Assange! Free at last!

[Strange]

With all the crazy nonsense in the world today, I am glad to see that Ecuador have finally got sick of the obnoxious troll they had hidden in a broom cupboard, and thrown him out.

Of course his pathetic squab of a lawyer was on the radio today blathering on about "house arrest" and other drivel. Hopefully, with a defence lawyer of such intellectual vapidity Assange will soon be behind bars properly, instead of hiding himself away. At least he will have to look after his personal hygiene in prison.

[koti]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

With all the crazy nonsense in the world today, I am glad to see that Ecuador have finally got sick of the obnoxious troll they had hidden in a broom cupboard, and thrown him out.

Of course his pathetic squab of a lawyer was on the radio today blathering on about "house arrest" and other drivel. Hopefully, with a defence lawyer of such intellectual vapidity Assange will soon be behind bars properly, instead of hiding himself away. At least he will have to look after his personal hygiene in prison.

Isn't Putin waiting for him with open arms? 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

Isn't Putin waiting for him with open arms? 

No. Just lots of burly police officers to manhandle him onto the police bus. It looked like they were trying to arrest a drunken and angry old tramp.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. Just lots of burly police officers to manhandle him onto the police bus. It looked like they were trying to arrest a drunken and angry old tramp.

 

me.

[koti]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. Just lots of burly police officers to manhandle him onto the police bus. It looked like they were trying to arrest a drunken and angry old tramp.

Do you think the sexual assault charges are real or part of the pollitical game?

[Strange]

Just now, koti said:

Do you think the sexual assault charges are real or part of the pollitical game?

I am absolutely certain they are real. (Whether he is guilty or not is another question. That will be up to the courts to decide if Sweden decide to reinstate the case and request to extradite him.)

[koti]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I am absolutely certain they are real. (Whether he is guilty or not is another question. That will be up to the courts to decide if Sweden decide to reinstate the case and request to extradite him.)

Its been many years but I recall US being pissed at him for taking refuge in that embassy and suddenly the sexual charges appeared from nowhere. I never followed this whole case closely but back then 7 or 8 years ago it seemed fairly obvious that the charges were cooked to help the US het rid of a very serious security pain which he was/is. He should be put in front of a court for thinking hes above laws and deciding to compromise others’ lives for publicity but the sexual charges looked shady at least from what I remember years ago.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

Its been many years but I recall US being pissed at him for taking refuge in that embassy and suddenly the sexual charges appeared from nowhere. I never followed this whole case closely but back then 7 or 8 years ago it seemed fairly obvious that the charges were cooked to help the US het rid of a very serious security pain which he was/is. He should be put in front of a court for thinking hes above laws and deciding to compromise others’ lives for publicity but the sexual charges looked shady at least from what I remember years ago.

The reason he hid is because he had been arrested by the UK police at the request of the Swedish police, on two charges (one of rape and one of sexual assault). He was given bail but when the court said he should be extradited to Sweden he ran away to hide and began crying about injustice and how it was all so unfair.

After all an arrogant, lying **** who bullies people and uses secret information for his own political purposes (under the pretence of "freedom") is not the sort of person who would rape a woman, surely.

[koti]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

The reason he hid is because he had been arrested by the UK police at the request of the Swedish police, on two charges (one of rape and one of sexual assault). He was given bail but when the court said he should be extradited to Sweden he ran away to hide and began crying about injustice and how it was all so unfair.

After all an arrogant, lying **** who bullies people and uses secret information for his own political purposes (under the pretence of "freedom") is not the sort of person who would rape a woman, surely.

I see that there is a special, cozy place in your heart for Assange  

I won’t be crying after him, he always seemed a manipulative publicity craving freak who thinks is a superhero. Didn’t he have his own TV show for some Russian TV channel some time ago? 

[Strange]

He has been arrested by the UK police now for jumping bail.

In 2012,Assange said he would willingly be extradited to the US if they showed clemency to Manning (who originally leaked the US documents). When Manning was released a few months later, Assange did the noble thing and hid behind the sofa.

He then threatened to take legal action against the Government of Ecuador because they told him he had to clean his room, look after his cat properly, and stop trying to look in their secret files. Like any self-respecting 12 year old, he threw a tantrum.

 

I can see why conspiracy theorists and assorted nutcases might look up to him, but he seems to have fooled all sorts of otherwise sensible liberal and left-leaning activists. It's not even as if he comes across as charming and persuasive in interviews. He is even less likeable and believable than Trump. 

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, koti said:

Its been many years but I recall US being pissed at him for taking refuge in that embassy and suddenly the sexual charges appeared from nowhere. I never followed this whole case closely but back then 7 or 8 years ago it seemed fairly obvious that the charges were cooked to help the US het rid of a very serious security pain which he was/is. He should be put in front of a court for thinking hes above laws and deciding to compromise others’ lives for publicity but the sexual charges looked shady at least from what I remember years ago.

The charges predate his request for asylum. They did not "appear from nowhere"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11681502/Why-is-Julian-Assange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html

[Sensei]

52 minutes ago, koti said:

Its been many years but I recall US being pissed at him for taking refuge in that embassy and suddenly the sexual charges appeared from nowhere. I never followed this whole case closely but back then 7 or 8 years ago it seemed fairly obvious that the charges were cooked to help the US het rid of a very serious security pain which he was/is. He should be put in front of a court for thinking hes above laws and deciding to compromise others’ lives for publicity but the sexual charges looked shady at least from what I remember years ago. 

Details you have described here:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Testimony could be summarized to "having "the world's worst sex ever" without condom, and unwilling to make STD (sexual transmitted diseases) tests"..

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

I am also really upset with the UN, who usually do good work, for being fooled into believing he was being detained against his will. 

If someone escapes from the police, breaks into a house, takes the family hostage, and then starts shooting at the police who come to arrest him, is he doing that against his will? "They made me do it, ma"

[Carrock]

A few other points worth mentioning.

 

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

The charges predate his request for asylum. They did not "appear from nowhere"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11681502/Why-is-Julian-Assange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html

From that reference

Quote

There are no charges against him in the US, although he fears he could be put on trial for espionage.

Yet The Washington Post reported in 2013 that the Justice Department had concluded there was no way it could prosecute him.

.........

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that they would not believe any assurances "short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the US government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks".

 

The U.K. government is now considering a U.S. extradition request re computer hacking or similar. Maximum jail time would be five years, unless U.K. agrees to other charges after extradition, which is not unlikely.

Chelsea Manning, having had her sentence commuted by Obama, is now back in jail for an indefinite time.

It seems to have been almost forgotten that many instances of torture, murder of civilians and various other war crimes would likely have remained hidden without Manning and Assange. Possibly such crimes are now rarer because of Wikileaks. OTOH the U.S. has stated some people were put in danger by the leaks.

 

There's a lot I don't like about Assange, but there is so much disinformation around that much of what I believe about him is likely wrong.

(Even the BBC got the reason for extradition wrong.)

[rangerx]

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I can see why conspiracy theorists and assorted nutcases might look up to him, but he seems to have fooled all sorts of otherwise sensible liberal and left-leaning activists. It's not even as if he comes across as charming and persuasive in interviews. He is even less likeable and believable than Trump. 

I never liked Assange from the get go. He took whistle blowing to the corrupt extreme. He literally cajoled Manning to hack access to the servers, then stole 10's of thousands of documents from the US govt.

When he didn't get his way exploiting it, hid behind a faith based sanctuary to thwart extradition on other charges then colluded with Russian interests and subsequently divulged emails hacked from the DNC during an election cycle.

By his own admission, it's espionage and treasonous. No less on the very same day then candidate Trump called for him to do just that again, but with Clinton email as well.

Trump doesn't seem all that keen on bringing him back.

[rangerx]

Edit- Assange was holed up in an embassy, not a church. My error.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

I never liked Assange from the get go. He took whistle blowing to the corrupt extreme. He literally cajoled Manning to hack access to the servers, then stole 10's of thousands of documents from the US govt.

Whistle-blowing, at least for US government people, has a specific meaning. It is reporting behavior to the proper government authority. You are then protected from retaliation for having brought illegal behavior to light. From that standpoint, none of this was whistle-blowing. It was stealing and leaking classified information.

That is correcting/clarifying terminology, not making a value judgement about whether it was the right thing to do, or whether the whistleblower system works properly (IMO it doesn't) 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Whistle-blowing, at least for US government people, has a specific meaning. It is reporting behavior to the proper government authority. You are then protected from retaliation for having brought illegal behavior to light. From that standpoint, none of this was whistle-blowing. It was stealing and leaking classified information.

I think that is an important distinction.

Whistle-blowing can (or should) apply more widely; for example, employees who report illegal behaviour in a company should perhaps be protected in the same way. However, this does not give them the right to release arbitrary company secrets or confidential information. 

The problem with Wikileaks is they are not "information freedom fighters" who think that all information should be open to everyone, they are a dishonest political group who steal information and then choose what to release (and when) for their own ends. 

Ironically, when Assange wanted to satisfy his ego by having a biography written, he got very upset when the biographer wanted to include information that Assange wanted to keep secret.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think that is an important distinction.

Whistle-blowing can (or should) apply more widely; for example, employees who report illegal behaviour in a company should perhaps be protected in the same way. However, this does not give them the right to release arbitrary company secrets or confidential information. 

The problem with Wikileaks is they are not "information freedom fighters" who think that all information should be open to everyone, they are a dishonest political group who steal information and then choose what to release (and when) for their own ends. 

Ironically, when Assange wanted to satisfy his ego by having a biography written, he got very upset when the biographer wanted to include information that Assange wanted to keep secret.

He who lives by the sword...

[LaurieAG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenín_Moreno#De-Correization

[Sensei]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Whistle-blowing, at least for US government people, has a specific meaning. It is reporting behavior to the proper government authority. You are then protected from retaliation for having brought illegal behavior to light. From that standpoint, none of this was whistle-blowing. It was stealing and leaking classified information. 

That's quite absurdist.. Suppose so somebody learn that politician ordered killing somebody from foreign country or locally.. Attempt to report it to the government, who is actually behind the whole crime, would just mean that such "whistle-blower" would be killed, "have accident" or disappear or blackmailed.. For lighter crime of somebody from government, "whistle-blower" would be discredited in advance or blackmailed..

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Whistle-blowing can (or should) apply more widely; for example, employees who report illegal behaviour in a company should perhaps be protected in the same way.

That's also pretty naive.. about what protections are you thinking? Against being fired from company, I suppose so.. ?

if somebody is reporting illegal actions in his/her company should ASAP leave it.. and then report it to government..

Employee ex-whistle-blower could be easily being discredited by employer and/or colleagues from workplace, e.g. illegal material could be uploaded and found on his/her computers, stolen from company items or money and tossed to his/her personal locker and/or shelf.. etc. etc.

 

[Endy0816]

16 minutes ago, Sensei said:

That's quite absurdist.. Suppose so somebody learn that politician ordered killing somebody from foreign country or locally.. Attempt to report it to the government, who is actually behind the whole crime, would just mean that such "whistle-blower" would be killed, "have accident" or disappear or blackmailed.. For lighter crime of somebody from government, "whistle-blower" would be discredited in advance or blackmailed..

Not the whole US government or would not be much of a secret.

They should have exhausted legal means first.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Endy0816

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

That's quite absurdist.. Suppose so somebody learn that politician ordered killing somebody from foreign country or locally.. Attempt to report it to the government, who is actually behind the whole crime, would just mean that such "whistle-blower" would be killed, "have accident" or disappear or blackmailed.. For lighter crime of somebody from government, "whistle-blower" would be discredited in advance or blackmailed..

 

It is absurd to believe that "the government" acts with one mind, and that the inevitable outcome is likely death.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's also pretty naive.. about what protections are you thinking? Against being fired from company, I suppose so.. ?

if somebody is reporting illegal actions in his/her company should ASAP leave it.. and then report it to government..

Why should they have to leave? 

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Employee ex-whistle-blower could be easily being discredited by employer and/or colleagues from workplace, e.g. illegal material could be uploaded and found on his/her computers, stolen from company items or money and tossed to his/her personal locker and/or shelf.. etc. etc.

That's why you need laws to protect them. Sheesh.

[Sensei]

Just now, Strange said:

Why should they have to leave? 

..to not end up in jail.. ? like in the example that I just gave....

After revealing criminal/misbehave activity of employer and/or co-worker, environment in which they would work would be extremely unpleasant and hostile..

Working in such environment would be unhealthy.

 

Didn't you hear about e.g. police officers who shot their partners, after they revealed misbehaving on duty?

Here you have similar (quite extreme) case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt

whistle-blower was discredited, and then fired from LAPD. Outraged started murdering police officers in revenge..

Just now, Strange said:

That's why you need laws to protect them. Sheesh. 

How can you protect somebody against criminals tossing illegal things for revenge for revealing their criminal activity.. ??