Ecuador cuts Assange's communications after comments on social media

[JimmyJ]

4 hours ago, BuaBS said:

For those who wondered what Assange tweeted : Link >>

The answer is Catalonia.

He was spot on BUT after the warning of the Ecuadorian Embassy , he shouldn't have tweeted this from his personal account , thus avoiding Ecuadorian rules and conflict.

I read that, but also read that it was his tweeting (accurately) that there is only circumstantial evidence that Russia was behind the illness of the ex-Russian spy and his daughter.

[gk10002000]

Classic example of very intelligent, but not so smart guy that got infatuated and on an ego trip about exposing governments, hacking into private and government systems, etc.  The man could have been a millionaire, started foundations that could be self sustaining and help educate people towards his cause, etc.  Instead he let his ego get ahead of hm.   At some point, Ecuador may just kick him out or he will have to try and sneak away at night.  Somebody or something must be paying his bills, bribes, or whatever.

[JimmyJ]

14 hours ago, Credo said:

He's also a wanted criminal who is too cowardly to face the law.   

 

 

 

 

He is not a criminal - he has never been charged with a crime.

 

He's always been willing to face the law as far as being interviewed by Swedish prosecutors - but to protect himself from being extradited and thrown into a USA dungeon he wanted the interview to be remotely or in person at the embassy - which Sweden finally did, and could have done years earlier.

[ChidlomDweller]

29 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

He is not a criminal - he has never been charged with a crime.

 

He's always been willing to face the law as far as being interviewed by Swedish prosecutors - but to protect himself from being extradited and thrown into a USA dungeon he wanted the interview to be remotely or in person at the embassy - which Sweden finally did, and could have done years earlier.

In other words, he demands Thai hiso-style justice, where the accused gets to negotiate his terms for surrender.  *#&$ that...  One law for all is good enough for me.  

 

The original idea behind wikileaks isn't bad, but since then he's done so much to discredit himself, not least of all being Putin's errand boy.

[geriatrickid]

6 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Someone should have told him it's more fun when they are awake.

Raping women is a violent crime and not something to be made light of.

However, as you are a supporter of  the man, it does not surprise me that you find the allegations of sexual assault and rape funny.

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

Raping women is a violent crime and not something to be made light of.

However, as you are a supporter of  the man, it does not surprise me that you find the allegations of sexual assault and rape funny.

1 Assange has not been found guilty of any sexual assault, let alone rape and contests the allegations which have been made.

2 You have no idea whether or not I am "a supporter" of Assange.

3 I will continue to "make light" of anything I choose, with or without your consent.

 

[JimmyJ]

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

...not least of all being Putin's errand boy.

Zero evidence of this.

 

 

[rosst]

23 hours ago, StraightTalk said:

Julian Assange is a wonderful activist for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. In his profession by its very nature requires him to be an opinionated and strong-willed individual. He courageously has exposed corruption in his unwavering bid for truth, and at great personal cost. Describing him as a "miserable little worm" is an unjust portrayal. He should be considered a hero in the world of investigative journalism!

Agreed but bite the hand that feeds you? 

No, I don't believe he is behaving properly by discussing those issues that reflect on his hosts who have been extraordinarily generous to him. 

[StraightTalk]

38 minutes ago, rosst said:

Agreed but bite the hand that feeds you? 

No, I don't believe he is behaving properly by discussing those issues that reflect on his hosts who have been extraordinarily generous to him. 

Assange's addressing of freedom of speech obviously is different to yours, e.g. supporting Trump to cut off USAid money to countries that don't vote in favour of his decisions. If so, than "USAid money" is a misnomer.

[colinneil]

The government of Equador made a very stupid mistake allowing Assange to stay in the embassy.

They probably thought we will stick 2 fingers up to the US, AND HE WILL ONLY BE HERE A FEW DAYS.

Now they are lumbered with the worm

What does the worm do? Show gratitude to his hosts, no embarrasses them.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Zero evidence of this.

 

 

 

Yeah....and then there are all them Wikileaks revelations about Russian government corruption and misdeeds. Oh, wait...

 

 

Wikileaks - Allegations of Russian influence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence

 

How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Morch

[JimmyJ]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah....and then there are all them Wikileaks revelations about Russian government corruption and misdeeds. Oh, wait...

There are a hundred countries of which they have never published revelations about "government corruption and misdeeds".

They can only publish what they are provided.

 

Even if they are provided material, and they deem it of interest, Wikileaks publishes nothing they cannot verify, and nothing which has already been published.

They have never published anything which has been shown to be false or fake.

 

No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them.

They cannot publish material they do not have.

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by JimmyJ

[simple1]

12 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them. They cannot publish material they do not have.

 

One of a number of articles refuting your claim.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

There are a hundred countries of which they have never published revelations about "government corruption and misdeeds".

They can only publish what they are provided.

 

Even if they are provided material, and they deem it of interest, Wikileaks publishes nothing they cannot verify, and nothing which has already been published.

They have never published anything which has been shown to be false or fake.

 

No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them.

They cannot publish material they do not have.

 

 

 

 

Rubbish.

 

I can understand Wikileaks not publishing material on some countries - lack of interest, significance or resources. To believe it does not (well...almost) have anything on Russia (or the PRC, for that matter) is preposterous. It also contradicts some of Assange's earlier statements and threats. Unless you expect people to believe that there are no Russian whistle-blowers, or that Russian state security is air-tight, go peddle this nonsense  somewhere else.

 

Wikileaks claims that they do not publish things which they cannot verify, doesn't mean it true. There was plenty of discussion (some of it rather technical) on past topics. Regurgitating Wikileaks and Assange's statements is all very well, though.

[JimmyJ]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

One of a number of articles refuting your claim.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

Thanks for the link - I missed that situation.

 

I was wrong stating: "No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them."

 

At least one entity did state that.

 

The article did give Wiki's reasons -

 

" WikiLeaks told FP that it turns down documents it cannot verify or that have already been published elsewhere, and that it “has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin.”

 

Also - "‘We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote, according to FP. “We don’t have the resources.”

Edited March 30, 2018 by JimmyJ

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Thanks for the link - I missed that situation.

 

I was wrong stating: "No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them." (Assuming FP's claims are accurate).

 

The article did give his reasons -

 

" WikiLeaks told FP that it turns down documents it cannot verify or that have already been published elsewhere, and that it “has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin.”

 

Also - "‘We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote, according to FP. “We don’t have the resources.”

 

Not the only thing you missed/ignored. Here's Wikileaks on the Panama Papers leak (from the previous link):

 

Quote

In April 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted criticism of the Panama Papers, which had among other things revealed Russian businesses and individuals linked with offshore ties (Vladimir Putin's associates had as much as $2 billion in offshore accounts). The WikiLeaks Twitter account tweeted, "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and [George] Soros". Putin would later go on to dismiss the Panama Papers by citing WikiLeaks: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the U.S. are behind this.” According to The New York Times, both Assange claims are substance-free: "there is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing the Panama Papers." Assange also falsely asserted that the Panama Papers gave Western figures a free pass, when the leaks in fact reported on a number of high-profile Western politicians, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

 

Going on about "assuming FP's claims are correct" but buying wholesale into Wikileaks claims is kinda rich. As for Wikileaks track on publishing things during elections..heh.

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Morch

[ChidlomDweller]

9 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Zero evidence of this.

 

 

He had a program on Kremlin-paid propaganda channel RT, released information supplied by the Russians to damage Clinton out of personal animus more than conviction, is on record saying he considers it unnecessary to put out discrediting information about the Russian government because the Western media already does that (how convenient!  "And with one fell stroke our hero was free."), and many more things.  His pattern of actions over the years show he's an egomaniac motivated more by anti-Americanism than wanting to do good.  

 

You're also playing word games in your previous post he's never been charged with a crime.  True in the technical sense, but It's dishonest sleight of hand.

Edited March 30, 2018 by ChidlomDweller

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

WikiLeaks told FP that it turns down documents it cannot verify

Please advise exactly how Wikileaks verifies before release to ensure they are not being played by hostile intelligence agencies. As a follow on question, how does Wikileaks objectively assess threats to national security prior to release of classified doco.

[StraightTalk]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Please advise exactly how Wikileaks verifies before release to ensure they are not being played by hostile intelligence agencies. As a follow on question, how does Wikileaks objectively assess threats to national security prior to release of classified doco.

Any of your favorite Internet search engines will produce answers to your queries (hint: using a mechanism called DKIM is one of many tools used by forensic investigators).

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, StraightTalk said:

Any of your favorite Internet search engines will produce answers to your queries (hint: using a mechanism called DKIM is one of many tools used by forensic investigators).

 

Any search of previous topics, and related Google results would point out that Wikileaks statements on these issues are far from being universally accepted (putting it mildly).

Edited March 30, 2018 by Morch

[dick dasterdly]

IMO, whistle-blowers should be protected - not persecuted because they've revealed truths that govts. prefer the public never know...

 

I'm continually suprised that so many prefer that our governments' bad behaviour be hidden . 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

IMO, whistle-blowers should be protected - not persecuted because they've revealed truths that govts. prefer the public never know...

 

I'm continually suprised that so many prefer that our governments' bad behaviour be hidden . 

 

I'm continually surprised that so many miss the point. Wikileaks is not quite neutral and rather selective with its revelations.

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm continually surprised that so many miss the point. Wikileaks is not quite neutral and rather selective with its revelations.

So you'd rather they didn't tell people about ANY extremely bad behaviour by OUR govts???

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So you'd rather they didn't tell people about ANY extremely bad behaviour by OUR govts???

 

I'd rather you won't put words in my mouth, but eh.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, StraightTalk said:

Any of your favorite Internet search engines will produce answers to your queries (hint: using a mechanism called DKIM is one of many tools used by forensic investigators).

There are workarounds to DKIM. Plus there will be tools not in the public domain used by national security agencies. In addition documents published by Wikileaks have been proven to have been tampered with. Google is your friend

Edited March 30, 2018 by simple1

[Kerryd]

15 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

He is not a criminal - he has never been charged with a crime.

 

He's always been willing to face the law as far as being interviewed by Swedish prosecutors - but to protect himself from being extradited and thrown into a USA dungeon he wanted the interview to be remotely or in person at the embassy - which Sweden finally did, and could have done years earlier.

Bull.

Assange was a convicted hacker years before he ever started WikiLeaks (WikiLeaks was founded in 2006).

"In September 1991, Assange was discovered hacking into the Melbourne master terminal of Nortel, a Canadian multinational telecommunications corporation. The Australian Federal Police tapped Assange's phone line (he was using a modem), raided his home at the end of October, and eventually charged him in 1994 with thirty-one counts of hacking and related crimes. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to twenty-five charges (the other six were dropped), was ordered to pay reparations of A$2,100 and released on a good behaviour bond, avoiding a heavier penalty resulting from the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood."

 

He was committing (computer) crimes years before that though.
"In 1987, Assange began hacking under the name Mendax. He and two others—known as "Trax" and "Prime Suspect"—formed a hacking group they called the International Subversives. During this time, he hacked into the Pentagon and other U.S. Department of Defense facilities, MILNET, the U.S. Navy, NASA, and Australia's Overseas Telecommunications Commission; Citibank, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Panasonic, and Xerox; and the Australian National University, La Trobe University, and Stanford University's SRI International."

(He was also suspected of being a part of another group that hacked NASA but has denied that.)

By the way, criminals and suspects DO NOT get to decide who and when they will talk to. The Swedes wanted him extradited, just like any other criminal (or suspect). The UK agreed with Sweden's request (twice). Assange fought against it because he was NOT willing to "face the law".

He KNEW he was (probably) guilty (under Swedish law) and that is why, when he learned he'd lost his appeal of the UK's extradition order, he fled to the Embassy. There was no BS about secret US plots while he was in UK custody or while he was out on bail.

The story that is was all "a ploy of the US" was obviously a LIE because if the US had of wanted to extradite him, they would have tried while he was in a UK jail (when he was first taken into custody as a result of the Swedish extradition request).
He (and his supporters) started trying to put out the story that the Swedes were "part of a plot" to secretly extradite him to the US after he lost his appeal of the extradition order.
What a load of absolute BULL. Sweden would probably be one of the last countries (in Europe at least) that would do something like that. Not to mention that the charges against Assange went all the way to the (Swedish) Supreme Court which upheld them.

But of course, to Assange & Co, that just means that the entire Swedish Justice system as well as all their top prosecutors and politicians were in "on it" (the secret plot to extradite him). 

Assange also (allegedly) helped Manning hack a password that gave Manning access to all that material he then handed over to Assange. That WAS a criminal act, regardless of what anyone else may think about it. It's called espionage and almost every country in the world have laws dealing with that.

Exposing a lot of confidential material for monetary gain is not "heroic". It's lowlife criminal. And yes, he was (is) doing it for money. He makes millions in "donations" in addition to whatever revenues WikiLeaks generates as well as what goes on "under the table". (Years ago it was reported that they were raking in somewhere in the high 7/low 8 figures (9-10 mil) a year in donations alone.

And yes, there is a lot that goes on "under the table" which is (in part) why Ecuador originally agreed to shelter him. Back when he first fled there it was thought that, in exchange for sheltering him, he either gave Ecuador some "juicy" stuff or agreed to bury some "not so juicy" stuff (or both). Which I'm sure he also does with a number of other governments. In fact, it was noted that the previous Ecuadorian president initially supported Assange (probably because of whatever deal Assange made with him) but, for whatever reason, soured on him later on but let him stay (probably so that no one could accuse him of bowing to the UK's (or US/Sweden's) demands. The current president has inherited the issue and has elected to maintain the status quo because he is worried that he would lose support back home if he was thought to be giving in to the (UK/US/Sweden or whoever). They even tried to give him diplomatic status in the hopes they could get him out of the country that way but the UK refused to recognize the status.

 

Of course, Assange also agreed that he would leave the embassy if the US released Manning from prison. That happened before Obama left office yet Assange never left the embassy. Guess he's still worried that he may have to "face up" to the accusations against him.

He also tried to coerce France into granting him asylum by sending the French president a letter claiming that only France could protect him and that they somehow had a responsibility to grant him asylum. When France turned him down they tried to spin by claiming that he hadn't asked for asylum, but if "competent authorities" offered it to him, he might consider it. 

"but Assange had only expressed his willingness "to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities"."

 

"Oh I may be willing to live in your country, but only if "competent authorities" initiate it". Wow. Arrogant much ? Should they bow and press their heads to the ground when they make the offer as well ? Maybe throw in a mansion, 24 hour security (state funded of course) and a pension as well ?

Lastly. Take notice of the fact that he went to a 3rd world embassy and NOT to his OWN embassy. Uh huh. So willing to "face the law" that he wouldn't go to his own embassy to hide.

 

Probably because he KNOWS that Australia wouldn't believe his BS either and would have shipped him off to Sweden the next day to FACE THE LAW. Oh wait, I can hear it now. Australia is controlled by the US as well, just like Sweden (and everyone else that doesn't openly support Assange). The whole world (outside of Ecuador and maybe Russia) are controlled by the US and are part of the "secret plot" to bring a criminal to justice !

The fact is, he knows if he leaves the embassy he will be arrested by the UK (for skipping on his bail). Then he would be extradited to Sweden (if they still wanted him) because the original extradition order is no doubt still in effect. Then he would face possible espionage charges in the US.

Just like ANY other criminal (or suspect) would.

But, as long as he stays in the embassy he's a celebrity instead of a criminal and he makes a lot more money as a celeb than he would as an inmate. I doubt he'd be getting special visits from Pamela Anderson either if he was serving a stretch in Swedish prison for multiple counts of sexual assault.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Kerryd
grammar and stuff

[CharlesSwann]

No surprise if Ecuadorean hospitality has expired, but I sympathise with him for the following reasons.

1. More likely he is gay than guilty of attempted rape.

2. I believe some people (including hackers and others labelled 'subversive' and 'nihilist') are genetically predisposed to trip society up as a means of pulling it back from a perceived gross misdirection. The establishment finds the actions of these people easy to fault, superficially, but such people are arguably beneficial for society as a whole.

 

If Ecuador have really pulled the plug on him, he'll have to leave soon. Whatever happens to him, I hope he carries on the work as there should always be checks and balances.

[dick dasterdly]

24 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

Bull.

Assange was a convicted hacker years before he ever started WikiLeaks (WikiLeaks was founded in 2006).

"In September 1991, Assange was discovered hacking into the Melbourne master terminal of Nortel, a Canadian multinational telecommunications corporation. The Australian Federal Police tapped Assange's phone line (he was using a modem), raided his home at the end of October, and eventually charged him in 1994 with thirty-one counts of hacking and related crimes. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to twenty-five charges (the other six were dropped), was ordered to pay reparations of A$2,100 and released on a good behaviour bond, avoiding a heavier penalty resulting from the perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood."

 

He was committing (computer) crimes years before that though.
"In 1987, Assange began hacking under the name Mendax. He and two others—known as "Trax" and "Prime Suspect"—formed a hacking group they called the International Subversives. During this time, he hacked into the Pentagon and other U.S. Department of Defense facilities, MILNET, the U.S. Navy, NASA, and Australia's Overseas Telecommunications Commission; Citibank, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Panasonic, and Xerox; and the Australian National University, La Trobe University, and Stanford University's SRI International."

(He was also suspected of being a part of another group that hacked NASA but has denied that.)

By the way, criminals and suspects DO NOT get to decide who and when they will talk to. The Swedes wanted him extradited, just like any other criminal (or suspect). The UK agreed with Sweden's request (twice). Assange fought against it because he was NOT willing to "face the law".

He KNEW he was (probably) guilty (under Swedish law) and that is why, when he learned he'd lost his appeal of the UK's extradition order, he fled to the Embassy. There was no BS about secret US plots while he was in UK custody or while he was out on bail.

The story that is was all "a ploy of the US" was obviously a LIE because if the US had of wanted to extradite him, they would have tried while he was in a UK jail (when he was first taken into custody as a result of the Swedish extradition request).
He (and his supporters) started trying to put out the story that the Swedes were "part of a plot" to secretly extradite him to the US after he lost his appeal of the extradition order.
What a load of absolute BULL. Sweden would probably be one of the last countries (in Europe at least) that would do something like that. Not to mention that the charges against Assange went all the way to the (Swedish) Supreme Court which upheld them.

But of course, to Assange & Co, that just means that the entire Swedish Justice system as well as all their top prosecutors and politicians were in "on it" (the secret plot to extradite him). 

Assange also (allegedly) helped Manning hack a password that gave Manning access to all that material he then handed over to Assange. That WAS a criminal act, regardless of what anyone else may think about it. It's called espionage and almost every country in the world have laws dealing with that.

Exposing a lot of confidential material for monetary gain is not "heroic". It's lowlife criminal. And yes, he was (is) doing it for money. He makes millions in "donations" in addition to whatever revenues WikiLeaks generates as well as what goes on "under the table". (Years ago it was reported that they were raking in somewhere in the high 7/low 8 figures (9-10 mil) a year in donations alone.

And yes, there is a lot that goes on "under the table" which is (in part) why Ecuador originally agreed to shelter him. Back when he first fled there it was thought that, in exchange for sheltering him, he either gave Ecuador some "juicy" stuff or agreed to bury some "not so juicy" stuff (or both). Which I'm sure he also does with a number of other governments. In fact, it was noted that the previous Ecuadorian president initially supported Assange (probably because of whatever deal Assange made with him) but, for whatever reason, soured on him later on but let him stay (probably so that no one could accuse him of bowing to the UK's (or US/Sweden's) demands. The current president has inherited the issue and has elected to maintain the status quo because he is worried that he would lose support back home if he was thought to be giving in to the (UK/US/Sweden or whoever). They even tried to give him diplomatic status in the hopes they could get him out of the country that way but the UK refused to recognize the status.

 

Of course, Assange also agreed that he would leave the embassy if the US released Manning from prison. That happened before Obama left office yet Assange never left the embassy. Guess he's still worried that he may have to "face up" to the accusations against him.

He also tried to coerce France into granting him asylum by sending the French president a letter claiming that only France could protect him and that they somehow had a responsibility to grant him asylum. When France turned him down they tried to spin by claiming that he hadn't asked for asylum, but if "competent authorities" offered it to him, he might consider it. 

"but Assange had only expressed his willingness "to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities"."

 

"Oh I may be willing to live in your country, but only if "competent authorities" initiate it". Wow. Arrogant much ? Should they bow and press their heads to the ground when they make the offer as well ? Maybe throw in a mansion, 24 hour security (state funded of course) and a pension as well ?

Lastly. Take notice of the fact that he went to a 3rd world embassy and NOT to his OWN embassy. Uh huh. So willing to "face the law" that he wouldn't go to his own embassy to hide.

 

Probably because he KNOWS that Australia wouldn't believe his BS either and would have shipped him off to Sweden the next day to FACE THE LAW. Oh wait, I can hear it now. Australia is controlled by the US as well, just like Sweden (and everyone else that doesn't openly support Assange). The whole world (outside of Ecuador and maybe Russia) are controlled by the US and are part of the "secret plot" to bring a criminal to justice !

The fact is, he knows if he leaves the embassy he will be arrested by the UK (for skipping on his bail). Then he would be extradited to Sweden (if they still wanted him) because the original extradition order is no doubt still in effect. Then he would face possible espionage charges in the US.

Just like ANY other criminal (or suspect) would.

But, as long as he stays in the embassy he's a celebrity instead of a criminal and he makes a lot more money as a celeb than he would as an inmate. I doubt he'd be getting special visits from Pamela Anderson either if he was serving a stretch in Swedish prison for multiple counts of sexual assault.

Agree entirely () .

 

It's appalling that he dared commit the criminal offense of hacking as a child, without any effort to gain financially.
 

But it's all just an attempt to make him appear the 'bad guy' - rather than the whistle-blower that the genuine bad guys prefer to see silenced....

 

I can't be bothered to respond to the Swedish 'rape charges' (subsequently dropped) - or your claims of "espionage"....

[dick dasterdly]

It's even more depressing that even though Sweden has dropped their 'rape'  investigations - (that resulted in brit. courts deciding he should be extradited ) - brit courts are still looking to arrest him over jumping bail on investigations that have been 'dropped'!

 

Make no mistake - he's still a 'marked' man for daring to reveal secrets that govts never wanted the populace to know.... 

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely () .

 

It's appalling that he dared commit the criminal offense of hacking as a child, without any effort to gain financially.
 

But it's all just an attempt to make him appear the 'bad guy' - rather than the whistle-blower that the genuine bad guys prefer to see silenced....

 

I can't be bothered to respond to the Swedish 'rape charges' (subsequently dropped) - or your claims of "espionage"....

 

He was 16 when first caught. The next case 20. Not quite "a child". Financial gain is not even the point here.

So all them not so nice things he did over the years are alright - because he's labeled a whistle-blower, even though his whistle-blowing efforts are biased and selective? You can't be "bothered" because you lack any reasonable way of addressing this. They guy panders to some's politics, hence they see fit to grant him a free pass, that's all.