Julian Assange arrested by British police at Ecuadorean embassy

[bkkgriz]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Once again someone calls out the left for hypocrisy but not the right. Do you have the slightest recall of now the right regarded Chelsea Manning and his revelations about how the US lied about what it was up to in Iraq? Assange's offer of help to Manning is what he is currently being charged for?

Did you even read my post? Did you ignore that I brought up Bush and Faux news? Try reading again Poindexter.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Who is the criminal? The one who's committing crimes or the one telling the world about it.

They can both be criminals.

 

Struggle with that shade of grey in your black and white world.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...attacked...slandered...persecuted...for telling the truth that mainstream media never does....

 

...do you expect an honest account of this incident then...???

 

...you can find some of the truth behinds these heinous actions....by getting the link to Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Press Conference...

 

...otherwise drink up the 'tales'....

 

...a sad day for all of humanity...

 

 

He’ll face trial in an open court of law before a jury.

 

Justice!

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’ll face trial in an open court of law before a jury.

 

Justice!

Any news about the war criminals, which were exposed on wikileaks shooting unarmed civilians ?

Justice ?

I'm afraid that i don't want to know what's your idea of justice.

[roo860]

7 years listening to those bloody Pan Pipes.

[emoji6]

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[CharlieH]

Off topic post and response removed.

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Any news about the war criminals, which were exposed on wikileaks shooting unarmed civilians ?

Justice ?

I'm afraid that i don't want to know what's your idea of justice.

Whataboutary.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Anything is better than nothing.

I take it you think that exposing the private diplomatic conversations and plans of one government to the world while allowing the rest of the world to conduct such business confidentially is a good thing.  I disagree.

 

Amnesty International attacks repression worldwide.  I applaud them.

 

Transparency International promotes openness and fights corruption worldwide.  Again I applaud them.

 

Assange targets the US and complements Russia's efforts to undermine our democratic elections.  I condemn that.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

It has been well documented in 2010 and 2011. You'll have to go to the Internet Archives to dig out all the dirty details, the plays of the two women involved, the Swedish prosecutor who dismissed the case, the shock when arriving in London, Julian was summoned for questioning in Sweden, still not being charged, etc...

 

Nowadays, there is a lot of conflicting information around. After all, almost 10 years has gone. And it has been in some peoples interest to create a lot of FUD and paint a very black picture of Julian.

 

Wikipedia has a fairly accurate, albeit shallow, account of the early events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-texts

I looked for that information.  I found nothing.  That's why I asked you for your sources. 

 

I found nothing in your links to support your claim that charges had been dropped and Assange had asked and received permission to leave Sweden, I did find this:

 

" But the (Assange's) lawyer admitted that Swedish prosecutors had tried to interview his client before he left the country, contradicting earlier claims by Assange's legal team and his own witness statement. "

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Thechook said:

Bring him home to Australia and tell the yanks to bugger off. An Australian hero.

I understand Australia's government has some secrets that might be revealed by what some call journalism and others call hacking.  Do you want Assange to devote his efforts to this?

[SpaceKadet]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I looked for that information.  I found nothing.  That's why I asked you for your sources. 

 

I found nothing in your links to support your claim that charges had been dropped and Assange had asked and received permission to leave Sweden, I did find this:

 

" But the (Assange's) lawyer admitted that Swedish prosecutors had tried to interview his client before he left the country, contradicting earlier claims by Assange's legal team and his own witness statement. "

From the second link:

"Hurtig told the extradition hearing that he had been wrong to assert that the prosecutor Marianne Ny had made no active attempt to interview Assange between her appointment to the case, on 1 September last year, and 27 September, when Assange left the country with her permission."

 

There is much more on the WayBack Machine, much of it from Swedish bloggers (in Swedish) who were actively involved in the story.

[gk10002000]

Here is an example of a person who by all accounts really was basically intelligent and very capable.  But he got focused on his fixation about leaking information, being the giver of news, at all costs, even if it meant breaking classified secret protection laws.  He was a narcissist. He loved the attention.  He saw himself as some sort of hero or martyr.  He could have made very good money in the computer world, security cyber world.  Instead, he has lived like an outlaw for a decade constantly worrying about legal issues, where his next home would be, etc.  

[blazes]

8 hours ago, Date Masamune said:

Interestiing you responded as "Confused" by my last submission, but you understand completely.

Assange did not hack any database he got information from a source, which was confirmed, then published.

Exactly what newspapers have been doing for decades.

 

You have to understand that Chomper is "confused" about 90% of the time.... so go easy on the poor guy!

[JimmyJ]

4 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Here is an example of a person who by all accounts really was basically intelligent and very capable.  But he got focused on his fixation about leaking information, being the giver of news, at all costs, even if it meant breaking classified secret protection laws.  He was a narcissist. He loved the attention.  He saw himself as some sort of hero or martyr.  He could have made very good money in the computer world, security cyber world.  Instead, he has lived like an outlaw for a decade constantly worrying about legal issues, where his next home would be, etc.  

There are extremely important and vital issues involved here -  of Free Speech/First Amendment/Journalism/(State) Censorship.

 

 

It is not your Strawman issue of armchair psychological analysis and the cult of personality, which is totally irrelevant and off topic.

Edited April 12, 2019 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

"When you see professional media figures decreeing 'Julian Assange is not a journalist,' compare how much corruption & criminality by the world's most powerful factions they've exposed in their work to how much Assange has exposed. That contrast will tell you all you need to know."

 - Glenn Greenwald

[JimmyJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Any news about the war criminals, which were exposed on wikileaks shooting unarmed civilians ?

Justice ?

I'm afraid that i don't want to know what's your idea of justice.

For the ruling elites, it's simple - "Justice" means "Just Us".

[JimmyJ]

Some of you may find this interesting - There has been a live online vigil for Assange on Fridays (England's Fridays).

Usually begins on Thailand Saturdays about 4:00 am.

 

It's on now -"#Unity4J 25.0 Online Vigil in support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks" with various guests.

Haven't watched it yet so can't vouch for the guests/panel, but should be interesting.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2FNOxil4g

[KittenKong]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

I take it you think that exposing the private diplomatic conversations and plans of one government to the world while allowing the rest of the world to conduct such business confidentially is a good thing.  I disagree.

So you are saying that as long as even one country's secrets are not made public then all of them should not be?

 

Like I said, anything is better than nothing.

 

 

[heybruce]

50 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

So you are saying that as long as even one country's secrets are not made public then all of them should not be?

 

Like I said, anything is better than nothing.

 

 

Ideally all countries.  It would be an improvement if the secrets of most major powers were made public.  However exposing only one country's "secrets", including private communications between diplomats discussing proper responses to world affairs and hots-spots, is not journalism, it is espionage and a deliberate attempt to undermine that one country.

 

Interesting that Assange didn't choose his own country.

[JimmyJ]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

Some of you may find this interesting - There has been a live online vigil for Assange on Fridays (England's Fridays).

Usually begins on Thailand Saturdays about 4:00 am.

 

It's on now -"#Unity4J 25.0 Online Vigil in support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks" with various guests.

Haven't watched it yet so can't vouch for the guests/panel, but should be interesting.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2FNOxil4g

Just tuned in again and I'm pretty sure the person speaking now is Daniel Ellsberg.

 

57 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

So you are saying that as long as even one country's secrets are not made public then all of them should not be?

 

Like I said, anything is better than nothing.

 

 

 5 minutes of online research would reveal to him that Assange has published numerous documents from a large number of countries including Russia.

Stating he's only published one country's secret documents is demonstrably false - utter nonsense.

But that is only if facts were important to this individual, rather than looking for an excuse to diminish his great work.

Edited April 12, 2019 by JimmyJ

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

Just tuned in again and I'm pretty sure the person speaking now is Daniel Ellsberg.

 

 5 minutes of online research would reveal to him that Assange has published numerous documents from a large number of countries including Russia.

Stating he's only published one country's secret documents is demonstrably false - utter nonsense.

But that is only if facts were important to this individual, rather than looking for an excuse to diminish his great work.

He has a record of attempting collusion with parties that he supports.

Wikileaks requested that the Trump campaign provide them with Tax returns and publish them as leaks with the intention of appearing non partisan. 

 

The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first.

 

Wikileaks have also sold leaks critical to Russia to russian based newspapers, which did not publicize the material.

[JimmyJ]

26 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

He has a record of attempting collusion with parties that he supports.

Wikileaks requested that the Trump campaign provide them with Tax returns and publish them as leaks with the intention of appearing non partisan. 

 

The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first.

 

Wikileaks have also sold leaks critical to Russia to russian based newspapers, which did not publicize the material.

None of what you stated has any relevance to the post of mine you cited.

 

Despite that...why not?

Looking at your post on its own:

 

"He has a record of attempting collusion with parties that he supports."

 

"Wikileaks requested that the Trump campaign provide them with Tax returns and publish them as leaks with the intention of appearing non partisan."

 

"Wikileaks have also sold leaks critical to Russia to russian based newspapers, which did not publicize the material."

 

Links/sources for the above?

 

"The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first. "

 

 

Are you stating that WikiLeaks only once released material on Russia?

Edited April 13, 2019 by JimmyJ

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Just tuned in again and I'm pretty sure the person speaking now is Daniel Ellsberg.

 

 5 minutes of online research would reveal to him that Assange has published numerous documents from a large number of countries including Russia.

Stating he's only published one country's secret documents is demonstrably false - utter nonsense.

But that is only if facts were important to this individual, rather than looking for an excuse to diminish his great work.

Can you substantiate the above claim?

 

" WikiLeaks has drawn criticism for its absence of whistleblowing on or criticism of Russia, and for criticising the Panama Papers' exposé of businesses and individuals with offshore bank accounts.^[24][25] WikiLeaks has also been criticised for inadequately curating its content and violating the personal privacy of individuals. WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts.^{[26][27][28][29]} "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

 

Criticizing the Panama Papers expose is especially interesting.  That was genuine journalism, and embarrassing for Putin and other corrupt autocrats.  Why would Assange criticize that?

[cleopatra2]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

None of what you stated has any relevance to the post of mine you cited.

 

Despite that...why not?

Looking at your post on its own:

 

"He has a record of attempting collusion with parties that he supports."

 

"Wikileaks requested that the Trump campaign provide them with Tax returns and publish them as leaks with the intention of appearing non partisan."

 

"Wikileaks have also sold leaks critical to Russia to russian based newspapers, which did not publicize the material."

 

Links/sources for the above?

 

"The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first. "

 

 

Are you stating that WikiLeaks only once released material on Russia?

The events can be easily verifies.

 

To start you off , why did Wikileaks sell the US cables critical to the Russian government  , to a paper owned by former president Mikhail Gorbachev , Novaya Gazeta.

 

Providing un redacted info to Belarus dictator, allowing them to identify democracy activists and dissidents

 

Wikileaks have published info on Russia , but with their record , of willing to mislead , ( court cases ), coupled with Assange dis regard for rule of law unless it favours himself , (skipping bail). The willingness to deceive their audience , (Trump tax returns). Then the veracity of any Russia information leaked by the group is questionable.

[JimmyJ]

"The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first."

 

"...raises the suspicion..."

 

If it had been published promptly it could raise the suspicion that his spymasters ordered him to do so.

 

It may also raise a suspicion that interplanetary forces were involved, or that a Time Machine was involved, or an invisible rabbit named "Harvey".

 

Hopefully you realize that anyone is able to put a spin of "...raises a suspicion..." on any statement about anything.

You are simply demonstrating your own pearl clutching at attempting to denigrate Assange and WikiLeaks, and putting your fantasies on public message boards.

It reveals much about you, nothing about WikiLeaks/Assange.

 

"The idea that Assange is a front for the Russians is absurd"

"“#Wikileaks has released 800,000 documents about Russia..."

 - John Pilger

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ejp6pKQ44

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The events can be easily verifies.

 

To start you off , why did Wikileaks sell the US cables critical to the Russian government  , to a paper owned by former president Mikhail Gorbachev , Novaya Gazeta.

 

Providing un redacted info to Belarus dictator, allowing them to identify democracy activists and dissidents

 

Wikileaks have published info on Russia , but with their record , of willing to mislead , ( court cases ), coupled with Assange dis regard for rule of law unless it favours himself , (skipping bail). The willingness to deceive their audience , (Trump tax returns). Then the veracity of any Russia information leaked by the group is questionable.

"The events can be easily verifies"

 

I actually did waste about 10 minutes looking for any internet verification for 2 of your statements, but came up empty.

 

You have backed up your previous undocumented claims with further undocumented claims.

 

This is utter babble.

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

"...the question 'is X a 'journalist'?' - as though it's a credentialed, licensed status like being a doctor or lawyer - is deceitful. The First Amendment's press freedom protects *an activity* available to everyone - not just a designated priesthood called 'journalists.' "

 

- Glenn Greenwald
 

Edited April 13, 2019 by JimmyJ

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first."

 

It may also raise a suspicion that interplanetary forces were involved, or that a Time Machine was involved.

 

Hopefully you realize that anyone is able to put a spin of "...raises a suspicion..." on any statement about anything.

You are simply demonstrating your own pearl clutching at attempting to denigrate Assange and WikiLeaks, and putting your fantasies on public message boards.

It reveals much about you, nothing about WikiLeaks/Assange.

 

"The idea that Assange is a front for the Russians is absurd"

"“#Wikileaks has released 800,000 documents about Russia..."

 - John Pilger

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ejp6pKQ44

 

A YouTube video from Russia Today?  Seriously?

 

You have just destroyed your credibility.

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"The info they have released on Russia, was late, already in the public domain. The delay in publication raises the suspicion of obtaining clearance first."

 

"...raises the suspicion..."

 

If it had been published promptly it could raise the suspicion that his spymasters ordered him to do so.

 

It may also raise a suspicion that interplanetary forces were involved, or that a Time Machine was involved, or an invisible rabbit named "Harvey".

 

Hopefully you realize that anyone is able to put a spin of "...raises a suspicion..." on any statement about anything.

You are simply demonstrating your own pearl clutching at attempting to denigrate Assange and WikiLeaks, and putting your fantasies on public message boards.

It reveals much about you, nothing about WikiLeaks/Assange.

 

"The idea that Assange is a front for the Russians is absurd"

"“#Wikileaks has released 800,000 documents about Russia..."

 - John Pilger

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ejp6pKQ44

 

 

 

 

The accusation that WikiLeaks is a front for the Russian government comes from Russian state owned newspaper , Izvestia 2013, which stated Edward Snowdens escape was co-ordinated between wikileaks, russian authorities and intelligence services.

 

Which is supported by Wikileaks announcement that Hanson was permitted to stay with Snowden on his Moscow arrival and FSB debriefing

[losworld]

At this point it's all about using the mainstream media to smear Assange and do everything underhanded from trumped up rape charges to ridiculous claims from dating sites.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see he has pissed off the rulers.  He is not permitted to leak the truth.

Edited April 13, 2019 by losworld