6 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

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

It's not just bad behavior though, is it?   I for one believe it's in the national interest for there being back channels away from the public glare where every communication has to be assessed for its PR impact.  And as someone else pointed out, he's been very selective.  What I perceive is anarchistic bomb-throwing and animus rather than conviction and consistent standards.

 

But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords.  If you have nothing to hide...

Edited March 30, 20188 yr by ChidlomDweller

julian, julian, julian!!!   your job is to gather the News, not become the News

@JimmyJ

 

One devotee quoting other devotees...

 

 

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

It's not just bad behavior though, is it?   I for one believe it's in the national interest for there being back channels away from the public glare where every communication has to be assessed for its PR impact.  And as someone else pointed out, he's been very selective.  What I perceive is anarchistic bomb-throwing and animus rather than conviction and consistent standards.

 

But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords.  If you have nothing to hide...

What is this babble?

 

Trying to find a coherent thought, I'll try this:

 

"But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords.  If you have nothing to hide..."

 

There is a reason that government employees are called "public servants".

They work for us.

If they are doing something illegal/unconstitutional etc. it needs to be exposed.

We pay their salaries. We have a right - and an obligation - to know what they are doing.

Hence whistleblowers.

 

There is also a reason we are called "private citizens".

We have a right to privacy, public servants have a need for transparency.

Asking for the poster's passwords shows a lack of understanding on your part.

Edited March 30, 20188 yr by JimmyJ

2 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

It's not just bad behavior though, is it?   I for one believe it's in the national interest for there being back channels away from the public glare where every communication has to be assessed for its PR impact.  And as someone else pointed out, he's been very selective.  What I perceive is anarchistic bomb-throwing and animus rather than conviction and consistent standards.

 

But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords.  If you have nothing to hide...

I think you are confusing privacy with transparency.

Posts removed:

 

5) You will not use Thaivisa as a platform to gather support to effect changes on religious, political, or governmental issues.
 

Phone blockers are illegal in the UK, I understand that embassies are not sovereign territories of the embassies sovereign nations but subject to "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961".

 

So Ofcom's radio regulatory guys (responsible for radio spectrum licencing and enforcement) could not just walk in and take the phone blockers, but if they are causing nuisance to nearby legitimate radio spectrum users I am sure the Ecuadorian ambassador my well be summonsed to a meeting with the UK Secretary of State.

 

But if they are only preventing that "miserable little worm" using his mobile phone, well let sleeping dogs lie.

9 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

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

Good luck to anybody who can make sense of this Assange supporter contribution.

On 3/29/2018 at 10:27 PM, 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.

He IS a criminal.   He jumped bail.

 

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

I think you are confusing privacy with transparency.

So if I hack into your email and put it on the internet it's transparency?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edited March 31, 20188 yr by ChidlomDweller

10 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

What is this babble?

 

Trying to find a coherent thought, I'll try this:

 

"But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords.  If you have nothing to hide..."

 

There is a reason that government employees are called "public servants".

They work for us.

If they are doing something illegal/unconstitutional etc. it needs to be exposed.

We pay their salaries. We have a right - and an obligation - to know what they are doing.

Hence whistleblowers.

 

There is also a reason we are called "private citizens".

We have a right to privacy, public servants have a need for transparency.

Asking for the poster's passwords shows a lack of understanding on your part.

I agree with your distinction in theory, but in practice the bulk of what they have released has been indiscriminate and with suspicious timing.  And as previous posts show, suddenly he's not interested if it concerns leaks about Russia.  Nice theory, but the character and behavior pattern of the person implementing it is another thing.  The man is an anarchist misfit doing it for kicks and revenge.

32 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

So if I hack into your email and put it on the internet it's transparency?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

if my email was of a private nature you would be invading my privacy but if my emails were of a public mater then it would be in the realm of transparency unless such emails were classified.

59 minutes ago, sirineou said:

if my email was of a private nature you would be invading my privacy but if my emails were of a public mater then it would be in the realm of transparency unless such emails were classified.

But you'd first have to hack the email address before someone -- an impartial, noble servant of the people like Assange -- will decide what's private vs. in the public interest.  And like I said before, I think it's useful if some discussions can be had away from the public glare.  I hope that is going on in the case of Iran and North Korea, for instance.  Don't you?

 

Wikileaks opinions always seem to split in two camps, and I think it comes down how distrustful of government you are.  I don't think they're perfect, and I'm still angry over the ways the banks got away scot-free and the revolving door between big business and government.  But more than that I'm sick and tired of all the anti-Western conspiracy crap taking over the internet now.  Having grown up in Europe and lived in the US for 7 years during a formative period of my life, and now having lived in SE Asia for the past 15, I'm just very grateful the opportunities I received from those places.  In most Western countries, a lower-middle class kid still gets a great start in life and can go all the way with intelligence and hard work.  So yes, there are conflicts of interests and those politicians can be slimy, but some perspective please.  Far too many black and white posts on this forum with complete lack of perspective or nuance.

 

It's also ironic because most of us can live a good life here just because of the advantages we received back home, the better start we got there.  Our elites still leave a lot of crumbs on the table for the rest of us, no?  So yes, there is some self-interest and always be, as well as a lot of screwing up, but overall I think Western governments have done a decent job and been for the most part well-meaning.

 

It's a bit of a digression but still relates to the topic, in that where you fall on the trust in government scale will be correlated with your opinions about Wikileaks.  

Edited March 31, 20188 yr by ChidlomDweller

57 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

But you'd first have to hack the email address before someone -- an impartial, noble servant of the people like Assange -- will decide what's private vs. in the public interest.  And like I said before, I think it's useful if some discussions can be had away from the public glare.  I hope that is going on in the case of Iran and North Korea, for instance.  Don't you?

 

Wikileaks opinions always seem to split in two camps, and I think it comes down how distrustful of government you are.  I don't think they're perfect, and I'm still angry over the ways the banks got away scot-free and the revolving door between big business and government.  But more than that I'm sick and tired of all the anti-Western conspiracy crap taking over the internet now.  Having grown up in Europe and lived in the US for 7 years during a formative period of my life, and now having lived in SE Asia for the past 15, I'm just very grateful the opportunities I received from those places.  In most Western countries, a lower-middle class kid still gets a great start in life and can go all the way with intelligence and hard work.  So yes, there are conflicts of interests and those politicians can be slimy, but some perspective please.  Far too many black and white posts on this forum with complete lack of perspective or nuance.

 

It's also ironic because most of us can live a good life here just because of the advantages we received back home, the better start we got there.  Our elites still leave a lot of crumbs on the table for the rest of us, no?  So yes, there is some self-interest and always be, as well as a lot of screwing up, but overall I think Western governments have done a decent job and been for the most part well-meaning.

 

It's a bit of a digression but still relates to the topic, in that where you fall on the trust in government scale will be correlated with your opinions about Wikileaks.  

-No we decide what is public and what is private , if  they were publishing private emails whose content does not affect the public then I would be against them.

 

-As I said public information that is not classified . Properly classified  information does not belong in the public domain and should satisfy your "discussions can be had away from the public glare. " condition .

 

-I guess it depends apong your definition of a good life. Personally I am not satisfied with your "elites still leave a lot of crumbs on the table for the rest  "

On 3/29/2018 at 8:49 AM, blazes said:

The world depends on "whistle-blowers" to remind us how corrupt our governments are.  Thanks to people like Assange and Edward Snowden, we know a lot more about how much spying Western governments conduct on their citizens.  (Perhaps the most revealing thing about the recent exposures was that the Americans were able to access Angela Merkel's cell-phone <deleted>.)

And here we all are suffering daily doses of lies from various sources in America that the Russians are spying on us.

 

Ha ha <deleted> ha.

 

 

"And here we all are suffering daily doses of lies from various sources in America that the Russians are spying on us". 

 

Suffering? I am not suffering because I don't believe  all of what others say or write, including in this forum.

 

Lies? My error free lie detector broke down decades ago at the same time my crystal ball did.

 

I speak for myself and not the collective "we".

The world needs more J.Assanges.

 

By the way, this is a great video on this issue :

 

 

@JemJem

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore#Conspiracy_theories

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

@JemJem

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore#Conspiracy_theories

 

Thanks. It is interesting stuff. I have skimmed through it so far. I will read it in detail later today or tomorrow.

 

But anyway, the important thing for this issue is what he says in that video. I think he is mostly spot on.

 

I knew of Jimmy D. from TYT show. I sometimes watch their live show on youtube. It is mainly about US political stuff, but of course, there is always lots of interesting stuff due to the Trump presidency 

 

So, anyway, now let me use my 'H.A.Goodman weapon'   He is also a hardcore Assange supporter, possibly more so than Dore is.

 

 

Edited April 1, 20188 yr by JemJem

@JemJem

 

Pretty much of the same ilk. If you've actually followed/read his stuff, he's into a bunch of nutty conspiracy theories himself, holds extreme (and odd) political views, plus can be more characterized as a rabid Clinton hater than "supporting" anything or anyone (yeah, not even Sanders). Kinda disappointing that's the best posters can come up with.

On 02.04.2018 at 5:35 AM, Morch said:

@JemJem

 

Pretty much of the same ilk. If you've actually followed/read his stuff, he's into a bunch of nutty conspiracy theories himself, holds extreme (and odd) political views, plus can be more characterized as a rabid Clinton hater than "supporting" anything or anyone (yeah, not even Sanders). Kinda disappointing that's the best posters can come up with.

I am not done yet 

 

 

On 3/30/2018 at 1:32 PM, 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.

His last chance is to try a moonlight flit to the Russian Embassy. Welcome arms there.

@JemJem

 

As said, quite disappointing.