaks if their releases were independently vetted. Not by government but not by their supporters either. But of course that would defeat the purpose of Wikileaks.....Leaks are the operative word.

It's not about 'judgement' it's about free access to all information...It's an agenda, hiding behind a purpose that has some good aspects to it but also some poor ones....Both for a democracy and for fairness...In my view.

It's not fair that all information is open season, confidentially isn't always for malign purpose.....As I say Wikileaks have no mandate to be the 4th Estate or anything else.

Investigative but accountable journalism is a far better modus operandi.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 2.38pm)

I'd agree, but when the state and fourth estate fails to live up to their responsibilities and duties, then its not suprising that a less accountable and responsible entity fills their place.


The UK media, for example, in the run up to the gulf war and aftermath have done little to restore the balance of faith in those institutions. We know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the members of parliment and prime ministers either lied or presented very poorly sourced uncollaborated intelligence to present a case for war, and that even institutions within the UK and US government, including the CIA were distrustful of both the intelligence and viewed the sources as both distrustful and unreliable.

As for international law, the US and UK acted to fulfil their interpretation of an old security council resolution, without the sanction of the other members of the security council.

Call it what you will, but that war was entirely fabricated for ulteria motives, and those responsible were never held to account for those actions.

As for facts, court cases are still ongoing regarding torture, documented evidence of rendition and permission for rendition exist, along with the details of 'ghost prisons' operated by the US, and possibly UK. The US legalised torture as a means of interogation and stood by it, openly, and accounts of innocent people tortured by the state on cases of mistaken identity exist, and have been corrobroated.

The US has reinitiated assassination (using drones, that violate international airspace, and launch illegal strikes in numerous nations, that result in the death of forigen nationals as 'collateral damage').

 


"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 8 of 14 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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