The US wants him too badly to let him off like that, even if it's the case - which at this point it is to me. How dare he make public what we do behind closed doors, he must be made to pay for doing true journalism.
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
The US wants him too badly to let him off like that, even if it's the case - which at this point it is to me. How dare he make public what we do behind closed doors, he must be made to pay for doing true journalism.
You first, what sites do you feel are "credible"?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,555
BBC news, Reuters. Places like that.
The problem with the UK now is that anything deemed sensitive to the UK(or anything they feel like) will get a D-notice(DA notice/DSMA notice etc) and you will never hear about it. All UK news outlets subject to them, what's worse is that now that the 77th battalion(GCHQ) they are active putting out misinformation(lies) as news stories. You may think that's bull' but look into it, there is NO free press in the UK - Joseph Goebbels would be proud!
It's another thing that Assange shined a light on with the release of diplomatic cables, most politicians are two faced liers - another thing to look into.
So the guy is reported to be (a bit of?) a douche, and people don't like him for that - which is fair enough.
But to the people celebrating his (imminent) extradition to the US... how do you feel about whistle-blowers in general?
If he isn't a whistle-blower (but something else, like an publisher/aggregator) then how can US charge him with revealing state secrets? Or can they go after publishers and potentially newspapers too?
If he is a whistle-blower, and hence the charges are of revealing state secrets, then do you agree state secrets should not be revealed under any circumstances?
Or do you just not agree with the release of these particular secrets in these particular circumstances? But if you erode the ability of whistle-blowers to protect themselves from repercussions, you inevitable make all whilst-blowing dangerous and much less likely to happen.
People like @Evangelion are happy he's being prosecuted. I don't know if that's because he really doesn't like him as a person, or because he thinks state secrets must be protected.
Personally, I'm all for whistle-blowing. The government need to be held to account, esp governments led by people like Trump or Johnson.
But to the people celebrating his (imminent) extradition to the US... how do you feel about whistle-blowers in general?
If he isn't a whistle-blower (but something else, like an publisher/aggregator) then how can US charge him with revealing state secrets? Or can they go after publishers and potentially newspapers too?
If he is a whistle-blower, and hence the charges are of revealing state secrets, then do you agree state secrets should not be revealed under any circumstances?
Or do you just not agree with the release of these particular secrets in these particular circumstances? But if you erode the ability of whistle-blowers to protect themselves from repercussions, you inevitable make all whilst-blowing dangerous and much less likely to happen.
People like @Evangelion are happy he's being prosecuted. I don't know if that's because he really doesn't like him as a person, or because he thinks state secrets must be protected.
Personally, I'm all for whistle-blowing. The government need to be held to account, esp governments led by people like Trump or Johnson.
Caporegime
Less "a douche" and more a rapist that spent so long hiding from justice that he managed to avoid ever facing a fair trial.
Soldato
I think his (quite justified) fear was that the Americans were going to throw him into a deep dark hole for the rest of his life. I doubt many people could deny (maybe Evangelion) that the Americans would have got hold of him a long time ago if he hadn't got asylum.
I'm not a fan of Assange at all, but from the moment he leaked dirty secrets his life was over.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,555
Well you didn't offer up your idea of credible news in response.
I'd say the author has never been in a magistrates' court before. Case progression is the be-all and end-all so a district judge doesn't need orders from the CIA to tell the defence to shove their application to delay the trial date.
Caporegime
I am a strong supporter of whistleblowers. Edward Snowden should not be on the run from his own country for exposing its crimes. Chelsea Manning should not have been imprisoned for passing information to Julian Assange.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,555
Same
They weren’t exactly too selective in what they exposed.
Caporegime
Snowden certainly was.
(Source).
I don't know what criteria Manning used to choose the material she released.
Caporegime
Assange fanbois: 'Why isn't Assange receiving any consular assistance?'
Assange: 'Because I've been actively refusing it.'
'Julian Assange blocks Australian consular assistance.'
Assange: 'Because I've been actively refusing it.'
'Julian Assange blocks Australian consular assistance.'
Sorry, some sites I use are: https://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ https://www.zerohedge.com/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk
The last one is my go to site!
The thing everyone has to remember is that Assange is the subject of a smear campaign, can't attack the message go after the messenger, since before his asylum in ~2012 or so. It's very hard to work out what is actually coming from his, or his legal team, or somewhere else, so I'll take it on board but put it in the skeptic pile.
I'm a huge Assnage supporter still, I'm sure that the rape charges are politically motivated but that's not to say he didn't sleep with 2 women over one weekend, that's been admitted, but what truly happened we'll probably never know. The main fact remains, Assange released a huge pile of documents that were, and continue to be, massively damaging to the credibility of many governments around the world - they are trying to discredit the messenger any way they can.
No he wasn’t too selective, he handed over tens of thousands of documents. Some general claim from him that he held some back doesn’t really change the fact that he was involved in a mass leak. This wasn’t some whistleblower worried about a specific incident but someone who is rather disgruntaled and sought to leak a broad range of stuff.
Caporegime
To the best of my knowledge, no government has denied the accuracy of the leaks, so it seems a bit odd to claim that they would try to discredit the messenger. Who exactly is trying to discredit him, and how? He's facing extradition for a crime we know he committed, where's the discrediting?
...which he deemed in the public interest.
If that was his only motivation he would have released a load of far more damaging material, which he certainly had the capacity to do. Instead he restricted himself to details of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
You’re either a bit naive here or are making things up. He released a whole mass of US, Australian and UK documents and no they weren’t just related to Iraq and Afghanistan!
https://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
It seems you’re unaware of what even happened yet you’re apparently in support of him regardless - that’s a rather silly position.
Sorry, some sites I use are: https://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ https://www.zerohedge.com/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk
The last one is my go to site!
Lol, that says everything we need to know thanks
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/information-clearing-house/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
Lets compare those to say, Reuters or the BBC where Vincent says he goes
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/