Breaking news: Julian Assange arrested in London

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Silver Surfer, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,493
    Likes Received:
    2,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well all the information is in the public domain by definition and Wikileaks is perfectly open about it's stated raison d'etre so I'm not sure where the false narrative would be. As I said, the question of whether there was any actual risk can probably never be confirmed but that means it wasn't confirmed by Wikileaks before they chose to release all of the documents anyway. They couldn't know whether they were putting people at risk or not but they did it anyway.
     
  2. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I meant that the culprits would be bound to big up the 'damage Wikileaks has done by exposing our operatives', even though they themselves by their incompetence would have been doing precisely what they accused him of doing - and possibly for years before the exposure?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  3. James Knapp

    James Knapp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2018
    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    We'll swap him for the woman who mowed down that that teenager.
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,493
    Likes Received:
    2,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exposing the crimes of government, as Bradley Manning did, is one's civic duty, a patriotic obligation.

    Receiving and publishing evidence of the crimes of government is the patriotic obligation of journalists. Hence the First Amendment.
     
    HoundofHades likes this.
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As another poster has noted, much of this was dealt with in the Pentagon Papers case. Daniel Ellsberg, like Bradley Manning, became aware of massive crimes by the Pentagon, made copies of it and released those copies to media. Both Ellsberg and Manning did their civic and patriotic duty and exposed the crimes of government.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you've ever listened to Assange or paid attention to their processes, you would know that Wikileaks edits all their material to avoid exposing innocent individuals. They edit out names and other information that would identify individuals.
     
    HoundofHades likes this.
  8. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Indeed my point though is they had no right to send it to anyone other than an authorised recipient. Regardless of whatever moral right you ascribe to their actions ultimately they had no permission to pass it on. I have no idea what a “civic” or “patriotic duty” is in this context.
    Please post in this forum your full name and address and full contact details....it’s my civic right to know who I’m talking to...
     
  9. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well... big whoop for them....still doesn’t make it legal
     
  10. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Noted.
     
  11. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Out of curiosity, why are you defending incompetent government agencies' bureaucrats and military functionaries?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To be honest I’m not defending anything really; more advocating the retention of the right of title over information - I guess in this context being intellectual property. I don’t think that privileged / intellectual property has the right to be broadcast without the explicit consent of its owner. That I think is especially the case where people have signed confidentiality agreements as part of a contract of employment or similar NDAs in the course of employment or contract.

    But I suppose...yes... I would defend the right of government to retain from the public information of a diplomatic nature as well; I’m not sure if this would or would not be categorised as intellectual property? Anyway the nature of government in the international arena is to leverage its intentions and aspersions and actions based on (amongst other things) a position gained from privileged information and if that position is undermined it has consequences. Thus yes I would defend governments and indeed the military to deny access to information it/they deemed necessary.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can see that you have no idea what patriotic or civic duty is, yes. I can see that you seem to have no sense of right and wrong, no moral sense or guidance. You are a dyed in the wool authoritarian. You think as your government demands, no questions asked.

    Some early case law in the US, one of the early SCOTUS men: Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.

    That was a paraphrase, and I can't remember exactly who it was that said it. But I think you see the point, maybe.

    A criminal government, the criminal actions of the government, are wrong, obviously. Any citizen interested in the survival of his country (as opposed to its government) has a duty to expose those crimes, no matter how secret the government declares them to be.
     
  14. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well.....there’s an awful lot to ponder there...however can you just clarify something..?
    ....so would I be correct in assuming that you thus equate espionage with patriotism? Indeed there is no right of privacy of any information and that there should be no laws against espionage as it's an act of patriotism?

    I note that you haven’t posted your full contact details as I requested or would you prefer this to remain private?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  15. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    'intellectual property' and 'government'? Looks like an oxymoron to me!
     
    The Scotsman likes this.
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,455
    Likes Received:
    4,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why does it seem all the arguments damning Assange on this forum rely heavily on the use of semantic words?
    Espionage generally has connotations that are different from what happened here.

    Why don't you try using words both sides can agree with.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  17. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,161
    Likes Received:
    3,034
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Assange is only being charged with reporting war crimes. He is not being charged with Hillary emails and so on, just the war crimes, in particular the US military lying about civilians being armed and dangerous in order to get permission to do a mass murder. You call that 'Intellectual Property. Until very recently it would have been recognised by our States as what I and many other people called a war crime. Now it is the reporting of the war crime and only the reporting which is considered a crime. For that Assange is suffering what the UN recognise as psychological torture and which many have expressed concern for his mental and even physical survival. Should he survive the intent is to send him to the US on what is recognised as a Political charge, something which it is against the law for the UK to do. After this is done the intent is for the US to send him to jail for life and possibly even to change this to the death sentence.

    Added to this a conflict of interest has been found with Judge. Her husband's position in the military makes it seem unlikely she is not biased.

    The UN Rappeteur on torture accepts that a lot of people are very confused as Britian is recognised as being a reputable country which ought to be able to be trusted on being lawful. However as he also says in this instance they are acting way outside that. Assange is not receiving the rights which would be expected of a democratic country.

    Assange says he believes the only hope he has left is the unlikely hope that the UK election will result in a Corbyn victory and law will return to the UK.

    I am not well at the moment but you really are way off. In a democracy reporting war crimes is not reporting Intellectual Property. Indeed this reporting is the sort of thing we expected to happen when we were a proper democracy. Then investigative reporting was considered one of the cornerstones of democracy and essential to it. Now it is a crime. Up until now extraditing people for their political position was against the law in the UK. Sending Assange to the US is the end of the free press in the UK and US and our further movement into authoritarianism.

    Certainly Manning went against conditions of employment in leaking information. That I hear went with his/her conscience and has been something which people have had to weigh up since time began. That is having principles and going by your conscience or selling your conscience for an 'easy' life. What we do know is that neither the UK nor the US consider war crimes a crime but do consider allowing the people who vote in people who support war crimes to know is the most serious crime which can be committed as judged by the intended sentence and the removal from Assange of normal rights.

    As far as safety of other people - why not also arrest the Guardian, NYTimes, Washington Post etc for publishing these. I believe regarding the Snowdon ones that he left it up to the Guardian to check and make sure what was published would not cause the kind of harm to anyone you spoke about earlier. They clearly did their job as no one was harmed in that way. By the public ignoring the crimes which were committed the only crimes which are being perpetrated are those against the messenger and Freedom of the Press - one of the major checks and balances of a democracy.

    P>S I am not well so not guaranteeing more replies at the moment but felt this should be said.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    HoundofHades likes this.
  18. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Forgive me but wasn’t Manning for example charged amongst other things under the Espionage Act? So I ask you how is it that espionage cannot be included within this context? What am I missing?
     
  19. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll take it if you don't kazenetsu.
     
    alexa likes this.
  20. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No please go for it... what am I missing?
     
  21. HoundofHades

    HoundofHades Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2019
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    It's the nuance of the word 'espionage' to my way of thinking: the definition of it, as you'll know, applies to one who gathers and reveals information which will be materially deleterious to an enemy or another country, whereas exposing the shortcomings of administrations or members of those administrations is exactly that, exposing the fact that they shouldn't be in public office.
     
  22. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,161
    Likes Received:
    3,034
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The use for the first time of an act brought in during the first WW against spies to be used against whistle blowers - people whose intent is to allow the people of a democratic country to be aware of wrong doings done by those they are putting in a position of trust - done by those serving them, speaking in their name.

    I think Ellsberg has already been mentioned in this thread.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-espionage-act-civil-liberties

    (sorry, do not know what to hit to get rid of the strike through. It is an error)
     
  23. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which on the face of is fine, however, it’s an arbitrary definition to a complex process. I understand the sentiment but there must by definition be boundaries otherwise we go back to my earlier thought process which was that there is no right to privacy of any information. I don’t accept that.
    Assume I am all for exposing shortcomings in any form. That would then be predicated upon my assumption that my definition of what constitutes “shortcomings” is absolutely right and that I am the ultimate arbiter of that definition. Can I make such assumptions and act on them in that case? Can I do that without knowing all the facts and possible consequences? If I am not privy to all the facts and potential consequences do I act anyway on the basis of my own morals? Are my morals absolutely right and not open to scrutiny?
    The point being there has to be certain criteria and boundaries that govern choices as actions have consequences. If one operates without boundaries or judgement then would you think this makes for a safer or more just world?
    Surely the nuance as you put it is in the boundaries?
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I do not equate espionage with patriotism.

    I'm in the Mark Twain camp on patriotism. As he said, patriotism means supporting your country all the time, but its government only when it deserves it.
     
    alexa likes this.

Share This Page