Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Julian Assange - WikiLeaks Founder - arrested.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    You and I don't have much in common, but we have both had the opportunity to vote for a narcissistic sexual predator. Julian Assange stood for the Senate in my home state in 2013 & Donald Trump ran for President in the US in 2016. I made sure that I numbered over 100 boxes on my Senate ballot paper so that Assange would be the very last person on it. Took a while. You proudly voted for Trump.

    I guess only one of us has a problem with electing narcissistic sexual predators.
    You really are not in to evidence are you? But judging from your previous posts on Trump you are into conspiracy theories.

    BTW your opposition to Trump makes you a supporter of a "narcissistic sexual predator" because the only other choice was Bill Clinton's enabler.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BF69 View Post

      The investigation on the rape case was dropped but can be reopened as late as 2020 (the statute of limitations on the other case expired already). The lawyer for the lady in question has just petitioned the relevant Swedish authorities to do just that.

      If the Swedes reopen it I'm not sure who will get priority. Sweden might be able to argue that its charges expire soon and should get first shot. Lots of what ifs.

      Anyway, he is a sociopathic sexual predator whose narcissism has already burned most of his bridges, so I'm not much fussed which jail he ends up in.
      You really don't check into anything very deeply do you. You just one with your emotions.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

        You really don't check into anything very deeply do you. You just one with your emotions.
        Strange though it might seem,not all issues are seen through the prism the of the Trump/ Right Wing versus Democratic/ Liberal contest within the USA.
        "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
        Samuel Johnson.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

          Strange though it might seem,not all issues are seen through the prism the of the Trump/ Right Wing versus Democratic/ Liberal contest within the USA.
          It is about punishing the Whistle-blowers, instead of the criminals they reveal to us.

          And there is the fact that Wikileaks has never published anything that was ever proven to be false, so the rest of the media turns puke-green with envy every time the name comes up.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
            Slick,

            You can leave me out of the ALL. I took a dislike to Assange very, very early - as soon as it was clear that he was dumping unredacted information or information that could be useful to enemies of the West even if it was redacted. That involved some pretty fierce arguments within my own circle of friends. When the sexual assault allegations, cosying up to Putin & support for Trump came along I wasn't (and am not) very shy about shouting 'I told you so'. . . . .
            Really now, you shouldn't hold back. It's far healthier getting all of that off your chest.

            Several people here have stated that they're of two minds about Assange, or Wikileaks in general. I too share that kind of ambivalence. On the one hand, as you've stated, WikiLeaks does not at all concern themselves with the possible fallout from the releases. They're not at all worried that real breathing people might be hurt by some very bad dudes if/when that kind of information comes out. Indeed, given as how the bulk of their material seems to concern the US, it's fair to guess that WikiLeaks in general and Assange in particular are motivated not by an interest in small-d democracy, but by an overarching obsession with injuring the US and her interests. For them to characterize themselves as disinterested journalists is downright farcical: Wikileaks and Assange are most definitely partisan players, and as such, it's more than fair to call into question their motives, and their character, which from my point of view rate terribly low, indeed. Add to that the very history of "leaking," which we know has been a far from honorable act. Thos Jefferson -- as founder of the "anti-Federalist" Party -- lent an office within the State Dept to James Callender from which defamatory articles were written about various Federalist figures, including Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. J Edgar Hoover cultivated friendly journalists to whom he released carefully edited FBI files; based on those materials potentially compromising articles were published about all manner of notable figures, from US Senators to Martin Luther King. Judith Miller, the New York Times scribe who came to national prominence for shielding VP Cheney's chief-of-staff Scooter Libby as the leaker who revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a clandestine officer, put it this way:

            [Frontline:] People understand that if there's a whistleblower, someone who's got some information about wrongdoing or illegality going on, let's say, in the government, they need to be protected, obviously. There's even laws that protect them as whistleblowers. But what happens when it's not about whistleblowing, when there's another motive of the source? I'm speaking generally here.

            [Judith Miller:] Look, sources aren't saints, and we shouldn't expect them to be. People leak for all kinds of reasons. ... My job was to collect as much information as I could in order to discover where the truth lay, and that means getting information from all kinds of people. In Washington, officials discuss information like this every day. They spin it. They get their side of the story out. Reporters have to hear all of that in order to evaluate the information they have.

            Another point is that when you sit down to interview a source, say, if I'm interviewing you, I don't know what you're going to tell me. I don't know whether or not it's truthful or accurate. I don't even know why you may be telling me this, but I know that it's important that I hear it if I'm trying to write a story that's balanced and that's fair.

            So we can't begin to say I'm only going to issue pledges of confidentiality when politically I agree with the source, or I think the source isn't politically motivated. Almost all leaks of information are politically motivated.

            [Frontline:] But you're saying there's no gradations? There's no difference between your confidentiality pledge to a source who's got some ulterior motive versus someone who's taking risks to present information to the public?

            [Miller:] People are always taking risks when they're discussing classified information with reporters. Mark Felt, who was Deep Throat, were his motives entirely pure? Was he angry about the administration policy, the Nixon administration?

            My job is to evaluate motive when I'm actually writing a story. When I'm collecting information, I want to talk to as many different people as I can and hear as many different viewpoints as I can. That's tricky when the information you're dealing with is classified. But I can't begin to draw a boundary around information and sources based on their political views or whether or not I like what I'm hearing. ...

            "Interview with Judith Miller," Frontline, 13 Feb 2007


            In a nutshell, she's saying that she knows going in that leakers are using journalists to satisfy their interests, not the journalist's, and not the public's, and that in he role as a member of the Fourth Estate, she's going to rely on her judgement to determine if the leak is newsworthy. Such a stance is both stupid and insufferably arrogant -- but within journalism's precincts, it's the norm. They're no better than the government they're covering: each party claims to know best what the public should and should not know. The question that goes unasked, and unaswered, is how does a journalist acquire this God-like power, and how is a journalist's exercise of that power any different from any government official? From where I sit, there is no difference. It's all based on unmitigated arrogance -- and the need to serve particular interests, which themselves are almost never revealed to the public.

            The flip side of the coin is that our governments do what they do in our names. The US invaded Iraq and deposed her government -- and caused either directly or indirectly the deaths of thousands of allied personnel and Iraqi civilians -- in the American people's name. We've long known that the US Gov't's default position is to classify any material which may be remotely embarrassing to any elected or appointed official, so sadly, we need those leaks -- 'cause we know that those government weenies won't voluntarily come clean even when it's plain that they've royally fcked up. So we need one bunch of self-serving little sh*ts -- the leakers and their tools in the Fourth Estate -- to help keep us informed about the scumbags we've elected to lord over us, ie our government. This is a sad and pathehic way to carry on a great nation's business -- but alas, here we are.

            So while, like you, I find Assange detestable, I can't deny the fact that the albino turd actually serves a purpose. I guess it takes a dirtbag to report on dirtbags -- but at the same time, if Assanged happened to experience an "unfortunate accident" ( ) I wouldn't exactly start a flood with all of my tears, ether.

            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
            The willingness of people on the left to not only ignore the sexual assault allegations, but to attack the women involved has been disgraceful. It is sad that it took him supporting Trump for support to drop off (but by no means disappear). Conservative support for someone who hacked & leaked US secrets would be hypocritical of they actually had standards to transgress....but Trumpism is a reminder that there are no standards.
            Don't be so hard on Trump and his partisans. After all, they've had generations to learn from previous masters of the political art -- like the aforementioned Jefferson and Hamilton, FDR and J Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Colin Powell, etc, etc, etc. You didn't think that they came into this world as fully-formed scumbags, did you, like Athena from Zues' head? No sir, they had to learn that art, and you can't deny, that history is replete with some genuinely expert teachers. After all, it's an ancient art.

            The priestly elections, on motion of Labienus supported by Caesar, were again referred by the plebs to the people, contrary to the law of Sulla, but by a renewal of the law of Domitius. For Caesar at the death of Metellus Pius was eager for his priesthood, although he was young and had not yet served as praetor. Basing his hopes of it upon the multitude, therefore, especially because he had helped Labienus against Rabirius and had not voted for the death of Lentulus, he accomplished his purpose and was elected pontifex maximus, in spite of the fact that many others, and Catulus in particular, were his rivals for the honour. This was because he showed himself perfectly ready to serve and flatter everybody, even ordinary persons, and shrank from no speech or action in order to get possession of the objects for which he strove. He did not mind temporary grovelling when weighed against subsequent power, and he cringed as before superiors to the very men whom he was endeavouring to dominate. - Cassius Dio, Book XXXVI, Roman History

            Being as I'm American, I know best the US practitioners of political mendacity, but sadly I know little of Australia's. Can you fill this dumb Yank in on your country's proud history of crappola, so I'll be able to shake this damnable inferiority complex? Thanks, mate.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

              You really are not in to evidence are you? But judging from your previous posts on Trump you are into conspiracy theories.
              Conspiracy theories? Look in the mirror sparky. You are the one obsessed with Marxist. I swear you could uncover a 'cultural Marxist' at an Ayn Rand convention. You just start from a (very stupid) conclusion and work backwards.

              BTW your opposition to Trump makes you a supporter of a "narcissistic sexual predator" because the only other choice was Bill Clinton's enabler.
              I am unaware of any allegations that Hilary Clinton sexually harassed or raped anyone. Not one. As that is the definition of 'sexual predator' then she does not qualify. I know, proper definitions are irritating. making stuff up is much more fun - you are no into evidence, are you? Trump is the subject of over a dozen such allegations and even brags about grabbing women. Clearly none of that bothers you. No great surprise there.

              Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                You really don't check into anything very deeply do you. You just one with your emotions.
                You just randomly say stuff, don't you. Do the nurses at the facility you are in get upset when you do it there? Clearly they need to increase your dose.
                Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                  Several people here have stated that they're of two minds about Assange, or Wikileaks in general. I too share that kind of ambivalence. On the one hand, as you've stated, WikiLeaks does not at all concern themselves with the possible fallout from the releases. They're not at all worried that real breathing people might be hurt by some very bad dudes if/when that kind of information comes out. Indeed, given as how the bulk of their material seems to concern the US, it's fair to guess that WikiLeaks in general and Assange in particular are motivated not by an interest in small-d democracy, but by an overarching obsession with injuring the US and her interests. For them to characterize themselves as disinterested journalists is downright farcical: Wikileaks and Assange are most definitely partisan players, and as such, it's more than fair to call into question their motives, and their character, which from my point of view rate terribly low, indeed.
                  There is zero doubt that Assange's motivations are heavily politicised. He is one of those sad individuals obsessed with how evil Western society is (in his case the left wing version of that obsession). It is no accident that the stuff that appears there is only directed at certain players. Despite supposedly being a platform for any & all leaks, there is a stark absence of material from Russia, China etc. America & other Western nations might get angry, but the folks in Moscow & Beijing will get you dead.


                  In a nutshell, she's saying that she knows going in that leakers are using journalists to satisfy their interests, not the journalist's, and not the public's, and that in he role as a member of the Fourth Estate, she's going to rely on her judgement to determine if the leak is newsworthy. Such a stance is both stupid and insufferably arrogant -- but within journalism's precincts, it's the norm. They're no better than the government they're covering: each party claims to know best what the public should and should not know. The question that goes unasked, and unaswered, is how does a journalist acquire this God-like power, and how is a journalist's exercise of that power any different from any government official? From where I sit, there is no difference. It's all based on unmitigated arrogance -- and the need to serve particular interests, which themselves are almost never revealed to the public.
                  Just to be clear, whatever Assange is, he isn't a journalist. Don't believe me? Peter Greste spent time in an Egyptian jail for simply being a reporter for Al Jazeera. He also offers examples of how information such as that Assange had should be dealt with:

                  To be clear, Julian Assange is not a journalist, and WikiLeaks is not a news organisation. There is an argument to be had about the libertarian ideal of radical transparency that underpins its ethos, but that is a separate issue altogether from press freedom........

                  Instead of sorting through the hundreds of thousands of files to seek out the most important or relevant and protect the innocent, he dumped them all onto his website, free for anybody to go through, regardless of their contents or the impact they might have had. Some exposed the names of Afghans who had been giving information on the Taliban to US forces.

                  Journalism demands more than simply acquiring confidential information and releasing it unfiltered onto the internet for punters to sort through. It comes with responsibility.
                  https://www.smh.com.au/national/assa...12-p51di1.html


                  The flip side of the coin is that our governments do what they do in our names. The US invaded Iraq and deposed her government -- and caused either directly or indirectly the deaths of thousands of allied personnel and Iraqi civilians -- in the American people's name. We've long known that the US Gov't's default position is to classify any material which may be remotely embarrassing to any elected or appointed official, so sadly, we need those leaks -- 'cause we know that those government weenies won't voluntarily come clean even when it's plain that they've royally fcked up. So we need one bunch of self-serving little sh*ts -- the leakers and their tools in the Fourth Estate -- to help keep us informed about the scumbags we've elected to lord over us, ie our government. This is a sad and pathehic way to carry on a great nation's business -- but alas, here we are.

                  So while, like you, I find Assange detestable, I can't deny the fact that the albino turd actually serves a purpose. I guess it takes a dirtbag to report on dirtbags -- but at the same time, if Assanged happened to experience an "unfortunate accident" ( ) I wouldn't exactly start a flood with all of my tears, ether.
                  There aren't any easy answers here. There is certainly an important role for whistleblowers, and there is information Assange acquired that should be in the public space (same with Snowden). However, it needs to be done responsibly. There are innocent individuals who can and do get hurt. There are soldiers & others trying to do the right thing who can be put in danger. There are worse things out there than the US, and simply doing harm to US interests for the sake of it helps no one.


                  Don't be so hard on Trump and his partisans. After all, they've had generations to learn from previous masters of the political art -- like the aforementioned Jefferson and Hamilton, FDR and J Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Colin Powell, etc, etc, etc. You didn't think that they came into this world as fully-formed scumbags, did you, like Athena from Zues' head? No sir, they had to learn that art, and you can't deny, that history is replete with some genuinely expert teachers. After all, it's an ancient art.
                  What I find fascinating is the total abandonment of any shred of principle simply to support Trump. I say fascinating rather than surprising.

                  Being as I'm American, I know best the US practitioners of political mendacity, but sadly I know little of Australia's. Can you fill this dumb Yank in on your country's proud history of crappola, so I'll be able to shake this damnable inferiority complex? Thanks, mate.
                  A conversation for another day mate. The short version is that we have and have had our share of dodgy politicians, but you guys win by the length of the straight - there is no Australian equivalent to the 1876 election, for instance. Rather than feeling inferior you should take it as more evidence of that 'exceptionalism' some of your bretheren cling to like a child to a stuffed toy.

                  We might be descended from convicts, but we evolved. Your lot seem to have gone backwards from the Mayflower,
                  Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X