Jump to content

Wikileaks and the Diplomatic Cables of Doom


Cap'n Refsmmat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good example. The US is helping an ally, but we would also like to move toward peace with a country like Iran. By letting this information out do we move the world closer to peace or war? Negotiating positions and strategies are discussed. Does releasing that information help or hinder the negotiation process with Iran?

 

Apparently, tho, your country's fine with the concept of Israel bombing Iran, as long as the US doesn't appear to have anything to do with it... so you're not necessarily moving towards peace in a country like Iran. (I acknowledge the phrase could mean something else, dependant on context; but I don't trust that the US gov' isn't doing that: it requires checking imo).

 

I guess your question would ideally be answered by the US government, in the form of only censoring the bear minimum. Were that the case, I'd be happy trusting their judgment as to wether things should be public or private, and, if something's withheld, I'd think leaking it would be wrong/counter-productive. However, the US (et. al.) gov's aren't like that, so I guess that brings me back to thinking we should take away their privacy until they can be trusted with it.

 

And: probably hinder; but by doing that -- by forcing as much transparency onto our own governments, even at the cost of some short-term problems, so that we deny them the ability to (e.g.) encourage wars in the Middle East -- do we move the world in a better or a worse direction?

 

====

 

To clarify, I agree with you: I think that the gov' should have the ability to withhold certain things. I just think they need their privacy taken away right now to force them to use that power responsibly. (tho i'm still not sure that the idea of any censorship is actually feasible any more).

 

I mean, this'd all be a lot easier if we had governments that we could trust, but I guess that would require that we could choose them; so I suppose unless we're willing to over-throw them and implement some form of democracy we're stuck doing utterly retarded things like spying on 'our own' governments to make sure they're not shafting us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, if he was actually only going after transparency and anti-corruption. Then he would be leaking documents regarding everything. Oil companies, banks, senators, legislators, car companies, the department of energy, diplomacy, military, everything. It wouldn't matter what country the documents are from. He would publish them all.

 

But instead he has so far proven to be pursuing a very specific goal on very specific institutions.

Personally i am somewhat surprised he has not yet attacked the House, legislator, and lobbyists.

Considering that these three do more with the decision making than the military or diplomats do. Hell, they are the ones that tell us what to do. Also being the decision makers, that is the most likely place you will find the deepest seat of corruption. War logs, diplomacy cables, and bank memos would mean nothing in comparison.

He doesn't have magical access to all the documents he can get, nor does he have infinite amounts of time to sift through every document he receives. Unless he discloses just what documents he's received, we can't decide what he's withholding for ideological purposes. With the recent shift to a media-based strategy of releasing documents to news agencies, he'll have to wait for one controversy to make its way through the media before releasing evidence of the next.

 

Also, the legislative branch is arguably more open already, with sites like OpenSecrets:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/

 


Relevant:

 

http://www.theonion....pentagon,18572/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what makes up the key differences between someone facilitating a whistle blower, and someone deserving the terrorist label and treason charges?

 

 

If someone leaks documents that clearly seem to put them into the category of Whistle Blower, can that be retracted if they also leak other documents that appear to be only embarrassing or otherwise do not fit the description? It seems to me that a lot of very difficult subjective factors come into play: the leak's personal views/bias/motives, questions of character, and the leaked material: in whether the public considers it as evidence of abuse of secrecy privileges meriting exposure.

 

When it's easy - exposing Nixon good, Valarie Plume bad - it's easy.

 

 

But do we have any real criteria for complex cases that isn't highly subjective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't "release all info". And I posted a quote demonstrating bias.

I don't think you can demonstrate that to be true. For one thing, the past three leaks have all been dumped from (presumably) the same source; he has to get these colossal leaks out of the way, and then can leak the rest.

 

Even if he's planning to eventually release everything he has, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that he doesn't have a bone to pick with what he (frequently) labels as "government corruption". He goes on about it at great length in numerous interviews.

 

 

It's hard to criticize him for not releasing more when we also criticize him for not carefully redacting each of the hundreds of thousands of documents being released in each War Logs and diplomatic cables dump. He has a finite amount of time, you know.

 

The fact that he's running around Europe dodging a rape charge should not come at the expense of my country's national security.

 

(And I said "dodging" for a reason. His lawyer said today that he would fight any extradition charge, and not because she thinks he'll be indicted on other charges -- she's planning to fight extradition to Sweden, because, you know, the Swedes are uncivilized and incapable of administering fair justice, I suppose (?).)

 

 

The government refuses because classified documents are classified. Their position is that as classified documents, none of them can be released.

 

The wikileaks statement of their mission they cite the US Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling: "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." How does a cable saying the French Prime Minister is thin-skinned fall under government deception? My problem is that they are not just exposing government coverups and lies to the people. They have stepped over that line.

 

Exactly.

 

 

I gave this quite a bit of thought on my way to work this morning. I can see where you're coming from with this, but ultimately we're probably not going to see eye to eye :)

 

Fair enough -- I respect your opinion on it. I got a bit carried away with this earlier because it makes me mad but I wasn't trying to disrespect anyone's views. I agree with a free press and transparency as a general rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he's planning to eventually release everything he has, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that he doesn't have a bone to pick with what he (frequently) labels as "government corruption". He goes on about it at great length in numerous interviews.

Sure. But earlier you claimed he doesn't release all info, and that his releases are influenced by his bias. Are you backing away from that now?

 

The fact that he's running around Europe dodging a rape charge should not come at the expense of my country's national security.

 

(And I said "dodging" for a reason. His lawyer said today that he would fight any extradition charge, and not because she thinks he'll be indicted on other charges -- she's planning to fight extradition to Sweden, because, you know, the Swedes are uncivilized and incapable of administering fair justice, I suppose (?).)

What exactly does this have to do with what you quoted? Whether he's accused of rape has nothing to do with redaction or release of documents. Assange is not all of Wikileaks. The organization has finite resources.

 

Incidentally, what I have read suggests the charges are related to Assange not using a condom, allegedly after beginning consensual relations with the women. He's fighting extradition because he claims he has not been served with the proper documents to make him aware of any details of the investigation, which is apparently required by law.

 

Recent news articles also suggest that he is not on the run -- he is hiding in England, and authorities know exactly where he is, since he gave them contact details when he entered the country.

 

I suspect his arrest will only serve Wikileaks' purposes. If I were running Wikileaks, I'd make sure they had a few juicy documents to leak immediately after news of my arrest breaks, just to make a point. I wonder if he's planned ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly does this have to do with what you quoted? Whether he's accused of rape has nothing to do with redaction or release of documents. Assange is not all of Wikileaks. The organization has finite resources.

I agree entirely, and although I think to some minor degree, character comes into play when assessing the validity of the leaked material but it's a moot point as in this case the authenticity is not contested. The legality issues involving these leaks should not be affected in the least whether this guy is a celebrated war hero or condemned villain.

I suspect his arrest will only serve Wikileaks' purposes. If I were running Wikileaks, I'd make sure they had a few juicy documents to leak immediately after news of my arrest breaks, just to make a point. I wonder if he's planned ahead.

Personally, while I don't think it affects the assessment of the leaked material I do think that this sort of action would reflect quite abhorrently on his character. People have risked their careers and serious criminal charges to leak that information - I am willing to bet they did it out of a sense of moral obligation, not to help some guy settle a score with prosecutors over entirely personal issues. That might as well be blackmail. If the material that would be released in the event of his arrest is important to the public, it should be released as soon as possible regardless of his personal problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he's planning to eventually release everything he has, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that he doesn't have a bone to pick with what he (frequently) labels as "government corruption". He goes on about it at great length in numerous interviews.

Sure. But earlier you claimed he doesn't release all info, and that his releases are influenced by his bias. Are you backing away from that now?

 

I said "even if". There are quite a few quotes in that article that talk about withholding information. If transparency were his ONLY goal, then he would release them the moment he receives them. He saves them up, and now he apparently redacts names to protect civilian informants, but in my opinion he also makes it clear in that interview that he times his releases for effect.

 

 

Incidentally, what I have read suggests the charges are related to Assange not using a condom, allegedly after beginning consensual relations with the women.

 

I'm not the one calling it rape. That is the actual charge by Swedish authorities. (source)

 

 

What exactly does this have to do with what you quoted? Whether he's accused of rape has nothing to do with redaction or release of documents. Assange is not all of Wikileaks. The organization has finite resources.

 

Fine, you said "he" but if you meant "they" it's fine by me.

 

I do think that argument draws a very stark contrast between this guy and his presumably small staff and the thousands of government employees who made the same decisions over years of time and with full consideration of the facts. Granted government bureaucracies aren't exactly known for their efficiency, but presumably some of those people do know what they're doing.

 

 

He's fighting extradition because he claims he has not been served with the proper documents to make him aware of any details of the investigation, which is apparently required by law.

 

Like I said, he's fighting extradition. Guess he doesn't want his day in court.

 

What do you think about that? Do you support him fighting an extradition charge, and if so, why?

 

 

I suspect his arrest will only serve Wikileaks' purposes. If I were running Wikileaks, I'd make sure they had a few juicy documents to leak immediately after news of my arrest breaks, just to make a point. I wonder if he's planned ahead.

 

Er, you believe that Wikileaks should wield its information as a weapon to fight a rape accusation? Did I understand that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, you believe that Wikileaks should wield its information as a weapon to fight a rape accusation? Did I understand that right?

 

dunno should vs. shouldn't, but I know he did.

 

but: maybe Assange 'raped' someone. Maybe the CIA falsely accused him to sully WLs reputation. Maybe Assange falsely accused himself, to make it look like the CIA is playing underhandedly. Either way, it's irrelevent, doncha think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we don't consider what he does as "terrorism" we need to reformulate either the word or create a new one.

 

 

I wouldn't classify him as a terrorist. He acts more like an anarchist.

 

——

 

Despite my caveats about what wikileaks is doing, I also think Sen. Leiberman's efforts to censor them is wrong as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "even if". There are quite a few quotes in that article that talk about withholding information. If transparency were his ONLY goal, then he would release them the moment he receives them. He saves them up, and now he apparently redacts names to protect civilian informants, but in my opinion he also makes it clear in that interview that he times his releases for effect.

That's because the first leaks got almost no media attention, which negates their purpose.

 

 

 

I'm not the one calling it rape. That is the actual charge by Swedish authorities. (source)

 

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/europe/19assange.html

According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.

 

 

Like I said, he's fighting extradition. Guess he doesn't want his day in court.

 

What do you think about that? Do you support him fighting an extradition charge, and if so, why?

If he's correct about the warrant being improper and Swedish prosecutors breaking the rules, then yes, he should fight. But I'm not a lawyer. Also, this is irrelevant.

 

Er, you believe that Wikileaks should wield its information as a weapon to fight a rape accusation? Did I understand that right?

No.

 

His arrest will cause everyone to say "ha! we got him! now the evil leaker is gone!" Releasing a new document will point out that Assange is not all of Wikileaks, and that stopping one person does not change the fact that secrets are far more easily revealed today than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20024517-264.html?tag=topTechnologyNews;topTechContentWrap

 

A new problem arose at 7 p.m. PT Thursday, when EveryDNS.net stopped providing WikiLeaks with Domain Name System (DNS) services. The DNS translates the Web addresses that people type, such as CNET.com, into the numeric Internet Protocol addresses that actually get the job done delivering data from one computer to another. When EveryDNS.net stopped the service, typing "WikiLeaks.org" into a browser led nowhere.

 

In a statement on its Web site, EveryDNS.net said it terminated WikiLeaks' service to protect others using the service while WikiLeaks was under the DDOS attack.

 

The services were terminated for violation of the provision which states that "Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services." The interference at issues arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites.

 

Thus, last night, at approximately 10PM EST, December 1, 2010 a 24 hour termination notification email was sent to the email address associated with the wikileaks.org account. In addition to this email, notices were sent to Wikileaks via Twitter and the chat function available through the wikileaks.org website. Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider.

 

As it did when tweeting about the Amazon termination, WikiLeaks mentioned the EveryDNS.net's United States connection.

"WikiLeaks,org domain killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks," WikiLeaks said in its tweet.

 

Now that is just a plain attack on the US. To me it seems perfectly reasonable for a dns provider to drop a website that is under DDOS attacks. Why would they want to loose other businesses by providing most of it's time and effort to wikileaks. Seems like good business sense.

 

Also it seems that if a company has ties to the United States they are somehow in the wrong. I don't see where wikileaks needed to mention the "US connection", for anything other than a directed attack at the US itself.

 

BTW, Anarchist is a really good term to describe Assanage, not terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.cnet.com...TechContentWrap

 

 

 

Now that is just a plain attack on the US. To me it seems perfectly reasonable for a dns provider to drop a website that is under DDOS attacks. Why would they want to loose other businesses by providing most of it's time and effort to wikileaks. Seems like good business sense.

 

Also it seems that if a company has ties to the United States they are somehow in the wrong. I don't see where wikileaks needed to mention the "US connection", for anything other than a directed attack at the US itself.

 

BTW, Anarchist is a really good term to describe Assanage, not terrorist.

 

Could be bad business sense too. DDoS attacks don't need to use a DNS, and in fact would function better without one. And who wants to use a DNS that will drop websites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be bad business sense too. DDoS attacks don't need to use a DNS, and in fact would function better without one. And who wants to use a DNS that will drop websites?

 

In any case, Wikileaks has routed around the issue. They'd be wise to use several independent DNS providers, like SFN does -- we host our own DNS, and it's also mirrored by a third party in case we have issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, you believe that Wikileaks should wield its information as a weapon to fight a rape accusation? Did I understand that right?

dunno should vs. shouldn't, but I know he did.

 

Releasing a new document will point out that Assange is not all of Wikileaks, and that stopping one person does not change the fact that secrets are far more easily revealed today than ever before.

 

Maybe so, but threatening to release data if he's arrested on a RAPE charge, or if he loses an extradition fight, would be extortion and would pretty much eliminate any altruistic, saintly appeal. The extradition thing is ridiculous on its face -- it's Sweden, not Somalia. And rape is rape, and if he's guilty of that then he's no saint period.

 

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying that if he wants to be seen as a guy who acts on principles, as seems to be the case, then he should take a stand on principles, not act like a hoodlum on the lam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but threatening to release data if he's arrested on a RAPE charge, or if he loses an extradition fight, would be extortion and would pretty much eliminate any altruistic, saintly appeal. The extradition thing is ridiculous on its face -- it's Sweden, not Somalia. And rape is rape, and if he's guilty of that then he's no saint period.

 

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying that if he wants to be seen as a guy who acts on principles, as seems to be the case, then he should take a stand on principles, not act like a hoodlum on the lam.

 

According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.

http://www.nytimes.c.../19assange.html

 

And as I've said, his lawyers say they'll fight extradition because the warrant is invalid and improperly filed. What's wrong with that? (Not that I know if they're right, since I'm not a Swedish lawyer.)

 

Threatening to release the data was my speculation, not Assange's statement; I do not know how he intends to deal with his own arrest.

 

Also, he's not on the lam. Recent news indicates he's in the UK and has given his contact information to authorities when he entered the country. The police have said they know exactly where he is but have not yet received orders to act.

 

Also, no matter how much you capitalize it, RAPE is still irrelevant. And repeating the same allegations after I've pointed out they're wrong (being on the lam, fighting extradition for no reason, etc.) is annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And repeating the same allegations after I've pointed out they're wrong (being on the lam, fighting extradition for no reason, etc.) is annoying.

 

He could face the charges in directly if he cared to, so I think "hiding out" is a reasonable opinion. You're welcome to think otherwise. I think what you're annoyed about is that you don't think you've had an impact on my opinion, which isn't the case.

 

Aren't you at least a little disappointed that he's sitting in England rather than going to Sweden to stand up for himself and what he believes? We wouldn't remember the name John Brown today if he'd settled for the Sunday Sermon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but threatening to release data if he's arrested on a RAPE charge, or if he loses an extradition fight, would be extortion and would pretty much eliminate any altruistic, saintly appeal. The extradition thing is ridiculous on its face -- it's Sweden, not Somalia. And rape is rape, and if he's guilty of that then he's no saint period.

 

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying that if he wants to be seen as a guy who acts on principles, as seems to be the case, then he should take a stand on principles, not act like a hoodlum on the lam.

 

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the rape charge is an attempt by terrorists* to instill fear an bring about a political change? Or perhaps it could be called something else instead, maybe extortion. But the key is that it's certainly quite plausible that these rape charges are made up and an attempt to silence people who are causing trouble. In which case, perhaps submitting to them would not be a very clever thing to do. Of course, it could also be an attempt by wikileaks affiliates to make it seem like people are playing dirty to try to silence/discredit them, which might win them more support. Or, maybe the charges really are real and there is no conspiracy.

 

Who knows? And is there any reason it would matter?

 

*Since people here have been throwing that word around with such a broad meaning that it could apply to governments too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could face the charges in directly if he cared to, so I think "hiding out" is a reasonable opinion. You're welcome to think otherwise. I think what you're annoyed about is that you don't think you've had an impact on my opinion, which isn't the case.

 

Aren't you at least a little disappointed that he's sitting in England rather than going to Sweden to stand up for himself and what he believes? We wouldn't remember the name John Brown today if he'd settled for the Sunday Sermon.

 

I'm not sure any part of his espoused belief system involves how people should be treated when accused of a crime. It'd be a distraction from what he believes, if anything, but if the Swedish really want him, they know where to get him. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens within a few days.

 

I mean, if I were Julian Assange, I'd be hiding from all the rabid conservative commentators that have demanded he be shot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And rape is rape

 

Apart from when it's not. didn't we talk about this before, and come to the conclusion that it's more statutory (i.e., not) rape that he's been charged with?

 

Anyhoo, he could be a kiddy-fiddler for all that I care: it'd make him a Bad Person, but wouldn't be of any relevance to whether what WL is doing is right or wrong.

 

---

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11911162

He said his client was in a "bizarre situation" where he had tried to seek a meeting with the Swedish prosecutor to discuss the charges against him, but had been rebuffed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the rape charge is an attempt by terrorists* to instill fear an bring about a political change?

 

*Since people here have been throwing that word around with such a broad meaning that it could apply to governments too.

 

Okay, what do you propose would be the best way to handle it? Are you telling me you don't think it's possible for Julian Assange to get a fair trial? I don't know anything about Swedish law. Are we talking about Aruba (eternal home of Natalie Holloway) or what?

 

BTW, I note that when Fox News Channel throws around wild speculations like the above, people get upset and complain about the damage caused by such.

 

 

I'm not sure any part of his espoused belief system involves how people should be treated when accused of a crime. It'd be a distraction from what he believes, if anything, but if the Swedish really want him, they know where to get him. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens within a few days.

 

It's a question of integrity. When a Republican politician is caught with his pants down in a men's bathroom, people have no problem swinging the integrity bat because he took a stand on integrity. Well, Julian Assange takes a stand on integrity -- it's his main motivation; the thing he says is missing from government that needs to be restored. So I have no problem questioning whether the man has any himself.

 

And by the way, an allegation of rape should never be seen as a "distraction". In fact I would say that it's far more important than what he's doing with his web site. And as you say, they can do the work without him.

 

 

I mean, if I were Julian Assange, I'd be hiding from all the rabid conservative commentators that have demanded he be shot...

 

So... Sisyphus you gonna ask Cap'n whether he thinks this is a left or right issue?

 

 

Apart from when it's not. didn't we talk about this before, and come to the conclusion that it's more statutory (i.e., not) rape that he's been charged with?

 

You don't believe that "no means no"? Or is it that you believe Julian Assange has more important things to do than answer such trivialities as whether a woman can say no to a man at any point in time?

 

-------

 

I think if we had run a thread prior to this asking whether a man can be charged with rape if he refuses to stop after the condom breaks, or because he takes it off during intercourse, the overwhelming response would have been that it's rape. You know what, I think we could run that thread NOW and get an overwhelming response of agreement with the charge. Let's find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, what do you propose would be the best way to handle it? Are you telling me you don't think it's possible for Julian Assange to get a fair trial? I don't know anything about Swedish law. Are we talking about Aruba (eternal home of Natalie Holloway) or what?

He seems to think so. His lawyer says the case has been pursued improperly from the start. I'm not in a position to judge.

 

I suspect we will find out soon enough. If they are serious, they should have him in a few days.

 

It's a question of integrity. When a Republican politician is caught with his pants down in a men's bathroom, people have no problem swinging the integrity bat because he took a stand on integrity. Well, Julian Assange takes a stand on integrity -- it's his main motivation; the thing he says is missing from government that needs to be restored. So I have no problem questioning whether the man has any himself.

I thought he was about transparency, in which case showing his Johnson to as many people as possible is considered advancing his mission.

 

 

...just kidding. But where does Assange say integrity is the thing missing from government?

 

So... Sisyphus you gonna ask Cap'n whether he thinks this is a left or right issue?

It certainly seems to be a left issue in the blowing-Assange's-head-off part of the debate. But no matter who says it, I'm still very disturbed.

 

I think if we had run a thread prior to this asking whether a man can be charged with rape if he refuses to stop after the condom breaks, or because he takes it off during intercourse, the overwhelming response would have been that it's rape. You know what, I think we could run that thread NOW and get an overwhelming response of agreement with the charge. Let's find out.

I agree. An opinion poll should shed light on intricacies of Swedish law in the case of allegations that have not yet been fully explained or explored.

 

 

Also, I thought you had said way back on page 1 that you'd drop the sexual assault discussion because it's poisoning the well? Well, you said it was only doing what he does, but you don't have to descend to his perceived level. (Although the leaks have now advanced from mere gossip to more interesting things.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to think so. His lawyer says the case has been pursued improperly from the start. I'm not in a position to judge.

 

Well I have no problem with his lawyers asking those questions. And I have no problem with people being suspicious about the situation. That's just good sense.

 

 

I thought he was about transparency, in which case showing his Johnson to as many people as possible is considered advancing his mission.

 

:)

 

 

But where does Assange say integrity is the thing missing from government?

 

It's the opposition of corruption. These leaks are all about corruption. That's an integrity issue. He also stated in the Forbes interview that dave brought up that it's his primary motivation.

 

 

It certainly seems to be a left issue in the blowing-Assange's-head-off part of the debate. But no matter who says it, I'm still very disturbed.

 

I agree.

 

 

Also, I thought you had said way back on page 1 that you'd drop the sexual assault discussion because it's poisoning the well? Well, you said it was only doing what he does, but you don't have to descend to his perceived level.

 

I did drop it. I said that in post #16, and it didn't come up again until post #79. I blew it -- I thought you were saying he's too busy because he's on the lam. Way it goes sometimes.

 

But I am glad it came up again. People here seem to want to elevate Julian Assange to pretty lofty status, and in the process they seem to be saying that rape is less important than government corruption. I think that's worth exploring. It might have "poisoned the well" early on, but looking back I'd have to say this is a pretty solid thread that covers the subject very well.

 

I'm not going to dwell on it, but if anybody asks me a question I'll answer it. I tend to agree with you that we need to see how it plays out in court. The man is innocent until proven guilty, same as anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're the Internet. It's our job to judge people from our armchairs.

 

Video about the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180434/WikiLeaks-founder-facing-arrest-bid.html

 

Anyway, the latest leaks are about Yemen allowing the US to pursue Al-Qaeda, while publicly claiming it was their own work and they weren't letting the US intrude:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-yemen-us-attack-al-qaida

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikileaks violated PayPal policy, so PayPal dumps Wikileaks

 

December 3, 2010 PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.