• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Assange

'Women Against *struggle cuddle* of those we have sympathy with'

A curious article positively clanging with cognitive dissonance.
 
Somewhere there was extensive detailed reports on the Assange hearings relating to the alleged crime in Sweden. Some of his own defence was disturbing, but sadly has been lost in this ridiculous martyr act. Will try and locate the links.
 
DubaiSpur said:
He released sensitive information. People will undoubtedly face repercussions as a result of some of the revelations of said information. However, arguing that he's a clown shoe for releasing it in the first place is disingenuous. The fact remains that by releasing the information he precipitated this present discussion about the release of 'sensitive' information; when is something too sensitive to be released? Because if anyone supposes that no information should be released on the grounds that it's 'sensitive' then eventually, almost anything vaguely embarrassing to anybody in power will be locked away on the grounds that it's 'sensitive'. We've already seen things like the US Apache attack footage hidden away because it was supposedly 'sensitive', despite the fact that all it did was show US troops committing atrocities. Would it potentially expose US troops to revenge attacks? Yes, it would, and probably did. However, hiding it away isn't something anyone should stand for, not in a supposedly liberal democracy. That would, and does, reek of hypocrisy.

In any case, Assange is, in my eyes, a bigger hypocrite than most. He praised Ecuador as '" a courageous Latin American nation (that) took a stand for justice". One of the most corrupt, unjust countries in Latin America is being praised by this supposedly moral and avowedly pro-justice bloke because they gave him a place to hide. I don't know if the US will extradite him when he sets foot outside the embassy, but I certainly think he's proven to the world just how much of a two-faced coward he really is, regardless of his supposed innocence or guilt. When the chips were down, he gave up all pretense of being a just and honest man and fled to the safety of a repressive regime. Deserving of all the opprobrium he gets? Certainly.
Click to expand...
=D> Good post.
Agree with everything there.

Also, I think its unfortunate that many seem to think that it is all the left who agree with that particular article and the sentiments behind it, it's akin to me believing all of the right agree with the Daily mail or the telegraph.

At the end of the day, anyone accused of committing a crime must stand trial no matter who you are and what you do however, the trial must be a fair one which I'm sure the *struggle cuddle* case will (Marcospur I haven't seen those either, cheers if you find them) be in Sweden and If afterwards he is extradited to america it will most definitely not be a fair trial which is the concern.
 
Ignoring Assange as a person for a while, what are people's views on wikileaks?

Apart from not being a wiki and so not very well named I can see some real positives in it, although my opinions on this aren't that strong as I haven't looked at it in detail enough and I do see some of the criticism as valid. However, if it was only in or about regimes people don't like I think most people would support it and their founders. The assumption/premise from the critics seems to be that our western societies are so good that we don't need a wikileaks type site. I disagree, especially as I think the increasing monopolization of the media along with seemingly more agenda and commercially driven journalism we're not really seeing the media being the watchdog it's supposed to be.

There are things wikileaks should do differently, primarily the way they deal with information that might directly lead to undercover agents being exposed and potentially executed, but the service they provide falls within free speech, or should do so in my opinion.
 
Wikileaks is overhyped, and highly questionable in its approach to openness and ethics. They have nothing on true heroic whistleblowers of the past.
 
I think some things are kept secret for good reason

The way I see it wiki leaks takes a scattergun approach and just release everything they get their hands on whereas with a considered and targeted approach they would send a stronger message with a higher level of respect
 
galeforce said:
I think some things are kept secret for good reason
Click to expand...

Assuming you don't mean that wikileaks keep some things secret for good reason.

Who do you trust to make the decisions on what should be kept secret and what should be made official? Do you think those people are in charge of making those decisions?

Are things really being "kept secred" if a low ranked soldier can access hundreds of thousands of supposedly secret documents?

galeforce said:
The way I see it wiki leaks takes a scattergun approach and just release everything they get their hands on whereas with a considered and targeted approach they would send a stronger message with a higher level of respect
Click to expand...

I agree that their way of publishing is far from ideal.
 
braineclipse said:
Assuming you don't mean that wikileaks keep some things secret for good reason.

Who do you trust to make the decisions on what should be kept secret and what should be made official? Do you think those people are in charge of making those decisions?

Are things really being "kept secred" if a low ranked soldier can access hundreds of thousands of supposedly secret documents?
Click to expand...

In a democracy, you vote for the people you trust. If you don't trust them, don't vote for them.

And even then, I would rather a select few I didn't trust over an open book policy, because I trust the general public even less.
 
Superted said:
In a democracy, you vote for the people you trust. If you don't trust them, don't vote for them.

And even then, I would rather a select few I didn't trust over an open book policy, because I trust the general public even less.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that

and yes originally I meant government/state/law enforcement have a right (in some cases even an obligation) to keep things which are not in the public interest a secret
 
Superted said:
In a democracy, you vote for the people you trust. If you don't trust them, don't vote for them.

And even then, I would rather a select few I didn't trust over an open book policy, because I trust the general public even less.
Click to expand...

Any need for a free press then? Or should we just vote for people we trust and leave it at that?

People who have been elected is one thing, there are also bureaucrats and other non-elected officials. And with what is going on especially in the US with lobbyists and massive campaign donations to individuals I would have trust issues to put it mildly. Not to mention the military where the public has very little influence over who gets the top jobs.

To be clear I'm not arguing for an open book policy. If you imagine that as the most open system possible and something like North Korea as the most closed then we should aim to be somewhere in between those two extremes. I just haven't seen any convincing argument that wikileaks is where the line should be drawn.

galeforce said:
I agree 100% with that

and yes originally I meant government/state/law enforcement have a right (in some cases even an obligation) to keep things which are not in the public interest a secret
Click to expand...

I agree that governments have an obligation to keep some things secret. Key word being "some things". I don't see how one diplomat thinking that another diplomat is a dingdong is one of those things and I don't think the problem is that it is made public, the problem is the way that kind of thing is put into writing in the first place. And, again, if these things really are secrets then keep them secret in a way where a low ranked soldier can't access tons of these documents. I would say that it's probably better (at least in some cases) that this kind of information is made public than being obtained by spies or sold to the highest bidder on the black market. At least with a leak like this the original government will know that others have this information and they can close some security holes.

I do have some issues with the way these things are being published though, as I have already said.
 
the problem is that there is no context, they don't understand the information they release, they could easily put trade agreements or even lives in danger

i'm all for disclosure when laws are being broken but not everything is for the public eye
 
A free press should be there to inform you so you can make an assessment of who you trust and who you don't. Obviously it's not flawless, and the press definition of "free" is going to be at the loose end of the scale.

But in theory, in a democracy, if the people are fed up with jobs for the boys and corruption, then they should be able to form a poltical party/movement/group and get some traction. If there's enough dissatisfaction and angst, then change can happen.

Unfortunately, corruption generally exists and grows where there is apathy in the masses.

On the subject of a "free" press, I read regarding the naked Harry pics, the editor of The Sun said the public had a right to see the pics. What the?
 
exactly, how is a few naked pics of a ginger bloke in the public interest?

anyone who claims to be interested in them should be locked up for being an idiot, although i'd say that about pretty much every story in the tabloids
 
galeforce said:
exactly, how is a few naked pics of a ginger bloke in the public interest?

anyone who claims to be interested in them should be locked up for being an idiot, although i'd say that about pretty much every story in the tabloids
Click to expand...

Equally it's not in the public interest to block the publication. Harry is an idiot (the ginger one, not our 'Arry) and deserves the embarrassment. In his position he should realise that getting naked with a bunch of women picked up in a Vegas casino bar is not sensible.

On Wikileaks, there is a place for organisations that facilitate whistleblowers. In some ways their filtering of leaks through the major newspapers (Guardian, NYT, Stern?) was a good approach, but they have gone beyond that. Such an organisation also needs to be led by responsible people and Assange is a flake. His cosying up to anti-free press south american populists is an much a concern as his attitude to safe sex.
 
Says who? Thousands do worse every weekend. If he was out there preaching the moral high ground then maybe but from what I'm aware he nor his family have ever held him up to be anything other than a typical boy.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial-vendetta-wikileaks-activists-mounts

If you're really interested in this thing, I strongly recommend you read this article by Birgitta Jonsdottir, member of the Icelandic Parliament and supporter of WikiLeaks. The U.S. tried to gain access to her Twitter account in order to obtain information for a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks. Although she's had assurances from the U.S. ambassador in Iceland that she has free-passage into the U.S., her legal team along with the Icelandic Department of State, have strongly recommended that she refrain from visiting the U.S. because of this.

She also states with certainty that there is an ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks and that Assange would be sought by the U.S. Now, if this thing was so cut and dry, why don't Sweden simply give him the guarantee of not extraditing him overseas?
 
galeforce said:
the problem is that there is no context, they don't understand the information they release, they could easily put trade agreements or even lives in danger

i'm all for disclosure when laws are being broken but not everything is for the public eye
Click to expand...

That is one side of it and of course a risk.

On the other side you have potentially very damaging situations that can be made public and stopped. There are some possibly major upsides along with the downsides those negative to wikileaks correctly identify.

Superted said:
A free press should be there to inform you so you can make an assessment of who you trust and who you don't. Obviously it's not flawless, and the press definition of "free" is going to be at the loose end of the scale.

But in theory, in a democracy, if the people are fed up with jobs for the boys and corruption, then they should be able to form a poltical party/movement/group and get some traction. If there's enough dissatisfaction and angst, then change can happen.

Unfortunately, corruption generally exists and grows where there is apathy in the masses.

On the subject of a "free" press, I read regarding the naked Harry pics, the editor of The Sun said the public had a right to see the pics. What the?
Click to expand...

You say that if people are fed up with corruption then the people should be able to take action, the very thing that is so damaging about corruption is how it keeps people from taking action.

You say a free press should be there to inform people, do you think they are doing that job well enough in countries like the US? If not, who are there to pick up the slack?
 
Icelander said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial-vendetta-wikileaks-activists-mounts

If you're really interested in this thing, I strongly recommend you read this article by Birgitta Jonsdottir, member of the Icelandic Parliament and supporter of WikiLeaks. The U.S. tried to gain access to her Twitter account in order to obtain information for a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks. Although she's had assurances from the U.S. ambassador in Iceland that she has free-passage into the U.S., her legal team along with the Icelandic Department of State, have strongly recommended that she refrain from visiting the U.S. because of this.

She also states with certainty that there is an ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks and that Assange would be sought by the U.S. Now, if this thing was so cut and dry, why don't Sweden simply give him the guarantee of not extraditing him overseas?
Click to expand...


Why should they? They are under no obligation to give guarantees on anything. All they are seeking to do is question him on these *struggle cuddle* charges, it is not a requirement that they should have to guarantee that nothing else will happen at all.

Assange must have known that the US would try and come for him eventually and unfortunately may need to deal with the consequences of that.

I wonder if the irony is lost on him that he has sough asylum in one of the most corrupy countries in S America where Correa is engaged in all out war on the press and their freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back