Assange Vs Takky

[Coss]

"apart from the fact that he’s good looking"

really? something you're not telling us?

[pai mei]

>>I suppose all of us mushrooms should be happy. Ungrateful bastards we are.

..if the cap fits, wear it. I know I trust Wikileaks more than media controlled by people like Rupert Murdoch.

....up2u.

 

 

One thing for clarification - as much as mushrooms can clarify. I found the deception carried on by the US government during the invasion of Iraq disgusting. A lot of us did. Not proud of it. I was actually rooting for wikileaks originally, and will always support greater transparency in government, whether they think us mushrooms can handle the truth or not. But transparency doesn't translate to naming sensitive sources in the international press and putting their lives in jeopardy. I hope some form of wikileaks matures, evolves, and sticks around - minus the idiot egomaniac (yes, that handsome chap Assange) that is their current public face.

[BelgianBoy]

looks like a lot of people find it easier to shoot the messenger than to attack the message, as usual.

as much a creep as Assange might be, I still find Wikileaks very fascinating......

 

BB

[robaus]

Crikey, you've used some of the most over-the-top drama queen language available in the king's english for several pages to romanticize Assange and those who support him, and then you get upset when you're met with a sarcastic reaction?

 

I have no fucking idea what you're banging on about.

 

[robaus]

The plot thickens...

 

Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

 

First, Assange is placed on Europe's most wanted list with a red notice (normally reserved for serial murderers and terrorists) and a European Arrest Warrant, just supposedly so that Sweden could interview him over some trumped up rape charges that he'd had consensual sex with some trollop who's hopped straight into bed with him the night before, but next morning he'd forgotten to use Aussie foreplay..a dig in the back "Hey, you awake?"

 

Then, UK eventually takes the case all the way to the high court, and at a million GBP per day surrounds the Ecuador embassy and threatens to invade it creating a massive diplomatic donnybrook with the whole of South America.

 

...and now this... what a joke...

 

"The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

 

Anyone smell a rat?

 

What a pity Wikileaks hasn't so far been able to expose the cables and emails flying between various international government offices to tell us mushrooms what our tax paid leaders have really been up to....incompetence or mischief??

 

[robaus]

Oops...I jumped the gun

 

I got the above article off today's (7/Sept/12) BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

 

It appears in the panel Most Popular stories.

 

I assumed it was current news. An interesting reminder though of the intrigue behind this fiasco.

 

For more of which... http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129674125619411.html

 

Assange case: Sweden's shame in violating human rights

 

Even in the past, Sweden had "collaborated with its Washington allies" to violate human rights and international law.

 

The Swedish government refused Ecuador's offer to interview Assange at its London embassy [EPA]

It was like a scene from a Hollywood movie, where the kidnapper walks up from behind, with a gun protruding from his trench coat pocket. "Keep walking, and don't say anything," he warns.

 

Such was the UK government's threat two weeks ago to Ecuador, that British police could invade the Ecuadorian embassy if necessary to arrest WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange. But Ecuador's foreign minister didn't keep walking, and said something, to the great embarrassment of the UK Foreign Office. The Foreign Office tried to say it wasn’t a threat - although it was now available to the world in writing - and then took it back.

 

But the unprecedented threat to violate the Vienna convention that protects diplomatic missions brought serious criticism from the Union of South American Nations, and then - despite being watered down by Washington - another rebuke from the Organisation of American States.

 

The UK's threat also made it clear that this case was not about questioning Julian Assange regarding a possible criminal case in Sweden. Few could believe that the UK government would have resorted to such extreme and illegal measures if this were just a matter of extraditing a foreign citizen to a foreign country where he is not even charged with a crime.

 

Sweden's role in Assange case

 

But what about Sweden's role in this sordid affair? Most obviously, Sweden has had the opportunity to interview Assange in the UK, but has repeatedly refused to do so. The Swedish government also refused Ecuador's offer to interview Assange at its London embassy. As in the past, no justification was offered.

 

The Swedish government also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the US. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the UK, for that matter) to arrange. Once again, the Swedish government offered no reason for its refusal to consider this obvious solution to the diplomatic impasse.

 

Contrary to much press commentary, there is no need for conspiracy theories here to draw the logical conclusion. If the Swedish government really wanted to pursue the investigation of sexual offence allegations against Assange, they could do so. But instead, they are deliberately abandoning the criminal investigation - which is getting older and more difficult to pursue - for other reasons.

 

Assange fears extradition to US

 

This also casts serious doubt on all the people who have opposed Assange's asylum on the grounds that they care about the two women who have accused Assange. (It is worth noting that neither of the two women accused Assange of rape, although that is one of the allegations that has been spread throughout the media and the world). Anyone who was really concerned about pursuing this case would aim their fire at the Swedish prosecutor, and at least ask her why she has abandoned the investigation.

 

This includes the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Claes Borgstrom, who was reportedly instrumental in getting the third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) to go after Assange. (The previous prosecutor assigned to the case had dropped it because the evidence is so weak). Borgstrom has been in the media defending the United States and its allies, rather than his clients, asserting that Assange "must know" that the case "has nothing to do with WikiLeaks".

 

Attack on Freedom of expression

 

But Borgstrom must know that there is a wealth of evidence that the US is very much interested in punishing Assange, and it keeps growing: on August 18, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Australia's foreign service was aware that US authorities had been pursuing Assange for at least 18 months. And on August 24, Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador and 20-year career diplomat there, reported that his colleagues at the UK foreign office knew better than to make the unprecedented threat of invading Ecuador's embassy, but did so under pressure from Washington.

 

Like many European countries, including of course the UK, Sweden's foreign policy is closely allied with that of the US government. This is not the first time that Sweden has collaborated with its Washington allies to violate human rights and international law. In 2001, the Swedish government turned over two Egyptians to the CIA so that they could be sent to Egypt, where they were tortured.

 

Sweden's action brought condemnation from the UN and the government was forced to pay damages to the victims; both were later cleared of any wrongdoing. Polls showed that Swedes considered this crime the worst political scandal in their country in 20 years.

 

Sweden is a highly developed social democracy that has many guarantees of civil rights and liberties to its citizens. The people of Sweden should not allow their government to continue to disgrace itself in another international governmental crime - this one a pernicious attack on freedom of expression - simply because Washington wants them to do so.

 

[Wallenda]

Wendella brings up good points, getting sidetracked in the whole hacker definition argument only detracts from those. (And btw Wendella, I agree with Kamui that your insistence that hacker = illegal criminal activity in pop culture definitions is way wrong. See: Facebook, or even contemporary DIY movements and "Lifehacker.")

 

I didn't want to get sidetracked onto this definition issue but was kind of forced to defend it. It's not my opinion, it is just a fact that if an outsider individual accesses government or business networks without authorization, that that is illegal. This is the original (and by far most commonly used) meaning of the word, when used in the context of computers. Unless Webster, Macmillan, Oxford, Cambridge and any other dictionary of repute are part of this conspiracy, and cleverly planned for it years in advance of Wikileaks, then it seems as if they all agree that this is what the word means. You are talking about 'pop culture' now. This is a new angle in this discussion. Self-indentifying hackers are not describing themselves in a pop culture context, they're identifying themselves by putting an -er after what they do. To go with the pop culture idea, maybe an analogy is the word 'gangsta'. The original meaning is 'gangster', meaning a member of a criminal gang. Pop culture came along and gave us gangsta rap and gangsta fashion, and then teens in Peoria are walking around with their jeans hanging down and are really just part of a fashion trend that has nothign to do with being a crime gang member. That wouldn't mean that Al Capone wasn't a criminal, or that calling him a gangster doesn't mean we're describing him as a criminal.

 

Someone else here tried to make the case that governments sometimes hire people to attempt to 'hack' into their secure networks, and that these guys are 'hackers' and this is legal, so it follows that hacking is often legal. Again, an analogy: a famous department store has been suffering a lot of theft from its sales floors. They hire a number of people to test out their security by going out into the store and attempting to shoplift items. They're hired shoplifters. Has shoplifting now become legal? Does this mean that from now on, if a real shoplifter says "I'm a shoplifter", we should not imagine that he is identifying himself as a criminal? Of course not.

 

About lifehackers -- that is a pop culture reference -- it is actually borrowing this original meaning of the word and 'cleverly' applying it to something unexpected, 'life', the idea being that one can figure out smarter ways of living than the rest of us by getting inside, or something like this. It actually seems to also be a play on words, referencing another meaning of the word from a different context, namely to mean 'cope', as in "Soldier, can you hack it here?" Since 'lifehacker' seems to make multiple different references, it may not be the best example of what you intend it to mean. I'm cool with hearing any others you can think of. ('you' here meaning, if i remember correctly, kamui)

[Wallenda]

 

>>BBC and NYT cut ties with him and portray him as shady and narcissistic. I wanted to see Assange as a modern day Robin Hood type character

...I am very curious where the evidence of this comes from...apart from the fact that he’s good looking, more famous than the last winner of Big Brother, and gets lots of roots. I’ve never met the man, nor have you, and I doubt that Fox Noise, The Sun or the Daily Mail are close to the man either. But character assassination can be just as useful to their paymasters as assassination.

 

Actually it's easy to guess where the evidence would be, the New York Times dealt with him directly and personally. The Guardian did as well, and also cut ties. They have published pieces detailing their reasons.

 

The list of those involved in this conspiracy (if one believes Assange, his lawyers or yourself) seems to be practically unlimited. We're to believe that the NY Times, the BBC, the Guardian, the US government, the US judicial system, a US jury, the British govt, the Swedish govt, the Swedish police, the Swedish civil legal system, the British legal system and two Swedish citizens who pressed charges against him are all working together behind the scenes to get Assange. And all of this without any evidence.

 

From what I see up here, it really seems like you've gone down a rabbit hole for this guy. You seem to have decided that you will believe anything he claims, and reject anyone else's version of events that shed him in a negative light. Burden of proof for charges against him seems to be set quite high, while no evidence is needed to support his conspiratorial claims.

 

Can you tell me, in hopefully just one sentence, why you believe Assange does not want to be extradited to Sweden?

[Wallenda]

looks like a lot of people find it easier to shoot the messenger than to attack the message, as usual.

as much a creep as Assange might be, I still find Wikileaks very fascinating......

 

BB

I guess my problem with it is that you have to imagine the same (illegal) weapon being used in turn by the side you're against. How would you feel if it was Russia toppling an elected democratic government and instituting a Moscow friendly dictatorship in its place by means of hacking. I said something similar earlier about Watergate. Basically, G. Gordon Liddy's break-in team considered themselves to be good-guy break-in artists, doing a noble deed. They were doing the same thing that Wikileaks hackers now do, namely to break in and steal confidential information from their political foes in order to publicly shame them and reduce their power. In 1973, the consensus was that this was clearly illegal and intolerable. It was intolerable because it was illegal, not because they were Republicans. Laws are laws. It's unethical to expect one's political opponents to abide by rules that one has no intention of following oneself.

[BelgianBoy]

I guess my problem with it is that you have to imagine the same (illegal) weapon being used in turn by the side you're against. How would you feel if it was Russia toppling an elected democratic government and instituting a Moscow friendly dictatorship in its place by means of hacking. I said something similar earlier about Watergate. Basically, G. Gordon Liddy's break-in team considered themselves to be 'white hat' break-in artists, doing a noble deed. They were doing the same thing that Wikileaks hackers now do, namely to break in and steal confidential information from their political foes in order to publicly shame them and reduce their power. In 1973, the consensus was that this was clearly illegal and intolerable. It was intolerable because it was illegal, not because they were Republicans. Laws are laws. It's unethical to expect one's political opponents to abide by rules that one has no intention of following oneself.

Hi,

 

please do re-read the last 50 posts here, most are ou to vilify the messenger, not his message, weak tactics to play the man and not his actions, illegal or not.....

and yes, what he did was illegal, hence his hiding in London as he does nt want to be extrapolated to the US, as he could face the death penalty for having brought out the truth.

comparing wikileaks to Watergate is horses for courses