Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

edgeforpeace

Free Assange

Recommended Posts

But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.
but aren't they still getting them plus he'd still have to go through security to actually get top level military infomation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

But aren't they still getting them??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Claire T wrote:


security_in_anonymity']But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

But aren't they still getting them??

 

 

Getting whom?  The wikileaks folks--or at least their founder Assange?  

I certainly hope so.  The Justice Department is looking very carefully at how to best charge him.  He has broken several federal laws including receiving and disseminating stolen government property.  But they are also looking very hard at the Espionage Act.  

This all requires careful legal maneuvering, because so many are trying to make this about free speech or about press freedoms.  The press freedom folks claim that charging Assange would be chilling to more traditional news outlets and stifle the freedom of the press.  But those arguing this, will have to first convince the courts that Assange's whole-sale dump of classified material onto the web without any editorial oversight, or further research, or contextualization, or even consideration of the implications of releasing such information.... is still "journalism" deserving of the same press protections.    That will be a hard case to make.  Journalist have a very high creed and ethic that they are professionally bound to adhere to.  Assange isn't even close enough to this standard to spit on it.

There is also a question of extradition, and what country he ends up in between now and then, and whether that country will extradite him to the U.S. once he is charged.  Currently he is holed up  at the mansion of a British journalist, and is  on "house arrest" for the next two months.  Meanwhile, Sweden is still trying to get him back to answer to the rape allegations.

I imagine that new laws will also be passed in the US (and other countries too) so that the courts will have strong tools to prosecute such cases in the future.  For example, by making it a federal crime to reveal the identities of informants.  You know... an entire operation had to be launched to try and go out and rescue those people in Afghanistan who were cooperating with NATO and US forces, and who were exposed by Assange.  The operation will attempt to find and get these people to safety before the Taliban cut their heads off--and the heads of everyone they have ever known.  Now, how on earth does the world expect terrorist and insurgent elements in Afghanistan to be pacified if the Afghan population can no longer trust that if they risk their lives to help take back their country, they won't be outed by some scum bag on the internet?

Assange is a very bad person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Claire T wrote:


security_in_anonymity']But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

But aren't they still getting them??

 

 

Getting whom?  The wikileaks folks--or at least their founder Assange?  

I certainly hope so.  The Justice Department is looking very carefully at how to best charge him.  He has broken several federal laws including receiving and disseminating stolen government property.  But they are also looking very hard at the Espionage Act.  

This all requires careful legal maneuvering, because so many are trying to make this about free speech or about press freedoms.  The press freedom folks claim that charging Assange would be chilling to more traditional news outlets and stifle the freedom of the press.  But those arguing this, will have to first convince the courts that Assange's whole-sale dump of classified material onto the web without any editorial oversight, or further research, or contextualization, or even consideration of the implications of releasing such information.... is still "journalism" deserving of the same press protections.    That will be a hard case to make.  Journalist have a very high creed and ethic that they are professionally bound to adhere to.  Assange isn't even close enough to this standard to spit on it.

There is also a question of extradition, and what country he ends up in between now and then, and whether that country will extradite him to the U.S. once he is charged.  Currently he is holed up  at the mansion of a British journalist, and is  on "house arrest" for the next two months.  Meanwhile, Sweden is still trying to get him back to answer to the rape allegations.

I imagine that new laws will also be passed in the US (and other countries too) so that the courts will have strong tools to prosecute such cases in the future.  For example, by making it a federal crime to reveal the identities of informants.  You know... an entire operation had to be launched to try and go out and rescue those people in Afghanistan who were cooperating with NATO and US forces, and who were exposed by Assange.  The operation will attempt to find and get these people to safety before the Taliban cut their heads off--and the heads of everyone they have ever known.  Now, how on earth does the world expect terrorist and insurgent elements in Afghanistan to be pacified if the Afghan population can no longer trust that if they risk their lives to help take back their country, they won't be outed by some scum bag on the internet?

Assange is a very bad person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Claire T wrote:


security_in_anonymity']But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

But aren't they still getting them??

 

 

Getting whom?  The wikileaks folks--or at least their founder Assange?  

I certainly hope so.  The Justice Department is looking very carefully at how to best charge him.  He has broken several federal laws including receiving and disseminating stolen government property.  But they are also looking very hard at the Espionage Act.  

This all requires careful legal maneuvering, because so many are trying to make this about free speech or about press freedoms.  The press freedom folks claim that charging Assange would be chilling to more traditional news outlets and stifle the freedom of the press.  But those arguing this, will have to first convince the courts that Assange's whole-sale dump of classified material onto the web without any editorial oversight, or further research, or contextualization, or even consideration of the implications of releasing such information.... is still "journalism" deserving of the same press protections.    That will be a hard case to make.  Journalist have a very high creed and ethic that they are professionally bound to adhere to.  Assange isn't even close enough to this standard to spit on it.

There is also a question of extradition, and what country he ends up in between now and then, and whether that country will extradite him to the U.S. once he is charged.  Currently he is holed up  at the mansion of a British journalist, and is  on "house arrest" for the next two months.  Meanwhile, Sweden is still trying to get him back to answer to the rape allegations.

I imagine that new laws will also be passed in the US (and other countries too) so that the courts will have strong tools to prosecute such cases in the future.  For example, by making it a federal crime to reveal the identities of informants.  You know... an entire operation had to be launched to try and go out and rescue those people in Afghanistan who were cooperating with NATO and US forces, and who were exposed by Assange.  The operation will attempt to find and get these people to safety before the Taliban cut their heads off--and the heads of everyone they have ever known.  Now, how on earth does the world expect terrorist and insurgent elements in Afghanistan to be pacified if the Afghan population can no longer trust that if they risk their lives to help take back their country, they won't be outed by some scum bag on the internet?

Assange is a very bad person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is a basic human right,

what have these governments got to hide !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is a basic human right,

what have these governments got to hide !

I think its really a question of "whom does the government have to protect?"...and that, my friend, would be myself, my friends, my relatives, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens.

 

to live, is a basic human right.

 

and freedom of speech--really?

 

can you say what ever you like on this website?

 

why does u2.com have terms of service?

 

why should we be polite?

 

why should we be controlled?

 

should we just blather away, saying anything that we'd like?

 

or are there such things as morality and civility to consider?

 

why is online bullying not ok? I mean its just freedom of speech, right?

 

So then, why is there such a thing as a hate crime?

 

Its just freedom of speech to hurl hate speech, right???????

 

and why worry about the consequences, right!?

 

just say what ever when ever----no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom of speech is a basic human right,

what have these governments got to hide !

It's not a basic human right in every country as you know.  Many people have been jailed, killed, tortured for speaking their mind in many parts of the world. All governments have things to hide, especially for the safety of many people.  Especially in this day and age of so many groups wanting to do harm anywhere they can.  SIA gives a good example in her post above.  We've never lived in a perfect, peaceful lets all sing kumbaya world, and never will.  It's why we have diplomats, to diplomatically work with other governments. Someone as arrogant and stupid as Assange destroys that diplomacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets just post the nuclear launch codes

 

its just free speech and the worlds right to know

 

what is the government hiding, eh?

 

but wait-

 

when its nuclear winter

 

just who the will the hero be?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


Claire T wrote:

security_in_anonymity']But, to be clear--wikileaks is not the result of hacking. It is the result of a low level military member who downloaded classified cables and gave the info to wikileaks. He is in prison for espionage now. Where he will stay.

But aren't they still getting them??

 

 

Getting whom?  The wikileaks folks--or at least their founder Assange?  

I certainly hope so.  The Justice Department is looking very carefully at how to best charge him.  He has broken several federal laws including receiving and disseminating stolen government property.  But they are also looking very hard at the Espionage Act.  

This all requires careful legal maneuvering, because so many are trying to make this about free speech or about press freedoms.  The press freedom folks claim that charging Assange would be chilling to more traditional news outlets and stifle the freedom of the press.  But those arguing this, will have to first convince the courts that Assange's whole-sale dump of classified material onto the web without any editorial oversight, or further research, or contextualization, or even consideration of the implications of releasing such information.... is still "journalism" deserving of the same press protections.    That will be a hard case to make.  Journalist have a very high creed and ethic that they are professionally bound to adhere to.  Assange isn't even close enough to this standard to spit on it.

There is also a question of extradition, and what country he ends up in between now and then, and whether that country will extradite him to the U.S. once he is charged.  Currently he is holed up  at the mansion of a British journalist, and is  on "house arrest" for the next two months.  Meanwhile, Sweden is still trying to get him back to answer to the rape allegations.

I imagine that new laws will also be passed in the US (and other countries too) so that the courts will have strong tools to prosecute such cases in the future.  For example, by making it a federal crime to reveal the identities of informants.  You know... an entire operation had to be launched to try and go out and rescue those people in Afghanistan who were cooperating with NATO and US forces, and who were exposed by Assange.  The operation will attempt to find and get these people to safety before the Taliban cut their heads off--and the heads of everyone they have ever known.  Now, how on earth does the world expect terrorist and insurgent elements in Afghanistan to be pacified if the Afghan population can no longer trust that if they risk their lives to help take back their country, they won't be outed by some scum bag on the internet?

Assange is a very bad person.

what i meant is they are still getting the cables and leakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WikiLeaks’ Assange fires back at The Guardian to competitor

By Michael Calderone



assangeTimes2.jpg

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange slammed the New York Times in October for the paper's critical front-page profile of him.

That's presumably one of the reasons that the Times -- which received hundreds of thousands of secret Afghanistan and Iraq documents from WikiLeaks -- was shut out when WikiLeaks provided 250,000 State Department cables to several news outlets for publication in November. The Times ended up getting its documents from The Guardian.

But now Assange is taking issue with The Guardian's coverage of him. So could the British paper be shut out next?

David Leigh, The Guardian's investigations editor, told The Cutline that he doesn't want "to be too critical of Julian because he's been under a lot of strain lately."

However, Leigh added that "it seems he's going to war with just about everyone at the moment."

Assange's "war" with The Guardian landed on the front page of Tuesday's Times of London (shown above), a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper that, so far, hasn't been on the receiving end of any of WikiLeaks' trove of classified documents. (The Times of London article is behind a paywall, but many of the details have already leaked out.)

In the article, Assange claims that The Guardian tarnished his reputation by publishing new details Friday about the rape and sexual assault allegations made against him in Sweden, based on a leaked police report.

assangeguardian.jpgThe Times reports that Assange is "particularly angry with Nick Davies" — the article's author — for "selectively publishing" damaging allegations from the 68-page report. Davies isn't just any reporter covering WikiLeaks; he's said to be a friend of Assange and also helped broker the original agreement to provide leaked cables to The Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel. (Davies could not be reached for comment.)

Assange said the leak of the Swedish police report "was clearly designed to undermine my bail application." He added: "Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison."

Leigh defended Davies on Twitter Monday night, suggesting that The Guardian reporter actually kept out specific details from the police report while publishing what was deemed necessary for the story. That runs counter to Assange's view that The Guardian treated him unfairly in how the paper covered the allegations.

"Nick left out a lot of graphic and damaging material in the allegations because he thought it would be too cruel to publish them," Leigh said by phone.

Assange, who has not yet been charged with a crime, is expected to eventually return to Sweden to answer questions about the charges. Assange has called the allegations part of a "smear campaign" against him and, by extension, WikiLeaks, as the organization is being targeted by the U.S. government.

It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.

"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."

Assange once more called the Swedish prosecution a trumped-up effort to tarnish him and WikiLeaks. "When a powerful organization that has internal policies that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution's judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual," he said, "that is an abuse of power."

Although he's long maintained his innocence in interviews, Assange has refused to respond to some specific questions relating to the allegations. Assange recently walked out of an ABC News interview and called the reporter a "tabloid schmuck" for bringing up certain details in the allegations.

It remains to be seen how The Guardian's recent story affects the long-term relationship between Assange and the British paper, which also continues to publish articles based on the cache of 250,000 diplomatic cables.

Alexi Mostrous, the Times of London reporter who sat down with Assange, balked at the notion that the WikiLeaks chief now has an exclusive agreement with his paper.

"This stuff about #assange signing 'exclusively' for the times is totally, categorically, crap," Mostrous wrote on Twitter. "No deal, just an interview."

(Photo of Assange holding up The Guardian after Afghanistan war logs were published in July:  Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WikiLeaks’ Assange fires back at The Guardian to competitor

By Michael Calderone



assangeTimes2.jpg

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange slammed the New York Times in October for the paper's critical front-page profile of him.

That's presumably one of the reasons that the Times -- which received hundreds of thousands of secret Afghanistan and Iraq documents from WikiLeaks -- was shut out when WikiLeaks provided 250,000 State Department cables to several news outlets for publication in November. The Times ended up getting its documents from The Guardian.

But now Assange is taking issue with The Guardian's coverage of him. So could the British paper be shut out next?

David Leigh, The Guardian's investigations editor, told The Cutline that he doesn't want "to be too critical of Julian because he's been under a lot of strain lately."

However, Leigh added that "it seems he's going to war with just about everyone at the moment."

Assange's "war" with The Guardian landed on the front page of Tuesday's Times of London (shown above), a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper that, so far, hasn't been on the receiving end of any of WikiLeaks' trove of classified documents. (The Times of London article is behind a paywall, but many of the details have already leaked out.)

In the article, Assange claims that The Guardian tarnished his reputation by publishing new details Friday about the rape and sexual assault allegations made against him in Sweden, based on a leaked police report.

assangeguardian.jpgThe Times reports that Assange is "particularly angry with Nick Davies" — the article's author — for "selectively publishing" damaging allegations from the 68-page report. Davies isn't just any reporter covering WikiLeaks; he's said to be a friend of Assange and also helped broker the original agreement to provide leaked cables to The Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel. (Davies could not be reached for comment.)

Assange said the leak of the Swedish police report "was clearly designed to undermine my bail application." He added: "Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison."

Leigh defended Davies on Twitter Monday night, suggesting that The Guardian reporter actually kept out specific details from the police report while publishing what was deemed necessary for the story. That runs counter to Assange's view that The Guardian treated him unfairly in how the paper covered the allegations.

"Nick left out a lot of graphic and damaging material in the allegations because he thought it would be too cruel to publish them," Leigh said by phone.

Assange, who has not yet been charged with a crime, is expected to eventually return to Sweden to answer questions about the charges. Assange has called the allegations part of a "smear campaign" against him and, by extension, WikiLeaks, as the organization is being targeted by the U.S. government.

It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.

"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."

Assange once more called the Swedish prosecution a trumped-up effort to tarnish him and WikiLeaks. "When a powerful organization that has internal policies that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution's judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual," he said, "that is an abuse of power."

Although he's long maintained his innocence in interviews, Assange has refused to respond to some specific questions relating to the allegations. Assange recently walked out of an ABC News interview and called the reporter a "tabloid schmuck" for bringing up certain details in the allegations.

It remains to be seen how The Guardian's recent story affects the long-term relationship between Assange and the British paper, which also continues to publish articles based on the cache of 250,000 diplomatic cables.

Alexi Mostrous, the Times of London reporter who sat down with Assange, balked at the notion that the WikiLeaks chief now has an exclusive agreement with his paper.

"This stuff about #assange signing 'exclusively' for the times is totally, categorically, crap," Mostrous wrote on Twitter. "No deal, just an interview."

(Photo of Assange holding up The Guardian after Afghanistan war logs were published in July:  Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WikiLeaks’ Assange fires back at The Guardian to competitor

By Michael Calderone



assangeTimes2.jpg

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange slammed the New York Times in October for the paper's critical front-page profile of him.

That's presumably one of the reasons that the Times -- which received hundreds of thousands of secret Afghanistan and Iraq documents from WikiLeaks -- was shut out when WikiLeaks provided 250,000 State Department cables to several news outlets for publication in November. The Times ended up getting its documents from The Guardian.

But now Assange is taking issue with The Guardian's coverage of him. So could the British paper be shut out next?

David Leigh, The Guardian's investigations editor, told The Cutline that he doesn't want "to be too critical of Julian because he's been under a lot of strain lately."

However, Leigh added that "it seems he's going to war with just about everyone at the moment."

Assange's "war" with The Guardian landed on the front page of Tuesday's Times of London (shown above), a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper that, so far, hasn't been on the receiving end of any of WikiLeaks' trove of classified documents. (The Times of London article is behind a paywall, but many of the details have already leaked out.)

In the article, Assange claims that The Guardian tarnished his reputation by publishing new details Friday about the rape and sexual assault allegations made against him in Sweden, based on a leaked police report.

assangeguardian.jpgThe Times reports that Assange is "particularly angry with Nick Davies" — the article's author — for "selectively publishing" damaging allegations from the 68-page report. Davies isn't just any reporter covering WikiLeaks; he's said to be a friend of Assange and also helped broker the original agreement to provide leaked cables to The Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel. (Davies could not be reached for comment.)

Assange said the leak of the Swedish police report "was clearly designed to undermine my bail application." He added: "Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison."

Leigh defended Davies on Twitter Monday night, suggesting that The Guardian reporter actually kept out specific details from the police report while publishing what was deemed necessary for the story. That runs counter to Assange's view that The Guardian treated him unfairly in how the paper covered the allegations.

"Nick left out a lot of graphic and damaging material in the allegations because he thought it would be too cruel to publish them," Leigh said by phone.

Assange, who has not yet been charged with a crime, is expected to eventually return to Sweden to answer questions about the charges. Assange has called the allegations part of a "smear campaign" against him and, by extension, WikiLeaks, as the organization is being targeted by the U.S. government.

It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.

"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."

Assange once more called the Swedish prosecution a trumped-up effort to tarnish him and WikiLeaks. "When a powerful organization that has internal policies that is meant to be creating and following the law, i.e. Swedish prosecution's judicial system, abuses its own regulation and its own position to attack an individual," he said, "that is an abuse of power."

Although he's long maintained his innocence in interviews, Assange has refused to respond to some specific questions relating to the allegations. Assange recently walked out of an ABC News interview and called the reporter a "tabloid schmuck" for bringing up certain details in the allegations.

It remains to be seen how The Guardian's recent story affects the long-term relationship between Assange and the British paper, which also continues to publish articles based on the cache of 250,000 diplomatic cables.

Alexi Mostrous, the Times of London reporter who sat down with Assange, balked at the notion that the WikiLeaks chief now has an exclusive agreement with his paper.

"This stuff about #assange signing 'exclusively' for the times is totally, categorically, crap," Mostrous wrote on Twitter. "No deal, just an interview."

(Photo of Assange holding up The Guardian after Afghanistan war logs were published in July:  Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='surrenders wrote:


Luis68']Freedom of speech is a basic human right,

what have these governments got to hide !

It's not a basic human right in every country as you know.  Many people have been jailed, killed, tortured for speaking their mind in many parts of the world. All governments have things to hide, especially for the safety of many people.  Especially in this day and age of so many groups wanting to do harm anywhere they can.  SIA gives a good example in her post above.  We've never lived in a perfect, peaceful lets all sing kumbaya world, and never will.  It's why we have diplomats, to diplomatically work with other governments. Someone as arrogant and stupid as Assange destroys that diplomacy.

 

he's also not a US citizen which means we can legally treat him as hostile. whether australia will allows to is a different story, but still... the guy is deliberately undermining US policy because so many of you hate us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just expressing my right to free speech.....ASSange, this is for you:

 

bonofinger.gif

LOL--this is a long way from "Dirty Day."

(although, I do not wish to put words or sentiments into the mouth or mind of the B-man-- just convince him of which words/sentiments are the wrong ones, in case he doesn't know!  I can't read his mind; I am not a telepath like Rosa ;-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.