# The Great Big Julian Assange Thread



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

> *Julian Assange can be arrested in embassy, UK warns Ecuador
> 
> Ahead of decision on WikiLeaks founder's asylum claim, Quito accuses Britain of threat to trample international law*
> 
> ...





Statement from Wikileaks



> Statement on UK threat to storm Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Someone powerful really wants him to stand trial to take it this far.


----------



## Awesome (Aug 16, 2012)

Government mad that Assange let out their secrets?


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

He's not facing trial (not yet anyway). He's being extradited for questioning.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

I've never liked Assange so don't care


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> I've never liked Assange so don't care



Whether or not you like him, you should care that world governments are trying to make an example of him by punishing him for letting their bad deeds to be known. 

It's quite obvious that is what this is about.

He's a whistle blower. We need transparency in government. I don't like him personally, but I mostly agree with his message. He shouldn't be punished for what he did. The governments/officials he exposed are the ones that should face punishment

If the UK invades another country's embassy, it will be a big diplomatic blunder...


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Whether or not you like him, you should care that world governments are trying to make an example of him by punishing him for letting their bad deeds to be known.
> 
> It's quite obvious that is what this is about.
> 
> ...



Actually the reason why I don't like him is because of his indiscriminate release of secrets.

I'm a big fan of transparency but not at the sake of national security. I accept that there are some things the public just shouldn't know immediately if ever. It was like that during the revolution and nothing has changed.

Transparency for the sake of transparency is just stupid. And further even if what he did was right he still broke the law he should have been prepared for that.


----------



## kyubix2 (Aug 16, 2012)

National security LOL. national security is the word most used to hide LIES.

The power do not like their secrets to be shared on the internet. Any bad action of the governments must be punished by society , not the inverse , governments punishing society for showing what they do... 

It is like if you show a diary of a massive killer, so the killer is free, but you go to jail for "showing personal stuff". Ok , really makes sense huh?


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

kyubix2 said:


> National security LOL. national security is the word most used to hide LIES.
> 
> The power do not like their secrets to be shared on the internet. Any bad action of the governments must be punished by society , not the inverse , governments punishing society for showing what they do...
> 
> It is like if you show a diary of a massive killer, so the killer is free, but you go to jail for "showing personal stuff". Ok , really makes sense huh?



none of that makes sense perhaps less rambling rant and more logical presentation?


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 16, 2012)

I thought the guy was on the Kremlin's mouthpiece RT telling us all how Assad is great strong leader and the rebels are all AL KAYDA!

The guy of course wouldn't be appearing on Russian state TV if he cared about freedom of speech or journalistic integrity, given Putin's Russia track record on dealing with whistleblowers/journalists/dissenters.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> Actually the reason why I don't like him is because of his indiscriminate release of secrets.
> 
> I'm a big fan of transparency but not at the sake of national security. I accept that there are some things the public just shouldn't know immediately if ever. It was like that during the revolution and nothing has changed.
> 
> Transparency for the sake of transparency is just stupid. And further even if what he did was right he still broke the law he should have been prepared for that.



What did he release that threatened national security? It may have damaged some countries reputations, but that's completely different.

All of it was past events and diplomatic conversations that mad countries look bad because it showed their immoral and illegal actions. 

He should not be punished for letting the public know what their governments were secretly doing.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

If the US wanted him extradited, it would be much easier to get him extradited from the UK to the US than from Sweden.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> What did he release that threatened national security? It may have damaged some countries reputations, but that's completely different.
> 
> All of it was past events and diplomatic conversations that mad countries look bad because it showed their immoral and illegal actions.
> 
> He should not be punished for letting the public know what their governments were secretly doing.





this isn't about transparency it's about Assange needing to stroke his ego

and nothing he has released recently has been anything but confidental communications


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Statement from Wikileaks
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find it kind weird that a country would be so desperate to get someone to stand trial for sexual assault. You don't see govts being so heavily involved with other sexual assault cases. I'm amazed no one else finds this odd.



Matto-sama said:


> Whether or not you like him, you should care that world governments are trying to make an example of him by punishing him for letting their bad deeds to be known.
> 
> It's quite obvious that is what this is about.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Isn't a foreign embassy not the property of the country it's located in, but the country it represents? Invading the embassy would be like invading a foreign country. That would create huge diplomatic issues. I wouldn't be surprised if Ecuador agrees to give Assange asylum just to snub the UK because of this.

@drache: what's this about national security? Would you really prefer to be kept in the dark about crimes your own govt commits? Here I'm referring to collateral murder, that case where Bradley Manning was jailed for. When the govt does this kind of thing, it makes you think twice about who's on the good side and who isn't. The worst these leaks did is damage some international relationships and that's about it.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I find it kind weird that a country would be so desperate to get someone to stand trial for sexual assault. You don't see govts being so heavily involved with other sexual assault cases. I'm amazed no one else finds this odd.



Not even that. Isn't he just wanted for questioning? I don't think he's been charged with a crime yet, but I could be wrong. 

If he's just wanted for question, it makes it even more suspicious.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I find it kind weird that a country would be so desperate to get someone to stand trial for sexual assault. You don't see govts being so heavily involved with other sexual assault cases. I'm amazed no one else finds this odd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



before you strawman me freedan, I never said that I did say I thought Assange was an asshat for releasing confidential information that has absolutely no crime involved.

I rather liked Assange at first, I thought he was someone willing to blow the whistle but it's not about that for him. It's jsut pure ego and not about actually accomplishing something

And if you think it simple to blow off damaging international relationships you are naive

let me add that extraditions happen every day and the prosecutors are just as tenious in those cases the only thing 'odd' here is that Assange is in the media so we hear about it. No offense but generally there's no conspiracy just humanity


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> before you strawman me freedan, I never said that I did say I thought Assange was an asshat for releasing confidential information that has absolutely no crime involved.
> 
> I rather liked Assange at first, I thought he was someone willing to blow the whistle but it's not about that for him. It's jsut pure ego and not about actually accomplishing something
> 
> And if you think it simple to blow off damaging international relationships you are naive



It's good to know that you would want to be aware of what your govt is doing, except Assange never did release anything that damaged national security. Just to be sure, how do you actually define "national security?" I always had it that it was a case of protecting the country from foreign threats.

I'm not saying damaging international relationships is good. If anything, it's a dangerous thing, but you have think about who's the one who's really at fault here. Do you think Assange would deliberately try to damage the US's foreign relations if the US did nothing that would threaten it in the first place? Assange isn't the only one to blame here.



drache said:


> let me add that extraditions happen every day and the prosecutors are just as tenious in those cases the only thing 'odd' here is that Assange is in the media so we hear about it. No offense but generally there's no conspiracy just humanity



They do, but to the extent of invading the private property of another country? That's quite extreme if you ask me, especially just for sexual assault charges (possibly simple questioning).


----------



## impersonal (Aug 16, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I thought the guy was on the Kremlin's mouthpiece RT telling us all how Assad is great strong leader and the rebels are all AL KAYDA!
> 
> The guy of course wouldn't be appearing on Russian state TV if he cared about freedom of speech or journalistic integrity, given Putin's Russia track record on dealing with whistleblowers/journalists/dissenters.



Well, I think he takes any publicity he can get. But as others have said, that's not the point here -- the point is that nations (especially the UK) will go to extraordinary lengths to arrest him and please US interests, even at the expense of international law (remember that this guy is wanted in Sweden for questioning over bullshit rape charges? Does that justify that the UK attack the Ecuadorian embassy?).  This makes clearer what I have said elsewhere, namely that the UK is little more than a 51st US state.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

> will go to extraordinary lengths to arrest him and please US interests


If they were doing this for the US, why not just put him on a plane and sent him straight to the US? Or why even bother granting him entry into the country at all? Why grant him bail (which he's now violated)?



> remember that this guy is wanted in Sweden for questioning over bullshit rape charges?


You're assuming the charges are bullshit and that the US is somehow responsible. It's certainly possible that he actually did rape or molest those women. It's possible he just pissed them off one way or another and they want revenge. It's possible that he won't face any charges at all.

Of course, Assange is a paranoid and egomaniacal jackass, so he's going to see it as some sort of shadowy multi-government conspiracy engineered by the US. But, he choose Sweden. He wanted to live there. He applied for residency. You think a guy like Assange would do his homework and make sure to pick a good place, particularly given his paranoia.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> You're assuming the charges are bullshit and that the US is somehow responsible. It's certainly possible that he actually did rape or molest those women. It's possible he just pissed them off one way or another and they want revenge. It's possible that he won't face any charges at all.



And it's not strange the UK is even willing to strain diplomatic relations with another country over one man? Is someone wanted for questioning on a few sex charges really worth that much?



NanoHaxial said:


> Of course, Assange is a paranoid and egomaniacal jackass, so he's going to see it as some sort of shadowy multi-government conspiracy engineered by the US. But, he choose Sweden. He wanted to live there. He applied for residency. You think a guy like Assange would do his homework and make sure to pick a good place, particularly given his paranoia.



Considering how far the UK is willing to go for this guy, doesn't it strike you as odd? At all?


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> If they were doing this for the US, why not just put him on a plane and sent him straight to the US? Or why even bother granting him entry into the country at all? Why grant him bail (which he's now violated)?



On what grounds? They need to at least pretend to have a reason to take him into custody, or they're violating his rights and it's not going to fly. 

They have to grant him bail because they have no legal reason not to. Again, countries aren't going to overtly commit illegal actions and piss everyone off. 



NanoHaxial said:


> You're assuming the charges are bullshit and that the US is somehow responsible. It's certainly possible that he actually did rape or molest those women. It's possible he just pissed them off one way or another and they want revenge. It's possible that he won't face any charges at all.



It's possible he did commit those acts. 

However, there have been no charges filed against him. He's only wanted for questioning and Ecuador offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to interview Assange inside the embassy. The fact that they just want to talk (no charges yet) and denied that opportunity is suspicious. 



> Neither U.S. nor Swedish authorities have charged Assange with anything. Swedish prosecutors want to question him about allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two WikiLeaks supporters in 2010.





> "Even though there isn't a trial, there aren't judicial proceedings against him, Sweden wants to imprison him ... That's why we asked the Swedish government to question him where he's now," Patino said as he expressed disbelief that Sweden had turned down the offer.



​


NanoHaxial said:


> Of course, Assange is a paranoid and egomaniacal jackass, so he's going to see it as some sort of shadowy multi-government conspiracy engineered by the US. But, he choose Sweden. He wanted to live there. He applied for residency. You think a guy like Assange would do his homework and make sure to pick a good place, particularly given his paranoia.



He has every right to be paranoid. He's angered a lot of top government officials in many different countries. People generally don't get away with things like that.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Of course, Assange is a paranoid and egomaniacal jackass, so he's going to see it as some sort of shadowy multi-government conspiracy engineered by the US. But, he choose Sweden. He wanted to live there. He applied for residency. You think a guy like Assange would do his homework and make sure to pick a good place, particularly given his paranoia.



You can call him an egomaniacal jackass all you want, but it's bit absurd to call him paranoid.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

> On what grounds? They need to at least pretend to have a reason to take him into custody, or they're violating his rights and it's not going to fly.


On the grounds that the US wants to charge him with anything (like releasing classified information). If the US can mastermind a rape charge in Sweden, surely they can come up with something to bring him to the US.



> They have to grant him bail because they have no legal reason not to.


Unless they consider him a flight risk. Again, if they were really out to get him they could easily find a reason to hold him in custody.


----------



## Spock (Aug 16, 2012)

Replace it with he UK flag if you want.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> On the grounds that the US wants to charge him with anything (like releasing classified information). If the US can mastermind a rape charge in Sweden, surely they can come up with something to bring him to the US.



So you're basically saying that the US could and should make shit up about Assange to bring him in and they'd have every right to? He's not even a US citizen, they have no legal power or jurisdiction over him.



Rarity said:


> Replace it with he UK flag if you want.



I would rep you but I've been 24'd


----------



## Linkdarkside (Aug 16, 2012)

I hope he goes to jail.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 16, 2012)

impersonal said:


> This makes clearer what I have said elsewhere, namely that the UK is little more than a 51st US state.



You are just full of the most heinous dog shite. Fucking French constantly butt hurt at the UK. Yes I’m sure because the UK and US pursue common interests then the UK must be bowing down to Washington.

Then again, I’m sure the UK would rather be part of Ame_ru_ca anyday then some despot shit hole like the Confederate States of Europe. Even though both of them are equally shit holes.



Rarity said:


> Replace it with he UK flag if you want.



Yep, because the UK and US illegally test nuclear missiles.

Fucking A.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

, so let's see how this plays out. 

And to those saying he has nothing to worry about: 



> Speaking in the Ecuadorian capital, Quito, Pati?o said that his country had offered to allow Assange's extradition to Sweden if it would guarantee that he would not be moved to the US, but that Sweden had not agreed.



Apparently, Sweden would not guarantee he would not be extradited to the US. If they simply wanted to question him and not extradite him, why not guarantee? Why not come to the embassy and talk to him there as the Ecuadorian Embassy said it would permit?


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Apparently, Sweden would not guarantee he would not be extradited to the US. If they simply wanted to question him and not extradite him, why not guarantee? Why not come to the embassy and talk to him there as the Ecuadorian Embassy said it would permit?



This entire deal is really bothering me. He's wanted for questioning, and for a case that has virtually nothing to do with the US. The US hasn't charged him for anything either, yet they wish to put him behind bars (and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to put him on death row despite him not being under US jurisdiction by way of citizenship). That being said, there's no reason to extradite him to the US, and Sweden not being able to make such a guarantee is really off. 

Ecuador is really trying to be neutral the way I see it, and it's done a good job so far. I suspect they'll be on to something.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> This entire deal is really bothering me. He's wanted for questioning, and for a case that has virtually nothing to do with the US. The US hasn't charged him for anything either, yet they wish to put him behind bars (and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to put him on death row despite him not being under US jurisdiction by way of citizenship). That being said, there's no reason to extradite him to the US, and Sweden not being able to make such a guarantee is really off.



And he hasn't been charged with a crime yet. Why imprison him if he hasn't been charged? 

And the UK: 





> The British government told Ecuador that its orders to extradite Assange would override any asylum order, and that it could still move to arrest Assange



Why would the UK risk such intense diplomatic tension/strain over someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime? Governments routinely let people get away with murder (literally) to avoid diplomatic tension.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> And he hasn't been charged with a crime yet. Why imprison him if he hasn't been charged?
> 
> And the UK:
> 
> Why would the UK risk such intense diplomatic tension/strain over someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime? Governments routinely let people get away with murder (literally) to avoid diplomatic tension.



More than why, I have to wonder how can they imprison him when no charges have been made, and seemingly no evidence other than "victims'" testimony (which can and have been proven false in other cases, such as the one with the football player)?

Showing there's more to this than a simple rape case. Like I said, he's in a foreign embassy, and invading that is like invading a foreign country. The UK shouldn't have any authority there.


----------



## Doge (Aug 16, 2012)

Rarity said:


> Replace it with he UK flag if you want.




Correction: He would be dead.


----------



## abcd (Aug 16, 2012)

> 14:27 BST
> 
> More from Patino's expansive press conference earlier.
> 
> ...





wtf sweden ??


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> More than why, I have to wonder how can they imprison him when no charges have been made, and seemingly no evidence other than "victims'" testimony (which can and have been proven false in other cases, such as the one with the football player)?
> 
> Showing there's more to this than a simple rape case. Like I said, he's in a foreign embassy, and invading that is like invading a foreign country. The UK shouldn't have any authority there.



The UK has authority there because it's on the US' orders and according to the US it has authority everywhere


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> The UK has authority there *because it's on the US' orders* and according to the US it has authority everywhere



Where's your proof of this, or is this something you're pulling out your ass.


----------



## davidpliskin (Aug 16, 2012)

The US doesn't need to charge Assange with anything, according to the NDAA that 97% of US senators voted for and the President signed, they can detain Assange indefinitely without charge. The US only needs a way to get their hands on him.  As for the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy is insane, what would the US or UK think if China stormed their embassy.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

^ NDAA only applies to US citizens. Assange is not a US citizen.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

davidpliskin said:


> The US doesn't need to charge Assange with anything, according to the NDAA that 97% of US senators voted for and the President signed, they can detain Assange indefinitely without charge. The US only needs a way to get their hands on him.  As for the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy is insane, what would the US or UK think if China stormed their embassy.



What would happen if the UK did storm it? Does the embassy have armed guards? Would there be a gun fight? 

And storming an embassy would be grounds for war, according to most. (Though I doubt Ecuador would declare war since it would have no chance of winning. Another example of a powerful country bullying the less powerful)



Freedan said:


> ^ NDAA only applies to US citizens. Assange is not a US citizen.



The US already indefinitely detains non-citizens without charges (see Guantanamo Bay) so the US could detain him if they wanted.


----------



## Altron (Aug 16, 2012)

Rarity said:


> Replace it with he UK flag if you want.


lol I doubt he would be able to get anything on North Korea considering how hard it is for countries like the US to get any major intelligence on North Korean military capabilities. Also pretty sure North Korea would hunt him down till they killed him.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## davidpliskin (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> ^ NDAA only applies to US citizens. Assange is not a US citizen.



You are mistaken, the NDAA covers citizens and non citizens alike.  And as Matto-Sama pointed out the US already detains non citizens indefinitely the NDAA only tries to give it a more pseudo legal frame work.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

davidpliskin said:


> You are mistaken, the NDAA covers citizens and non citizens alike.  And as Matto-Sama pointed out the US already detains non citizens indefinitely the NDAA only tries to give it a more pseudo legal frame work.



Wow. This is a nice way for the US to control the world. Surely there has to be something to it which limits its ability to detail most people in the world. Perhaps you need to be a US resident? :WOW


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Wow. This is a nice way for the US to control the world. *Surely there has to be something to it which limits its ability to detail most people in the world*. Perhaps you need to be a US resident? :WOW



Well the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent this type of thing, but the government apparently doesn't give a shit about that.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

Lately the govt hasn't been giving a shit about the constitution in the first place


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> , so let's see how this plays out.
> 
> And to those saying he has nothing to worry about:
> 
> ...



Assange granted asylum 

Great news


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Assange granted asylum
> 
> Great news



Definitely 

Though it's sad when Ecuador is upholding human rights better than the UK or Sweden


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

MbS said:


> You are just full of the most heinous dog shite. Fucking French constantly butt hurt at the UK. Yes I?m sure because the UK and US pursue common interests then the UK must be bowing down to Washington.
> 
> Then again, I?m sure the UK would rather be part of Ame_ru_ca anyday then some despot shit hole like the Confederate States of Europe. Even though both of them are equally shit holes.



What are these common interests? The UK hasn't charged Assange with anything, only Sweden and the US want him for questioning, so Britain is either crawling up Sweden's or America's back side, you can guess which one is more likely.


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> What are these common interests? The UK hasn't charged Assange with anything, only Sweden and the US want him for questioning, so Britain is either crawling up Sweden's or America's back side, you can guess which one is more likely.



Not to mention neither Sweden or the US charges Assange anyways. They really have nothing with which to arrest him if all they want him for is questioning.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 16, 2012)

Well in, Ecuador.


----------



## davidpliskin (Aug 16, 2012)

This is definitely good new that Ecuador has granted asylum, now the trick is getting him out of the country and the plane he is on not mysteriously crashing in the ocean.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

davidpliskin said:


> This is definitely good new that Ecuador has granted asylum, now the trick is getting him out of the country and the plane he is on not mysteriously crashing in the ocean.



I hope something can be arranged. Staying inside the embassy forever would suck...


----------



## Son of Goku (Aug 16, 2012)

MbS said:


> Yep, because the UK and US illegally test nuclear missiles.
> 
> Fucking A.



No, they don't and neither is North Korea, not having signed any treaty that would make it illegal, you know?! 
However the US conducted over 1000 tests (killing John Wayne btw.) and the UK did 45 before they got tired of it. North Korea: 2 tests.


----------



## soulnova (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> What are these common interests? The UK hasn't charged Assange with anything, only Sweden and the US want him for questioning, so Britain is either crawling up Sweden's or America's back side, you can guess which one is more likely.



Missing the point as always, sauf. God, do try and keep up.

I was attacking that bold assertion by impersonal because he is just plain wrong on the UK?s overall relationship with the US.



Son of Goku said:


> No, they don't and neither is North Korea, not having signed any treaty that would make it illegal, you know?!
> However the US conducted over 1000 tests (killing John Wayne btw.) and the UK did 45 before they got tired of it. North Korea: 2 tests.



Yeah, I?m pretty comfortable with North Korea experimenting with nukes.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

MbS said:


> Missing the point as always, sauf. God, do try and keep up.
> 
> I was attacking that bold assertion by impersonal because he is just plain wrong on the UK’s overall relationship with the US.



So you're not denying that this is an instance of the UK sucking up to the US?



Son of Goku said:


> No, they don't and neither is North Korea, not having signed any treaty that would make it illegal, you know?!
> However the US conducted over 1000 tests (killing John Wayne btw.) and the UK did 45 before they got tired of it. North Korea: 2 tests.



They had actually signed a treaty that made it illegal, but they've quit it.


----------



## Mael (Aug 16, 2012)

IIRC this was about the UK looking for Assange, not the US.  But yeah tinfoil hats a go-go.  The UK has a "special" relationship with the US I won't deny but until I see further evidence I'm declaring it a toss-up.

Also Assange isn't really a saint.  He's basically a troll who let out a bunch of shit for everyone, most of which people already knew like Pakistan being incompetent or China actually not liking North Korea.  Bradley Manning was the one who put innocent Afghans in severe danger diming them out as informants.



Son of Goku said:


> No, they don't and neither is North Korea, not having signed any treaty that would make it illegal, you know?!
> However the US conducted over 1000 tests (killing John Wayne btw.) and the UK did 45 before they got tired of it. North Korea: 2 tests.



Yeah they did...the NPT back in the 90s.  But I'm amazed that you'd condone the actions of the rather illogical North Korean regime since you have that knack for always spinning clearly guilty parties to some weird "US/Israel are ALWAYS TEH BAD GHAIZ" platform.  Are we going to see another spin how North Korea's starvation of its people is excusable when in comparison to how (despite food banks, welfare, and charities) there are still hungry people in the US?

So strange.

Lack of quantity does not correlate with responsibility.



MbS said:


> Yeah, I’m pretty comfortable with North Korea experimenting with nukes.



It's rare that I'd be agreeing with MbS but God Almighty does SoG make it happen.


----------



## hammer (Aug 16, 2012)

dear lord SoG you made these two agree.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

Mael said:


> IIRC this was about the UK looking for Assange, not the US.  But yeah tinfoil hats a go-go.  The UK has a "special" relationship with the US I won't deny but until I see further evidence I'm declaring it a toss-up.
> 
> Also Assange isn't really a saint.  He's basically a troll who let out a bunch of shit for everyone, most of which people already knew like Pakistan being incompetent or China actually not liking North Korea.  Bradley Manning was the one who put innocent Afghans in severe danger diming them out as informants.



Do explain why the UK wants him, then. Last I checked, all they want with Assange is to extradite him, so they are in fact acting in another country's interest. That country is either Sweden or the USA, since they would extradite him to Sweden and Sweden would extradite him to America.


----------



## Mael (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Do explain why the UK wants him, then. Last I checked, all they want with Assange is to extradite him, so they are in fact acting in another country's interest. That country is either Sweden or the USA, since they would extradite him to Sweden and Sweden would extradite him to America.





> Britain has said it is determined to extradite him to Sweden, where he is accused of rape and sexual assault, but Assange fears he will ultimately be sent to the United States which is furious that his WikiLeaks website has leaked hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic and military cables.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-wikileaks-assange-idUSBRE87F0KQ20120816

So it's Britain's word or Assange's belief.  Your call.  I'll stick with the initial Swedish charge this time around.

Truthfully IDGAF about his supposed innocence.  He and Manning reek of that attention-whoring exposure that put a lot of people at risk.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

For people who don't think the US is behind this, I would like an explanation for why

1. Sweden rejected the opportunity to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
2. Sweden rejected a pledge to not extradite Assange

Can someone familiar with Swedish law find any rational reason to reject both offers from Ecuador? Seems like these two suggestions are perfectly reasonable considering Assange is only wanted for questioning, it would appear on the surface a very easy request to grant. No wonder he was granted asylum with such an obvious appearance of political motive.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-wikileaks-assange-idUSBRE87F0KQ20120816
> 
> So it's Britain's word or Assange's belief.  Your call.  I'll stick with the initial Swedish charge this time around.
> 
> Truthfully IDGAF about his supposed innocence.  He and Manning reek of that attention-whoring exposure that put a lot of people at risk.



I understand calling Assange an attention whore, but Bradley Manning too?


----------



## Mael (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> I understand calling Assange an attention whore, but Bradley Manning too?



Anyone who feels the need to reveal the names and secrets of Afghans who chose to have NATO, warts and all, over the austere Taliban and now make them and their families targets is worthy of scorn in my eyes.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Mael said:


> Anyone who feels the need to reveal the names and secrets of Afghans who chose to have NATO, warts and all, over the austere Taliban and now make them and their families targets is worthy of scorn in my eyes.



I disagree.

Either way, that doesn't make him an attention whore.


----------



## Mael (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Either way, that doesn't make him an attention whore.



Well that's your problem.

And for Assange?  His worth is used up.  Couldn't care if he's extradited for rape charges anymore.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Mael said:


> Well that's your problem.
> 
> And for Assange?  His worth is used up.  Couldn't care if he's extradited for rape charges anymore.



I'd agree Assange is an attention whore. 

But I still don't want him extradited because of it.


----------



## stream (Aug 16, 2012)

Assange does seem to be a real dick. Including the part where he cost his supporters $300,000 for violating his bail conditions. I would have no problem at all with him being extradited to Sweden and be judged for whatever it is he did there, since I don't see any way this would lead to an extradition to the United States (if anything, the UK would be more likely to give him up to the US that Sweden).

I have absolutely no complaints about Wikileaks, though… Provided the leaks are done safely, edited to protect individuals, the way it was done with the diplomatics leaks.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-wikileaks-assange-idUSBRE87F0KQ20120816
> 
> So it's Britain's word or Assange's belief.  Your call.  I'll stick with the initial Swedish charge this time around.
> 
> Truthfully IDGAF about his supposed innocence.  He and Manning reek of that attention-whoring exposure that put a lot of people at risk.



So Britain would *declare war on another country* so that Sweden can have someone *for questioning*, which Sweden refuses to do at the Ecuadorian embassy...?

Come on, even Sweden itself wouldn't storm an embassy over a simple questioning.



stream said:


> Assange does seem to be a real dick. Including the part where he cost his supporters $300,000 for violating his bail conditions. I would have no problem at all with him being extradited to Sweden and be judged for whatever it is he did there, since I don't see any way this would lead to an extradition to the United States (if anything, the UK would be more likely to give him up to the US that Sweden).
> 
> I have absolutely no complaints about Wikileaks, though… Provided the leaks are done safely, edited to protect individuals, the way it was done with the diplomatics leaks.



The UK cannot extradite him to a country where he could possibly face the death sentence, Sweden however can do exactly that. Also you seem to have missed the part where they asked Sweden to guarantee Assange won't be extradited to the US and Sweden declined.


----------



## Son of Goku (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> They had actually signed a treaty that made it illegal, *but they've quit it.*



Exactly. Plus they never even signed the "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". 

Signed, but not ratified, amongst others:


Iran

Iraq

Israel

USA

But that's ok. "TEH GOOD GHAIZ" don't need to lead by example, they just lead by telling everyone else what the fuck to do. 



Mael said:


> But I'm amazed that you'd condone the actions of the rather illogical North Korean regime since you have that knack for always spinning clearly guilty parties to some weird "US/Israel are ALWAYS TEH BAD GHAIZ" platform.



And I'm amazed at your lack of reading comprehension and "spelling"... NOT! 

MbS: "North Korea is doing illegal nuke tests."

Me: "No."

Mael: *missing the point*


----------



## Roman (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> It's good to know that you would want to be aware of what your govt is doing, except Assange never did release anything that damaged national security. Just to be sure, how do you actually define "national security?" I always had it that it was a case of protecting the country from foreign threats.
> 
> I'm not saying damaging international relationships is good. If anything, it's a dangerous thing, but you have think about who's the one who's really at fault here. Do you think Assange would deliberately try to damage the US's foreign relations if the US did nothing that would threaten it in the first place? Assange isn't the only one to blame here.
> 
> ...



'national security' is and always will be a touchy subject one that can easily be abused but imo unless there is an actual crime governments have their right to have secrets.

After all would you have been okay with Assange releasing data on the impending Osama raid? How about military offensives?

And seriously? Assange *deliberately* releases information that would be damaging to US relationships but he didn't mean it? What the fuck dan? That's like saying I can punch you in the face but it's okay because I didn't really mean it.

If that's your stance then we're not going to agree because I find it so utterly incomprehensibly stupid that I truly could not understand how someone so intelligent came to it.

Transparency for transparency's sake is stupid and short sighted. The man is an attention seeking twit.



Rarity said:


> Replace it with he UK flag if you want.



:rolls eyes:

yes poor Assange breaking the rules because he's an attention seeking twit


I see someone is bored and trolling



Shinigami Perv said:


> For people who don't think the US is behind this, I would like an explanation for why
> 
> 1. Sweden rejected the opportunity to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
> 2. Sweden rejected a pledge to not extradite Assange
> ...



Dude you are bringing paranoia to new levels. You are the one that has to prove this is some neferious plot and frankly why should Sweden make any such deals with Assange? For that matter the man is a suspect of course they are going to want him where they could arrest him



Matto-sama said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Either way, that doesn't make him an attention whore.



The man is an attention whore that every now and then does something good


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> The man is an attention whore that every now and then does something good



What attention whoring has he done? He mostly just promotes wiki leaks and keeps to himself.

Please tell me what he has done wrong that is both legal and ethically bad.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> What attention whoring has he done? He mostly just promotes wiki leaks and keeps to himself.
> 
> Please tell me what he has done wrong that is both legal and ethically bad.



You mean besides releasing confidential dipolomatic communications without regard to the consequences?

You mean besides costing his supporters 300,00 dollars?

You mean besides helping people violate their ethics and illegally releasing information?

You're making this entirely too easy. Yes a small part of what Assange has released was certainly whistle blowing but the rest is straight up 'hey look at me' bullshit. Take the claim he's been making for the last 2 years about having information on the banks, he says that periodically to get attention but has yet to do anything about it.

Face it, he's no hero just an asshole that happened to accidentally get it right at first.


----------



## Okokami (Aug 16, 2012)

So how he is planning to get out the embassy? UK won't grant him safe passage so I'd like to know how he plans to dodge that.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> You mean besides releasing confidential dipolomatic communications without regard to the consequences?
> 
> You mean besides costing his supporters 300,00 dollars?
> 
> ...



You know...that's not attention whoring at all, he did this with the purpose to expose the wrongs of big wigs. You sound like a puppet being mad that he showed the wrongs of big corps and countries to emphasize the wrongdoings of those who should have our best interest in hand.

What he did was ethically right by exposing powerful wrong-doers, never has he come out to say "gimme an award", he risked his life to show the truth that countries are trying to bury. 

On banks, he released information last year it was blacklisted; articles came out about how it never seen the light of day and suddenly he was arrested without cause. Understand there is nothing to charge him with, the only crime imaginable is defamation and hacking, both can be defunct ed if the defense is shown to be true- which is why there are no charges on him.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> You mean besides costing his supporters 300,000 dollars?



Are you referring to the bail he paid? The one that's saving his life right now because it allowed him to get to the embassy?

Yeah, that selfish prick, how dare he take that money, that supporters gave him to pay his bail, and actually use it to pay his bail?


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> You know...that's not attention whoring at all, he did this with the purpose to expose the wrongs of big wigs. You sound like a puppet being mad that he showed the wrongs of big corps and countries to emphasize the wrongdoings of those who should have our best interest in hand.
> 
> What he did was ethically right by exposing powerful wrong-doers, never has he come out to say "gimme an award", he risked his life to show the truth that countries are trying to bury.
> 
> On banks, he released information last year it was blacklisted; articles came out about how it never seen the light of day and suddenly he was arrested without cause. Understand there is nothing to charge him with, the only crime imaginable is defamation and hacking, both can be defunct ed if the defense is shown to be true- which is why there are no charges on him.



Let's be clear here there are 2 issues here ethics and Assange's ego.

On the ethics/legality there is no argument everything Assange releases violates the law and ethics now there might be a good justification for doing so regardless but the fact is it is still unethical

As to your attempts to make a hero out of him the man has jumped bail, refused to answer to these allegations and seems to delight in the attention he gets. Not to mention the man is a hypocrite for someone who advocates transparency he and Wikileaks are remarkably secretive.




Saufsoldat said:


> Are you referring to the bail he paid? The one that's saving his life right now because it allowed him to get to the embassy?
> 
> Yeah, that selfish prick, how dare he take that money, that supporters gave him to pay his bail, and actually use it to pay his bail?





yeah because clearly bail is supposed to be used to run away from charges instead of allowing to not wait in jail while you face charges


the lengths people go to to defend this moron are always amusing


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> Let's be clear here there are 2 issues here ethics and Assange's ego.
> 
> On the ethics/legality there is no argument everything Assange releases violates the law and ethics now there might be a good justification for doing so regardless but the fact is it is still unethical
> 
> As to your attempts to make a hero out of him the man has jumped bail, refused to answer to these allegations and seems to delight in the attention he gets. Not to mention the man is a hypocrite for someone who advocates transparency he and Wikileaks are remarkably secretive.



What the heck are you talking about?! Make a hero out of him? You're comprehension is either shot or you misinterpret often. 

Your first paragraph: Um.... that was the point of the releases; to show people HWY it was illegal- because the people hid behind that law to do illegal and very unethical things. He is the reason people know facebook and the USA gov't made back door deals and is the person who showed the world that the Gov't gave GE the go ahead to not pay their taxes in 2010; what he did is show people how the big wigs are really devious and we should be more proactive about our security.

Second paragraph: Drache, do you understand that he does not seek attention at all personally? He only releases and most of the time from messages, not in person. Also, for the second part: Drache, he is secretive because his life is in danger...

I don't think anyone on here is making him a hero, but he exposes the wrongs of big corps and nations who do extremely unethical things and make laws to hide behind; it is only obvious he would run when he has whole nations wanting to "question" him. It is only common sense to stay in image from time  to time because if he fades from the scene, it would be easier to kill him without uproar or question. If he is killed now, then there will be an uproar in certain places.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 16, 2012)

This isn't gonna happen, I'm surprised Ecuador hasn't called UK's bluff.  Only US talks that big and does big things.

Though I support what drache is saying.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> What the heck are you talking about?! Make a hero out of him? You're comprehension is either shot or you misinterpret often.
> 
> Your first paragraph: Um.... that was the point of the releases; to show people HWY it was illegal- because the people hid behind that law to do illegal and very unethical things. He is the reason people know facebook and the USA gov't made back door deals and is the person who showed the world that the Gov't gave GE the go ahead to not pay their taxes in 2010; what he did is show people how the big wigs are really devious and we should be more proactive about our security.



so what illegal activity was shown when Assange released dipolomatic communications?



Bishop said:


> Second paragraph: Drache, do you understand that he does not seek attention at all personally? He only releases and most of the time from messages, not in person. Also, for the second part: Drache, he is secretive because his life is in danger...



:rofl

right because secret ninja assassins are going to kill him and some how no one in the world will suspect it

and as to the publicilty, will I call bullshit on that but you are welcome to your opinion



Bishop said:


> I don't think anyone on here is making him a hero, but he exposes the wrongs of big corps and nations who do extremely unethical things and make laws to hide behind; it is only obvious he would run when he has whole nations wanting to "question" him. It is only common sense to stay in image from time  to time because if he fades from the scene, it would be easier to kill him without uproar or question. If he is killed now, then there will be an uproar in certain places.



it sounds like you are but then again that's just what it sounds like

as I said Assange has done some good but overall he's just a fame seeking glory hound who doesn't seem to care what damage he does not to mention a  complete hypocrite


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> so what illegal activity was shown when Assange released dipolomatic communications?



It shows that the US paid Amazon to keep tabs on shipments to certain countries, as well as send dummy items to certain places. The facebook deal I mentioned earlier. Many things were taken off before the release could be reached by everyday viewers, which is when he shunned the US for doing a public cover up though they said they hand nothing to hide.



> :rofl
> 
> right because secret ninja assassins are going to kill him and some how no one in the world will suspect it
> 
> and as to the publicilty, will I call bullshit on that but you are welcome to your opinion


Are you really this naive??? You are the perfect sheep citizen.

Here you are:


> *Calls for Assange's assassination*
> On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Mr. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper,[183] and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.[184]
> 
> On 1 December 2010, Republican Michael Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed,[185] a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan[186] and current Fox News national security expert.
> ...





> it sounds like you are but then again that's just what it sounds like
> 
> as I said Assange has done some good but overall he's just a fame seeking glory hound who doesn't seem to care what damage he does not to mention a  complete hypocrite


You are very sure about him being a glory rat, I don't know if he is or isn't since I don't follow him. Can you show me some professionals or credible people who are calling him this?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> yeah because clearly bail is supposed to be used to run away from charges instead of allowing to not wait in jail while you face charges
> 
> 
> the lengths people go to to defend this moron are always amusing



Maybe you don't want to understand, but *it saved his fucking life*.

If he hadn't run, he'd probably be sitting in the US right now awaiting a trial which would result in either a death sentence or torture for the rest of his life, like Bradley Manning is getting.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> It shows that the US paid Amazon to keep tabs on shipments to certain countries, as well as send dummy items to certain places. The facebook deal I mentioned earlier. Many things were taken off before the release could be reached by everyday viewers, which is when he shunned the US for doing a public cover up though they said they hand nothing to hide.



Please cite this 



Bishop said:


> Are you really this naive??? You are the perfect sheep citizen.
> 
> Here you are:



You know what? Fuck you bishop, the only naive one I see is you shifting the debate around per usual. while you play this passive aggressive bullshit Are you seriously suggesting we take anything the GOP says seriously? And just how the hell is a Canadian going to kill this man? Hell if I was in the US government I'd be praying this man lives a long healthy life because 1. anytihng that happens would immediately be 'proof' the US did something and 2. because I do think he should be put on trial for endangering informatants and military.




Bishop said:


> You are very sure about him being a glory rat, I don't know if he is or isn't since I don't follow him. Can you show me some professionals or credible people who are calling him this?





his own home nation has been highly critical of his actions and that's just the most recent piece




Saufsoldat said:


> Maybe you don't want to understand, but *it saved his fucking life*.
> 
> If he hadn't run, he'd probably be sitting in the US right now awaiting a trial which would result in either a death sentence or torture for the rest of his life, like Bradley Manning is getting.



you can't prove that so you might as well say the moon is made of cheese as it would be just as useful

Assange is not special and certainly deserves no special treatment he should face the questions in Sweden as would anyone else.


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 16, 2012)

If they're not careful, Ecuador may discover that when the Big Players want something bad enough, International Law means little more than a PR hit, a bump in the road. 

My personal opinion of Assange is that he's just an ego-stroking twit who's more interested in attention than transparency, as evidenced by his own increasingly shameless behavior.

The rape/molestation charges? May or may not have any substance, but the fact that they're trying so hard over something completely unrelated to what they _really_ want him for speaks volumes. I mean, seriously, how long do _countries_ pursue international manhunts over _rapists_ anyway?

There are _terrorists_ the US and UK have put less effort into hunting down.

As for the potential of the Wikileaks endeavor, and those who supported it in the name of shining a light on dirty secrets, it still has that potential with less of a glory-hound, and people more interested in transparency, in charge of future expos?s.

And that is what these governments are truly afraid of, which is why they're trying so hard to make an example out of him, as well as why his own shameless blundering is doing more to hurt than help the cause of truth.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> If they're not careful, Ecuador may discover that when the Big Players want something bad enough, International Law means little more than a PR hit, a bump in the road.
> 
> My personal opinion of Assange is that he's just an ego-stroking twit who's more interested in attention than transparency, as evidenced by his own increasingly shameless behavior.
> 
> ...



There was a story here not too long ago where a child porn ring was cracked partially by matching a TV show shown at a certain time with a hotel. So this inane and rather stupid argument of 'well they are pursuing him extra hard' is just that stupid and inane.

Apparently this is news to some of you but the police and prosecutors take their jobs seriously especially when the person they want to talk to runs away like he has something to hide.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> you can't prove that so you might as well say the moon is made of cheese as it would be just as useful
> 
> Assange is not special and certainly deserves no special treatment he should face the questions in Sweden as would anyone else.



You're being ridiculous.

Ecuador asked Sweden to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US, if he comes to Sweden, *which Sweden said no to*. There is your proof, so stop bullshitting us.

Assange is very, very special, otherwise the UK wouldn't threaten to declare war on Ecuador just so they can extradite a man who isn't even charged with anything.

How many humans are worth invading another country over?


----------



## hammer (Aug 16, 2012)

>says the man should not get special treatment

>government threatens to storm a embassy over a sexual assault

yea no special treatment indeed


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> You're being ridiculous.
> 
> Ecuador asked Sweden to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US, if he comes to Sweden, *which Sweden said no to*. There is your proof, so stop bullshitting us.
> 
> ...



And there is no reason for Sweden to agree to that Ecuador has no right even asking in the first place let alone demanding it.

The fact is though that extradition from Sweden wouldn't be easy so the only one bullshitting here is you. You're jumping at shadows.

And the UK isn't threatening to declare war don't be so melodramatic but they are insisting that Assange be treated the same as anyone else.

But hey if you want to make excuses for someone running away from legitimate investigations and questions go for it just don't be surprised if people find such objections laughable


----------



## Toby (Aug 16, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> For people who don't think the US is behind this, I would like an explanation for why
> 
> 1. Sweden rejected the opportunity to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
> 2. Sweden rejected a pledge to not extradite Assange
> ...



1. The Swedish police don't want an interview. They want to interrogate him regarding the rape charges. 
2. Sweden is neutral. They will treat him as a suspect in the Swedish criminal code. If he is found innocent then they will probably release him. But you and I both know that if there is a good amount of evidence of wrongdoing in another country, Sweden must honour the principle of neutrality and extradite him to the country where he is accused of committing a crime.

Sweden observes international law and the simple principles of the universal declaration of human rights. None of those principles seem to grant a man like Assange political or legal immunity from being extradited. 

On top of this, I personally doubt that they intend to torture Assange. They will interrogate him and try to shut down Wikileaks if they can, but torture him? Lol no. I'm sure he's not guilty of rape either. But he should stand trial. 

Both Assange and the governments are sensationalizing this story. If the government of Sweden can make Assange stand trial, then they appear to be in control and he appears to be just any other citizen, equal before the law.

If Assange can escape government control, his claims will be reinforced with the public impression that he is a man being wrongfully framed. 

Does this matter? No, not really. Assange may have ruined his own chances to visit the UK and USA safely within the next few decades. Once the war on terror dies down, it is more likely that he will be free to move, but then he should also prove that he is innocent. As for the people who think he is doing a noble deed, I really disagree. Wikileaks has done some good things but also a great deal of rubbish that has endangered many people's lives, and certainly escalated tensions in the relationship between NATO and Afghanistan's government. This wouldn't matter if the Afghan government was a democracy, but it isn't, and it has no reason to be when it sees this sort of behavior. In fact this is perfect material for their own political spin.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 16, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> The rape/molestation charges? May or may not have any substance, but the fact that they're trying so hard over something completely unrelated to what they _really_ want him for speaks volumes. I mean, seriously, how long do _countries_ pursue international manhunts over _rapists_ anyway?
> 
> There are _terrorists_ the US and UK have put less effort into hunting down.



But here is the thing.  UK and Sweden are both EU nations.  When it comes to crimes EU nations work together fully like states in the US do.  Basically if California asked Texas for a guy who was accused of rape would texas say no or hand him over (granted this not going to be 100% similar but close enough).

They would simply just arrest him and hand him over.  This is how things work over here between EU nations under Sengen which actually the criminal and policing side Britain did sign up to.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 16, 2012)

Good, the UK is flexing nuts. The guy should be put on trial and no organization should be allowed to hold governments hostage with stolen information.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> You know what? Fuck you bishop, the only naive one I see is you shifting the debate around per usual. while you play this passive aggressive bullshit Are you seriously suggesting we take anything the GOP says seriously? And just how the hell is a Canadian going to kill this man? Hell if I was in the US government I'd be praying this man lives a long healthy life because 1. anytihng that happens would immediately be 'proof' the US did something and 2. because I do think he should be put on trial for endangering informatants and military.


I love the emotion you show in these arbitrary debates; gets me excited. However, you ignored all the parts where I asked you to show proof and instead of responding to my points, attack me and my style of debate. 

Secondly, the GOP has nothing to do with anything as that was a source from wiki about Head Hanchos from Canada and US saying he should be killed; not just US. You asked for proof that people wanted him dead, I provided proof, not you criticize me for it for showing you proof and question the possibility of it being carried out; amusing.






> his own home nation has been highly critical of his actions and that's just the most recent piece



Um..that article is a public opinion written unprofessionally; it is not a poll of the nation. I don't know how deduced that the nation doesn't like him because one man doesn't, but whateve.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Aug 16, 2012)

I guess I don't mind this happening. Being able to steal government secrets, and indiscriminately showing it to everyone isn't a good thing. Not only is it bad for the Governments in question it can be bad for the people living under said governments.

Maybe he won't show the big, dangerous secrets, but should we trust one man with that sort of power?

As for if they'll actually do it.

We'll see.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> Dude you are bringing paranoia to new levels. You are the one that has to prove this is some neferious plot and frankly why should Sweden make any such deals with Assange? For that matter the man is a suspect of course they are going to want him where they could arrest him



Proof? This isn't a court. I don't need incontrovertible proof to be suspicious of suspicious activity. 



Toby said:


> But you and I both know that if there is a good amount of evidence of wrongdoing in another country, Sweden must honour the principle of neutrality and extradite him to the country where he is accused of committing a crime.
> 
> Sweden observes international law and the simple principles of the universal declaration of human rights. None of those principles seem to grant a man like Assange political or legal immunity from being extradited.
> .



Extradition to Sweden, or to the United States where we have a practice of indefinite detention without charge to foreigners. 

Would you be comfortable if Sweden extradited Assange to the United States knowing he would face that outcome? Because honestly I don't think he gives two shits about potential charges in Sweden. 

My view is that anyone comfortable extraditing Assange to the United States, knowing what our practices are regarding execution and indefinite detention, has no mind for humane legal practices.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I love the emotion you show in these arbitrary debates; gets me excited. However, you ignored all the parts where I asked you to show proof and instead of responding to my points, attack me and my style of debate.


 
so you can attack me, insult me but I can't do it back?

wow, just wow



Bishop said:


> Secondly, the GOP has nothing to do with anything as that was a source from wiki about Head Hanchos from Canada and US saying he should be killed; not just US. You asked for proof that people wanted him dead, I provided proof, not you criticize me for it for showing you proof and question the possibility of it being carried out; amusing.


 
Some random handful of politicans called for either him to be executed or assassinated. 

Wow that's some powerful 'evidence' there /snark

Look first those calling for his execution have absolutely little if any credibliity outside of their own bat shit crazy party and second execution implies trial which was not what you were claiming anyways. So not only does the people involved have no crediblity it's not even on point.

That leaves  *one* lone politican calling for this man to be assassinated. Never mind the guy called it back and still so what? People say a lot of things and I am personally not convinced of any geniune threat to Assange based on this 'evidence' it's flimsy at  best and pure tin foil hat at worse






Bishop said:


> Um..that article is a public opinion written unprofessionally; it is not a poll of the nation. I don't know how deduced that the nation doesn't like him because one man doesn't, but whateve.


 
you asked for a 'credible or profesional individual' I gave you one, don't you dare try and move the goal posts on that. I provided one and he's not the only one but hey I get it no one likes their idol being shown to be human


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> And there is no reason for Sweden to agree to that Ecuador has no right even asking in the first place let alone demanding it.
> 
> The fact is though that extradition from Sweden wouldn't be easy so the only one bullshitting here is you. You're jumping at shadows.



The fuck are you talking about? How easy it would be is of no consequence, the fact of the matter is that Sweden would extradite Assange, as they have refused to guarantee the opposite.

I what warped plane of reality does "we refuse to not extradite him" mean anything other than "we will extradite him"?



> And the UK isn't threatening to declare war don't be so melodramatic but they are insisting that Assange be treated the same as anyone else.



Attacking the embassy of another country is a clear act of war and thus tantamout to a formal declaration of war.



> But hey if you want to make excuses for someone running away from legitimate investigations and questions go for it just don't be surprised if people find such objections laughable



Again, it is confirmed by Sweden itself that they'll extradite him, so the only thing he's running away from is a show trial in the US followed by his execution.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Good, the UK is flexing nuts. The guy should be put on trial and no organization should be allowed to hold governments hostage with stolen information.





ImperatorMortis said:


> I guess I don't mind this happening. Being able to steal government secrets, and indiscriminately showing it to everyone isn't a good thing. Not only is it bad for the Governments in question it can be bad for the people living under said governments.
> 
> Maybe he won't show the big, dangerous secrets, but should we trust one man with that sort of power?
> 
> ...



Are you guys insane? Even if you don't agree with wikileaks or don't like Assange, how can you possibly think that invading another country's embassy is a good idea? You'd expect that kind of shit from countries like Iran, but not the UK.






Seriously, if say Ecuador were to storm a UK embassy for *any reason whatsoever*, the UK would declare war in a matter of hours, anyone with half a brain knows that. The only reason Britain is flexing their muscle right now is because they know Ecuador cannot even hope to fight back.

It's a pathetic breach of international law and a testament to the lack of backbone in Britain's government.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> so you can attack me, insult me but I can't do it back?
> 
> wow, just wow


I don't believe I attacked or insulted you in anyway as that is not me habit. Unless you are referring to the question of your naivety, in which I said in jest. I do apologize if it came across as offensive as I don't intend to attack people. 





> some random handful of politicans called for either him to be executed or assassinated.
> 
> Wow that's some powerful 'evidence' there /snark
> 
> ...


Drache, you asked for proof of someone demanding his death (or for proof of it being said), I simply supplied credible proof. We can sit here and disregard them, but fact is they were in power and are/were politicians, and they did say he should be killed. Period.









> you asked for a 'credible or profesional individual' I gave you one, don't you dare try and move the goal posts on that. I provided one and he's not the only one but hey I get it no one likes their idol being shown to be human


You are correct on this one. I did ask for it and you gave it to me. I do acknowledge this, it's just you said the nation of Australia when it was just one man you provided. 

But you have shown proof and I do accept it as credible, because it is.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 16, 2012)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Maybe he won't show the big, dangerous secrets, but should we trust one man with that sort of power?



But... we don't? It's an entire network of people with massively mirrored content from wikileaks. They work together with important newspapers (and thus serious journalists) on the big stories to decide what will actually be revealed to the public. The sheer amount of content most leaks contain (tons of emails and files) makes it nearly impossible for a single person to abuse this knowledge, anyway.

Assange is/was a figurehead. 

Regardless of what you think of him as a person, the lengths his opponents go through to get his ass to the USA are an international scandal by themselves.
He faces probably bullshit rape charges in Sweden, but when did a country(!!!) ever threaten to storm an embassy over "taking a guy in for questioning about a possible rape case"? It's all fucking bullshit and should ring all alarm bells.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

I think we can all agree there will be a great movie on Julian Assange one day.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I think we can all agree there will be a great movie on Julian Assange one day.



This has Oliver Stone written all over it 

Conspiracies are his specialty


----------



## Gunners (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Are you guys insane? Even if you don't agree with wikileaks or don't like Assange, how can you possibly think that invading another country's embassy is a good idea? You'd expect that kind of shit from countries like Iran, but not the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Damn straight.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I don't believe I attacked or insulted you in anyway as that is not me habit. Unless you are referring to the question of your naivety, in which I said in jest. I do apologize if it came across as offensive as I don't intend to attack people.


 
calling people naive or sheep is never nice 



Bishop said:


> Drache, you asked for proof of someone demanding his death (or for proof of it being said), I simply supplied credible proof. We can sit here and disregard them, but fact is they were in power and are/were politicians, and they did say he should be killed. Period.


 
No you said people were out to get Assange, I mocked this and you then returned with 'proof'. I am willing to admit that semantically you did so in regards to Harper but I do not regard this as a credible threat and nothing you have offered counters this. Nor have you offered anything regarding a systematic threat to Assange other then the possible consequences for leaking confindental data




Bishop said:


> You are correct on this one. I did ask for it and you gave it to me. I do acknowledge this, it's just you said the nation of Australia when it was just one man you provided.
> 
> But you have shown proof and I do accept it as credible, because it is.


 
thank you, in the course of my search I found a number of articles from Austraila highly critical of Assange most requiredd subscribing to view so my conclusion might be hasty but Assange does not seem very well regarded in Austraila.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Proof? This isn't a court. I don't need incontrovertible proof to be suspicious of suspicious activity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
you realize conspiracy theorist say the same thing all the time?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> No you said people were out to get Assange, I mocked this and you then returned with 'proof'. I am willing to admit that semantically you did so in regards to Harper but I do not regard this as a credible threat and nothing you have offered counters this. Nor have you offered anything regarding a systematic threat to Assange other then the possible consequences for leaking confindental data



I am at a lost, I offered the fact that people in power and authority called for his death. What do I counter, your criticism? Politicians called for his death, it proves what I said, what more would I have to offer? If I offer more politicians (which I don't know if I can off bat since I have not search in-depth) I feel you will only criticize more. I don't feel you have room to criticize because I did offer the credible proof to back what I said. You now ask for a credible threat which is different from what you first wanted and what I first intended to offer. I offered what I said and what you doubted, that is all.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> you realize conspiracy theorist say the same thing all the time?



I do not believe in conspiracies and am generally dismissive of conspiracy theorists. But I do seek rational explanations for events out of the ordinary. 

This is a man who is wanted for questioning on a potential rape. Do I think this level of government effort is possible without a political aspect? No, a normal asylum seeker accused of this crime would never in a million years cause the UK to consider invading an embassy and surround it with police. 

There is a danger here of equating a plausible outcome with whacky conspiracies. Suggesting a fake moon landing is not in the same universe as suggesting Assange could be facing charges that will lead to getting him extradited to US. 

Of course there is always the possibility that Assange really is only being pursued for the rape charge, but this explanation doesn't seem to explain the extraordinary efforts of the British government in creating a diplomatic disaster over an asylum seeker wanted for questioning on a rape charge.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 16, 2012)

You wanna know my conspiracy theory? This one's original... (okay not really)

Out of all of the world's nations, the United States has the largest prison population. These prisoners, are mentally orchestrating Assange to become 'one of them'. 

The secret plan of the underground network, which includes a bunch of prisoners, their families, and a massive conglomerate of numerous drug lords, rock stars, and secretly supportive politicians, is to utilize Assange to gather the support of all the prisoners in the United States and organized some kind of revolution. 

How they plan to accomplish this? First, they use the media to downgrade support amongst the people for all branches of government. THEN, after Congressional approval falls to below 10%, Assange is expected to help hack prison security, open up all the gates to all the United States prisons, at once and THEN help fuel a full out gun-fire revolt upon Washington D.C. the likes of Bane from Dark Knight Rises. And THEN, the goal is to help Assange obtain the United States presidency, and when it is all said and done...  

We find out that it is all being orchestrated to being by high ranking members of the Latino underground network... because they think Assange is Jesus Christ incarnated! 

How's that? Original? Crazy? No?


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I am at a lost, I offered the fact that people in power and authority called for his death. What do I counter, your criticism? Politicians called for his death, it proves what I said, what more would I have to offer? If I offer more politicians (which I don't know if I can off bat since I have not search in-depth) I feel you will only criticize more. I don't feel you have room to criticize because I did offer the credible proof to back what I said. You now ask for a credible threat which is different from what you first wanted and what I first intended to offer. I offered what I said and what you doubted, that is all.


 
As I said I willing concede that you are right in that a politican openly called for Assange to be assassinated (that he is now PM shows at least the US isn't the only screwed up nation) but I still assert it was not a credible threat and it makes no sense for anyone that could to actually assassinate Assange.

Like I said at this point I would think most politicans are hoping feverently that nothign happens at all because anything is going to be seen though the lens of 'shutting up Assange' even a freak accident. Thus  it seems very illogical for any politican to actually carry though on anything.



Shinigami Perv said:


> I do not believe in conspiracies and am generally dismissive of conspiracy theorists. But I do seek rational explanations for events out of the ordinary.
> 
> This is a man who is wanted for questioning on a potential rape. Do I think this level of government effort is possible without a political aspect? No, a normal asylum seeker accused of this crime would never in a million years cause the UK to consider invading an embassy and surround it with police.
> 
> ...


 
And my point is that where you see 'extra ordinary events' I see nothing of the sort.

EU nations extradite all the time and if the British didn't go after Assange with everything they had why should another member of the EU when it's the UK asking for an extradition?

Do you really think that Assange is the first person to seek 'sanctuary' rather dubiously?

And why would any nation want to accept conditions on extradition? I know for a fact that often Isreal for example has refused to grant extradition for the US unless the death penalty is off the table which then becomes a huge can of worms. No nation likes to be have it's authority dictated by another.

So no I see no events out of the ordinary.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> The man is an attention whore that every now and then does something good



I was talking about Bradley Manning not being an attention whore.



drache said:


> And my point is that where you see 'extra ordinary events' I see nothing of the sort.



You can't be serious. 

So wanting to question him (no charges filed yet) and denying that opportunity isn't suspicious? Saying it's just to question him and then refusing to guarantee there would be no extradition to the US? If they had no intention of doing that, why not guarantee it? 

The UK is ready to commit an act of war on another nation because Sweden wants to question a guy over possible rape charges? 

If you don't see anything wrong with this, you're incredibly naive. I'm sorry.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So Britain would *declare war on another country* so that Sweden can have someone *for questioning*, which Sweden refuses to do at the Ecuadorian embassy...?



Well, Britain could be one of two things. A) Crazy, or B) Whipped



> Come on, even Sweden itself wouldn't storm an embassy over a simple questioning.



Nope, they would just hire another country to do it for them. Better not to dirty your hands yourself, just let the Brits do it. They actually LIKE doing that kind of thing. After all, they've been doing it for centuries... unlike us who shipped our vikings off like eons ago... to that island over there... what was it called again?



> The UK cannot extradite him to a country where he could possibly face the death sentence, Sweden however can do exactly that. Also you seem to have missed the part where they asked Sweden to guarantee Assange won't be extradited to the US and Sweden declined.



Yes, you see my point now? Sweden: I want to kill you. Here U.S. you do it. U.S.: No. Sweden. I'll pay you? U.S.: No. Sweden: Ok, fine I'll go ask Russia. Russia: ...you want some vodka? Sweden: Ok, no go on that one. Let me go as China. China: As long as you give me all your jobs and allow us to build at least 20 more restaurants in your country. Sweden: Great! Oh wait... citizens will be angry. Nevermind. I'll go ask Britain. Britain: Will the stocks go up if I listen to you? Sweden: Yup. Britain: Ok... Fire the cannons! Oh, opps. Sorry, too soon. Retake!

^_^ Oh, Hentalia.


----------



## Golden Circle (Aug 16, 2012)

Good on him for giving a big  to the ruling world power.

I wish he had account here. I would rep him so hard.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> I was talking about Bradley Manning not being an attention whore.


 
ah my bad



Matto-sama said:


> You can't be serious.
> 
> So wanting to question him (no charges filed yet) and denying that opportunity isn't suspicious? Saying it's just to question him and then refusing to guarantee there would be no extradition to the US? If they had no intention of doing that, why not guarantee it?
> 
> ...


 
I can and am, in the US Assange would be a person of interest if not an outright suspect. This is way best just questioning the man.

And see above about this whole 'but Sweden won't promise X' fallacy.

The UK thing too as I've already responded to that


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> ah my bad
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you put it into perspective it's extremely suspicious.

Assange hasn't been hiding to avoid talking to Swedish authorities or avoid having charges filed against him.

He and the Ecuador embassy have tried to compromise - allowing Swedish authorities to conduct the interview inside the embassy, willing to give up Assange as long as they know for sure he won't be extradited. If it was just about questioning him and not getting him to Sweden where he can be extradited, you'd think they'd compromise.

And there is no reason for the UK to threaten to storm an embassy - which is an act of war - so Sweden can simply interview someone on allegations of sexual assault when there are no charges. Countries let people get away with murder (literally) to avoid diplomatic tenses, but they're going to this length over allegations of a sexual assault? 

But no the fact that this is all to capture someone who the leaders of the US and other major countries hate because he exposed their wrong doings is all just a coincidence


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> And my point is that where you see 'extra ordinary events' I see nothing of the sort.




OK let's stop right there. I'll admit that I don't work in embassies and associate in diplomatic circles. If you can show me an instance where an embassy's diplomatic status was threatened over something like a rape investigation, then I'll reconsider the circumstances. Saying that you don't see anything unusual would carry some weight if you could show instances of  this happening before. 

To me, it's extraordinary that a country like Britain would even threaten to create an international incident over a  rape allegation.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> When you put it into perspective it's extremely suspicious.
> 
> Assange hasn't been hiding to avoid talking to Swedish authorities or avoid having charges filed against him.
> 
> ...


 
compromise?

he is a suspect in 2 rape/sexual assault cases and yet he 'deserves' special treatment?

if you really believe that then we are in fundamental disagreement

and hiding a suspect is wrong period end of discussion 


Shinigami Perv said:


> OK let's stop right there. I'll admit that I don't work in embassies and associate in diplomatic circles. If you can show me an instance where an embassy's diplomatic status was threatened over something like a rape investigation, then I'll reconsider the circumstances. Saying that you don't see anything unusual would carry some weight if you could show instances of an instance like this happening before.
> 
> To me, it's extraordinary that a country like Britain would even threaten to create an international incident over a rape allegation.


 
I'll do my best to find a rape case but I can tell you the law the UK wants to invoke was made after someone shot a cop and then tried to hide in an embassy so this has happened before


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> compromise?
> 
> he is a suspect in 2 rape/sexual assault cases and yet he 'deserves' special treatment?
> 
> ...



But they're not hiding him from the authorities. Ecuador offered to let Swedish authorities interview Assange - all they have said is they want to question him, which they can do in the embassy. Ecuador said it would give him up if they guaranteed he wouldn't be sent to the US. Ecuador isn't hiding him from sexual assault allegations whatsoever; it's protecting him from extradition to the US.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> But they're not hiding him from the authorities. Ecuador offered to let Swedish authorities interview Assange - all they have said is they want to question him, which they can do in the embassy. Ecuador said it would give him up if they guaranteed he wouldn't be sent to the US. Ecuador isn't hiding him from sexual assault allegations whatsoever; it's protecting him from extradition to the US.


 
no that's bullshit Ecuador is hiding him and nothing you try can spin that away


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

drache said:


> no that's bullshit Ecuador is hiding him and nothing you try can spin that away



That's why they've tried to allow/make deals to turn him over to the authorities


----------



## God (Aug 16, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Someone powerful really wants him to stand trial to take it this far.



This, period.

Extradition and foreign turmoil over a supposed sexual assault? Had this been any other fucker, everyone would've at the lying cunt.

And the death penalty? Are you kidding?

Fuck the world powers seriously.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Britain says it can storm the embassy after it gives a week notice



> “Under British law we can give them a week’s notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection,” a Foreign Office spokesman said.



but says it hasn't made a decision yet 



> “But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution.”



Ecuador responded back with: 



> “We want to be very clear, we’re not a British colony. The colonial times are over,” Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.



Damn straight 

Source


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 16, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> The fuck are you talking about? How easy it would be is of no consequence, the fact of the matter is that Sweden would extradite Assange, as they have refused to guarantee the opposite.
> 
> I what warped plane of reality does "we refuse to not extradite him" mean anything other than "we will extradite him"?
> 
> ...



Declare war on who,  although diplomatic niceties are stopping british police from entering the Equador embassy the embassy and the site it is in contrary to popular belief and shitty media reporting is still BRITISH soil subject to british laws.

The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow is turned over to the country which resides in the embassy.

The only part of the UK which is owned by another country is a small strip of land in the south that is a memorial to JFK which is officially US soil.

So basically Britain does have a right to send police into the Equador embassy and take Assange with Equador having no leg to stand on.  The worse they will do is QQ and do lip service to Argentina in the falkland islands dispute if anything happens.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

Reading these conspiracy theories is fun.



> "Sweden does not extradite individuals who risk facing the death penalty," a Swedish Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said, implicitly referring to the possibility Assange could be charged with crimes eligible for the death penalty in the United States, with whom it has an extradition agreement.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> That's why they've tried to allow/make deals to turn him over to the authorities


 
no they've made demands that are irrational or pure paranoid conspiracy nut and people are defending that



Xerces said:


> This isn't simply about Assange against the national security of western nations; *it is a struggle between the right to freedom of speech and information vs. the imperialistic western establishment.* The western authority leaders will fall back on 'national security' dogma whenever it becomes convenient for them to do so. When the political leaders say Assange is a 'threat' to 'national securty', they instil an idea into the minds of the public, effectively making them believe their is a threat to their nation. And ofcourse, who would defend Assange when the media activly labels him as a threat? This is simple mind control, that the government has been studying since the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


yeah you blew what little crediblity you had with me a long time ago I got no wish to engage with an apologist for jihad


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

Nemesis said:


> Declare war on who,  although diplomatic niceties are stopping british police from entering the Equador embassy the embassy and the site it is in contrary to popular belief and shitty media reporting is still BRITISH soil subject to british laws.
> 
> The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow is turned over to the country which resides in the embassy.
> 
> ...



According to the Vienna Convention:



> Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage.





Inside British soil or not, Britain is forbidden by international law from entering without permission - period.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

> Inside British soil or not, Britain is forbidden by international from entering without permission - period.


They don't need to enter. They can just grab Assange the minute he tries to leave.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> They don't need to enter. They can just grab Assange the minute he tries to leave.



Did you miss Britain threatening to storm the embassy? They're threatening to invade the embassy and take Assange with force - which is illegal.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> According to the Vienna Convention:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
if Britain really wants to it can enter on the quite legal grounds that Ecuador is hiding someone wanted by another country. It would indeed be a bit of an interational incident but it's also ecuador


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 16, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Did you miss Britain threatening to storm the embassy? They're threatening to invade the embassy and take Assange with force - which is illegal.


The fact is the only way that Assange would be able to leave to country without the British taking him into custody is if they appointed him an Ecuadorian diplomat. They're making a lot of noise, but it's more likely that it's to try to scare/pressure them into giving him up rather than having to wait him out.


----------



## drache (Aug 16, 2012)

Xerces said:


> I'll always have more credibility to those who succumb to straw-man and ad hominem attacks
> 
> The easiest path of cognitive processes one can divulge in, when faced with conflicted ideologies, is ignorance. The Christian establishment chose ignorance when Galileo theorized that the Earth was round. You, like them, also choose ignorance, and we all know the _terrible_ track record 'ignorance' has in history.


 
right whatever you want to think sparky now go away the grown ups are talking still


----------



## Mithos (Aug 16, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> The fact is the only way that Assange would be able to leave to country without the British taking him into custody is if they appointed him an Ecuadorian diplomat. They're making a lot of noise, but it's more likely that it's to try to scare/pressure them into giving him up rather than having to wait him out.



The embassy has said if Britain will not grant him safe travel out of the country, he will remain in the embassy under their protection. So Ecuador is allowing him to stay indefinitely, apparently.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 16, 2012)




----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> if Britain really wants to it can enter on the quite legal grounds that Ecuador is hiding someone wanted by another country. It would indeed be a bit of an interational incident but it's also ecuador



You're pulling stuff out of your ass with absolutely no basis in international law. This is no different than saying "I can still arrest and imprison diplomats, if they're wearing purple on a thursday."


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> You're pulling stuff out of your ass with absolutely no basis in international law. This is no different than saying "I can still arrest and imprison diplomats, if they're wearing purple on a thursday."


 
not in the slightest if nothing else the UK could expel the Ecuador dipolomats and shut down the embassy even if you recongize nothing else you have to recognize the British could do that. Will they? I don't know and neither do you but this whole irrational strawman game of yours is getting old


----------



## God (Aug 17, 2012)

drache is a complete fucking idiot


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Cubey said:


> drache is a complete fucking idiot


 
and you are a troll, of the 2 I think i'd rather be an idiot


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> not in the slightest if nothing else the UK could expel the Ecuador dipolomats and shut down the embassy even if you recongize nothing else you have to recognize the British could do that. Will they? I don't know and neither do you but this whole irrational strawman game of yours is getting old



You're pulling laws out of your ass that don't exist, so stop pretending people are straw manning your when they call you out on it.

The UK could tell the diplomats to leave the country, which they'd have to do in a reasonable amount of time. They could of course also break all ties with Ecuador and shut down the embassy. They could not, however, enter the embassy without the express permission to do so.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> You're pulling laws out of your ass that don't exist, so stop pretending people are straw manning your when they call you out on it.
> 
> The UK could tell the diplomats to leave the country, which they'd have to do in a reasonable amount of time. They could of course also break all ties with Ecuador and shut down the embassy. They could not, however, enter the embassy without the express permission to do so.


 
lol now who's pulling stuff out of their ass?

go reread the article there IS a British law on the topic you fool that they could invoke, will they? Like I said I don't know I rather doubt it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> lol now who's pulling stuff out of their ass?
> 
> go reread the article there IS a British law on the topic you fool that they could invoke, will they? Like I said I don't know I rather doubt it.





There's a British law? Well then screw international law, all a country needs to do is pass their own law and just like that they're no longer bound by international law.

Please, before you post just stop, count to 5 and then check your post for anything that blatantly defies common sense.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Aug 17, 2012)

Fuck England and America


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> There's a British law? Well then screw international law, all a country needs to do is pass their own law and just like that they're no longer bound by international law.
> 
> Please, before you post just stop, count to 5 and then check your post for anything that blatantly defies common sense.


 
considering how stupid you have been you might want to do that yourself


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> considering how stupid you have been you might want to do that yourself



No response then? Figures.


----------



## Havoc (Aug 17, 2012)

Send in a covert agent and acquire him.

Problem solved.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

Haven't read through half the thread so apologies in advance.



Mael said:


> Anyone who feels the need to reveal the names and secrets of Afghans who chose to have NATO, warts and all, over the austere Taliban and now make them and their families targets is worthy of scorn in my eyes.



Anyone who feels the need to reveal that innocent lives were lost to soldiers having fun as they killed them without thinking about who they were shooting at (and subsequently crushing their dead bodies beneath tanks with zeal) is worthy of admiration in my eyes. And he did so at the expense of his own career. How is that attention whoring?



drache said:


> 'national security' is and always will be a touchy subject one that can easily be abused but imo unless there is an actual crime governments have their right to have secrets.



You still didn't answer my question. What is national security? Your inability to answer makes me think about the ambiguity of the concept itself. At least confirm that my interpretation is correct. If not, then why?



drache said:


> After all would you have been okay with Assange releasing data on the impending Osama raid? How about military offensives?



If you're talking about the US raiding Osama in Pakistan, you're right that I wouldn't be ok with that, but that isn't the kind of information wikileaks tends to report on. Also, you seem to be assuming that Assange would want to release such information. Do you think he's the anti-US terrorist organization that the rest of the media likes to frame him as?



drache said:


> And seriously? Assange *deliberately* releases information that would be damaging to US relationships but he didn't mean it? What the fuck dan? That's like saying I can punch you in the face but it's okay because I didn't really mean it.



You completely missed my point and put words in my mouth. I'm saying Assange wouldn't have had anything to report on the US if the US hadn't done anything wrong in the first place. He released information because the US was keeping dark secrets and keeping its people ignorant of its own sins. And if you think Assange only does this for the US, you're dead wrong.



Bishop said:


> You know...that's not attention whoring at all, he did this with the purpose to expose the wrongs of big wigs. You sound like a puppet being mad that he showed the wrongs of big corps and countries to emphasize the wrongdoings of those who should have our best interest in hand.



Considering this is coming from someone who is in the 1%, it says a lot.


----------



## hammer (Aug 17, 2012)

I wonder what would have happened if china stormed the us embassy for that blind man


----------



## Havoc (Aug 17, 2012)

We would default on our loans.

hahahahaha


----------



## Toby (Aug 17, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Extradition to Sweden, or to the United States where we have a practice of indefinite detention without charge to foreigners.
> 
> Would you be comfortable if Sweden extradited Assange to the United States knowing he would face that outcome? Because honestly I don't think he gives two shits about potential charges in Sweden.
> 
> My view is that anyone comfortable extraditing Assange to the United States, knowing what our practices are regarding execution and indefinite detention, has no mind for humane legal practices.



Indefinite detention could be used against him, yes. I am not excluding the possibility, but to be honest I think what would happen would be a sort of Kim Doctom trial (and correspondingly the same sort of scandal) where Assange is tried in the UK or Sweden for leaking vital information. 

Would I be comfortable with that? No. I would be very surprised to see it happen though. I know Sweden rarely if ever extradites anybody because the big powers usually respect them as an independent nation. Also, Sweden has rarely had any bigwigs of interest. During the Cold War there were many double spies operating there though, and I suspect that most of them were in the same legal limbo that Assange finds himself in now.

Fair enough, but I dont think its a serious foreign policy objective for the US to put him on trial. What matters is to publicly humiliate him with the rape charges. They will probably never stop leveling shit at him for what he has done, and his personality has not helped him redeem himself. This is a risk he should have considered when he decided to become a whistleblower. As I pointed out, most of this is related to the war on terror, and granted that blows over (and I think it will) so too will the focus on Assange as a person of interest. I personally dont think think interrogating or torturing Assange is of any use whatsoever to US foreign policy interests. Seriously, there is no point in it. Why would they do it to him?




Matto-sama said:


> According to the Vienna Convention:
> 
> 
> Inside British soil or not, Britain is forbidden by international law from entering without permission - period.



Yes, a citizen may seek asylum, but there is a limit to how often they can do this. You cannot simply escape any criminal charge by hiding in a foreign country or their diplomatic center of operations. At one point the host country has to consider the sensibility of their relations with the outside world and the offended country. In this case Assange has to prove that he has a case against his rape accusations.

Ecuador is a very interesting country however since it plays both cards with the US and China. The US subsidized Ecuadorian banana farmers and bought their agricultural produce on preferential terms. China on the other hand invests in Ecuador. If Chinese and US interests align, and I would expect them to do so in they eyes of those that consider Assange a threat, then they ought to cooperate to get him into a court. If on the other hand Assange is completely unimportant to China then they wont rub any shoulders. I personally maintain that while he is a small annoyance to some countries, he is not an important target. They dont prioritize the Assange case the same way they prioritize arresting arms dealers, terrorists etc.

His crime is too small to matter, and when enough time passes, people will see that there is relatively little damage in what Wikileaks do for a living. (One should also consider that the good Wikileaks does is also limited. Only so many people care about these leaks to bother reading them. Wikileaks does not get as much internet traffic as one would expect.)


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> No response then? Figures.



Sauf what is there left to say? I point out that there is indeed a british law and you throw a fit I point out Assange's hypocrisy you throw a fit, I point out that Assange isn't facing anything from the US and you offer some absurd conspiracy theory.

At a certain point one must wash one's hands and walk away, I think I am at that point.



Freedan said:


> You still didn't answer my question. What is national security? Your inability to answer makes me think about the ambiguity of the concept itself. At least confirm that my interpretation is correct. If not, then why?



it's not an inability the fact is 'national security' means different things to different people. I think if you go back you'll see I gave you my answer but to make it easier let me repeat.

To me national security is anything that would put innocent lives in danger but that does not cover covering up actual crimes.




Freedan said:


> If you're talking about the US raiding Osama in Pakistan, you're right that I wouldn't be ok with that, but that isn't the kind of information wikileaks tends to report on. Also, you seem to be assuming that Assange would want to release such information. Do you think he's the anti-US terrorist organization that the rest of the media likes to frame him as?



Assange released info regarding informants and military ops without regard to the consequences why would the Osama raid be any different?

As to what I think of Assange, terrorist? No, Anti US? Maybe Narcissist and hypocrite? Definitely 




Freedan said:


> You completely missed my point and put words in my mouth. I'm saying Assange wouldn't have had anything to report on the US if the US hadn't done anything wrong in the first place. He released information because the US was keeping dark secrets and keeping its people ignorant of its own sins. And if you think Assange only does this for the US, you're dead wrong.



people keep repeating this and yet have shown nothing backing up these claims that there was anything 'dark' or 'wrong' in the vast number of commmunications


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

I hate Assange since it's not about national security, wikileaks or making the world a better place; it's his own personal war against the US, which he has used Wikileaks for (which is why he got kicked out of the organisation), and he will do anything to stroke his ego, even if it means destabilizing the world.

Also, he raped those girls. The fact that he refuses to come in for questioning, flees the country and makes a huge thing about it just proves his guilt, and he thinks he can throw his weight around to avoid being trialed like a normal person.

Also, Freedan, I advice you to ignore this; I'm not interested in your terroristhugging, apologetic, left-wing bullshit. I know you're full of shit; point taken, no need to repeat your idiocy.


----------



## Lord Glacial (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> Actually the reason why I don't like him is because of his indiscriminate release of secrets.
> 
> I'm a big fan of transparency but not at the sake of national security. I accept that there are some things the public just shouldn't know immediately if ever. It was like that during the revolution and nothing has changed.
> 
> Transparency for the sake of transparency is just stupid. And further even if what he did was right he still broke the law he should have been prepared for that.



They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

^^


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> I hate Assange since it's not about national security, wikileaks or making the world a better place; it's his own personal war against the US, which he has used Wikileaks for (which is why he got kicked out of the organisation), and he will do anything to stroke his ego, even if it means destabilizing the world.
> 
> Also, he raped those girls. The fact that he refuses to come in for questioning, flees the country and makes a huge thing about it just proves his guilt, and he thinks he can throw his weight around to avoid being trialed like a normal person.
> 
> Also, Freedan, I advice you to ignore this; I'm not interested in your terroristhugging, apologetic, left-wing bullshit. I know you're full of shit; point taken, no need to repeat your idiocy.



He has not refused to come in. He is willing to as long as Sweden guarantees he they will not extradite him; they will not guarantee they will not extradite him. He's agreed to talk to the Swedish authorities (which is all they want to do as there are no charges) and they declined.

Please actually read before you post.




Toby said:


> Yes, a citizen may seek asylum, but there is a limit to how often they can do this. You cannot simply escape any criminal charge by hiding in a foreign country or their diplomatic center of operations. At one point the host country has to consider the sensibility of their relations with the outside world and the offended country. In this case Assange has to prove that he has a case against his rape accusations.



Assange doesn't have to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty - Sweden needs the evidence of his guilt.

And Assange is willing to go back to Sweden to face the accusations - as long as Sweden guarantees he will not be extradited to the US. Sweden will not guarantee this. He is only wanted for questioning since there are no charges yet, and he has also agreed to talk to Swedish authorities if they came to the embassy; Swedish authorities declined.

It's clearly not about the rape accusations since Sweden doesn't care about talking to him like they say; Sweden is just trying to get him back where he can be extradited. Do you really think - honestly here - that the UK would threaten to storm an embassy to get a man who is only wanted for questioning on rape/sexual assault and not even be charged? 



Toby said:


> His crime is too small to matter, and when enough time passes, people will see that there is relatively little damage in what Wikileaks do for a living. (One should also consider that the good Wikileaks does is also limited. Only so many people care about these leaks to bother reading them. Wikileaks does not get as much internet traffic as one would expect.)



Apparently it's not too small to matter, since some people are trying very hard to get at him. Threatening to invade an embassy to get him shows how much he is wanted.

There is little-no damage done by Wiki Leaks. However, to the people in power it's awful. They get exposed of their illegal actions and have to face the consequences. They do not like this so they want him gone.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> He has not refused to come in. He is willing to as long as Sweden guarantees he they will not extradite him; they will not guarantee they will not extradite him. He's agreed to talk to the Swedish authorities (which is all they want to do as there are no charges) and they declined.
> 
> Please actually read before you post.



I'm Swedish, so take a fucking guess how much I see about this in the media.

Assange refuses to come to Sweden; he refused to go there claiming there was no legal reason for him to do so, and he refused to go after a British judge had ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden for questioning. 
There is no case, just somebody who puts himself above the law while stalling for time.

Also, the Swedish judicial system is *independent*; no politician can make any statement that binds it from doing something as it would violate the Swedish constitution. Assange knows this, which is why he's trying to pin the blame on everyone else, claiming that Sweden wants to extradite him to the US since they refuse to guarantee something which will violate their own constitution for Assange's sake.

People who support Assange are a bunch of left-wing shitheads who doesn't respect the law and believes some people should be put above it for whatever BS reason they can come up with.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> I'm Swedish, so take a fucking guess how much I see about this in the media.
> 
> Assange refuses to come to Sweden; he refused to go there claiming there was no legal reason for him to do so, and he refused to go after a British judge had ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden for questioning.
> There is no case, just somebody who puts himself above the law while stalling for time.
> ...



If it violates the constitution then why don't they say that and guarantee him? If they can't do it, then making a guarantee to Ecuador shouldn't be a problem. 

He's refused to go unless they guarantee him he won't be extradited. He's agreed to talk to Swedish authorities and they declined. 

I guess I'm a left-wing shithead then


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> If it violates the constitution then why don't they say that and guarantee him? If they can't do it, then making a guarantee to Ecuador shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> He's refused to go unless they guarantee him he won't be extradited. He's agreed to talk to Swedish authorities and they declined.
> 
> I guess I'm a left-wing shithead then



Jesus Christ... How about taking your own advice and READING?

Sweden can't make any guarantees as no politician can dictate how the courts are going to handle their cases. Sweden actually has something called an independent judiciary meant to protect the individuals from the government, and Equador (and you apparently), which hasn't got anything close to an independent judicial system, can't understand the concept of a country where the government can't overrule the courts. Obama holds about as much power over the supreme court in the US.

Assange isn't the one making the fucking demands for that matter; he should get his raping ass over to Sweden for questioning, just like any and every other person on the fucking planet would be extradited the same way.


----------



## hammer (Aug 17, 2012)

afterglow nobody makes this much fuss over a suspected rapist in a embassy.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

hammer said:


> afterglow nobody makes this much fuss over a suspected rapist in a embassy.



HE is the one who is making the fuss over it.
Assange is the one who's made a deal out of this, calling out to the media, claiming Sweden is collaborating with the US to get him extradited and fleeing to the embassy. 

The "fuss", doesn't exist.

Sweden/UK are handling this the exact same way they would for anybody in the same situation. The difference is that they're usually not a internationally famous, paranoid megalomaniac who people find interesting. You think some random person wanted for questioning in a country normally runs off to an embassy screaming about asylum, and if they do, you think the media care?


----------



## God (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Assange isn't the one making the fucking demands for that matter; he should get his raping ass over to Sweden for questioning,* just like any and every other person on the fucking planet would be extradited the same way.*



you're full of shit
every other person accused of rape is chased to these lengths?


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

Cubey said:


> you're full of shit
> every other person accused of rape is chased to these lengths?



Of course. Countries threaten to storm embassies to question people for sexual assault all the time


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Cubey said:


> you're full of shit
> every other person accused of rape is chased to these lengths?



They are normally arrested and extracted immediately, with no media coverage or anybody giving a fuck. Hell, most people voluntarily go, the few resisting getting apprehended and deported. 

But occasionally you have somebody who is wanted by the police for that exact same reason, but who manages to get into an embassy, which means he is still wanted by the police, but they can't get to him, while he's making a big fuss in the media, which keeps public interest spiked.

But of course, then we have moronic fucktards who thinks he has to be innocent, because why would the media report about it that much otherwise (just some guy wanted for questioning), when it comes from the fact that moronic fucktards are interested is what gives this BS media coverage.

Add in the fact that Assange has escalated this situation to where it is now all by himself while painting himself into a corner, and you have the clown emperor and his bunch of ignorant buffoon followers.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> Sauf what is there left to say? I point out that there is indeed a british law and you throw a fit I point out Assange's hypocrisy you throw a fit, I point out that Assange isn't facing anything from the US and you offer some absurd conspiracy theory.



The fact that the UK is willing to commit to an act which is tantamount to war for one man wanted for questioning and not even facing ANY charges means nothing to you?



drache said:


> it's not an inability the fact is 'national security' means different things to different people. I think if you go back you'll see I gave you my answer but to make it easier let me repeat.
> 
> To me national security is anything that would put innocent lives in danger but that does not cover covering up actual crimes.



In other words, saying he's a threat to national security is a very vague statement because it carries an assortment of different meanings. So what exactly is Assange doing against national security if there's no one definition of it? I agree with you that national security is protecting innocent lives from danger (which is what I believe I said earlier on as well). Assange has done NO SUCH THING. The US and countless other countries have, and Assange is calling them out on it for hiding their people from what they deserve to know.



drache said:


> Assange released info regarding informants and military ops without regard to the consequences why would the Osama raid be any different?
> 
> As to what I think of Assange, terrorist? No, Anti US? Maybe Narcissist and hypocrite? Definitely.



I'm not here to deny anyone's allegations about what type of person he is and not once did I touch on that particular subject as it has absolutely no bearing on this topic. My point is that some people do take him for a terrorist and decidedly anti-US (read AfterGlow's post). I'm merely pointing out neither is true. Assange, narcissist or not, is anti-secrecy before anything else. Whether he's doing it for selfish reasons or not is hardly the matter here. The matter is that the UK intends to invade the private property of another country, effectively ruining diplomatic relations with them, because a third country wants him for questioning, not even because he has an arrest-warrant following successful charges placed on him.



drache said:


> people keep repeating this and yet have shown nothing backing up these claims that there was anything 'dark' or 'wrong' in the vast number of commmunications



Killing innocent people doesn't count as anything "dark" or "wrong" to you? Or Bradley Manning exposed something that should be regarded as absolutely normal?



AfterGlow said:


> Also, Freedan, I advice you to ignore this; I'm not interested in your terroristhugging, apologetic, left-wing bullshit. I know you're full of shit; point taken, no need to repeat your idiocy.



And here you are obviously putting words in my mouth as usual. Nothing new here.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Oh, and the whole "he's just wanted for questioning"?

In Sweden there is something called "h?ktning"  which is a pre-trial supervision measure pursuant to Swedish law, meaning that a suspect can be detained by a court in the case of crimes for which there is a prison term of one year or more.

Assange has been "h?ktad i sin fr?nvaro", ergo h?ktad in absentia, and is therefor to be in custody of the Swedish judicial system until decision of trial.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

^which Assange agreed to. The only reason he doesn't want to go is because they haven't guaranteed he would not be extradited to the US, who also haven't placed ANY charges on him btw.

And before you bash me for being a US-hater, what I'm saying is that Assange has his reasons for not going and that the deal sounds really odd. Nothing more than that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Assange is an egomaniac and it's true, he doesn't care about 'informing the people', he has had a vendetta against the U.S. in particular for years now, and only leaked documents due to that, and with no consideration of the number of the documents or their contents. The fact that he has threatened that he is sitting on even more documents, and basically that it could topple U.S. infrastructure only shows he has no intentions other than to stroke his overly inflated ego.

Manning isn't a hero either, he INDISCRIMINATELY leaked hundreds of thousands of documents, he had no particular motive of revealing info or else that would've been the only thing released in which case he likely would have had a strong case in his defense. However this was not the case for him. It's gotten to the point that people legitimately pushing for more transparency have grown tired of Assange and his antics, as he has basically developed a cult of personality around himself, where people rather than focusing on the important issue of transparency fixate themselves on him. He should be in jail, just as Manning is, because he did not practice the integrity whistleblowers should and often do when giving out information relevant to us.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> ^which Assange agreed to. The only reason he doesn't want to go is because they haven't guaranteed he would not be extradited to the US, who also haven't placed ANY charges on him btw.
> 
> And before you bash me for being a US-hater, what I'm saying is that Assange has his reasons for not going and that the deal sounds really odd. Nothing more than that.



He knows they can't guarantee that, as he is familiar with the Swedish law through his Swedish attorney. Not that I think there is any risk of him being extradited to the US in the first place, it's just a strawman of his to avoid standing trial in Sweden, since he's probably going to lose.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Assange is an egomaniac and it's true, he doesn't care about 'informing the people', he has had a vendetta against the U.S. in particular for years now, and only leaked documents due to that, and with no consideration of the number of the documents or their contents. The fact that he has threatened that he is sitting on even more documents, and basically that it could topple U.S. infrastructure only shows he has no intentions other than to stroke his overly inflated ego.
> 
> Manning isn't a hero either, he INDISCRIMINATELY leaked hundreds of thousands of documents, he had no particular motive of revealing info or else that would've been the only thing released in which case he likely would have had a strong case in his defense. However this was not the case for him. It's gotten to the point that people legitimately pushing for more transparency have grown tired of Assange and his antics, as he has basically developed a cult of personality around himself, where people rather than focusing on the important issue of transparency fixate themselves on him. He should be in jail, just as Manning is, because he did not practice the integrity whistleblowers should and often do when giving out information relevant to us.



Sorry, not liking his personality is not good enough.

None of the information Assange/Manning released harmed anyone or national security in anyway. Which is important to note. It may have damaged some countries' - and particularly the US' - reputations, but that's the fault of the countries that committed those acts in the first place.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Sorry, not liking his personality is not good enough.
> 
> None of the information Assange/Manning released harmed anyone or national security in anyway. Which is important to note. It may have damaged some countries' - and particularly the US' - reputations, but that's the fault of the countries that committed those acts in the first place.



And that's the cult-like attitude I'm talking about. Way to ignore everything else though. 

This is a stupid defense, you can shoot in the air, and just because you don't hurt anybody doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Just because the leaked info, such as the revealed names of informants that haven't been killed to our knowledge, doesn't make it ok to do so. Just because revealing sensitive info related to our infrastructure hasn't resulted in an attack on them doesn't make it ok to reveal such info. They put no consideration into the documents they leaked, that is irresponsible, and illegal.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> He knows they can't guarantee that, as he is familiar with the Swedish law through his Swedish attorney. Not that I think there is any risk of him being extradited to the US in the first place, it's just a strawman of his to avoid standing trial in Sweden, since he's probably going to lose.



The thing to consider is why do they want him for questioning? Was it the "rape victims" who called him out or an anonymous tip? I'd like to see how much evidence they have on him. Of course, that's not something I'm asking you.

Honestly, whether he gets sent to Sweden or not isn't something I'm concerned about. Again, I've never said he should or shouldn't go there, but the extreme measures the UK is willing to resort to in order to keep him here/fly him to Sweden is what I find strange.



Seto Kaiba said:


> And that's the cult-like attitude I'm talking about. Way to ignore everything else though.
> 
> This is a stupid defense, you can shoot in the air, and just because you don't hurt anybody doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Just because the leaked info, such as the revealed names of informants that haven't been killed to our knowledge, doesn't make it ok to do so.



What's cult-like is calling Assange as the wrong-doer because people don't like him. I have no sympathy or hatred toward him, and whether what he did was for selfish reasons or not doesn't mean that what the US and other countries did wasn't right either. Everyone has their sins.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 17, 2012)

It is extreme due to the way HE has made it.  The UK courts were actually very slow at picking up the swedish request for extradition, it then went through all the courts and since Sweden is a first would civilized country that does not torture or anything in that nature there was no reason they found to deny the extradition.

Assange decided to appeal, had his bail and went running to the first embassy he could find that wasn't pro american.  He upped it no one else did


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

> What's cult-like is calling Assange as the wrong-doer because people don't like him. I have no sympathy or hatred toward him, and whether what he did was for selfish reasons or not doesn't mean that what the US and other countries did wasn't right either. Everyone has their sins.



He did a clearly illegal act, and he should be held accountable for it. We aren't calling him a wrong-doer because people don't like him, we're calling him one because he indiscriminately leaked documents with no consideration of their contents. You're only displaying ignorance by just repeating what Matto stated, which was the exact same thing, trying to simplify the matter as "WE'RE JUST HATERS". I just told you what he did, and you ignored that.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And that's the cult-like attitude I'm talking about. Way to ignore everything else though.
> 
> This is a stupid defense, you can shoot in the air, and just because you don't hurt anybody doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Just because the leaked info, and the revealed names of informants haven't been killed to our knowledge, doesn't make it ok to do so.



I don't like Assange. I think he's an asshole and egotistical. 

A lot of the information that was revealed was of things that the US shouldn't have done. A lot of it was things that we should know. 

He's exposed a lot of dark secrets while not harming anyone in the process. Should there have been more screening of the documents? Maybe. However, I don't think their actions warrant the treatment they're receiving. 

Bradley Manning isn't even getting a fair trial because the government won't give the defense any of the documents the prosecution is using as evidence. I doubt Assange would be treated any better.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> The thing to consider is why do they want him for questioning? Was it the "rape victims" who called him out or an anonymous tip? I'd like to see how much evidence they have on him. Of course, that's not something I'm asking you.
> 
> Honestly, whether he gets sent to Sweden or not isn't something I'm concerned about. Again, I've never said he should or shouldn't go there, but the extreme measures the UK is willing to resort to in order to keep him here/fly him to Sweden is what I find strange.



Why? Because it's an on-going investigation of two accounts of rape where he is the prime suspect who has been remanded in absentia and is internationally wanted for questioning? Assange left Sweden and refused to return for questioning, saying he couldn't be forced to return/leave the UK, and once the UK courts concluded that he was going to be extradited, he fled to the embassy. It's clear to anybody following this case from the beginning that Assange is full of shit and is trying to avoid legal proceedings at any cost.

The UK on the other hand, has been publicly shamed for letting Assange escape to the Ecuadorian embassy; it's their duty to capture him and extract him. They won't let him go as it would make them look even more incompetent; it's about prestige at this point.

Also this:


Nemesis said:


> It is extreme due to the way HE has made it.  The UK courts were actually very slow at picking up the swedish request for extradition, it then went through all the courts and since Sweden is a first would civilized country that does not torture or anything in that nature there was no reason they found to deny the extradition.
> 
> *Assange decided to appeal, had his bail and went running to the first embassy he could find that wasn't pro american.  He upped it no one else did*


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He did a clearly illegal act, and he should be held accountable for it. We aren't calling him a wrong-doer because people don't like him, we're calling him one because he indiscriminately leaked documents with no consideration of their contents. You're only displaying ignorance by just repeating what Matto stated, which was the exact same thing, trying to simplify the matter as "WE'RE JUST HATERS". I just told you what he did, and you ignored that.



Illegal as it was, putting it out in the open that soldiers killed innocent lives (and had fun doing so) wasn't the wrong thing to do. Often, legal =! moral. Otherwise, bribery would have to be considered morally correct considering it's legal for corporations to have no limits on campaign spending.

Besides, the US hasn't charged him for anything. Legally, they have nothing to do with this case (which is one reason why I'm not personally worried they'll extradite him there either).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> I don't like Assange. I think he's an asshole and egotistical.
> 
> A lot of the information that was revealed was of things that the US shouldn't have done. A lot of it was things that we should know.
> 
> ...



You are really not getting it are you? This isn't just about him being egotistical, there's not crime against that, it's what it has driven him to do.

They both released hundreds of thousands of documents, only some of which revealed things relevant to us. If he had *only* revealed the documents that outed wrongdoings, he'd have a case for his defense, as we do have measures to protect such whistleblowers. He didn't do this however. Among the documents he released he also released the unedited names of informants, and sensitive areas not only in the U.S., but abroad as well that are relevant to us. The outing of certain wrongdoings was a matter of consequence as a result of releasing documents en masse, but other sensitive information was released as well. 

Just because to our knowledge, that people were not killed as a result, does not make it right or legal. Do you not understand that simple matter?

Manning is a U.S. soldier, and subject to their laws. He committed an act of treason, which he could be executed for.



> Illegal as it was, putting it out in the open that soldiers killed innocent lives (and had fun doing so) wasn't the wrong thing to do. Often, legal =! moral. Otherwise, bribery would have to be considered morally correct considering it's legal for corporations to have no limits on campaign spending.
> 
> Besides, the US hasn't charged him for anything. Legally, they have nothing to do with this case (which is one reason why I'm not personally worried they'll extradite him there either).



Refer to my response above, you just repeated the same thing Matto did. 

If I released hundreds of thousands of documents, some of which revealed let's say corrupt bank practices, but I also wound up releasing numerous bank account numbers, names, and PINs even if they would not be used by ID thieves doesn't make what I did right or legal. I'm still going to jail due to my lack of discretion.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Why? Because it's an on-going investigation of two accounts of rape where he is the prime suspect who has been remanded in absentia and is internationally wanted for questioning? Assange left Sweden and refused to return for questioning, saying he couldn't be forced to return/leave the UK, and once the UK courts concluded that he was going to be extradited, he fled to the embassy. It's clear to anybody following this case from the beginning that Assange is full of shit and is trying to avoid legal proceedings at any cost.
> 
> The UK on the other hand, has been publicly shamed for letting Assange escape to the Ecuadorian embassy; it's their duty to capture him and extract him. They won't let him go as it would make them look even more incompetent; it's about prestige at this point.



Missing my point again. You're good at this, aren't you? Who testified against him? How much evidence do they have against him? Those are the questions I'm asking. I know there's an ongoing rape investigation.

If it's a matter of prestige, they could easily go about this in a more peaceful way then to explicitly state their intention to invade another country's private property. Sacrificing foreign relations with another country for a man who hasn't even been judged guilty still seems rather extreme even if he's done what he can to avoid trial which, as I just said, is not something I'm concerned with.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Missing my point again. You're good at this, aren't you? Who testified against him? How much evidence do they have against him? Those are the questions I'm asking. I know there's an ongoing rape investigation.



The 2 alleged victims did, they are the ones who requested charges against him be made for rape.  Hell one of them was on his side politically before the alleged rape.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 17, 2012)

*How Wikileaks Blew It*

Pretty good article analyzing Wikileaks and Assange's downfall.



> How WikiLeaks Blew It
> The sad downfall of Julian Assange and his empire of secrets.
> BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | AUGUST 16, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Missing my point again. You're good at this, aren't you? Who testified against him? How much evidence do they have against him? Those are the questions I'm asking. I know there's an ongoing rape investigation.
> 
> If it's a matter of prestige, they could easily go about this in a more peaceful way then to explicitly state their intention to invade another country's private property. Sacrificing foreign relations with another country for a man who hasn't even been judged guilty still seems rather extreme even if he's done what he can to avoid trial which, as I just said, is not something I'm concerned with.



Who testified against him?
The two women he raped.

As far as evidence goes, I have no idea, but they apparently have enough that they believe they can base a case on it.

As far as peaceful ways goes; Assange has burned all those bridges.
Ecuador is on the other hand throwing gasoline at the fire, it's international prestige; the UK must be able to extradite wanted people to their allies (and vice versa), and some third-rate shit country meddling in their affairs to get some points at home shouldn't expect being patted on the head.

It's not about Assange or a question about his guilt at this point; it's about a wanted criminal spitting on the judicial systems of two sovereign nation and trying to involve a third one to escape justice.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They both released hundreds of thousands of documents, only some of which revealed things relevant to us. If he had *only* revealed the documents that outed wrongdoings, he'd have a case for his defense, as we do have measures to protect such whistleblowers. He didn't do this however. Among the documents he released he also released the unedited names of informants, and sensitive areas not only in the U.S., but abroad as well that are relevant to us. The outing of certain wrongdoings was a matter of consequence as a result of releasing documents en masse, but other sensitive information was released as well.



And that does not warrant the treatment they are getting. It may have been sensitive information that should have been weeded out, but since no one was hurt and it was released with info that was good to know, they shouldn't face punishment. And certainly not be executed. Instead of people calling for them to face the consequences of their actions, why is no one calling for the people in charge to face charges for war crimes? War crimes are more serious than releasing info that should have been kept secret but caused no harm. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Just because to our knowledge, that people were not killed as a result, does not make it right or legal. Do you not understand that simple matter?



The fact that the US cannot produce any evidence someone has been harmed  should be noted. If he released information that caused injury or death to people, then I would say something would need to be done. 

Releasing documents/video of the US committing murder may not be legal, but it's right.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Manning is a U.S. soldier, and subject to their laws. He committed an act of treason, which he could be executed for.



Yet the soldier who revealed the US committing war crimes should be punished instead of the people in charge that allowed them to happen and covered them up.

I don't care if he's a soldier. Everyone should get a fair trial. And you're calling for execution? Absolutely insane.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

> The World Tomorrow -- particularly with its first episode, a softball interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. It doesn't help that the show is aired by RT (formerly Russia Today), a network funded by the Russian government. And in an ironic twist, the transparency advocate has now cast his lot with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, a past World Tomorrow guest and a leader with a less-than-sterling record on press freedom.



This more or less sums up why he's a hack. His promise to crusade against the Russians next was an obvious lie, he just became an anchor on their state network instead. He only targeted the US for whatever personal reasons, and most of said exposes weren't even very ground-breaking or whistleblowing.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

Nemesis said:


> The 2 alleged victims did, they are the ones who requested charges against him be made for rape.  Hell one of them was on his side politically before the alleged rape.



Yes, they both used to be Wikileaks employees from what I gather. That actually makes it also somewhat questionable. I won't second-guess anything, but there have been cases, as I mentioned earlier, where women who've had a bad relationship with someone will resort to this sort of thing our of a sense of vengeance. I refer to the case of the not football player after a woman he was about to have sex with had him thrown in jail for raping her. My point is that Assange could as well be innocent, we don't know until he does stand trial.



AfterGlow said:


> Who testified against him?
> The two women he raped.



We don't know if he raped them. Guilty until proven innocent is it? Or just guilty?



AfterGlow said:


> As far as evidence goes, I have no idea, but they apparently have enough that they believe they can base a case on it.



We'll see about it. If that is the case, then he has nothing to worry about. Swedish prisons are better than English houses 



AfterGlow said:


> As far as peaceful ways goes; Assange has burned all those bridges.
> Ecuador is on the other hand throwing gasoline at the fire, it's international prestige; the UK must be able to extradite wanted people to their allies (and vice versa), and some third-rate shit country meddling in their affairs to get some points at home shouldn't expect being patted on the head.
> 
> It's not about Assange or a question about his guilt at this point; it's about a wanted criminal spitting on the judicial systems of two sovereign nation and trying to involve a third one to escape justice.



Assange isn't the one making decisions for the UK on how to capture him. The UK is. I'm almost certain Ecuador wouldn't have granted him asylum if the UK negotiated with them peacefully. Straining international relations with them isn't what worked in their favor.

Wanted criminal? You make it sound as tho he's already been judged guilty when he hasn't. He's wanted for questioning. Last I heard, someone wanted for questioning isn't a criminal. Not yet at least, until he has been judged as such.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> And that does not warrant the treatment they are getting. It may have been sensitive information that should have been weeded out, but since no one was hurt and it was released with info that was good to know, they shouldn't face punishment. And certainly not be executed. Instead of people calling for them to face the consequences of their actions, why is no one calling for the people in charge to face charges for war crimes? War crimes are more serious than releasing info that should have been kept secret but caused no harm.



Honestly, that's stupid. Just because no one was hurt in an illegal act does not mean they should be let go for it. Manning is a U.S. soldier, and he committed treason. A punishment for treason is possible execution. You're just deflecting from the topic now, of course such wrong-doers should be punished, but Manning and Assange all the same.



> The fact that the US cannot produce any evidence someone has been harmed  should be noted. If he released information that caused injury or death to people, then I would say something would need to be done.



You're being obtuse. He indiscriminately leaked classified documents, which is already illegal. Manning in particular did so as a U.S. soldier, had some discretion be practiced it wouldn't be the issue it is today. 



> Releasing documents/video of the US committing murder may not be legal, but it's right.



This is only indicative that you've been ignoring every thing I pointed out to you. Indiscriminate leaking of hundreds of thousands of documents, not a precise leaking of wrongdoings? What aren't you understanding here? 



> Yet the soldier who revealed the US committing war crimes should be punished instead of the people in charge that allowed them to happen and covered them up.



We punish soldiers that are shown to have participated in war crimes and other misconduct, you are trying to avoid the matters of Assange and Manning's own wrongdoings however. 



> I don't care if he's a soldier. Everyone should get a fair trial. And you're calling for execution? Absolutely insane.



You're not reading anything I posted, clearly. The military conducts its trials separate from that of civilian courts because those that sign up for it agree to certain conditions which Manning violated.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

That cult of personality around him...


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> We don't know if he raped them. Guilty until proven innocent is it? Or just guilty?



Innocent until proven guilty, however, the fact that he tries to avoid being proved innocent the only way he can be proved innocent; by cooperating with the investigation/trial speaks volumes.




> We'll see about it. If that is the case, then he has nothing to worry about. Swedish prisons are better than English houses



He probably wouldn't even get sent to prison even if he was convicted.




> Assange isn't the one making decisions for the UK on how to capture him. The UK is. I'm almost certain Ecuador wouldn't have granted him asylum if the UK negotiated with them peacefully. Straining international relations with them isn't what worked in their favor.



Ecuador is doing this to spite the US, and for no other reason. Correa is trying to win points among his people by standing up the US (which is how they are playing it off in Ecuador). Assange chose Ecuador for that exact reason. They wouldn't hand Assange over regardless of diplomacy.



> Wanted criminal? You make it sound as tho he's already been judged guilty when he hasn't. He's wanted for questioning. Last I heard, someone wanted for questioning isn't a criminal. Not yet at least, until he has been judged as such.



Assange jumped bail; that makes him a criminal.
Assange has an arrest put out on him for crimes he's comitted.

He IS a wanted criminal (not for raping those women, if he did or not); but for jumping bail and failing to show up in court. Anybody else doing the same thing would have an arrest put out on them.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Aug 17, 2012)

Didn't that guy rape someone?

And he just pissed off a lot of people which caused him to be in hot water.


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Honestly, whether he gets sent to Sweden or not isn't something I'm concerned about. Again, I've never said he should or shouldn't go there, but the extreme measures the UK is willing to resort to in order to keep him here/fly him to Sweden is what I find strange.



It's about principles and prestige at this point, not the individual case. EU countries are supposed to help each other catch criminals for one another, with the same effort as if it was a domestic case. The UK needs to show that they honor this agreement, so that if next time it's a British criminal hiding in Sweden we will do the same thing.

Since the case has so much media attention, the UK can't back away from it without making the whole European justice cooperation look bad.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)




----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Innocent until proven guilty, however, the fact that he tries to avoid being proved innocent the only way he can be proved innocent; by cooperating with the investigation/trial speaks volumes.



Holy Shit. There's actually something we agree on?

*checks for flying pigs outside the window*

Ok, phew. World isn't ending anytime soon 



AfterGlow said:


> Ecuador is doing this to spite the US, and for no other reason. Correa is trying to win points among his people by standing up the US (which is how they are playing it off in Ecuador). Assange chose Ecuador for that exact reason. They wouldn't hand Assange over regardless of diplomacy.



Considering he's not altogether very friendly with the US, it's understandable that countries that countries which don't have a close relationship with the US aren't the first ones he would turn to. Consider also that he's not asking North Korea for asylum, which should say something about his not being so anti-US as some people would think. I'm looking at it from his position. Ecuador helping him to spite the US probably isn't something he decided.



AfterGlow said:


> Assange jumped bail; that makes him a criminal.
> Assange has an arrest put out on him for crimes he's comitted.



First part, perhaps.
Second part, not at all. We don't know if he's committed them and you even admitted that we don't know if he hasn't. How can he be deemed a criminal for crimes we don't know he committed?


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Considering he's not altogether very friendly with the US, it's understandable that countries that countries which don't have a close relationship with the US aren't the first ones he would turn to. Consider also that he's not asking North Korea for asylum, which should say something about his not being so anti-US as some people would think. I'm looking at it from his position. Ecuador helping him to spite the US probably isn't something he decided.



Decided? No.

Anticipated and counted on? Yes.

This is exactly what he set out to accomplish; trying to escape justice at any cost.




> First part, perhaps.
> Second part, not at all. We don't know if he's committed them and you even admitted that we don't know if he hasn't. How can he be deemed a criminal for crimes we don't know he committed?



Are you daft? The crimes he's actually committed so far is jumping bail and failing to appear in court; a violation of the law which may result in an arrest warrant, fines, and other penalties

He's a criminal, he might also be a rapist. 
We'll never know unless he gets his ass to Sweden for questioning, but obviously he doesn't need to, since he's above the law, and left wing douchenozzles will protect ones paranoid fuckwads right to stand above the law because he's done some shit to spite the US, and that's the only thing that matters.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Decided? No.
> 
> Anticipated and counted on? Yes.
> 
> This is exactly what he set out to accomplish; trying to escape justice at any cost.



How do you know he was hoping Ecuador would do it just to smite the US and its allies? Is it his anti-US stance? It seems more feasible to me to say he's anti-secrecy, and the US happened to have kept A LOT of secrets.



AfterGlow said:


> Are you daft? The crimes he's actually committed so far is jumping bail and failing to appear in court; a violation of the law which may result in an arrest warrant, fines, and other penalties
> 
> He's a criminal, he might also be a rapist.
> We'll never know unless he gets his ass to Sweden for questioning, but obviously he doesn't need to, since he's above the law, and left wing douchenozzles will protect ones paranoid fuckwads right to stand above the law because he's done some shit to spite the US, and that's the only thing that matters.



You still think I want to defend him because he's been anti US? That's not at all where I stand, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I never said he's above the law. I even said (or implied in any case) that if they do find him guilty for those rape charges, he should spend time in jail.

You bash Sweden, the place you come from, all the time. Why shouldn't I, an American, be allowed to criticize my own country? Assange notwithstanding.


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> How do you know he was hoping Ecuador would do it just to smite the US and its allies? Is it his anti-US stance? It seems more feasible to me to say he's anti-secrecy, and the US happened to have kept A LOT of secrets.



He picked Ecuador BECAUSE they might grant him asylum to smite the US (which would be the only reason anybody would give him asylum), since they are about as anti-US as Assange himself is.

Also, Assange's anti-US stance is fucking legendary, every single thing he does, he does because he hates the USA. This isn't some FOX news propaganda, the man hates the US more than anything else on the planet, he pretty much hi-jacked wikileaks to further his agenda, which also got him kicked out since wikileaks isn't based around anti-Americanism as a whole.




> You still think I want to defend him because he's been anti US? That's not at all where I stand, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I never said he's above the law. I even said (or implied in any case) that if they do find him guilty for those rape charges, he should spend time in jail.



No, I think you defend him because you see him as somebody being prosecuted by the big ol' bully the US of A (and allies) for spreading mean things about it, not for being a grade A asshat trying to avoid the law by strawmanning the US into it.



> You bash Sweden, the place you come from, all the time. Why shouldn't I, an American, be allowed to criticize my own country? Assange notwithstanding.



Difference is I bash Sweden for all the stupid things it does; you're supporting somebody because he is anti-USA and you assume that's why he is being prosecuted.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

Your entire post does nothing but put words in my mouth.



AfterGlow said:


> He picked Ecuador BECAUSE they might grant him asylum to smite the US (which would be the only reason anybody would give him asylum), since they are about as anti-US as Assange himself is.



Given his position, as I've explained, Ecuador would've been more likely to grant him asylum compared to, for instance, Canada or Spain, considering they have much closer ties to the US. If he would run into anyone's arms, it wouldn't have been anyone with close ties to the US. At the same time, he didn't run into the arms of a country which is openly anti-US in more ways than Ecuador is.



AfterGlow said:


> Also, Assange's anti-US stance is fucking legendary, every single thing he does, he does because he hates the USA. This isn't some FOX news propaganda, the man hates the US more than anything else on the planet, he pretty much hi-jacked wikileaks to further his agenda, which also got him kicked out since wikileaks isn't based around anti-Americanism as a whole.



Especially considering the other thread, I don't disagree. I never said I support EVERYTHING Wikileaks does (I don't even go to the site) and never went out of my way to defend either Wikileaks or Assange, just that the whistleblowing isn't without reason (such as the US doing those things in the first place).



AfterGlow said:


> No, I think you defend him because you see him as somebody being prosecuted by the big ol' bully the US of A (and allies) for spreading mean things about it, not for being a grade A asshat trying to avoid the law by strawmanning the US into it.



You think, and think, and think some more, and decide my reasons for defending Assange without even realizing I'm not actually defending him. Just stop putting words in my mouth. It's not helping you.



AfterGlow said:


> Difference is I bash Sweden for all the stupid things it does; you're supporting somebody because he is anti-USA and you assume that's why he is being prosecuted.



This is seriously getting annoying in more ways than one. When did I ever say that?

I keep forgetting I'm speaking to the one who'd have millions of children systematically slaughtered just for a mental disorder in a similar fashion as the holocaust yet criticizes Hitler....


----------



## AfterGlow (Aug 17, 2012)

Silly Freedan, always bringing up irrelevant things concerning me.

The situation is this; 

Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden for a crime he may have committed (he was previously brought in and questioned about it before leaving the country), he refuses to go claiming Swedish courts are notoriously corrupt and unfair (which isn't true).

The Swedish authorities request the UK to have Assange extradited, Assange claims he is scared of being extradited to the US by Sweden and that he may face a death penalty.

The UK eventually grants the Swedish request, Assange jumps bail and flees to the Ecuadorian embassy, seeking political asylum in a state which is likely to grant his appeal to smite the US, but isn't one of the worst places in the world (most of which would most likely jail or execute him themselves for his ties to wikileaks).

Ecuador grants him asylum on grounds that the he wouldn't get a fair trial in Sweden, which is utter horseshit coming from Ecuador. Those same laws stops the Swedish government from affecting courts and trials (which Assange wants the Swedish government to do, but knows they can't), which guarantees the individuals rights just like the US Supreme Court does. The only one who could make any guarantee would be the Swedish Supreme Court, but if they did that they would contaminate their own case and break the law. 

However, Sweden can never extradite anybody to a country where they may face a death penalty, so even if the US were interested in prosecuting Assange (which there is no indication of and never has been at any point in all of this, the only one talking about it is Assange), there is no possibility of him being extradited in the first place. 
The whole thing is just smoke and mirrors from Assange and his cult following to cover up the fact that he most likely raped those girls and would get convicted for it in a trial, so he's trying to do some kind of self-chosen exile instead to avoid the massive media blowback had he been convicted for those rapes.

So why are you defending him in the first place Freedan? 

Who he is and what he's done in the past with wikileaks is besides the point (regardless of your stance on it); he is wanted for questioning in a country which has nothing to do with wikileaks or the US, there is no threat of him being extradited so he should just comply like anybody else would in the same situation and let the judicial system have it's course. 

Nobody is above the law; Assange needs to man up, stop acting like a circus ape in front of the media and go to Sweden to have this whole thing sorted out. That's it.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> So why are you defending him in the first place Freedan?



Oh for fuck's sake, I'm not!



AfterGlow said:


> The Swedish authorities request the UK to have Assange extradited, Assange claims he is scared of being extradited to the US by Sweden and that he may face a death penalty.



Yes, which, *as I mentioned in this thread*, is impossible because they made no charges against him and thus have nothing to do with this case.



AfterGlow said:


> However, Sweden can never extradite anybody to a country where they may face a death penalty, so even if the US were interested in prosecuting Assange (which there is no indication of and never has been at any point in all of this, the only one talking about it is Assange), there is no possibility of him being extradited in the first place.



Yes, as I've already admitted *in this very thread*.



AfterGlow said:


> The whole thing is just smoke and mirrors from Assange and his cult following to cover up the fact that he most likely raped those girls and would get convicted for it in a trial, so he's trying to do some kind of self-chosen exile instead to avoid the massive media blowback had he been convicted for those rapes.



And nowhere did I question that. The only reason I don't want to say anything and give Assange the benefit of the doubt is because I cannot say with any certainty that he did commit those rapes. That's up to the Swedish courts to find out.



AfterGlow said:


> Who he is and what he's done in the past with wikileaks is besides the point (regardless of your stance on it); he is wanted for questioning in a country which has nothing to do with wikileaks or the US, there is no threat of him being extradited so he should just comply like anybody else would in the same situation and let the judicial system have it's course.



I agree, so what are you trying to tell me here?



AfterGlow said:


> Nobody is above the law; Assange needs to man up, stop acting like a circus ape in front of the media and go to Sweden to have this whole thing sorted out. That's it.



I never said otherwise. Why do you keep thinking I'm defending Assange when all I said is the UK is resorting to extreme measures and, while Assange may be the narcissist that he is, the US and other countries he blew the whistle on aren't without sin either. That's ALL I said. Stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 17, 2012)

drache said:


> Sauf what is there left to say? I point out that there is indeed a british law and you throw a fit I point out Assange's hypocrisy you throw a fit, I point out that Assange isn't facing anything from the US and you offer some absurd conspiracy theory.
> 
> At a certain point one must wash one's hands and walk away, I think I am at that point.



So you do in fact believe that domestic law trumps international law? Better go tell Iran. All they need to do now is pass a law that makes their nuclear weapons program legal and all their troubles are over.


----------



## Doge (Aug 17, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> This more or less sums up why he's a hack. His promise to crusade against the Russians next was an obvious lie, he just became an anchor on their state network instead. He only targeted the US for whatever personal reasons, and most of said exposes weren't even very ground-breaking or whistleblowing.



It would take some serious balls to release information on a country like Russia, China, etc.  And they would probably not be as forgiving as the US is on their ways of dealing with him.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> It would take some serious balls to release information on a country like Russia, China, etc.  And they would probably not be as forgiving as the US is on their ways of dealing with him.



Good point, I'm sure cowardice had something to do with it


----------



## Doge (Aug 17, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Good point, I'm sure cowardice had something to do with it



Or rationality.  The USA is going to somewhat control themselves in situations because they have a figure to uphold and are proposing themselves as the humanitarian power.

There are a slew of other countries who would not blink before having him killed if he went all out against them.


----------



## Milo- (Aug 17, 2012)

Uuh, not to be THAT guy, but isn't he primarily the site's administrator? I'm pretty sure he isn't the one that digs the info. What's a site admin to do when the only info available is about America?


----------



## butcher50 (Aug 17, 2012)

^ then USA has to toughen up and start spanking foreign asses much more thoroughly when shitheads like that pop up and believe that they can get away with their pathetic loophole exploits of US/NATO's "gentle" ROE codes.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 17, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you do in fact believe that domestic law trumps international law? Better go tell Iran. All they need to do now is pass a law that makes their nuclear weapons program legal and all their troubles are over.


I like how you didn't answer any of the points he addressed at all. 

Also, I like how this guy dumps shit about how all governments are evil and then hides behind another governments skirt. He's a fucking hypocrite and an attention whore, this whole thing has been about him "toppling giants" from the start and those are his own words.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

of course he doesn't want to go to sweeden because they'll extradite his ass to the US where they'll waterboard his ass in guantanamo for the rest of his life for doing nothing but exposing the rots of the nuderbelly


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

I don't think this convenient "rape charges" that show up just when the whole wikileaks drama exploded are anything but dishonest


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> of course he doesn't want to go to sweeden because they'll extradite his ass to the US where they'll waterboard his ass in guantanamo for the rest of his life for doing nothing but exposing the rots of the nuderbelly


Why does he need to go through Sweden to get extradited to the US? The UK-US extradition agreement is more lax than the Sweden-US one. Sweden can't extradite if they believe there are political/military motivations behind the request, or if he'd face something like the death penalty. 

Hell, Assange wanted to live in Sweden and applied for residency before the rape/molestation accusations. I think he'd do his homework on the country beforehand.

Interesting tidbit on Sweden:


> Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is twice that of the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France.
> 
> The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention claims that it is not "possible to evaluate and compare the actual levels of violent crimes... between countries", but that in any case the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definition of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes.



The only real thing that makes sense in terms of a US plot is sending Assange back to Sweden to lock him up there for a few years.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Aug 17, 2012)

ok, so come again why can't Swedish government make the compromise  of not to to give him the extradition to the U.S. after all aren't the charges on Sweden by Swedish citizens and authorities, and shouldn't that mean that the entirety of the trial and possible subsequent jail/prison time be in Sweden? if they want him so much to as to commit and act of war, couldn't they agree to this much better solution?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 17, 2012)

This guy is the grand king of douchedom.


----------



## Roman (Aug 17, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Why does he need to go through Sweden to get extradited to the US? *The UK-US extradition agreement is more lax than the Sweden-US one*. Sweden can't extradite if they believe there are political/military motivations behind the request, or if he'd face something like the death penalty.



Not true. It's easier for Sweden to extradite anyone to the US than it is for the UK. Not to mention Sweden never refused an extradition request from the US. Should the US request one, chances are actually pretty high. As I said tho, I doubt such a thing could happen.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_npSb-tyGQ&feature=g-user-u[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Lord Glacial said:


> They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> 
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> ^^


 That quote has absolutely no relevance here and given that Franklin was one of the greatest spies we had at the time there is a certain irony in you trying to use him



hammer said:


> afterglow nobody makes this much fuss over a suspected rapist in a embassy.


 
governments go after people in embassies all the time the only time you hear about it is when it's in the news



Freedan said:


> The fact that the UK is willing to commit to an act which is tantamount to war for one man wanted for questioning and not even facing ANY charges means nothing to you?


 
1. This is not an act of war
2. You don't understand or are obscusing just how serious the matter is for Asssange, in the States he would be under reman to stand trial. Sweden just phrases it nicer



Freedan said:


> In other words, saying he's a threat to national security is a very vague statement because it carries an assortment of different meanings. So what exactly is Assange doing against national security if there's no one definition of it? I agree with you that national security is protecting innocent lives from danger (which is what I believe I said earlier on as well). Assange has done NO SUCH THING. The US and countless other countries have, and Assange is calling them out on it for hiding their people from what they deserve to know.


 
He indiscriminately released documents that exposed weak spots, trade deals, informants etc etc if you really want to defend that fine but that goes beyond whistle blowign to a vendetta.

Assange has exposed countless people to danger with his reckless and feckless actions. 

*HOWEVER* that is neitehr here nor there as this is about a sexual assault.




Freedan said:


> I'm not here to deny anyone's allegations about what type of person he is and not once did I touch on that particular subject as it has absolutely no bearing on this topic. My point is that some people do take him for a terrorist and decidedly anti-US (read AfterGlow's post). I'm merely pointing out neither is true. Assange, narcissist or not, is anti-secrecy before anything else. Whether he's doing it for selfish reasons or not is hardly the matter here. The matter is that the UK intends to invade the private property of another country, effectively ruining diplomatic relations with them, because a third country wants him for questioning, not even because he has an arrest-warrant following successful charges placed on him.


 
Assange is only against secrecy when it suits him. And see above, this isn't 'mere' questioning as we would call it in the States.




Freedan said:


> Killing innocent people doesn't count as anything "dark" or "wrong" to you? Or Bradley Manning exposed something that should be regarded as absolutely normal?


 
Let's be clear here, it's war it's ugly and horrible and innocent people will die.It's one of the major reasons I opposed the Iraq war and though going into Afganistan was a necessary evil. The fact is people have become used to the idea of a 'bloodless' war which frankly scares me more then a little. People seem to forget that even going into Desert Storm the US was expecting massive causlities and when we didn't we let it go to our heads.

That said covering it up was a crime as is violating the rules of engagement.

That said congralutions you've justified one out of thousands of releases, I await your response on the rest because if you can't then this is not about whistle blowing but pure vendetta.



Freedan said:


> And here you are obviously putting words in my mouth as usual. Nothing new here.


 
not in the slightest



Nemesis said:


> It is extreme due to the way HE has made it. The UK courts were actually very slow at picking up the swedish request for extradition, it then went through all the courts and since Sweden is a first would civilized country that does not torture or anything in that nature there was no reason they found to deny the extradition.
> 
> Assange decided to appeal, had his bail and went running to the first embassy he could find that wasn't pro american. He upped it no one else did


 
now if only people would get that though their thick skulls1



Matto-sama said:


> I don't like Assange. I think he's an asshole and egotistical.
> 
> A lot of the information that was revealed was of things that the US shouldn't have done. A lot of it was things that we should know.
> 
> ...


 

you keep saying this and yet don't back it up, just what good has he done?

And Manning should have known  what would happen when he did what he did. If he wasn't prepared to fall on his sword that was very stupid and short sighted.



Saufsoldat said:


> So you do in fact believe that domestic law trumps international law? Better go tell Iran. All they need to do now is pass a law that makes their nuclear weapons program legal and all their troubles are over.


 
This isn't about what *I* believe Saul and as I am not a lawyer I am not even going to try and open that can of worms. I am simply *stating* that there is a law on the UK books for that, whether it gets invoked or not I couldn't say.

But thank you for your straw man 



Banhammer said:


> I don't think this convenient "rape charges" that show up just when the whole wikileaks drama exploded are anything but dishonest


 


One of accusers *supported* Assange, *worked with* Assange until this happened. But I am sure she's just a CIA plant right? This is all just some big conspiracy right?

Good gods the mental yoga some of you are getting into is just absurd.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_npSb-tyGQ&feature=g-user-u[/YOUTUBE]



This video is simply hilarious because it literally encapsulates the sum total of Assange's defender's arguments.

1. "NYT is jealous that Assange is better than them!"
2. "NYT is kissing the US government's ass!"

They seriously do nothing else but repeat those phrases. When people say that Assange lacks credibility because he works in a Putin-government sponsored news network they make absolutely no comment on the fact that Russia actively kills journalists and activists that go against the US government line. 





Its laughable that Assange can claim to be for press freedom and transparency by going on the payroll of a government that actively kills journalists.

They do not mention how Assange released the names of informants and put them in danger, which is a huge breach in journalistic ethics. They do not mention how Assange's cables don't reveal anything spectacular. Or that Wikileaks does not reveal insider stuff from countries like China and Russia, but primarily focuses on the US government due to Assange's anti-US agenda.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> Or rationality. The USA is going to somewhat control themselves in situations because they have a figure to uphold and are proposing themselves as the humanitarian power.
> 
> There are a slew of other countries who would not blink before having him killed if he went all out against them.


 

People have though at great risk to themselves.

The fact is Assange's ego and view of himself doesn't match his actions. 

You can make all the excuses you want but they don't change that


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Aug 17, 2012)

What people seem to ignore is the fact that Wikileaks can only publish information that they themselves HAVE. If they don't have it, they can't release it.

Getting info out of, say, russia, is going to be trickier than getting info out of the US both because of the language barrier and because of the fact that these countries are less democratic and have less oversight and more control.




drache said:


> People have though at great risk to themselves.
> 
> The fact is Assange's ego and view of himself doesn't match his actions.
> 
> You can make all the excuses you want but they don't change that



Why assume he's not releasing any information about them because he's scared? It's even likelier that he doesn't release any information about them because he doesn't HAVE any information.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> What people seem to ignore is the fact that Wikileaks can only publish information that they themselves HAVE. If they don't have it, they can't release it.
> 
> Getting info out of, say, russia, is going to be trickier than getting info out of the US both because of the language barriage and because of the fact that these countries are less democratic and have less oversight and more control.
> 
> ...


 
oh I agree was just blowing any 'defense' out of the water


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Meh, I say this thread nay.

Assange actually reported on something terrible the us goverment was doing and even if indirectly, played a huge role on the middle east revolts

When you put it up against the political whorehouses that are modern us media, and when you factor in the war crimes commited by the us goverment, you see why the propaganda baaawing begins to show it's face

I mean fucking New York times starting bitching about how he abused a cat. A cat. The fucking NYT is wasting pagespace with a story about assange flushing toilets and a cat.

The same way I knew Osama Bin Laden was really dead the moment dick cheiny came out and took the credit for it, I know Jullian Assange deserves to go free the moment I see all these corporate monkeys lining up to like frenetic trained thimble chimps on crack


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> ok, so come again why can't Swedish government make the compromise  of not to to give him the extradition to the U.S. after all aren't the charges on Sweden by Swedish citizens and authorities, and shouldn't that mean that the entirety of the trial and possible subsequent jail/prison time be in Sweden? if they want him so much to as to commit and act of war, couldn't they agree to this much better solution?



Sweden already does not extrodite people to countries where they could be executed or tortured. So there is nothing to worry about in that case.

As things stand now everything will happen in Sweden. The United States have not asked for him yet.

If they ever do, we will consider if there is a risk of him being tortured or killed. If there is such a rish, he will not be handed over. If we judge there is no risk, we will hand him over of we think the American charges against him "make sense" (I'd assume).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Meh, I say this thread nay.
> 
> Assange actually reported on something terrible the us goverment was doing and even if indirectly, played a huge role on the middle east revolts
> 
> ...



The Middle East has been revolting since before he was born, so that's bullshit.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

*NYTimes reports Assange's toilet etiquette while diplomatic conflict rages on*

Julian Assange was absurdly smeared in a New York Times piece by William Neuman and Maggy Ayala. The report stooped as low as making reference to a claim that Assange did not flush a toilet, as if that were somewhow relevant. 








> Poor Julian Assange ? even his bowel movements are being censored.
> 
> The WikiLeaks founder was granted asylum in Ecuador today, after two months holed up in the the country?s British embassy, where he was avoiding the long arm of Sweden?s justice system. (Britain, understandably, is not happy about this.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Come, come now. You're not seriously running with that response.


----------



## PureWIN (Aug 17, 2012)

.


----------



## Jeαnne (Aug 17, 2012)

wikileaks?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

BANZAI ASSANGE-SAMA WE WILL DEFEND YOUR HONORRU


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Wow, you got caught up in the cult of Assange? How disappointing.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Meh, I say this thread nay.
> 
> Assange actually reported on something terrible the us goverment was doing and even if indirectly, played a huge role on the middle east revolts
> 
> ...


 
sure the media today is a joke but the article is right too, Assange had a chance and blew it. Likely taking wiki leaks with him because of his vendetta


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

The problem I personally have with Assange and his supporters is that they've made the movement more about him than genuine matters to push for transparency, and *responsible* whistleblowing. I support transparency, but I DO NOT support Assange, and I'm just finding this cult of personality around the guy a bit disturbing. It seems every criticism towards him is met with attempts at victimizing him, or even more hilariously, attempts that every party that does so has a vendetta against him and thus the issue of transparency as a whole. What's even more ludicrous is the attempts to chalk it down to simple dislike of the man with no consideration on why.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

^

don't forget the hypocrisy Assange is all for transparency so long as it's not directed at him


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

The fact of the matter is, his celebrity is overblown and it's ultimately hurting the credibility of transparency so long as he is presented as the face of it. The fact that he has been on the payrolls of Russian news media, and now seeks asylum in Ecuador only indicates of self-serving motives, rather than what he claims to stand for. He's not our modern day "Deep Throat," he was just an egomaniac with a bone to pick, and he got knee-deep in shit he clearly hasn't readied himself for.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow, you got caught up in the cult of Assange? How disappointing.



I've just been around this world long enough to know that if what Assange had done was legitimately wrong instead of just there being some high and mighty asshole getting his personal fat on the fire then no one would bother.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> I've just been around this world long enough to know that if what Assange had done was legitimately wrong instead of just there being some high and mighty asshole getting his personal fat on the fire then no one would bother.



You clearly haven't been in this world long.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

I don't get how the man has an argument about transparency/press freedom when he acts as a mouthpiece for Russian state TV when the Putin government is so notoriously stifling of journalistic freedom. Hell they just put a singing group in jail for having anti-Putin lyrics and promoting homosexuality.

Yet he appeared on it to talk about how bad America is, how good Assad is, and the rest of the spheil you get on RT.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I don't get how the man has an argument about transparency/press freedom when he acts as a mouthpiece for Russian state TV when the Putin government is so notoriously stifling of journalistic freedom. It just put a signing group in jail for having anti-Putin lyrics.
> 
> Yet he appeared on it to talk about how bad America is, *how good Assad is*, and the rest of the spheil you get on RT.



The same Assad that's committing a genocide against his own people?


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

There is a whole lot of criticism being thrown around that I completely couldn't give a two shits about

He had a bone to pick with america, he's a dick, he's in shit he wasn't prepared for
Whopidy-do

So what? If a neo-nazi ex-con skinhead stopped one of the batman shooters would we have put him in jail or let the shooter go because the guy who caught him is just as big of a dick?

He leaked documents, not attacked america, leaked.
Exposed.
As far as I am concerned he done and got americans a favor


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The same Assad that's committing a genocide against his own people?



Assad is innocent, that's all Western propaganda and Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda does everything bad in Syria!


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

Xerces said:


> Typical _Ziomedia_ publication: Resorting to every ounce of public attack in order to discredit their target.
> 
> This is pathetic NY-Times.



Damn New York Times, a Zionist puppet that for some reason has weekly anti-Israel editorials!


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> There is a whole lot of criticism being thrown around that I completely couldn't give a two shits about
> 
> He had a bone to pick with america, he's a dick, he's in shit he wasn't prepared for
> Whopidy-do
> ...


 

I agree with Seto this is a cult, you have offered nothing like everyone else just some blanket statement about the 'good' he has done.

You mean like releasing informant names?
How about active militiary operations?
Or maybe by undermining US relations?

All of which showed nothing illegal at all too.

So when you remove your head from where ever it is let me know


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> There is a whole lot of criticism being thrown around that I completely couldn't give a two shits about
> 
> He had a bone to pick with america, he's a dick, he's in shit he wasn't prepared for
> Whopidy-do
> ...



So angry! He indiscriminately leaked documents with no consideration of their contents, the revealing of certain wrongdoings was only a matter of consequence due to that action. Just as he leaked those MILLIONS of CIA e-mails which are fucking impossible to sift through. He's irresponsible, and is a detriment to the whistleblower movement. 



Megaharrison said:


> Assad is innocent, that's all Western propaganda and Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda does everything bad in Syria!



Don't forget the Zionists.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Again, a pro-russia position does not invalidate the merits of his journalistic american exposure


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Yes it does, considering Russia's not-so-secret actions. He's a hypocrite.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Again, a pro-russia position does not invalidate the merits of his journalistic american exposure



Being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin on their state network that attacks the West/praises Assad/talks of the dangers of homosexuality and rock n' roll is a little different from being "pro-Russian". RT is more or less the USSR's old Izetvsia tailored towards Putin's brand of nationalism instead of communism.

Though being pro-Putin is rather suspicious to begin with, unless you're a nationalist who believes that his Greater Good is worth the civil/human rights violations. Is this what Assange stands for? Right Nationalism and oppression in the name of the Greater Good?


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

> So angry! He indiscriminately leaked documents with no consideration of their contents, the revealing of certain wrongdoings was only a matter of consequence due to that action. Just as he leaked those MILLIONS of CIA e-mails which are fucking impossible to sift through. He's irresponsible, and is a detriment to the whistleblower movement.



The fact that 90% of his leaks are boring ass filler, I admit it, does not invalidate the merits of the remaining 10%, or the merits of the first 90 anyway for that matter
Maybe there's out there a group of people who really care about what their government does regarding the feng shui of the sun room in the department of hydrophonics bathroom
That doesn't matter. 
What matters is the people's right to this information
Specially the 10% who are actually appalling and should be the topic of discussion and activism every day, not this attack of burial on the fucking messenger

Even if he was the shittiest whistleblower in history, it still wouldn't matter.
He did the right thing by the people and it is a betrayal on what america stands for to pull the shit we're pulling.

in b4 "rape charges" in sweeden


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

I'll give ya this deal though, if the swedes garadamntee it that they will not extradite Assange to the states so he can naaturally be shoved in guantanamo for god knows how long like all the other "enemies", or worse, shoved like manning into solitary for months on end and then executed like a dog by a kangaroo trial, which is the logical conclusion to the process, and then you'll get my support for him to rescind asylum, go to Sweden and face these "charges"


----------



## Revolution (Aug 17, 2012)

LOL @ The Thread Title.  Well expect Equador to look very good on Wikileaks here on out.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> The fact that 90% of his leaks are boring ass filler, I admit it, does not invalidate the merits of the remaining 10%, or the merits of the first 90 anyway for that matter
> Maybe there's out there a group of people who really care about what their government does regarding the feng shui of the sun room in the department of hydrophonics bathroom
> That doesn't matter.
> What matters is the people's right to this information
> ...



Just like someone caught up in the cult of personality, you really are not able to comprehend why Assange is hypocritical in his claimed motives nor what was wrong with his style of whistleblowing, all you can do is accuse critics of being "haters", among the other things I previously described. The ends do not justify the means in this case, as he reveals information that is ultimately classified and ultimately serves no purpose in being leaked, or even could endanger those if someone took the time to sift through them. Even if they are ultimately trivial, like feng shui in the HQ, does not make it legal. Like I told you, the revealing of relevant matters was only a matter of consequence due to indiscriminately leaking loads of documents.

If you shoot a gun in the air, and no one gets hurt, it does not stop the act from being illegal. He had no sense of responsibility in leaking them, he did so indiscriminately...Which is why he's a bane to the whistleblowing movement, and why he should be jailed.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin on their state network that attacks the West/praises Assad/talks of the dangers of homosexuality and rock n' roll is a little different from being "pro-Russian". RT is more or less the USSR's old Izetvsia tailored towards Putin's brand of nationalism instead of communism.
> 
> Though being pro-Putin is rather suspicious to begin with, unless you're a nationalist who believes that his Greater Good is worth the civil/human rights violations. Is this what Assange stands for? Right Nationalism and oppression in the name of the Greater Good?




As someone who's actually been to Russia, the trigger word that the country has become is really something that should have been long disarmed in the political context

Just a small adendum to the conversation. Sure, putin is, a well, Putin, but it's not like they're burning american flags out there, nothing like that.

Anyway, Assange has exposed damning information of crap that was and still is being gotten away with.
As far as I am concerned Assange could be an anti-semite, gay bashing, grammy kicking bastard.
Even anti-semite gay bashing grammy kicking assholes will have legitimacy if they attack the gay jew grammy with a video of her bribing a cop or choking a hooker.

Nothing, NOTHING about that matters if what brings him to justice isn't the type of prat he is/isn't, but the special interests whom he righteously buthurt.


His intentions towards the country are irrelevant.
Maybe he's an asshole. But that falls under the gavel of the Anus Tribunal, not ours.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

> If you shoot a gun in the air, and no one gets hurt, it does not stop the act from being illegal. He had no sense of responsibility in leaking them, he did so indiscriminately...Which is why he's a bane to the whistleblowing movement, and why he should be jailed.



I guess that's a matter of prespective
I've learned that no data is discretionary.

I am of the opinion that all information should be made as available to as many people as qquickly and often and as often as possible and then let them decide what they need or don't


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 17, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> This video is simply hilarious because it literally encapsulates the sum total of Assange's defender's arguments.
> 
> 1. "NYT is jealous that Assange is better than them!"
> 2. "NYT is kissing the US government's ass!"
> ...


You start this post off with a blatant lie and pack the rest of it with a crap ad hominem argument. 

He is defended by most on the grounds of freedom of information. His integrity as a journalist or as anything is not relevant to anyone; except to people trying to deflect the discussion onto his personality, his credibility, his integrity, etc.



Sarahmint said:


> LOL @ The Thread Title.  Well expect Equador to look very good on Wikileaks here on out.


Well at least you're here to keep an eye on Equador for us, Sarah. I've never even heard of the place!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

That's idiotic. People have a right to their privacy, and people have a right to feel that certain matters between themselves and the parties they reveal it to is not at a risk of being put out. If there is no revelation of a crime being committed, then it is simply in an invasion of privacy.



> You start this post off with a blatant lie and pack the rest of it with a crap ad hominem argument. He is defended by most on the grounds of freedom of information. His integrity as a journalist or as anything is not relevant to anyone; except to people trying to deflect the discussion onto his personality, his credibility, his integrity, his morals, etc.



No he isn't. He would be protected had he practiced responsibility with his leaks, and pinpointed the documents that revealed crimes. He didn't do this however, which is why he's wanted for arrest by the U.S., and even Britain IIRC. His integrity as a journalist is ENTIRELY relevant to the matter of whistleblowing, given the movement's history, and claiming it is not is simply ignorant of the matter.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

> all you can do is accuse critics of being "haters",



also, I've combed the post you quoted looking for this and simply could not find it

I merely stated that being a hater is not a valid argument against assange's actions.
The same way Assange hating on america is not a valid argument against america, but his expose's actually are.




Seto Kaiba said:


> That's idiotic. People have a right to their privacy, and people have a right to feel that certain matters between themselves and the parties they reveal it to is not at a risk of being put out. If there is no revelation of a crime being committed, then it is simply in an invasion of privacy.



People, as in human beings, have a right to privacy regarding their private matters

No one has a right to "privacy" about the underhanded shit it pulls in my name


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

> also, I've combed the post you quoted looking for this and simply could not find it
> 
> I merely stated that being a hater is not a valid argument against assange's actions.
> The same way Assange hating on america is not a valid argument against america, but his expose's actually are.



I merely stated that such responses are ignorant of the reasons behind the contempt. 

It's not just that once again, and is ignorant on the arguments asserting the claim of his vendetta.

Blindly, you respond. I will state again: If it is not a revelation of crimes being committed, then it is simply an invasion of privacy.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

I reiterate.

People have a right to privacy regarding that private matters.
Line ends there
Not that your argument holds that far though, since the charges the us government wants him for isn't invasion of privacy, like it does endlessly with warrentless wiretaps (how's that for mass level hypocrisy?), but for Espionage.
State secrets =/= breaking into your diary


----------



## Revolution (Aug 17, 2012)

Ecuador.    .


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

But I guess your comments were directed at my very open ended opinion on freedom of information, willfully ignoring any self evident nuances on the statements

Yes you got me, I think everyone should know your bank statements, who you lost your virginity to, and why you didn't accept ginny on facebook 

Guess they better open up my usual corner cell back there in GITMO


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No he isn't. He would be protected had he practiced responsibility with his leaks, and pinpointed the documents that revealed crimes. He didn't do this however, which is why he's wanted for arrest by the U.S., and even Britain IIRC. His integrity as a journalist is ENTIRELY relevant to the matter of whistleblowing, given the movement's history, and claiming it is not is simply ignorant of the matter.


No, it's an ad hominem... 

The actual debate is with what _you're_ actually talking about, ironically... 

What he does on RT, whether he pressed his knob up on a bird's leg in Sweden, and who his mates are, is not relevant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

*WHEN A CRIME IS NOT BEING REVEALED *then it is simply an invasion of privacy. Feng Shui in the CIA HQ, is NOT A CRIME, and is simply an invasion of privacy. Assange is literally like the rat he is parodied as in South Park, releasing largely irrelevant matters that only violate people's or groups' rights to privacy.

Had he responsibly and precisely leaked documents exposing crimes, this would not be an issue as I state to you guys once again. Nothing justifies what he has done, and nothing justifies leaking names of individuals if they are not engaged in any wrongdoing. It doesn't matter if they have been or will wind up killed or not. He simply had no discretion, and should be jailed for that.



> No, it's an ad hominem...
> 
> The actual debate is with what you're actually talking about, ironically...
> 
> What he does on RT, whether he pressed his knob up on a bird's leg in Sweden, and who his mates are, is not.



Every criticism is considered as such to you people. Did I mention his rape, or the reasons Sweden want him? No. I didn't. Yet here you are, typically bringing it up. What he did is wrong in most free world countries, and the protection for his whistleblowing left when he revealed information irrelevant to the matters of exposing crimes.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 17, 2012)

Oh so it's the part where no one gives a crap that we should all give a crap about
Gee, why didn't I see that before?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 17, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Every criticism is considered as such to you people. Did I mention his rape, or the reasons Sweden want him? No. I didn't. Yet here you are, typically bringing it up. What he did is wrong in most free world countries, and the protection for his whistleblowing left when he revealed information irrelevant to the matters of exposing crimes.



What the fucking hell are you talking about?  

I just said that you were properly engaging with the debate.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer, it's clear you have no argument left and are defending Assange for the sake of who knows what, as I clearly outlined not only a personal belief in the defense of whistleblowers that reveal crimes in a responsible manner, but legal protection offered to such individuals. Pinpointing and only releasing information relevant to wrongdoings. Assange is not among such people that practice this, and as such is a detriment to the issue of transparency and whistleblowing. It's why the U.S. has a case against him, and Manning in particular. I know for certain in Manning's case, it is part of his responsibility to report crimes in the battlezone as any soldier, but he just leaked hundreds of thousands of documents without review.


----------



## drache (Aug 17, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Oh so it's the part where no one gives a crap that we should all give a crap about
> Gee, why didn't I see that before?


 
your zealotry blinds you here people have a right to privacy unless there is an actual crime

take your bank account example, sure most of the time no one has a right to know about it but if for example there is evidence of fraud or something then your bank account becomes open season to an extent


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 17, 2012)

erictheking said:


> No, it's an ad hominem...
> 
> The actual debate is with what _you're_ actually talking about, ironically...
> 
> What he does on RT, whether he pressed his knob up on a bird's leg in Sweden, and who his mates are, is not relevant.



Of course it's relevant. It's like saying Martin Luther King should be considered an icon of black civil rights, even if he was a member of the KKK. If the man is going to have a cult of personality and be praised as a symbol of journalistic freedom, he better actually stand for those things instead of serving as a puppet for the Kremlin and going after America while ignoring his Russian patrons.

Not to mention that this notion that international relations and negotiations over sensitive issues such as war and peace needs to be "open" to the public like fucking wikipedia is immature to the extreme. And I don't see how informants of espionage agencies or sensitive material on military bases is public knowledge either. He didn't really "Blown the whistle" on anything.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 17, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Of course it's relevant. It's like saying Martin Luther King should be considered an icon of black civil rights, even if he was a member of the KKK. If the man is going to have a cult of personality and be praised as a symbol of journalistic freedom, he better actually stand for those things instead of serving as a puppet for the Kremlin and going after America while ignoring his Russian patrons.
> 
> Not to mention that this notion that international relations and negotiations over sensitive issues such as war and peace needs to be "open" to the public like fucking wikipedia is immature to the extreme. And I don't see how informants of espionage agencies or sensitive material on military bases is public knowledge either. He didn't really "Blown the whistle" on anything.



Well, yes, it's relevant to the discussion of whether Julian Assange is a Holy Man of journalism. Which is a *completely different discussion* to the one people are having, or want to have.

Another word for this is _'irrelevant'_.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 18, 2012)

It is not fair to hold Assange up to the standards he claims to hold ideal. Nice strawman, but if he's going to talk of transparency and whistleblowing, then his dealings in such matters is relevant.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> Well, yes, it's relevant to the discussion of whether Julian Assange is a Holy Man of journalism. Which is a *completely different discussion* to the one people are having, or want to have.
> 
> Another word for this is _'irrelevant'_.



So a story about Julian Assange going to Ecuador (the original purpose of all this) has no relevance to what Julian Assange actually does? Lets all circlejerk about him releasing papers that are more or less obvious and/or insignificant in its meaning?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It is not fair to hold Assange up to the standards he claims to hold ideal. Nice strawman, but if he's going to talk of transparency and whistleblowing, then his dealings in such matters is relevant.



I literally can't comprehend what you're saying here. Do you know what a strawman is? It's the refutation of a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, in such a manner as to portray the illusion that you have refuted your opponent's actual position. I definitely haven't used a "nice strawman" have I? 



Megaharrison said:


> So a story about Julian Assange going to Ecuador (the original purpose of all this) has no relevance to what Julian Assange actually does? Lets all circlejerk about him releasing papers that are more or less obvious and/or insignificant in its meaning?



Are you both trying to blind me with nonsense? It must be hard to misunderstand such a simple point so severely.

As I said originally, and I repeated it about 4 times, it's the stories about Assange's show on RT, and how RT is the mouthpiece of the journalist-murdering Kremlin, or who he has praised, or his manners on the toilet, it's those that are irrelevant to the debate around *either* extradition or around the morality of Wikileaks, which seemingly are (some of) the debates with merit. Both of these debates were going on quite vigorously. They were interrupted by the aforementioned ad hominem argument, which I thought I should point out, and did.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> As I said originally, and I repeated it about 4 times, it's the stories about Assange's show on RT, and how RT is the mouthpiece of the journalist-murdering Kremlin, or who he has praised, or his manners on the toilet, it's those that are irrelevant to the debate around *either* extradition or around the morality of Wikileaks, which seemingly are (some of) the debates with merit. Both of these debates were going on quite vigorously. They were interrupted by the aforementioned ad hominem argument, which I thought I should point out, and did.



This seems like a form of desperate damage control. Lets talk about how great wikileaks is and what its merits are without bringing up its central figure or said figures agenda/goals in leading wikileaks throughout its most infamous history.

I'm sorry, first off this is an indeed a topic on Assange and started out as such. Second, you can't talk about wikileaks without talking about what Assange was and is up to. It's like trying to talk about Soviet policy during the Russian Civil War without talking about what Lenin's aspirations and objectives were.

Though I suppose you can put on the blinders and scream ILLEGAL EXTRADITION ILLEGAL EXTRADITION and ignore everything else with Assange and wikileaks, and I'm sure that's mentally convenient. It's easy to blindly praise something if you ignore the complexities of it.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> This seems like a form of desperate damage control. Lets talk about how great wikileaks is and what its merits are without bringing up its central figure or said figures agenda/goals in leading wikileaks throughout its most infamous history.
> 
> I'm sorry, first off this is an indeed a topic on Assange and started out as such. Second, you can't talk about wikileaks without talking about what Assange was and is up to. It's like trying to talk about Soviet policy during the Russian Civil War without talking about what Lenin's aspirations and objectives were.
> 
> Though I suppose you can put on the blinders and scream ILLEGAL EXTRADITION ILLEGAL EXTRADITION and ignore everything else with Assange and wikileaks, and I'm sure that's mentally convenient.


This is possibly the worst post I've ever seen you make... it's a nightmare... 

I didn't say "let's talk about how great Wikileaks is and what its merits are". 

I said the debate around the morality of Wikileaks has merit. 

Do you see the difference between those two statements? It's profound. I said exactly the same thing about the debate around extradition. You have again produced some gibberish in response.

And it's an absolutely pathetic tactic to draw specious analogies in order to intentionally convolute an error you have made, especially after the fucking fact. I have already demonstrated very clearly how the original argument was fallacious. I'm certainly not going to bother explicating precisely all the ways in which your crap analogy is invalid.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> This is possibly the worst post I've ever seen you make... it's a nightmare...
> 
> I didn't say "let's talk about how great Wikileaks is and what its merits are".
> 
> ...



Loool I've gotten you mad now. I see I've hit a nerve.

Anyway, this is all more or less attempts at damage control and/or tiptoeing around the issue of Assange and his agenda by shifting it into a discussion of the right of the internet to know who CIA informants are, or whatever blabble we're expected to swallow from Assange supporters. You can parrot "I want to talk about the morality of wikileaks!" all you want in a thread about Assange, but Assange and his agenda/objectives are very relevant to the entire discussion and activities of wikileaks. 

To have your fantastical uni-topic philosophical discussion where only 1 area is permitted to be discussed (this intellectual grail of "the morality of wikileaks" whereas everything else is "ad hominem") is just trying to shift topic I imagine, as you're angry a thread that's meant to be a circlejerk about how evil the West is to poor old Assange has instead become a legitimate debunking of his cult of personality. My analogies are bad because it would be ridiculous to discuss the morality of the Bolsheviks without discussing Lenin, and this should obviously apply to Wikileaks and Assange. And therein comes your obvious rage over this dilemma. Yes, I know, this analogy is too ridiculous! You merely want to discuss the morality of wikileaks, not its founder, central figure and prime ideological driver.

Of course I expect you to address none of this. Rather, say how you can't read my plebeian post and how we all can't comprehend your deeper observations of the world. It's more or less what you've done to everyone else in the thread who says there's more to wikileaks besides this already juvenile approach to "freedom of information".


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> You start this post off with a blatant lie and pack the rest of it with a crap ad hominem argument.
> 
> He is defended by most on the grounds of freedom of information. His integrity as a journalist or as anything is not relevant to anyone; except to people trying to deflect the discussion onto his personality, his credibility, his integrity, etc.
> 
> Well at least you're here to keep an eye on Equador for us, Sarah. I've never even heard of the place!



What blatant lie? The article is based on the facts of the matter. Assange's integrity and credibility is very relevant to the matter. Its absurd to say otherwise. Assange claims that Wikileaks is needed to overcome government censorship and empower journalists and activists. He claims that he is a journalist. In that case, he has to be held against the ethical standards of the profession. Assange violated journalistic ethics when he released the names of those informants and endangered their lives. 

You want to debate the morality of Wikileaks? Well, a person/organization's morality is determined by its behavior and motives. Assange's behavior has endangered the lives of informants, as well as undermined international diplomacy and hence made war more likely. His incompetence in handling said information has lead to him losing control of it and the cables being leaked out. Furthermore, he has consistently over-hyped his acheivements and under-delivered. His info reveals practically nothing that the mainstream media does not already know and deliver. So his claims on how Wikileaks is the future of journalism and that it will supplant current mainstream outlets is also a crock of shit.

Assange's motives are suspect because of his association with repressive regime's like Putin's. When you claim to be for increased transparency and empowering activists you lose a lot of credibility when you get on the payroll of a government that actively kills and jails its journalists and activists. Pussy Riot just got sentenced to jail simply for singing anti-Putin songs and yet you don't hear Assange and Wikileaks denouncing that shit. Let me use an analogy. If there was a report written by a group of scientists claiming that global warming doesn't exist, and then they said that they were 100% funded by car and oil companies we would not find their assertions credible because there is a clear conflict of interest between the scientist's finances and submitting an unbiased report. 

I'll note that you have not addressed one single issue raised by the article or any of the posters here. The reason why is because you can't. Your position can't be defended by logic or facts, so you simply cling to your delusions of Assange's righteousness.



Banhammer said:


> People, as in human beings, have a right to privacy regarding their private matters
> 
> No one has a right to "privacy" about the underhanded shit it pulls in my name



That's ridiculous. You are essentially saying that you have the right to any information the government possesses simply because you think that government owned means that it should be publicly accessible. The problem is that confidentiality and privacy are needed to successfully perform certain government duties. Freedom of information has limits. You can't go to a police station and demand to know the names and personal info of undercover cops and informants. You can't go to a public hospital and demand to know the medical history of all its patients. You can't go to a public prosecutor/attorney and demand to know all their clients and cases. You can't go to the Pentagon and demand to know all the names of their spies and informants. It would be impossible for the government to perform its duties in that kind of environment.

As for the NYT article, all it did was try to paint a picture of Assange. The fact that the article made him look like a egotistical asshole might have to do with the fact that the man is an egotistical asshole.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Loool I've gotten you mad now. I see I've hit a nerve.
> 
> Anyway, this is all more or less attempts at damage control and/or tiptoeing around the issue of Assange and his agenda by shifting it into a discussion of the right of the internet to know who CIA informants are, or whatever blabble we're expected to swallow from Assange supporters. You can parrot "I want to talk about the morality of wikileaks!" all you want in a thread about Assange, but Assange and his agenda/objectives are very relevant to the entire discussion and activities of wikileaks.
> 
> ...



Ah, the old "you mad!!! lollllzzz" card. An appropriate end to this piss-poor sequence of posts. 



hcheng02 said:


> What blatant lie?


That the "literal encapsulation of the sum total of Assange's defender's arguments" are:

1. "NYT is jealous that Assange is better than them!"
2. "NYT is kissing the US government's ass!" 



It's a blatant lie because the argument used to 'defend Assange' with regards to Wikileaks is the defence of freedom of information, and the argument used to 'defend Assange' with regards to extradition is the defence of international law.



> I'll note that you have not addressed one single issue raised by the article or any of the posters here. The reason why is because you can't. Your position can't be defended by logic or facts, so you simply cling to your delusions of Assange's righteousness.


I don't deny that I am making a very limited contribution in merely pointing out the use of a fallacious argument by you, Megaharrison, and whoever else - it's a fantastic and really laughable misrepresentation to say that I "cling to delusions" of his 'righteousness' when I haven't made *a single claim* about his character.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> That the "literal encapsulation of the sum total of Assange's defender's arguments" are:
> 
> 1. "NYT is jealous that Assange is better than them!"
> 2. "NYT is kissing the US government's ass!"
> ...



I and the other posters in this thread have already covered why "freedom of information" does not justify Assange's actions because there are limits to such information, and endangering others - like the informants he squealed on - is one of them. His extradition is perfectly legal, and in fact was ruled as such by British courts. The only reason why he isn't extradited now is because he broke bail - which is breaking another law - and is hiding in an embassy. Its only storming an embassy that is breaking international law, not extraditing Assange. Get your facts straight. 



> I don't deny that I am making a very limited contribution in merely pointing out the use of a fallacious argument by you, Megaharrison, and whoever else - it's a fantastic and really laughable misrepresentation to say that I "cling to delusions" of his 'righteousness' when I haven't made *a single claim* about his character.



You haven't pointed out shit. You merely claim that we are making "ab hominem" arguments by applying journalistic standards to a guy who claims to be a journalist. You ignore all these arguments because you cannot win, and so you flail around trying to make it about "wikileak's morality" when that topic has already been addressed. I'll repeat again, Wikileaks is an expression of Assange's agenda and actions. He fucking said so himself,



> "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange wrote to one of his Icelandic volunteers, Herbert Snorrason, according to chat logs obtained by Wired.




Assange's actions broke journalistic standards and endangered lives. His motives are entirely self serving and anti-US. Thus both Wikileaks and Assange are both immoral and illegal and thus Assange deserves punishment.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Its only storming an embassy that is breaking international law, not extraditing Assange. Get your facts straight.


That's what I meant, obviously. Some people are using the intersection of jurisdictions to argue that storming the embassy and arresting Assange is legal. Others say the opposite... hence the debate.



> You haven't pointed out shit. You merely claim that we are making "*ab hominem*" arguments by applying journalistic standards to a guy who claims to be a journalist. You ignore all these arguments because you cannot win, and so you flail around trying to make it about "wikileak's morality" when that topic has already been addressed. I'll repeat again, Wikileaks is an expression of Assange's agenda and actions. He fucking said so himself,
> 
> Assange's actions broke journalistic standards and endangered lives. His motives are entirely self serving and anti-US. Thus both Wikileaks and Assange are both immoral and illegal and thus Assange deserves punishment.




I'm not ignoring the arguments of one side - I haven't even argued one way or the other. I am not compelled to join the debate in order to accurately point out that you're talking rubbish, it's as simple as that, Captain America.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> That's what I meant, obviously. Some people are using the intersection of jurisdictions to argue that storming the embassy and arresting Assange is legal. Others say the opposite... hence the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring the arguments of one side - I haven't even argued one way or the other. I am not compelled to join the debate in order to accurately point out that you're talking rubbish, it's as simple as that, Captain America.



Clearly you do not understand what an ab hominem argument is then. Saying that Assange fell short of journalistic standards by endangering informants is no more an ab hominem than calling out a police officer who takes bribes and deals crack falls shorts of police standards is an ab hominem. Concession accepted.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Clearly you do not understand what an ab hominem argument is then. Saying that Assange fell short of journalistic standards by endangering informants is no more an ab hominem than calling out a police officer who takes bribes and deals crack falls shorts of police standards is an ab hominem. Concession accepted.



Cheers, at least I have an idea of what an ab hominem argument is now. 

Did the Romans have one for each body part?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 18, 2012)

Are you really ragging on him about a simple spelling error? Seriously, I expect a little more from you.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

You're all proper miserable bastards here.. 

I'm not going to repeat myself anyway, sick of it.


----------



## drache (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> You're all proper miserable bastards here..
> 
> I'm not going to repeat myself anyway.


 
which means you have nothing


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

drache said:


> which means you have nothing


Obviously. That's how reason works. When the other person stops talking, you win.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> Obviously. That's how reason works. When the other person stops talking, you win.



You've been reduced to ragging on spelling errors because the facts and logic are indisputable. Troll harder.


----------



## drache (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> Obviously. That's how reason works. When the other person stops talking, you win.


 
as henge said, you're raging on spelling. 

you've got nothing except a lot of embrassement


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

The first time you made yourself look daft I bolded the text and put a big bastard grin smiley to it. I would expect anyone to get that.

When you make the error a second, third and fourth time, all the while trying to explain to me what an "ab hominem" argument really is, you are asking for it you clown. 

I have already explained to you why you (and Mega) were using a fallacious argument - in 8 previous posts - you were diverting the discussion and attacking the man, in order to (attempt to) undermine the "sum total of Assange's defenders arguments" (obviously not the sum total).



drache said:


> as *henge* said, you're *raging* on spelling.
> 
> you've got nothing except a lot of *embrassement*


Well I wouldn't be able to last one and a half posts with you. Fuck sake man.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 18, 2012)

drache said:


> as henge said, you're raging on spelling.
> 
> you've got nothing except a lot of embrassement



More or less, he never actually says or discusses _anything_ that's of any real interest or topic. Most of the time these days he just goes thread to thread and complains about peoples spelling/grammar/specific use of words for pages on end. Sometimes he doesn't even complain about anything in particular, but still complains. Usually however he only does this after making some kind of short-sighted statement that gets immediately shotdown. Then cue the "that's not what I really meant, you're too stupid to understand what I meant" (without of course ever getting back to the issue), "You said effect when you should mean affect!" (or any other said attempts to nitpick), and the ever-classic "I can't understand your post".

It's all very sad, as I don't even think it's a deliberate attempt to derail the thread for political reasons (rather, this is what he seeks in any thread regardless of topic) and I think it's about time we ignore him and get back on topic. I'm actually going to insist on it, as his current issues have nothing to do with the topic at hand and this is meant to be about wikileaks/Assange.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

hcheng02 said:
			
		

> When you fall short, as Assange has done many many times, he undermines his arguments and position.


So his professional failings undermine his _arguments_? 



> B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.
> 
> A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
> B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."



--



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> Here, read this link explaining what is and isn't an ad hominem and then come back to debate with the big boys.



Wow, the "big boys" are clever as fuck. I don't think I can keep up, I better get a lot cleverer first. :sweat


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 18, 2012)

> So his professional failings undermine his arguments?



It does actually. I think that's common sense, particularly when those failings contradict the arguments he makes to begin with, and what he claims to stand for. I don't find it any different than a vehemently anti-gay politician turning out to be a closeted homosexual, they've completely discredited themselves.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It does actually. I think that's common sense, particularly when those failings contradict the arguments he makes to begin with, and what he claims to stand for.I don't find it any different than a vehemently anti-gay politician turning out to be a closeted homosexual, they've completely discredited themselves.



No. *Only* when his failings to live up to some ethical standard somehow contradict his arguments. Not otherwise.

Nor does a closeted homosexual undermine his anti-gay arguments by virtue of his homosexuality... these are reference level examples of fallacies. I don't mean to keep banging on about it but they keep coming.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 18, 2012)

erictheking said:


> No. *Only* when his failings to live up to some ethical standard somehow contradict his arguments. Not otherwise.



He fails to live up to the standards for the ideology he claims to stand for however way you try to spin it. He's a hypocrite, and a discredited figure. His arguments and stance hinge on his credibility, and it has been compromised. I suppose you and I are done, as you seem to have no set standard on what you will find acceptable to hold Assange at fault for.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 18, 2012)

I disagree that the arguments in his favour or against him, with regards to the morality of the Wikileaks project, and with regards to whether he should be arrested in violation of international law, bear any substantial relation to his credibility as a journalist. It's not that I like Assange for any particular reason... He is a free-market libertarian.

This exchange is finished anyway, Mega will do you for "feeding the troll" despite the fact that he has written up a long paragraph full of snide remarks about yours truly.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 19, 2012)

erictheking said:


> *No. Only when his failings to live up to some ethical standard somehow contradict his arguments. Not otherwise.*
> 
> Nor does a closeted homosexual undermine his anti-gay arguments by virtue of his homosexuality... these are reference level examples of fallacies. I don't mean to keep banging on about it but they keep coming.



Assange claims to be a journalist. A journalist has to follow a professional set of ethical standards - one of which is protecting one's sources. Assange's arguments is that his Wikileaks will help empower informants and improve transparency. His professional failings - not redacting the names of informants and thus endangering them as well as being careless with his info to the point that he loses control of his data - undermine that argument. Because endangering informants by releasing their personal info does not empower them. Or is that argument too hard to follow?


----------



## Syed (Aug 19, 2012)

Keep up the good work Assange.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 19, 2012)

> Julian Assange spoke in public on Sunday for the first time in months. He addressed a large crowd of supporters from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been granted asylum.
> 
> Assange called on the U.S. to end its "witch hunt" against Wikileaks. He also said that Obama needs to "do the right thing" and release Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier charged with leaking classified information to Wikileaks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 19, 2012)

The cult leader speaks.


----------



## Son of Goku (Aug 19, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The cult leader speaks.





Yes he does.


----------



## butcher50 (Aug 19, 2012)

so Ass-ange's whole big gig is that the U.S government is hopelessly corrupt.........yeah well what's gonna be done about that exactly ?

you can finger point, accuse and scream at the top of your lungs until you are black and blue but what's that gonna change ?

the US gov will just keep on trolling as usual.

remember those "Occupy Wallstreet" protestors ? what was the response of the rich elite with their greasy fingers in power when they felt threatened ? introduce a bunch of new laws that rape and sodomize the whole constitution just to prevent such protests from ever happening again without the police immediately smacking it down.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 19, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> you can finger point, accuse and scream at the top of your lungs until you are black and blue but what's that gonna change ?



You could argue "what's that going to change" about every criticism of the government as an argument to disregard critics of the government.

How many criticisms of the government actually change the way the government operates? Maybe we shouldn't criticize if it won't change anything. Maybe if we lived in China or Russia I would agree that criticizing government is a waste of time, but even if it's an equally hopeless pursuit despite our democracy, I'd rather hear it said to respect our traditions.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 19, 2012)

butcher50: all of this shit is only possible because the population is mostly okay with it. At the end of the day, the US, the UK and the rest are still democracies. One can lament that these people are deceived by mostly right-wing, pro-establishment and pro-government media (fox news being the most extreme, but CNN is equally shitty)... But still, the best way to change things is to reach to populations, and encourage them to spread your ideas. If you succeed at publicizing your ideas, if a large proportion of the population believes in these ideas, then politicians will eventually change their discourse and their acts.

But yeah, consider the fact that, to my knowledge, nobody was ever convicted for this (including but not limited to: the torture and murder of random people by the CIA, Americans and foreigners, _just to study their reactions_):


Yeah, Mengele's got nothing on the land of the free. I'd say fuck the USA, but then again I don't think people from my country would act very differently: if the media kept the noise sufficiently low, people would quickly go back to their normal activities: "it's all in the past", "the government does what it needs to do", etc.

But if we can remind people of past abuse, and show the hints of continuing problems, then some will change their mind. And the government will lose some of its ability to do insane things. So, for example, when Assange is being sought by the UK, on behalf of the USA, on bullshit charges, it's good if some people speak up. It'll convince some people to stand up for their rights, and it'll show those in power that there are limits, if they want to keep the public opinion with them.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Aug 19, 2012)

Assange sez: Stop the witch hunt.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...-diplomatic-standoff-continues-151205083.html


----------



## Gunners (Aug 19, 2012)

I wish America would just put on the villain mask and push his shit in. That'd give the hippies something to complain about.


----------



## drache (Aug 19, 2012)

The insanity in condemning a 'US witch hunt' (of which there is aboslutely no evidence) and then mentioning in passing the actual witch hunt of pussy riot....../sigh and *still* people defend him

it is a freaking cult, this man is no hero and only gives actual whistle blowers a bad name


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 19, 2012)

He's come off as an idiot but are people still denying that US is pushing the UK to extradite him.


----------



## Toby (Aug 19, 2012)

I'm fascinated at how some of you are responding, considering how highly regarded Scandinavian countries are on their human rights record. You think Sweden will send Assange to be tortured or executed? Do you even know what we do with asylum seekers?


Note how he completely ignores the rape accusation. Not surprising. 



Ennoea said:


> He's come off as an idiot but are people still denying that US is pushing the UK to extradite him.



Honestly? The US has not made a request to have him extradited. If they had, then the Swedish courts and the Swedish government would have to take it into account. So far they haven't. 

However, the Swedish courts cannot guarantee that he won't be extradited because the courts don't have that power. Only the government can make that order because they are the highest authority of government, the state. It would be unconstitutional for the courts of Sweden to make this decision, which is a government policy issue. This is about .


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Aug 19, 2012)

Julian Assange is a douchenozzle. 

That is all I have to say on this subject.


----------



## IchLiebe (Aug 19, 2012)

Julian Assange is an enemy of the states(US). He release valuable, critical area that endangers the lives of others abroad.

THe people who give him the documents like that one dumbass did, should be tried and convicted as traitors or spies and be shot from a firing squad.


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 19, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Julian Assange is an enemy of the states(US). He release valuable, critical area that endangers the lives of others abroad.
> 
> THe people who give him the documents like that one dumbass did, should be tried and convicted as traitors or spies and be shot from a firing squad.



Actually, it's a damn good job to release those documents because the US, who take up the cause of human rights and freedom, have committed many atrocious war crimes. Wikileaks released inside info on Guantanamo, on the killings of innocent Afghan civilians and generally how diplomacy of countries is like. This info is something to be thankful for because the US can no longer point fingers at the likes of Assad when they themselves gruesomely torture people. 

Also, Bradley Manning will not get a fair trial. The US is breaching its own legal regulations. The maximum detention period for someone without trial in the US is 120 days. Manning is waiting 2 years for this farce of a trial. The US is becoming Ground Zero for prisons since the Patriot Act.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 19, 2012)

My god you fucking people...He released documents indiscriminately, he's no hero. That was just a matter of consequence of his reckless dumping of classified documents. Most of them had nothing of relevance, and many of the leaks thereafter are just ultimately trivial shit like table arrangements in office buildings, yet he insists on digging himself deeper into a hole by leaking these still classified documents. He also released diplomatic reports, something that had no business being leaked and revealed no crimes. Manning released hundreds of thousands indiscriminately himself, he's going to get as far a trial as he can.

You cultists are so short-sighted in your accusations, and I think it's stupid yet hilarious, how you laud a man that hides behind Russia and Ecuador as a symbol of freedom and point fingers at the U.S. for keeping secrets regardless of triviality or severity. Assange is in this for the celebrity, and for his own personal vendettas. Every nation's closet has its skeletons, and we aren't any different. However, it would not be accurate to ignore our actual efforts in realizing more humanitarian ideals as well in contrast to someone like Assad.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 19, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Actually, it's a damn good job to release those documents because the US, who take up the cause of human rights and freedom, have committed many atrocious war crimes. Wikileaks released inside info on Guantanamo, on the killings of innocent Afghan civilians and generally how diplomacy of countries is like. This info is something to be thankful for because the US can no longer point fingers at the likes of Assad when they themselves gruesomely torture people.
> 
> Also, Bradley Manning will not get a fair trial. The US is breaching its own legal regulations. The maximum detention period for someone without trial in the US is 120 days. Manning is waiting 2 years for this farce of a trial. The US is becoming Ground Zero for prisons since the Patriot Act.



Manning falls under Military Law.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 20, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> My god you fucking people...He released documents indiscriminately, he's no hero. That was just a matter of consequence of his reckless dumping of classified documents. Most of them had nothing of relevance, and many of the leaks thereafter are just ultimately trivial shit like table arrangements in office buildings, yet he insists on digging himself deeper into a hole by leaking these still classified documents. He also released diplomatic reports, something that had no business being leaked and revealed no crimes. Manning released hundreds of thousands indiscriminately himself, he's going to get as far a trial as he can.
> 
> You cultists are so short-sighted in your accusations, and I think it's stupid yet hilarious, how you laud a man that hides behind Russia and Ecuador as a symbol of freedom and point fingers at the U.S. for keeping secrets regardless of triviality or severity. Assange is in this for the celebrity, and for his own personal vendettas. Every nation's closet has its skeletons, and we aren't any different. However, it would not be accurate to ignore our actual efforts in realizing more humanitarian ideals as well in contrast to someone like Assad.



You might want to actually read through a summary of the cables.



> The subject was the criminal investigation into the kidnapping and torture of Khaled El-Masri, a German greengrocer from the town of Neu-Ulm, seized in a case of mistaken identity. Koenig, aware that German prosecutors had issued arrest warrants against thirteen* U.S. government agents who were involved in El-Masri’s abduction and torture, and that an effort would shortly be made to enforce them internationally, was pressing the German government to block this effort...*
> 
> Over many further weeks of bickering over what to do, a number of CIA figures apparently argued that, though innocent, the best course was to continue to hold him incommunicado because he “knew too much.”







> *The US told Uganda to let it know when the army was going to commit war crimes using American intelligence – but did not try to dissuade it from doing so, the US embassy cables suggest.*
> 
> America was supporting the Ugandan government in its fight against rebel movement the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), providing information and $4.4m (?2.8m) worth of military hardware a year.






> WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout'
> 
> Cables say drug giant hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action






> WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
> 
> Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord






> US diplomats spied on UN leadership
> 
> • Diplomats ordered to gather intelligence on Ban Ki-moon
> • Secret directives sent to more than 30 US embassies
> • Call for DNA data, computer passwords and terrorist links


----------



## Trias (Aug 20, 2012)

Calling Assange "a cult leader" and his supporters "cultists" really shows the amount of average intelligence per keyboard-patriots that think if they defend a corrupt government good enough it might fill up their ass. 

 Seriously, how is Pussy Riot even related to this? Are you this retarded? You CANT find a single one Assange supporter that does not support release of Pussy Riot. Do you realize that Assange is not a "commie" or whatever the bullshit you believe him to be, and he has put out lots of things about Venezuela, Russia, Ba'ath Syria and others? Do you realize that this retarded way of "covering up" things instead of "cleaning up" has screwed U.S. for the last 50something years? Do you even realize this is the reason a 3rd World country like China is suprassing you even in science? That all your wars have failed miserably, because all you understood from a war is to just stick guns up some people's ass?

 Do you realize that you're ruining your own country pretty much the same way Putin is ruining Russia, by destroying all its infrastructure? When a corrupt politican does some shit, your first instinct is to hide it, and second is to punish those who reveal it. And moreover, this is your idea of being a patriot. And it is endlessly amusing. 

 In a true fucking democracy, Bradley Manning would've been a hero, regardless of the fucking military law. But this is what happens when most of your brass is corrupt, anyway. No need to pluck out the bad weed, just pluck out the insubordinate ones, so the sergeants become lieutenants and the lieutenant become majors. And soon enough you'll have disciplined, subordinate idiots, from brass to conscripts.

 This is the very same short-sightedness that bite US' ass each time ın Iraq and Afghanistan. Go on; have yourself believe that US is not so different than Russia, and that China is not surpassing you, and that you'll have control in ME if all the regional power goes to Sunnis. On the way there, you're also free to believe that US has the highest living standarts in the world and it's the richest country. Throw in a few "Cultist Assange" or "Traitor Manning" or "Commie Democrats" in the way.

 Now enjoy your ruined United States.


----------



## IchLiebe (Aug 20, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Actually, it's a damn good job to release those documents because the US, who take up the cause of human rights and freedom, have committed many atrocious war crimes. Wikileaks released inside info on Guantanamo, on the killings of innocent Afghan civilians and generally how diplomacy of countries is like. This info is something to be thankful for because the US can no longer point fingers at the likes of Assad when they themselves gruesomely torture people.
> 
> Also, Bradley Manning will not get a fair trial. The US is breaching its own legal regulations. The maximum detention period for someone without trial in the US is 120 days. Manning is waiting 2 years for this farce of a trial. The US is becoming Ground Zero for prisons since the Patriot Act.



So your comparing the U.S. accidently killing a handfull of Afghan civilians to a Dictator that is massacring his own people. Find something else. Although it does show good things in the documents thats not the point, its how he aquired them, knowledge of what they was, and used it to further his own personal gain.

Where did you get this maximum detention period?

The only thing that says anything about the speed of trials, that I know of, is in th constitution. and it says a Fair and speedy trial.

The PA lets them hold anyone for 48hours without charging them. Benedick Arnold has been charged with crimes. 

And sitting in prison, actually probably a county jail is a good thing. It counts a time served. I don't fucking care either way, that traitor can rot in jail and never have a court date.


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You might want to actually read through a summary of the cables.



No one is suggesting that *some* of the cables had worth but there are hundreds that had no whistle blowing value and that only endangered people

until you can rectify that breach of ethics you have nothing




Trias said:


> Calling Assange "a cult leader" and his supporters "cultists" really shows the amount of average intelligence per keyboard-patriots that think if they defend a corrupt government good enough it might fill up their ass.
> 
> Seriously, how is Pussy Riot even related to this? Are you this retarded? You CANT find a single one Assange supporter that does not support release of Pussy Riot. Do you realize that Assange is not a "commie" or whatever the bullshit you believe him to be, and he has put out lots of things about Venezuela, Russia, Ba'ath Syria and others? Do you realize that this retarded way of "covering up" things instead of "cleaning up" has screwed U.S. for the last 50something years? Do you even realize this is the reason a 3rd World country like China is suprassing you even in science? That all your wars have failed miserably, because all you understood from a war is to just stick guns up some people's ass?
> 
> ...




lol

well it's true though it is a bit of a cult as all the Assange defenders ignore reality in their rush to defend him and let's be clear here Manning in a way is no better. 

If they had together merely blown the whistle I know I would have supported them and I think alot more people would but what they did went far beyond whistle blowing. They put countless people at risk with their reckless and feckless vendetta.

And let's be real here too there are two distinct 'camps' here that disagree with you one of which is the conversatives on the forum which is likely not too big of a surprise but me, Seto and the others well normally we're the ones disagreeing with them.

So maybe you should about think  that before you keep ranting


----------



## Yachiru (Aug 20, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> So your comparing the U.S. accidently killing a handfull of Afghan civilians to a Dictator that is massacring his own people. Find something else. Although it does show good things in the documents thats not the point, its how he aquired them, knowledge of what they was, and used it to further his own personal gain.
> 
> Where did you get this maximum detention period?
> 
> ...



The documents Assange leaked clearly spoke of *war crimes*, soldiers killing Afghan civilians out of spite. Also, resorting to gruesome torture at Guantanamo is pretty fucking shameful for a country that has such noble ideas and accomplished many great things. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they found out what America has become. One of Assange's reasons for releasing the documents is that the US keeps pointing fingers at Assad, Putin, or Gaddafi for that matter, saying they torture and oppress their people. Now that the US's own dark secrets are revealed to the public, they no longer can point fingers because they would be classed as hypocrites. 

Manning may fall under military law, but as an US citizen the constitution grants him the right of a fair trial. Assange himself called the US out on their practices with dissidents, not just Manning - indefinite detention without trial. 

The US is merely trying to save face, divert from the fact that all their wars have failed miserably, that they are no different from dictatorships who torture their people - a democracy has no need for torture, corruption and warfare. America has fallen. Deep.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 20, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You might want to actually read through a summary of the cables.





Trias said:


> Calling Assange "a cult leader" and his supporters "cultists" really shows the amount of average intelligence per keyboard-patriots that think if they defend a corrupt government good enough it might fill up their ass.
> 
> Seriously, how is Pussy Riot even related to this? Are you this retarded? You CANT find a single one Assange supporter that does not support release of Pussy Riot. Do you realize that Assange is not a "commie" or whatever the bullshit you believe him to be, and he has put out lots of things about Venezuela, Russia, Ba'ath Syria and others? Do you realize that this retarded way of "covering up" things instead of "cleaning up" has screwed U.S. for the last 50something years? Do you even realize this is the reason a 3rd World country like China is suprassing you even in science? That all your wars have failed miserably, because all you understood from a war is to just stick guns up some people's ass?
> 
> ...



I like how these two quotes only reinforce my point. 

Shinigami Perv, I already told you that if the crimes were the only thing released in the leaks there'd be no issue. However they were not. Hundreds of thousands of documents were leaked, and it is only through consequence of that were the matters of wrongdoings released. I'm not denying we have skeletons which I seem to need to repeat to you people.

Trias, your post is just full of idiotic strawmen, and just stuff that really has nothing to do with this. Ut's hilarious you take objection to the "cultist" remark, because your posts is extremely reflective of such. No one called him a commie, no one is saying his supporters are behind the girl band's arrest, and no one is acting gung-ho patriotic on behalf of the U.S. government, especially not on the idea that it is without sin. ESPECIALLY not on the idea that it is the "bestest, most perfect nation EVER!!!" With that stated, it is stated that there has been a cult of personality formed around him, one of which is unwarranted given his compromised credibility and outright hypocrisy. He talks of openness and freedom, and he hides behind entities that have a worse record than the U.S. does on human rights. Openly and secretly.

It's moronic to go on about the FALL OF AMERICA and shit, you clearly have no idea about it, because if it did everyone would feel it. Everyone.

You guys have clearly been swept up by his hype and celebrity, and clearly have no idea what responsible whistleblowing is.


----------



## On and On (Aug 20, 2012)

Mad props to Ecuador  His entire reason for extradition is still that rape claim that iirc the lady who was supposedly assaulted has even seemed wishy-washy about?


----------



## Gunners (Aug 20, 2012)

Trias said:


> Calling Assange "a cult leader" and his supporters "cultists" really shows the amount of average intelligence per keyboard-patriots that think if they defend a corrupt government good enough it might fill up their ass.
> 
> Seriously, how is Pussy Riot even related to this? Are you this retarded? You CANT find a single one Assange supporter that does not support release of Pussy Riot. Do you realize that Assange is not a "commie" or whatever the bullshit you believe him to be, and he has put out lots of things about Venezuela, Russia, Ba'ath Syria and others? Do you realize that this retarded way of "covering up" things instead of "cleaning up" has screwed U.S. for the last 50something years? Do you even realize this is the reason a 3rd World country like China is suprassing you even in science? That all your wars have failed miserably, because all you understood from a war is to just stick guns up some people's ass?
> 
> ...



If I read your post through thoroughly I'm sure I'd laugh twice as hard as I am right now.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 20, 2012)

drache said:


> Sauf what is there left to say? I point out that there is indeed a british law and you throw a fit I point out Assange's hypocrisy you throw a fit, I point out that Assange isn't facing anything from the US and you offer some absurd conspiracy theory.
> 
> At a certain point one must wash one's hands and walk away, I think I am at that point.



Washing hands reminds me of washing blood. I have no idea why, it just does.

I'd rather blood not be there at all. If it is necessary, than it should be for people who have committed actual crimes such as murder or gross brutality. If you condemn the families of all crime doers in an area, it's like saying I'll bomb Montana because I can't bother to go looking there for a serial killer.

I don't care what nation you are. Justice should not work that way.



> it's not an inability the fact is 'national security' means different things to different people. I think if you go back you'll see I gave you my answer but to make it easier let me repeat.
> 
> To me national security is anything that would *put innocent lives in danger* but that does not cover covering up actual crimes.



The words I placed in bold to me are in error. While I respect that soldiers may accidentally kill innocent lives during a war, it should not be considered negligible the that lives of innocents are lost. While I don't think soldiers should get arrested for their actions, they should be allowed to have a proper form of mourning, which includes acknowledging actions and seeking personal non-violent form of reconciliation. Channeling energy into positive influences on the world rather than denying events is more healing.



> Assange released info regarding informants and military ops without regard to the consequences why would the Osama raid be any different?



It is not. He gambled and he won, but at the cost of lives and ill will of angered people. I'm not saying he was right or not right. Objectivity is seeing the positive and negative consequences of a particular action, of which for every action there will inevitably be both. 



> As to what I think of Assange, terrorist? No, Anti US? Maybe Narcissist and hypocrite? Definitely



Well we can't arrest all Narcissists and hypocrites. The jails would be too full. I don't want to pay for any more money... just to arrest all hypocrites and narcissists, do you?



> people keep repeating this and yet have shown nothing backing up these claims that there was anything 'dark' or 'wrong' in the vast number of communications



Nothing is right or wrong when it comes to what you see on a page. It is only the interpretation you make of data you see with your own eyes.


----------



## navy (Aug 20, 2012)

The US has been pretty "neutral" on this. I wonder why Assange thinks the US will help him though.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 20, 2012)

Yeah, it's ridiculous how people have been calling the U.S. THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM. When we haven't really been out for his head. If we wanted him we would've gotten him.


----------



## hcheng02 (Aug 20, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I like how these two quotes only reinforce my point.
> 
> Shinigami Perv, I already told you that if the crimes were the only thing released in the leaks there'd be no issue. However they were not. Hundreds of thousands of documents were leaked, and it is only through consequence of that were the matters of wrongdoings released. I'm not denying we have skeletons which I seem to need to repeat to you people.
> 
> ...



Pretty much this really. I'm going to use an example to demonstrate what the difference is between responsible whistleblowing and Assange's actions.

Situation: Hospital staff commits mistake and causes a patient to die. They cover it up. Obviously this is immoral.

Responsible whistleblower: Leaks info on crime and perpetrators of coverup to press. Story gets out and there is an investigation.

Assange Wikileaks version: Hack into hospital records and uploads personal and medical records of all hospital patient and staff to internet. When people complain that doing so can hurt people and allow their identities to be stolen, Assange says that information should be free. 

Does anyone see the difference here?


----------



## navy (Aug 20, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yeah, it's ridiculous how people have been calling the U.S. THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM. When we haven't really been out for his head. If we wanted him we would've gotten him.




We want him just not yet...

I think they will let him rot in foreign jails.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 20, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yeah, it's ridiculous how people have been calling the U.S. THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM. When we haven't really been out for his head. If we wanted him we would've gotten him.



Everyone knows this, and that's why it would be too obvious when something happens to him. Everyone would know that the USA were involved.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 20, 2012)

If Assagne was serious about changing the world he'd commit suicide and become a martyr.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 20, 2012)

He'd also release those MOUNTAINS OF DOCUMENTS he apparently has on the corrupt practices of U.S. businesses and banks, because we sure could use them as a case against campaign finance reform.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 20, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He'd also release those MOUNTAINS OF DOCUMENTS he apparently has on the corrupt practices of U.S. businesses and banks, because we sure could use them as a case against campaign finance reform.



Or actually follow up on the promise to expose Russian secrets. I'm sure a thugocracy in a country with infamously massive corruption/corporate cronyism would be quite a scoop. But that would hurt his sponsors and probably put him in real harms way.


----------



## Havoc (Aug 20, 2012)

Zaru said:


> Everyone knows this, and that's why it would be too obvious when something happens to him. Everyone would know that the USA were involved.


But it wouldn't matter.


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2012)

AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Washing hands reminds me of washing blood. I have no idea why, it just does.
> 
> I'd rather blood not be there at all. If it is necessary, than it should be for people who have committed actual crimes such as murder or gross brutality. If you condemn the families of all crime doers in an area, it's like saying I'll bomb Montana because I can't bother to go looking there for a serial killer.
> 
> I don't care what nation you are. Justice should not work that way.



it's a saying that goes back to a roman tradition that you actually see in the bible and considering it's used my pilate I am not surprised by your reaction

That said it's not always about blood it's simply my way of saying I'm walking away and I am walking away blameless in my view



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> The words I placed in bold to me are in error. While I respect that soldiers may accidentally kill innocent lives during a war, it should not be considered negligible the that lives of innocents are lost. While I don't think soldiers should get arrested for their actions, they should be allowed to have a proper form of mourning, which includes acknowledging actions and seeking personal non-violent form of reconciliation. Channeling energy into positive influences on the world rather than denying events is more healing.



and I think that naive, in war people die. Did you know that more civilians died in WW2 then military? The last 20 years have given people incredibly warped expectations of what war is about.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> It is not. He gambled and he won, but at the cost of lives and ill will of angered people. I'm not saying he was right or not right. Objectivity is seeing the positive and negative consequences of a particular action, of which for every action there will inevitably be both.



this makes no sense considering the Osama raid had no American losses




AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Well we can't arrest all Narcissists and hypocrites. The jails would be too full. I don't want to pay for any more money... just to arrest all hypocrites and narcissists, do you?



when you want to deal with my full point let me know



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Nothing is right or wrong when it comes to what you see on a page. It is only the interpretation you make of data you see with your own eyes.



I see like Cython you've fallen for the 'cool' approach of the golden mean fallacy. Let's be clear here there are almost always right and wrong reactions to the 'interpretation you make of the data'.


----------



## Toby (Aug 21, 2012)

Now confirmed by  and Business Insider. These sources represent different perspectives but they cant deny the facts of the matter:

Sweden will not extradite Assange to USA if he faces death penalty

Happy now? EU law makes this illegal. Scandinavian countries in general have NEVER extradited anyone to a death penalty. 

Assange can now quietly get aboard the fucking plane and prove his case in court like any other man.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 21, 2012)

He wouldn't have gotten the death penalty anyway. Not even Bradley Manning got it, when  his activities certainly fit legal precedents for it.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 21, 2012)

Lol death penalty, that would be a huge show case and make him a martyr.


----------



## Mael (Aug 21, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He'd also release those MOUNTAINS OF DOCUMENTS he apparently has on the corrupt practices of U.S. businesses and banks, because we sure could use them as a case against campaign finance reform.



Instead of putting troops at risk he should've done that from the get-go.



Megaharrison said:


> Or actually follow up on the promise to expose Russian secrets. I'm sure a thugocracy in a country with infamously massive corruption/corporate cronyism would be quite a scoop. But that would hurt his sponsors and probably put him in real harms way.



Nah...see Assange KNOWS the Russians would actually DO something about it subtly.  It's like when anon pissed off the Mexican cartels.  Like them, Russian governmentals don't have much for scruples.


----------



## Blue (Aug 21, 2012)

Are we still talking about how accused rapists shouldn't have to stand trial?

brb, raping consensually sexing some Swedish chicks.

(They're actually CIA agents, don't believe them when they tell you they didn't want it in the bum. They will.)


----------



## .44 (Aug 21, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Are we still talking about how accused rapists shouldn't have to stand trial?
> 
> brb, raping consensually sexing some Swedish chicks.
> 
> (They're actually CIA agents, don't believe them when they tell you they didn't want it in the bum. They will.)



It's all a conspiracy.

I was minding my own business, politely raping some bitches, and then a week later the police showed up and threw me in prison. They said it was for rape*, but I know it's really because I wrote a negative blog post about Obama.

*Not even legitimate rape.


----------



## MunchKing (Aug 21, 2012)

It was funny to see that the UK are willing to risk a diplomatic incident to get  to Assange. 



Megaharrison said:


> He wouldn't have gotten the death penalty anyway. Not even Bradley Manning got it, when  his activities certainly fit legal precedents for it.



The prosecutor asked for a life sentence for Manning.

I want to point out that Bradley Manning's trial hasn't even _started_ yet. They've been keeping him in confinement for all this time.

I expect a simillar show if the US would get a hold of Assange.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Aug 21, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Are we still talking about how accused rapists shouldn't have to stand trial?
> 
> brb, raping consensually sexing some Swedish chicks.
> 
> (They're actually CIA agents, don't believe them when they tell you they didn't want it in the bum. They will.)



Let's be perfectly clear here.

Neither of the purported victims have accused him of rape. The prosecutor has. I've never heard a layperson, who has read the easily obtained protocols from the victims' interviews, say they think he has committed rape. 

One of the victims tweeted - after the crime - about meeting "the world's coolest guy" and kept the condom as a souvenir. Neither woman felt they had any reason to go to the police until they learned that he had fucked someone else. They went to the police to ask if there was any way to force him into taking an HIV test.

He is not wanted so he can be put on trial. He is wanted for questioning.

He was available for questioning for two weeks before leaving Sweden, but nobody wanted to question him then. But as soon as he's out of the country, they suddenly want to do it. He has offered to be questioned by Swedish police in the UK, or via video link which the supreme court has ruled is acceptable. He has offered to come to Sweden if he gets guarantees he won't be handed to the US, which . Recently leaked documents show that the US are already building a case against him.


So no. We are not talking about how accused rapists shouldn't have to stand trial.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> it's a saying that goes back to a roman tradition that you actually see in the bible and considering it's used my pilate I am not surprised by your reaction



So it was spoken by Pilate who shook off responsibility for Jesus dying on the cross? Interesting.



> That said it's not always about blood it's simply my way of saying I'm walking away and I am walking away blameless in my view



You are perfectly free to have your own view of situations. That is your choice. However, no one is truly blameless for the events that happen in the world because we are all a part of the world. Maybe this is only because I view things in a Daoist/Buddhistic fashion so I view things as a chain reaction of events. In my view, seeking destruction is not the most optimal form of solution because destruction begets destruction, violence begets violence. 

Is this view in error in your opinion?



> and I think that naive, in war people die. Did you know that more civilians died in WW2 then military? The last 20 years have given people incredibly warped expectations of what war is about.



Have you ever spoken to someone who has been through a war?

In war people do more than just die. They are tortured, brutally raped, maimed, diseased, suffer gross and inhumane living conditions for days on end. They starve, go thirsty, lose family members, have nightmares and flashbacks and become emotionally, physically and mentally wrecked. Families are torn apart. Dreams are ruined. Faith is lost. 

We don't want another World War. There's a reason for that, and I think that people in this century are so dis-connected from war that there are more and more people prone to thinking that it is some form of easy solution to resolving global issues. 

War does more than just kill people. If you think that, not to be insulting, but I think you are the one who is naive. 



> this makes no sense considering the Osama raid had no American losses



The raid itself was wonderfully performed. The soldiers in the battle were highly trained and very good at their jobs. But what did the raid do other than end in the death of Osama Bin Laden? What in your view were the positive results of that event other than a satisfaction of vengeance?



> when you want to deal with my full point let me know



What is your full point? 

If it is the following:

Innocent deaths during wars are justifiable. 

My counter-point is this:

Even if the cause of a war is just, that does not make excuse for denying the tragedy of the consequences of having a war. 
In fact, full awareness of what war is cannot exist without fully understanding the consequences that result on all sides of a battlefield.  

Sacrificing innocent lives is something that should be considered justifiable just because America is awesome and we need to go out and kill terrorists because they are horrible. As much manga and comic books as I read, I don't hold that the world is so black and white.



> I see like Cython you've fallen for the 'cool' approach of the golden mean fallacy. Let's be clear here there are almost always right and wrong reactions to the 'interpretation you make of the data'.



Only if there really is an 'absolute truth'.


----------



## Saishin (Aug 21, 2012)

*Julian Assange row: Embassy entry 'would be suicide for UK'*



> The UK would be committing diplomatic suicide if it tried to enter his country's embassy in London, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa has said.
> 
> The president said such a move would open up the UK to having its diplomatic missions around the world entered.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19328335


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 21, 2012)

MunchKing said:


> It was funny to see that the UK are willing to risk a diplomatic incident to get  to Assange.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you guys like dense? He's not a civilian. He's a *soldier*, and a soldier is held in trial in military court. He objectively committed treason, because he didn't just report the wrongdoings, he leaked *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS* of documents that were classified.

So no, if Assange were brought here, the case would be handled very differently. It's idiotic how you people seem to make these assumptions and only show you have no idea what you're going on about.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 21, 2012)

> The United States on Monday denied Julian Assange's "wild assertions" that it has launched a witch-hunt for the WikiLeaks founder, who was holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid extradition.
> 
> The Australian-born hacktivist rallied supporters Sunday from the balcony of the embassy, accusing the United States of pursuing him after his website angered Washington by publishing a trove of sensitive diplomatic cables.
> 
> ...



Source



Seto Kaiba said:


> Are you guys like dense? He's not a civilian. He's a *soldier*, and a soldier is held in trial in military court. He objectively committed treason, because he didn't just report the wrongdoings, he leaked *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS* of documents that were classified.





> The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Ernesto Mendez, in March said that Manning had been subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" conditions including prolonged detention. A previous State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, resigned last year after criticizing Manning's treatment.



Nothing justifies his treatment. 

Oh and of course, you can judge him guilty before his trial - what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Everyone is guaranteed a fair trial by the US constitution. Whether he's a soldier or not, it shouldn't matter.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2012)

AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> So it was spoken by Pilate who shook off responsibility for Jesus dying on the cross? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



/shrug you're confusing the big view with this small section. There was little to add to that conversation, I tried there was nothing else to do ergo I wash my hands of the conversation.

And this is not about seeking destruction frankly, it simply is what it is and if you can not change it you accept it.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Have you ever spoken to someone who has been through a war?
> 
> In war people do more than just die. They are tortured, brutally raped, maimed, diseased, suffer gross and inhumane living conditions for days on end. They starve, go thirsty, lose family members, have nightmares and flashbacks and become emotionally, physically and mentally wrecked. Families are torn apart. Dreams are ruined. Faith is lost.
> 
> ...



I think you should be careful on your assumptions. Anyone that has ever interacted with me would know that I hold war as a horrible thing that should truly be the option of last resort. I always hold to the quote that we should remember that war is a horrible business least we use it too much and the disturbing trend I see (and one you seem to buy into) is forgetting that. War has become 'bloodless' in today's world.

I was simply making the point that in war people die, a lot of people die and unforunately that's often more civilians then not



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> The raid itself was wonderfully performed. The soldiers in the battle were highly trained and very good at their jobs. But what did the raid do other than end in the death of Osama Bin Laden? What in your view were the positive results of that event other than a satisfaction of vengeance?



I think justice was delivered and a threat to the US and the world was removed. I also wish Osama better fortune in his next life 



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> What is your full point?
> 
> If it is the following:
> 
> ...



actually that had nothing to do with it at all. See what I was responding to? It was about Assange, my full point is that Assange is a hypocritical, narcissistic idiot who broke journalisitic and whistle blower ethics by his indiscriminate release of documents. And it is the latter that is the problem. My personal dislike of the man is besides the point, it's what he did that was wrong.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Only if there really is an 'absolute truth'.



wrong and the entire point of the fallacy. there are good and bad views, views that with the information we have we would know to be not as correct as others. To pretend all views are equal simply because there is not absolute truth is inherently incorrect



Matto-sama said:


> Source
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so being held in jail is inhuman? 

seriously wtf?

The man signed up for the military which includes military justice system which has been a staple of US law since it's creation (and it's not unique in this).

For you to pretend otherwise is rather disturbing


----------



## Opaste (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> so being held in jail is inhuman?
> 
> seriously wtf?



Well, holding someone in solitary confinement for long periods of time could certainly be said to be inhumane treatment, since studies have shown that it can cause severe psychological and emotional damage. Humans are social animals after all, and it has become clear that people really don't deal well with being kept completely isolated from other people for long stretches of time.

Though I suppose all forms of incarceration inevitably cause the people imprisoned at least some amount of distress and emotional damage due to their lack of freedom, so I guess it's a good question where should the line be drawn. What is the acceptable level of emotional distress prisoners can be subjected to?


----------



## Lindsay (Aug 21, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Are you guys like dense? He's not a civilian. He's a *soldier*, and a soldier is held in trial in military court. He objectively committed treason, because he didn't just report the wrongdoings, he leaked *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS* of documents that were classified.
> 
> So no, if Assange were brought here, the case would be handled very differently. It's idiotic how you people seem to make these assumptions and only show you have no idea what you're going on about.





			
				US Constitution said:
			
		

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.



It is a lengthy stretch to say Bradley Manning gave aid to an enemy of the United States by giving Assange the leaked documents. Unless the US had declared Assange an enemy of State working for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban and which I've seen no indication of such.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> so being held in jail is inhuman?
> 
> seriously wtf?
> 
> ...



No, being held in jail is not inhuman. The conditions he was being held in were described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, someone I would say is qualified to make judgments on detention conditions. 



> he has no access to exercise or even a pillow and bedsheets during his 23 hours of solitary confinement a day




Solitary confinement has been found to be detrimental to a prisoners mental health.

Just because he signed up for the military does not make the military's justice system acceptable. 

Honestly, the lengths you go to vilify Assange and Manning are ridiculous. Even defending conditions the UN has described as torture?


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2012)

Opaste said:


> Well, holding someone in solitary confinement for long periods of time could certainly be said to be inhumane treatment, since studies have shown that it can cause severe psychological and emotional damage. Humans are social animals after all, and it has become clear that people really don't deal well with being kept completely isolated from other people for long stretches of time.
> 
> Though I suppose all forms of incarceration inevitably cause the people imprisoned at least some amount of distress and emotional damage due to their lack of freedom, so I guess it's a good question where should the line be drawn. What is the acceptable level of emotional distress prisoners can be subjected to?



see below as I do not like repeating myself



Lindsay said:


> It is a lengthy stretch to say Bradley Manning gave aid to an enemy of the United States by giving Assange the leaked documents. Unless the US had declared Assange an enemy of State working for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban and which I've seen no indication of such.



Not in the slightest the indiscriminate release of information in an uncontrolled fashion clearly could be considered treason. I do not think the US is persuing that as he also clearly violated security agreements among other things but they could



Matto-sama said:


> No, being held in jail is not inhuman. The conditions he was being held in were described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, someone I would say is qualified to make judgments on detention conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




  he was transfered last year so your compliants seem to be dated.

And let's be clear here being placed in solitary is not torture not unless it's for no other reason then because they can. In fact often how profile prisoners are put in solitary as a matter of safety and course.  And I am not defending anything, I don't know the conditions and neither really do you. We only know what is claimed.

The fact is you have nothing, Assange is just a fugitive fleeing the Swedish courts and Manning is some one that knowingly and willingly broke the uniformed code of justice.  If Manning is being held underconditions that are clearly inhuman that should be addressed. But if it is no different then any other prisoner of his classification then frankly this is all bleating that is pointless.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> But if it is no different then any other prisoner of his classification then frankly this is all bleating that is pointless.



That is not really a good argument. It doesn't matter if he's being held under conditions similar to other prisoners or not. No one should be held under the conditions the UN has claimed he is/was being held in.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> /shrug you're confusing the big view with this small section. There was little to add to that conversation, I tried there was nothing else to do ergo I wash my hands of the conversation.
> 
> And this is not about seeking destruction frankly, it simply is what it is and if you can not change it you accept it.



I am rather glad you don't seek destruction. But if you continue to argue a point, you are not accepting it, not really. If you did accept it fully, you wouldn't be posting anything here, or reading about it. There is no fully impartial observer. 



> I think you should be careful on your assumptions. Anyone that has ever interacted with me would know that I hold war as a horrible thing that should truly be the option of last resort. I always hold to the quote that we should remember that war is a horrible business least we use it too much and the disturbing trend I see (and one you seem to buy into) is forgetting that. War has become 'bloodless' in today's world.
> 
> I was simply making the point that in war people die, a lot of people die and unfortunately that's often more civilians then not
> 
> ...



I agree with all of the statements you made above. That is why I believe Assange was in the right to expose people to the fact of the blood and lives that are lost, to the fullest extent to the public and make people aware of what happens rather than allowing governments to hide the blood behind propaganda and devaluing of the deaths on the other side of the field. 

Why do you think that soldiers like Bradley Manning ought not give media gurus like Assange access to information about what happens on the battlefield and how lives are lost?

Maybe you have more information than me. From what I have read, Wikileaks exposed a video pertaining to death of civilians on the battlefield, and talks of diplomats about opinions on world events. Are these particular lines of exposure somehow contributing to people viewing war as more bloodless and less horrendous? If anything, I would think that it would give people a better clue. 



> wrong and the entire point of the fallacy. there are good and bad views, views that with the information we have we would know to be not as correct as others. To pretend all views are equal simply because there is not absolute truth is inherently incorrect



Well, maybe it's a nominal difference to you. You seem to define "good" and "bad" views as equal to "correct" and "incorrect" views. Whereas one information is based on fact, the other is based on non-facts or opinions. 

Please tell me if this is a correct or incorrect interpretation of your statement.



> so being held in jail is inhuman?
> 
> seriously wtf?



Have you ever been to jail? Have you ever talked to anyone who has been to jail?



> The man signed up for the military which includes military justice system which has been a staple of US law since it's creation (and it's not unique in this).
> 
> For you to pretend otherwise is rather disturbing



Military law is often left unquestioned, and unchallenged. That is actually part of the problem. How are we as citizens ever to oppose a potential World War, if we consistently fail to question what our leaders do that could lead to such an event happening? <- I fear this one more than anything else. 

If you think people lack knowledge about war and what war does, just wait until something like a nuclear holocaust happens. Then we'll all find out. I'm praying that perhaps something like Wikileaks will prevent such a thing from happening. Maybe it will or maybe it won't. In my estimation though, just the idea that all citizens will know about such decisions automatically creates a check and balance situation among leaders of countries. Perhaps this makes me naive? 

Feel free to argue in the opposite. I'd like to hear what you say.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> That is not really a good argument. It doesn't matter if he's being held under conditions similar to other prisoners or not. No one should be held under the conditions the UN has claimed he is/was being held in.



unless you're prepared to argue that those conditions overall are cruel and inhuman then yes it is; besides he's been moved so your objection is moot



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> I am rather glad you don't seek destruction. But if you continue to argue a point, you are not accepting it, not really. If you did accept it fully, you wouldn't be posting anything here, or reading about it. There is no fully impartial observer.



no offense but I hate the no true scotsman fallacy



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> I agree with all of the statements you made above. That is why I believe Assange was in the right to expose people to the fact of the blood and lives that are lost, to the fullest extent to the public and make people aware of what happens rather than allowing governments to hide the blood behind propaganda and devaluing of the deaths on the other side of the field.
> 
> Why do you think that soldiers like Bradley Manning ought not give media gurus like Assange access to information about what happens on the battlefield and how lives are lost?
> 
> Maybe you have more information than me. From what I have read, Wikileaks exposed a video pertaining to death of civilians on the battlefield, and talks of diplomats about opinions on world events. Are these particular lines of exposure somehow contributing to people viewing war as more bloodless and less horrendous? If anything, I would think that it would give people a better clue.



I think your position at best naive Assange released thousands of documents of which only a small fraction really were whistle blowing the rest were apparently about embarrassing the US, compromising military operations, exposing vulnerabilities and generally putting both Americans and Afganstian people at risk.

That is a huge violation of journalistic efforts and does nothing for your stated goals. 




AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Well, maybe it's a nominal difference to you. You seem to define "good" and "bad" views as equal to "correct" and "incorrect" views. Whereas one information is based on fact, the other is based on non-facts or opinions.
> 
> Please tell me if this is a correct or incorrect interpretation of your statement.



As a scientist I would say that largely you are correct in that I do think good and correct are mostly interchangable. Let's be clear though that both should be determinations made based on facts. That some choose not to is a failing on their part.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Have you ever been to jail? Have you ever talked to anyone who has been to jail?



I am unsure of why you think this is relevant.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Military law is often left unquestioned, and unchallenged. That is actually part of the problem. How are we as citizens ever to oppose a potential World War, if we consistently fail to question what our leaders do that could lead to such an event happening? <- I fear this one more than anything else.



nonsense military law is questioned all the time which is why periodically it is updated and modified. Moreover you're confusing topics here, when you sign up for the military you are signing up to obey your commanders when they give lawful orders. That includes orders to maintain secrecy. If you are not okay with that then you have 2 choices, disobey orders and break the law or not. If you choose the first you'd had better be prepared for the consequences.



AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> If you think people lack knowledge about war and what war does, just wait until something like a nuclear holocaust happens. Then we'll all find out. I'm praying that perhaps something like Wikileaks will prevent such a thing from happening. Maybe it will or maybe it won't. In my estimation though, just the idea that all citizens will know about such decisions automatically creates a check and balance situation among leaders of countries. Perhaps this makes me naive?
> 
> Feel free to argue in the opposite. I'd like to hear what you say.



Sorry but wikileaks is not some magic fairy helping out the world. It is a stick, a stick used by Assange to push a vendetta he has. You can see this because of how Assange acts and what he has said. I really don't feel like repeating it all but it is in the thread so I encourage you to go back and read mine or Seto's posts on this.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> unless you're prepared to argue that those conditions overall are cruel and inhuman then yes it is; besides he's been moved so your objection is moot



Do we know if his conditions have improved since he was moved though?

If they have, then great. If not, changes need to be made.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Do we know if his conditions have improved since he was moved though?
> 
> If they have, then great. If not, changes need to be made.



read the link i embedded


----------



## Mithos (Aug 21, 2012)

drache said:


> read the link i embedded



Ah. Thanks. 

Well that's good news at least.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 22, 2012)

> *Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange*
> 
> Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers ? and essential protection for whistleblowers
> 
> ...


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 22, 2012)

> *WikiLeaks and Free Speech*
> By MICHAEL MOORE and OLIVER STONE
> Published: August 20, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Mithos (Aug 22, 2012)

> Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his *willingness to be questioned in London*. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to *allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador?s embassy*. In both instances, *Sweden refused*.
> 
> *Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States*. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that *Sweden would not make such a pledge*. *The British government would also **have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange?s extradition to the United States from Sweden*, and *has also refused to pledge that it would use this power*.
> 
> Taken together, the British and Swedish governments? actions suggest to us that *their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden*.



I love Michael Moore - clearly laying out why this whole 'we want him for questioning' is a facade.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 22, 2012)

> I love Michael Moore - clearly laying out why this whole 'we want him for questioning' is a facade.


Sweden can't extradite him if he's facing the death penalty, military imprisonment/trial, or if it's for political reasons (just like the UK). Moore and Stone are buddy-buddy with guys like Chavez and the whole conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense.

The whole Collateral Murder video was pretty blatant anti-US propaganda as well, probably the worst thing that Wikileaks has done. Selective editing and emphasis to paint the US in the worst light possible.



> Foreign Minister Bob Carr said Australia could not get involved in cases outside its jurisdiction but that Stockholm had indicated the former hacker was unlikely to be sent to the United States.
> 
> "It's not a subject for Australian diplomacy, it's a subject for consular support," he told the Australian Financial Review.
> 
> ...






> After Ecuador granted Assange asylum, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt wrote: "Our firm legal and constitutional system guarantees the rights of each and everyone. We firmly reject any accusations to the contrary." Along with other Nordic countries, Sweden sees itself as a legal safe haven and has welcomed thousands of leftist refugees from dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s to Iraqis fleeing the US-led invasion and war after 2003.
> 
> The World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2011 report ranked Sweden first of 66 nations on fundamental legal rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 22, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Sweden can't extradite him if he's facing the death penalty, military imprisonment/trial, or if it's for political reasons (just like the UK).



Oh look, foreign governments making assurances they don't intend to follow



> *Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition
> 
> Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse*
> November 10, 2006
> ...




But please, do continue citing these useless assurances


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 22, 2012)

> But please, do continue citing these useless assurances


If Sweden's assurances are useless, then why agree not to extradite him if it won't change anything? You wouldn't believe it anyway.

Of course in that case, it'd make more sense to agree to not extradite. You could get him to return and extradite him anyway.

You can't make comparisons to a dissimilar event from over a decade ago (particularly given the fact that it hasn't happened since, the compensation to those transferred, the row between Sweden and the US years ago over rendition flights through the country, etc).


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 22, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> If Sweden's assurances are useless, then why agree not to extradite him if it won't change anything? You wouldn't believe it anyway.



Sweden's assurances aren't useless, assurances by other countries are. Sweden can't plausibly deny that they had no way of knowing that an assurance was bogus if _they_ are making the assurance. 

Pretty simple logic. Not sure why you would confuse an assurance from Egypt or another country for a promise from Sweden. That's like confusing a promise you make with a promise made to you. You're well on your way to earning a deserved neg for piss poor disingenuous debating.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Aug 22, 2012)

> Pretty simple logic. Not sure why you would confuse an assurance from Egypt or another country for a promise from Sweden. That's like confusing a promise you make with a promise made to you. You're well on your way to earning a deserved neg for piss poor disingenuous debating.


Don't blame me for your unclear argument. Regardless, Sweden still makes the determination as to whether they believe the person could face torture, the death penalty, etc. regardless of what the country they're extraditing to claims. And given Assange's high profile and support and the fact that they're dealing with the US and not Egypt, any deal is going to be far more closely watched, scrutinized, and insured.

And if they're really in on a plan to get Assange, why not just agree and lock him up for a while on the rape and molestation charges? Why not just agree and deport him anyway? It doesn't make sense as some secret US plot to get Assange.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 22, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Don't blame me for your unclear argument.



How is my argument unclear? If you bothered to read that article, it suggests Sweden wanted an assurance by a country that doesn't honor their assurances. Egypt isn't a democracy. It suggests that Sweden doesn't care about the assurance, only that they can use the assurance later to claim that they followed the rules. 

That's completely different from Sweden itself giving a genuine assurance to Ecuador, which (unlike Sweden) cares about the assurance being honored, and real diplomatic fallout would occur should the assurance not be honored. And Sweden couldn't plausibly deny that they hadn't a clue that their own assurance wasn't legit, that doesn't make any sense. 

This isn't hard to understand. 



> Regardless, Sweden still makes the determination as to whether they believe the person could face torture, the death penalty, etc. regardless of what the country they're extraditing to claims. And given Assange's high profile and support and the fact that they're dealing with the US and not Egypt, any deal is going to be far more closely watched, scrutinized, and insured.



What the fuck?  I just gave you a case where Sweden had no reason whatsoever to believe that a dictatorship well known for torture would honor an agreement against torture. If Assange went to jail, the American public wouldn't bat an eyelash. There would be no political fallout whatsoever outside of a few protestors who would be vilified by the media and disappear after a few weeks. We have been indefinitely detaining people for a decade and there is no national outrage. 

Can you really not understand that citing a principle previously demonstrated to not be followed is a poor gamble for Assange to stake his life on? Why would someone be unreasonable to think that what happened once could happen again? He would have to be a fool to be so naive.



> And if they're really in on a plan to get Assange, why not just agree and lock him up for a while on the rape and molestation charges?



Because in Sweden presumably they need a trial. And after seeing the evidence leaked to the media, it looks like a pretty flimsy case. It's a "he said, she said" type case, and that's hard to prove in any western legal system. If Assange just wanted to avoid the rape charge, he wouldn't have offered to go to Sweden to face the rape charges if Sweden would guarantee no extradition.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 22, 2012)

The cult of Assange is in full swing I see. You know, I really get worried when I movement, and one I support no less, begins to be centered around one individual, one of which does not represent the ideals of such a movement. Assange should have just remained in Sweden and have his day in court, but he ran from this. What's worse, is that he runs to countries with worse records the U.S., and his supporters seem to be cheerleading these nations for it; almost as if they are completely ignorant of what these nations have done. As I stated, if the U.S. did want him, they'd have gotten him a long time ago.


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> How is my argument unclear? If you bothered to read that article, it suggests Sweden wanted an assurance by a country that doesn't honor their assurances. Egypt isn't a democracy. It suggests that Sweden doesn't care about the assurance, only that they can use the assurance later to claim that they followed the rules.
> 
> That's completely different from Sweden itself giving a genuine assurance to Ecuador, which (unlike Sweden) cares about the assurance being honored, and real diplomatic fallout would occur should the assurance not be honored. And Sweden couldn't plausibly deny that they hadn't a clue that their own assurance wasn't legit, that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> This isn't hard to understand.



:rofl

Ecuador cares about its word?

Ecuador is more of a dictatorship then Egypt was and certainly not commited even 25% to what Assange claims are his ideals.

Moreover as was already said it's rather silly to link an event almost a decade ago to today. Especially when no claim has even been made by the US.




Shinigami Perv said:


> What the fuck?  I just gave you a case where Sweden had no reason whatsoever to believe that a dictatorship well known for torture would honor an agreement against torture. If Assange went to jail, the American public wouldn't bat an eyelash. There would be no political fallout whatsoever outside of a few protestors who would be vilified by the media and disappear after a few weeks. We have been indefinitely detaining people for a decade and there is no national outrage.
> 
> Can you really not understand that citing a principle previously demonstrated to not be followed is a poor gamble for Assange to stake his life on? Why would someone be unreasonable to think that what happened once could happen again? He would have to be a fool to be so naive.





1. you really think the Obama adminstration would torture Assange?
2. you really think  the American people would really tolerate that?

if you think the answer to both is yes I frankly think you delusional. The American people have a sorry history to answer to circa 2002-2006 where in we allowed our fear to make excuses for things that we never should have tolerated but the evidence says that on torture the American people at least have finally woken up on that issue.




Shinigami Perv said:


> Because in Sweden presumably they need a trial. And after seeing the evidence leaked to the media, it looks like a pretty flimsy case. It's a "he said, she said" type case, and that's hard to prove in any western legal system. If Assange just wanted to avoid the rape charge, he wouldn't have offered to go to Sweden to face the rape charges if Sweden would guarantee no extradition.



Now this is pure and utter paranoid conspiracy nut, who are you to decide? Assange should face his day in court like anyone else.

Good gods Shinigami just how fair are you willing to bend for this man? If it's okay to walk out on rape charges how about robbery? Murder?


----------



## abcd (Aug 22, 2012)

drache said:


> 1. you really think the Obama adminstration would torture Assange?
> 2. you really think  the American people would really tolerate that?



Bradley Manning.


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2012)

abcd said:


> Bradley Manning.




oh good fucking gods Manning was never tortured and nothing you zealots have shown me has convinced me that his conditions were any really that different from any other high profile maximum security prisoner; the proof of that is that he was transfered and when transfered gained the rights of his lesser designation.


----------



## abcd (Aug 22, 2012)

drache said:


> oh good fucking gods Manning was never tortured and nothing you zealots have shown me has convinced me that his conditions were any really that different from any other high profile maximum security prisoner; the proof of that is that he was transfered and when transfered gained the rights of his lesser designation.



He has had no trial for 18 months, The legal maximum is 2 months.


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2012)

abcd said:


> He has had no trial for 18 months, The legal maximum is 2 months.



where are you getting this maximum from?

once you are remanded to trial all you are guranteed is a speedy and fair trial


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 22, 2012)

drache said:


> where are you getting this maximum from?
> 
> once you are remanded to trial all you are guranteed is a speedy and fair trial



First link off of google, no idea of it's credibility





> Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.  Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months ? and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait ? under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning?s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.
> 
> Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a ?Maximum Custody Detainee,? the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
> 
> ...




And that's back when it was seven months, not eighteen


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Aug 22, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Assange should have just remained in Sweden and have his day in court, but he ran from this.


He *did* remain in Sweden to have his day in court. But that day didn't come. How long do you expect him to stay when nothing happens? He even notified the authorities of his intent to leave the countries, and got the answer that he could do so.



> What's worse, is that he runs to countries with worse records the U.S., and his supporters seem to be cheerleading these nations for it; almost as if they are completely ignorant of what these nations have done.


Why is that worse? The US is out for him, Ecuador is not. He does not have the luxury to think about who is the nicest to other people. Right now he can only think about who is the nicest to him, because it's his ass on the line. You would do the same thing.



> As I stated, if the U.S. did want him, they'd have gotten him a long time ago.


They do want him. You're deluding yourself if you think they don't.

As for why they didn't get him, it took 10 years to catch bin Laden after 9/11 and almost 20 years after he first started making trouble. Wikileaks didn't really bother the US before February of 2010, and that was a mere 6 months before all his legal troubles started. Sounds like pretty good timing to me.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 22, 2012)

So you know, it's not like he's never been abused.
Besides, it's not like regular prison on the us has that great of a record.
I mean, Aids, wanton rape and stabbings, all those "accidents" not to mention a death penalty and a history of using on even retards.
Sometimes the us really does miss on it's own reputation across the world.


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> First link off of google, no idea of it's credibility
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and I have already shown that your information is dated and no longer valid please keep up

furhter this is entirely avoids answering my question, a claim was made one frankly that I think has absolutely no legal basis. I want to see that answered, please


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 22, 2012)

Dated does not necessarily mean no longer valid.
He did go through an inhumane amount of time in torture conditions.


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Dated does not necessarily mean no longer valid.
> He did go through an inhumane amount of time in torture conditions.



yes actually it does and I don't inherently believe one single report either way


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 22, 2012)

No, it really don't.

If I shot someone in the face right now I couldn't tell the judge (eighteen months from now I guess) "oh but judge, don't you see, it's all in the past now"


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 22, 2012)

but your qualms are quantity well the guardian provides with




> Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.



Does the UN special rapporteur on torture constitutes as a biased source?


----------



## Blue (Aug 22, 2012)

*Julian Assange sex claims not a crime in Latin America ? Ecuador president*



And that's why you're a third-world country.


----------



## abcd (Aug 22, 2012)

drache said:


> and I have already shown that your information is dated and no longer valid please keep up
> 
> furhter this is entirely avoids answering my question, a claim was made one frankly that I think has absolutely no legal basis. I want to see that answered, please



Since you don't believe in reporters, journalists and everyone else who disagrees with you, Here is something you might believe :/


----------



## warp drive (Aug 23, 2012)

This pretty much sum everything to me on the subject:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaAUmPNR69w[/YOUTUBE]


*Spoiler*: __ 



How is Ron Paul a republican again?


----------



## Mithos (Aug 23, 2012)

SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> This pretty much sum everything to me on the subject:
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaAUmPNR69w[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 
> ...



I actually agree with most of his points, and I usually don't agree with Ron Paul. 

He brought up a really good question that I never thought about: how can the US charge Assange with treason if he's not a US citizen?


----------



## Blue (Aug 23, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> He brought up a really good question that I never thought about: how can the US charge Assange with treason if he's not a US citizen?



We can't.

We could, however, charge him with espionage.

We won't, however. That's retarded. And so's Ron Paul.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 23, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> We can't.
> 
> We could, however, charge him with espionage.
> 
> We won't, however. That's retarded. And so's Ron Paul.



How can we charge him with espionage if he didn't steal any information? 

And I agree, Ron Paul is crazy - though he occasionally gets something right.


----------



## Blue (Aug 23, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> How can we charge him with espionage if he didn't steal any information?



Could we _successfully_ charge him with espionage? Probably not. But the charge is there, and it can be applied to people who only dealt in already stolen information - for instance, a "handler" from a foreign government who only recruits information sources and collects their information would definitely be guilty of espionage.

The facts that he didn't actively recruit Manning, wasn't operating in the US, and isn't affiliated with a government would work for him and make the charge being filed unlikely.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 23, 2012)

Which makes his paranoia unfounded, and his fleeing from Sweden completely stupid.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 23, 2012)

The US has enough of a public history between bush, iraq, guantamo and manning to reasonably scare him off of even the persecuting process.
Even if we take the american court impartial point of view as sacred and beyond reproach, which for the sake of argument, I won't mind doing so.


----------



## drache (Aug 23, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Which makes his paranoia unfounded, and his fleeing from Sweden completely stupid.


 
well that's only if he's actually innocent


----------

