Is is correct to hound Assange?
Is America showing double standards here?
Is America showing double standards here?
Is is correct to hound Assange?
Is America showing double standards here?
I'm not american but as far as i know US laws, it's incorrect. It's also useless, because arresting Assange won't stop wikileaks.
I actually support Wikileaks, but you do realize it wasn't the Americans who arrested him, right?
I'm undecided on this one.
On the one hand I support freedom of speech and expression but if the documents are stolen????
Jmi is right Cheeldash. Also, you probably know that the cause of the arrest had nothing to do with Wikileaks. Assange was arrested in the UK because of rape charges in Sweden. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the UK and asked that Assange be extradited to Sweden.
I suspect there is more to it than that. The charges seem very flimsy to me - and one of his defence team - Helena Kennedy(who is also a pretty staunch feminist and not one to take any rape allegation lightly) thinks the charges would not justify the arrest, let alone refusal of bail. You also have to remember that this accusation was made some time ago, rejected by the Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm and dropped. It was then, weeks later, put to a prosecutor in another city who issued the arrest warrant.
Finally, tonight he was granted bail and the Swedish Government first said they would not challenge. Bail is set at £200,000 payable up front. A lot of celebs get together and pledge the money within 24 hours - the Swedish government then immediately appeal the decision...stinky!
I'm gonna shame myself and use a mainstream media source here, but the allegation isn't rape as most of the world deems it in law, Sweden has many specific sex laws and having unprotected sex without first agreeing that is one of them:
This is as political as anything could ever be political, and again, so far there have been no allegations of 'rape' or 'attack', but having read this, I myself will not have unprotected sex with a Swede unless I have something in writing with a witness that says it's OK!
Yes, I've heard that version as well. Basically I ignored it because of the source - I don't believe anything in the daily mail until it is confirmed by a proper source - but it isn't a million miles from the hints that Kennedy made about the charges. Basically if Helena Kennedy has seen the charges and says she thinks they are suspect and not enough to charge an 'ordinary' man then I'm willing to take her word. The thought that she would say that if there was any hint of sexual abuse is contrary to everything I know about the woman - she would be the first to condemn him.
The simple fact is that we won't know much more until the trial - if there is one - and even then we may never get the full story in our lifetimes. I just think it is very smelly indeed.
Agreed about the daily mail, hence my earlier shame while quoting them!
Also agreed about the Kennedy influence, he's got a pretty good QC there and as she's on his legal team, then it makes me think her interest goes a little further than simply the alleged crimes in Sweden.
Clearly a witch-hunt transpired to get this man 'brought to justice' using the sexual charge to hang everything on, including him by wronged state power that has the power to evaporate a man's livelihood via amazon, paypal, mastercard etc. The "rape charge" (from my point of view) was similar to the "tax evasion" they got Al Capone with. It served as the hook to throw the entire book. The suggestion of 'double standards' you inferred was irrelevant to a government that 'must make an example' of anarchists or revolutionaries.
The only problem I have with Assange's deeds is one of national security. Sometimes governments need to have clandestine operations. I would amend that to, they always need them, actually. Akin to a man entering a conversation between two other men and saying to each of them, 'he called you this, and him? he called you this'. And both men looking at each other differently. I believe this is referred to in popular culture as "sh*t stirring" and it's not a very nice thing. Especially when the pot you're stirring has nuclear weapons and already mistrust each other. I would however, say in response to this that "stop doing it then" is equally as viable.
The final part of my misunderstanding is finding a man guilty of espionage for gaining access to classified information, that seemingly wasn't so private, which they intercepted from his site, also, not so private, and found him guilty of their actions, legally, when these documents didn't legally exist. I really wish I was this guy's defense lawyer sometimes. However, I would also like to not go to prison for that candy bar I stole when I was five.
It would be the work of a cracker rather than a hacker. I know that sounds trivial but there is a big difference and it is important to outline it in this case because we are being asked a question about double standards as Assange basically stands accused of bearing unauthorized witness (cracking) to an action of clandestine illegal attempts to pervert the course of proceedings (hacking). So in a round about way I kind of agree:
They unwittingly did, and still brought him to court for it anyway. Is it unfair to call Assange a "hacker". No, he is and freely pleaded guilty to it in the past. Although the wikileaks site only shows evidence of cracking (gaining access and not interacting) which, if you read his wikipedia page, has been his MO and number one "rule" since day one.
He's what's know in the l33t nerdy underworld as a "gray hat" or in this case, "a white hat" but his deeds concerning wikileaks can never be defined as a "black hat" and this arguably lessons his sentence due to motive and practical 'doing' of a 'crime'.
Is it fair to say that the governments are "hackers"? Well as I suggested in at the head of this post, they used secretive unauthorized methods via technology to attempt and in a lot of leaked documents, succeed in perverting the course of public functionality. Hmm? Also they used technology and nefarious methods to blackmail the likes of supporting benefactors such as Amazon, Mastercard and PayPal to not only deny service for his website, but also his funds, donations and otherwise legally earned living. Still a bit of a stretch to suggest that his accusers are the real hackers?
Well, that depends on whether or not they can gain his loyalty...
If they can't make him loyal, putting him in charge of any intelligence efforts could easily give him unprecedented access for new leaks.
Something tells me he would trust no government, especially after these recent events Even before, it's been made clear by his own testaments that the very core of his philosophy is distrust.
I just meant that if you read through his "manifesto," and really analyze what he's saying, this isn't a game of cat and mouse to him. It's larger than just outing this or that government with embarrassing material. If his writings and his speech are accurate representations, I reckon it's simply impossible that any government could gain his trust.
A healthy attitude.
Trusting individuals is fine if they earn it... But I would advise against ever trusting any kind of large group.
In his own words:
I'm not sure if this "contributions" thing is an attempt to lessen his 'hacker' convictions or an attempt to spread the blame out nice and evenly, perhaps inducting a bigger worldwide international network of support for his cause. Perhaps its true. The idea of him sat there on his computer hacking into every major governments top secret information always seemed like utter nonsense to me (regardless of how good he is) so I always thought that he a) either had a deep throat or b) was some kind of diversionary patsy put in place to drop some really sensitive information and then some not-so-sensitive information. For example, Ahmadinejad secretly realigns nuclear weapons towards the western deploys in one cable and Obama adds rogaine to his shopping list in the next. Maybe I'm just paranoid. However, the credibility of 'the sources' who supply this info who they 'instantly destroy all record of', has gone down in my approximation considerably. Is he getting this from a twitter feed? From the local pub? I mean, 'they are very credible, you'll just have to take my word for it' is only supported by the fact that he's been blacklisted and gunned for. Perhaps with more dangerous, powerful and influential confidants (with access to the said info) letting him carry the can anyway. So either way, he's still a patsy? I mean in exposing the world's governments from two-faced sources from all the world's governments, then who to trust? The hacker/rapist or the government double agent misinformation tactics? Are they really using this guy? And letting him think he's Che Guevara or something? It's embarrassing.
@Dialogist. The world always needs its heros, and for now it seems to be Assange. Fighting against a whole bunch of meanies. I'm sorry he had to get into trouble with the criminal charges in Sweden as I like the Wikileaks cause. It at least keeps the Government on its toes and helps with the check and balances of excesses of Government actions. I hope that his current legal woes won't distract him from his Wikileaks projects and wonder whether this may be a few steps backwards for the organization. I also wonder if he had just gone to Sweden and stood trial, whether the case would not have been thrown out. Anyway, I don't know, and time will probably tell what is to happen. Right now he seems to be a fugitive of a kind, unwelcome in the United States, and when he thinks of traveling he probably will always have to check whether he will be legally safe in the country of destination. Hopefully he has a very savvy team of lawyers to advise him.
As far as his personal character goes, he's more of a lesser of two evils villain rather than a super hero to me. His characteristics are not what bothers me though. It doesn't really have an effect on what we are being cooked up with here and asked to eat by the media.
First of all, if these government are as corrupt as he'd like us to believe (and to be fair, anyone who's read Chomsky, Zinn, Giroux, Thomp, Schneuer, Krugman or even Orwell knows he's hardly even scratching the surface with his expose-lite, sugar free whistle blowing) then we're also asked to believe he's either wrong or the source is wrong or he is wrong. So his contention is government corruption which he offers evidence of. They haven't denied it and they seem pretty determined to get him dealt with. In other words, even to the reader's digest, Time magazine's subscriber, the government has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. So the government is corrupt. Fine. And in his upcoming sensational new leaks: The pope is a catholic and bears defecate in the woods.
So if the government is corrupt and by admitting that he receives contributions of top secret sensitive information from undisclosed sources, Mr Assange is also inferring (pretty much 'admitting' if you know anything about computer or state security) that he is receiving this information from the only people who have access to it (ie: The government, government employees, government & intelligence operatives and trusted individuals). This kind of stuff is way beyond the realm of Matthew Broderick in War Games.
So the government is corrupt and in an effort to expose this double dealing, Assange is showing us information begotten from the same source and asking us to a) believe him, b) believe that it is this easy to put the government on blast and c) expect not to doubt that this information of and from the deceitful is not deceitful too.
You can do the math if you want?
Here's my theory: Ambitious rival politicians pretty high up in the government (McCain etc) are using Assange as kind of 16th Century Florentine hole-in-the-city-wall informant's drop-box to mud sling and defame either. This is why some of it is apparently true. Others are using him as sandbox to play games with misinformation nefariously about other governments (Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, etc) and notice how Putin and Chavez are smart enough to realize this and have shrewdly fired back under the guise of 'supporting his actions'. Overall, although I don't believe he thinks he's doing a 'good thing' (my view is that he's a pastiche and a fraud and an imposter revolutionary who is seeking attention and self promotion in the atypical script kiddie "pwn3d and by l33t_h4xor_666" website defacement notice). I do think he wants us to think he is the lone ranger. Unfortunately some of us know a great deal more than he and they think we do about both players in this greek tragedy and some of us therefore know for a fact he's being used as a patsy and only being allowed to continue with this charade because somebody with a lot of power is getting a lot of milage out of him and his website. Alternatively, much like if tried to fly his private jet over Area 51, he wouldn't have been made famous, he'd have been made dead. No questions asked, no story to expose and nobody to expose it.
Interesting comments Dialogist, I cannot say I disagree with the main thrust of it, but I have to admit I'm very curious about the sources of the folk who know 'for a fact' he's being used as a patsy. My own research for evidence in this matter has appeared fruitless so far. Perhaps I'm not as fortunate or skillful as some other investigative individuals?
It's basic process of elimination. Well, not even that. It's every single avenue possible. There is absolutely no way he could be having this stuff contributed and not be a patsy. So it's a fact that he is one. You can try to find a way that gets him out of it but you'll probably fail after that admission.
He's just said in the video posted above that he receives contributions to the whistle blowing. Now, if this isn't information that he himself cannot access via hacking (and we agree that he'd need to be the world's greatest hacker to get the majority of this stuff right?) then that implies that there's either a greater hacker than he, (ie: on a par with that "I'm a mac" dude from Die Hard 4, hacking satellites in space to break cell phones which don't use them and downloading 70 terabytes on a laptop in a moving van wirelessly in the timeframe of about 20 minutes etc) OR, he has somebody on the inside. I think the latter option is about as close to a fact as facts get at this point. He would need somebody who is either in the government or has direct connections to the target of his finger pointing.
So whether he is innocently trying to expose double dealing, is besides the point in respects to...
Example 1) He is receiving sensitive information that certain parties in the government wish to be revealed about other certain parties in the government and this would mean that he is in fact, a patsy.
Example 2) He is receiving sensitive information that certain parties in the government wish to be revealed about other governments and this would mean that he is in fact, a patsy.
I can't think of any more motives of how or why he'd be receiving this information from the government about governments which seem make itself look bad. Oh, there is the government member with a new found conscience road, but I think its also a fact that traveling down that one would be somewhat of a primrose path. ie: There's slim chance. And even if that was the case, he'd still be receiving deceitful whistle-blows on whistle-blowers from the same source. And yep...still a fact that he'd still be patsy.
Where's Jack Ruby at?
Very interesting theories, which may (or may not be) correct...knowing something for a fact is a different kettle of fish though.
I look forward to some stronger evidence in future posts
Assange freely admits that he destroys it, only adding to it.
My findings are basic reductionism. It may be fallacious but no more or less than other "facts" that we currently hold as "fact". People are convicted to death row from the same logic. The difference between this is and other forms of it in both science and law, is that mine leaves no room for any alternative for this not being a fact. And I gathered all my workings from information he freely submitted.
The veracity of 'facts' is not relative.
He is a rebel. When the Swedish Public Prosecutor charged him with sexual misconduct, he rejected it completely and in no uncertain terms counter-charged the Swedish Government through the media with doing this because of Wikileaks etc. etc. He sounds like someone who only reports to himself and no one else. If he had been a patsy, he would have kept a very low profile. He would have had assistance from the US Government to squash the criminal charges, if indeed there would have been any. Instead his behaviour shows someone who is very passionate, set on principle, is defiant, does not really like Government that much, specifically the US Government and Military and is showing the proverbial finger at them all of the time.
Also, Government is notorious for bungling things, and I would always expect a Government or ex Government employee leaking something. Wanting to get even, or find some kind of justice.
@deanhills, he is (in my opinion) a true patsy. ie: He doesn't know he is or maybe he does but is powerless to it and is seeking something out of it. Either way, I never suggested that he was working for or with the government (to the best of his will/intent/knowledge).
@ocalhoun What's the veracity of the theory of relativity these days? Is it relative to fact?
Patsy has various connotations but it generally just means "Fall guy" (usually somebody manipulated to be a fall guy).
Assange is just another sensationalist doing it for notoriety and money.
The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.
Assange couldn't care less if he reveals and destroys privacy and confidence that must exist in this human world with all its frailties. This guy wouldn't think twice about revealing his grandmother's sex life if he thought it wold further his agenda or make money.
While this is true and he seems to have an unshaken determination, some of the things Dennise says are true and others are easily arrived at (I know because I share those beliefs). The concern is one of a personal notoriety in lieu of the responsibility of the possible effect of his actions. Maybe he has spoken passionately about ethics, principals and doing what is right - but I must have missed it. All I have seen is camera flashes.
Edit: Racism in all kinds of media goes back pretty damn long.
Before the telegraph?
(ie before news became a commodity...)
What do you mean by "the media" and how far back does "used to" take us? The media, especially when it comes to politics, is hardly different from how it was when Thomas Jefferson ran for President...in fact, it my be more tame now than it was then.
I may be wrong, as I hardly know the guy, but I would imagine that in his kind of business of wheeling and dealing with people who want to go public with their "secrets", that Assange could have done quite well with not having any of this media stuff all around him. His business is of the kind that a low profile would have suited Wikileaks much better?
More biased, certainly, but also more 'intelligent'.
They would actually write long appeals to reason, talking about actual political ideals, positions, and theories. The bias could be overcome by simply reading the other side's position, and making up your mind for yourself.
(Personally, I would prefer open media biases rather than today's ubiquitous pretensions of objectivity.)
I agree with you Deanhills.
what are published in wikileaks are all these true?