• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
(04-21-2017, 12:22 PM)
mattiewheels's Avatar
I get why GAF turned on Assange, but I see the same apprehension about Snowden as well lately. Is that purely because of association with Russia?
hydrophilic attack
(04-21-2017, 12:25 PM)
hydrophilic attack's Avatar

Originally Posted by mattiewheels

I get why GAF turned on Assange, but I see the same apprehension about Snowden as well lately. Is that purely because of association with Russia?

It's because of "go my country", and being brought up in a country where kids recite a pledge to a flag every morning in school. Leadership says Snowden is an enemy, so now he is an enemy
DrROBschiz
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:25 PM)
DrROBschiz's Avatar

Originally Posted by mattiewheels

I get why GAF turned on Assange, but I see the same apprehension about Snowden as well lately. Is that purely because of association with Russia?

Its just.....

too many coincidences

With so much of our recent politics and government unrest linked to Russia in some form its hard to grasp the big picture

I mean Maybe the simple explanation is that russia dips its fingers when it sees an opportunity to stick it to the US
aeolist
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:27 PM)
aeolist's Avatar
it's honestly disturbing how many liberals here and elsewhere have basically become infowars-level conspiracy theorists since the election
Dopus
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:27 PM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by DrROBschiz

ok so seeking asylum in russia is just a coincidence?

Im not saying Snowden is involved but Russia happily taking him in to undermine American interests seems part and parcel to whatever his long term plans are

His passport was revoked when he landed in Russia. He was on his way to Cuba. He was forced to stay and Russia then granted him political asylum. It's not as if he had a choice. This has been well documented.

Snowden didn't take anything with him. He also doesn't have the means to decrypt anything if that's the next question you're going to ask. Everything was passed on with considerable care to Greenwald and co.

Why would Russia hand him over to the United States? What exactly do they get out of that? It makes sense politically to offer asylum to someone with a favourable public image, especially someone like Edward Snowden.
Darryl M R
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:28 PM)
Darryl M R's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

It's because of "go my country", and being brought up in a country where kids recite a pledge to a flag every morning in school. Leadership says Snowden is an enemy, so now he is an enemy

Are you arguing that a large amount of GAF members are nationalists?
hydrophilic attack
(04-21-2017, 12:30 PM)
hydrophilic attack's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

Are you arguing that a large amount of GAF members are nationalists?

I'm arguing they are American
Darryl M R
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:35 PM)
Darryl M R's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

I'm arguing they are American

So you are saying nothing.
KernelPanic
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:36 PM)
KernelPanic's Avatar

Originally Posted by mattiewheels

I get why GAF turned on Assange, but I see the same apprehension about Snowden as well lately. Is that purely because of association with Russia?

Snowden is full of shit. Read what his former boss said about him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-boss-is.html

Amazing how the whole media hyped him up to be some sort of hero when he exaggerated his experience, failed a basic test to get access to the data he leaked in the first place(and still tweets about like he's some expert).

And Assange is full of shit. So called whistleblower hero leaks personal emails, voicemails, exposes LGBT but if info leaks on Putin's billions hidden offshore then oh no that's a bad thing.
Last edited by KernelPanic; 04-21-2017 at 12:38 PM.
Rktk
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:44 PM)
Rktk's Avatar

Originally Posted by KernelPanic

Snowden is full of shit. Read what his former boss said about him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-boss-is.html

Amazing how the whole media hyped him up to be some sort of hero when he exaggerated his experience, failed a basic test to get access to the data he leaked in the first place(and still tweets about like he's some expert).

The information that got out was the information, I don't see how confliciting opinion changes that or isn't complete horseshit itself. Are you arguing that the leak was a bad thing, and did you at one time think it was a good thing? Or is this just you aren't a fan of Snowden's tweets?
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 12:46 PM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

It's because of "go my country", and being brought up in a country where kids recite a pledge to a flag every morning in school. Leadership says Snowden is an enemy, so now he is an enemy

Not sure if that's really all that true. I remember US liberals in general being very pro-Snowden and Wikileaks in the beginning. Hell, even Anon had close to folk hero status for a brief while after the news broke just by the whole digital vigilante thing they had going. It didn't really start going downhill until Assange acted suspicious around the rape charges, because of how closely Snowden, Assange and Wikileaks had become tied in people's minds, but even then many people - including on GAF - still supported him and Wikileaks.

The real turnover, in my opinion, was the election. That's when a lot of liberals started viewing Assange as an outright enemy because of the Hilary leaks. It's made even worse by how a very large subset of people blame the leaks and Russia for the election going the way it did; the general attitude towards leaks seem to have been altered altogether. GAF's collective attitude towards Assange is basically a polar opposite today compared to four years ago and Snowden's reputation has suffered both by proxy, and by the renewed hostility towards Russia among liberals combining with the way Snowden is considered tied to the Russian government.

Tldr, it's a bit more complicated than just patriotism.
hydrophilic attack
(04-21-2017, 12:47 PM)
hydrophilic attack's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl M R

So you are saying nothing.

No, I'm saying that the anti-Snowden sentiments come from toxic patriotism, which is very common in the US

Originally Posted by Nivash

Not sure if that's really all that true. I remember US liberals in general being very pro-Snowden and Wikileaks in the beginning. Hell, even Anon had close to folk hero status for a brief while after the news broke just by the whole digital vigilante thing they had going. It didn't really start going downhill until Assange acted suspicious around the rape charges, because of how closely Snowden, Assange and Wikileaks had become tied in people's minds, but even then many people - including on GAF - still supported him and Wikileaks.

The real turnover, in my opinion, was the election. That's when a lot of liberals started viewing Assange as an outright enemy because of the Hilary leaks. It's made even worse by how a very large subset of people blame the leaks and Russia for the election going the way it did; the general attitude towards leaks seem to have been altered altogether. GAF's collective attitude towards Assange is basically a polar opposite today compared to four years ago and Snowden's reputation has suffered both by proxy, and by the renewed hostility towards Russia among liberals combining with the way Snowden is considered tied to the Russian government.

Tldr, it's a bit more complicated than just patriotism.

It is somewhat reasonable that attitudes changed towards Assange after the election, but Snowden had nearly nothing to do with that.

Sure, maybe people conflate the two, or associate them with each other, but that is pretty baseless.

"My side" excessive political partisanship may play a role as well. There are a lot of Democrats on GAF (for good reason of course) but some of them follow the party line maybe a bit too closely. The leaks reflected badly on the Obama administration. When the Obama administration was against Snowden, they had to be as well. Had Snowden leaked the same stuff under W. Bush, some of these people would probably have a different opinion of him
Last edited by hydrophilic attack; 04-21-2017 at 01:00 PM.
SummitAve
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:48 PM)

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

No, I'm saying that the anti-Snowden sentiments come from toxic patriotism, which is very common in the US

You don't think there is fair criticism of Snowden, and it's just toxic patriotism?
KernelPanic
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:52 PM)
KernelPanic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rktk

The information that got out was the information, I don't see how confliciting opinion changes that or isn't complete horseshit itself. Are you arguing that the leak was a bad thing, and did you at one time think it was a good thing? Or is this just you aren't a fan of Snowden's tweets?

You can support the disclosure of illegal surveillance(I do) and still question the motives of how/why it was obtained as well as the credibility of the leaker. Two different things.

Not much different than the DNC emails really.

As for his tweets I deleted him after his dumb comments during the election.
DJKhaled
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:56 PM)
DJKhaled's Avatar
Was once a big supporter of him and wikileaks but he can go fuck himself. He is an egomaniac that turned into a Russian puppet this election. Funny that he wanted Trump to be president and now this.
MisterFalcon
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:57 PM)
MisterFalcon's Avatar
In the early days of Wikileaks it was thought leaking, encryption, cryptocurrency, tor, vpn and all the other technical stuff was going to be to be the end of dictatorships worldwide. But as it turned out the tyrants are better able to use those tools against democracies then the other way round. And the prophets of this new age are now the devils.
hydrophilic attack
(04-21-2017, 12:58 PM)
hydrophilic attack's Avatar

Originally Posted by SummitAve

You don't think there is fair criticism of Snowden, and it's just toxic patriotism?

The information he leaked needed to get out there. Maybe some details about how he did it could have been done better (I'm not familiar with all of it) but overall he did what had to be done.

It's so interesting to see how people get played like a fiddle by the anti-Snowden propaganda. USA stopped him from being able to leave Russia, and suddenly him being in Russia is all the proof needed to know without a doubt that he is a Russian tool. Give me a break
Rktk
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:02 PM)
Rktk's Avatar

Originally Posted by KernelPanic

You can support the disclosure of illegal surveillance(I do) and still question the motives of how/why it was obtained as well as the credibility of the leaker. Two different things.

Not much different than the DNC emails really.

There is no proof or even a hard claim from the US government that Snowden was aided by an outside state or that he had any help in gathering the information. That's most unlike the DNC email hack, which was (as far as US govt is concerned) carried out by Russia in order to interfere with the election.

It's also worth remembering that Snowden handed what he had to reputable journalists to disseminate the information, he got out of the way. While I can understand one questioning his motives the fact is he gave up control of the information he had at the earliest opportunity.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(04-21-2017, 01:04 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

It's because of "go my country", and being brought up in a country where kids recite a pledge to a flag every morning in school. Leadership says Snowden is an enemy, so now he is an enemy

Yeah, we are all just brainwashed. You got it. Nice argument.
Last edited by Kyzer; 04-21-2017 at 01:09 PM.
Incognito
Troll
(04-21-2017, 01:08 PM)
Incognito's Avatar
must have upset daddy
KernelPanic
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:13 PM)
KernelPanic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rktk

There is no proof or even a hard claim from the US government that Snowden was aided by an outside state or that he had any help in gathering the information. That's most unlike the DNC email hack, which was (as far as US govt is concerned) carried out by Russia in order to interfere with the election.

It's also worth remembering that Snowden handed what he had to reputable journalists to disseminate the information, he got out of the way. While I can understand one questioning his motives the fact is he gave up control of the information he had at the earliest opportunity.

Snowden's boss said he didn't have access to (nor understand of) domestic surveillance programs and he failed an open book exam in order to get access. Which indicates someone else got him the data. He was just the courier.

As for the DNC emails I was more referring to people and media jumping all over a story about leaks without wondering who leaked it and why.

As for reputable journalists, Greenwald seems like a nut to me.
Last edited by KernelPanic; 04-21-2017 at 01:21 PM.
jim-jam bongs
most certainly will not be getting forcibly fucked by a gigantic canoe
(04-21-2017, 01:25 PM)
jim-jam bongs's Avatar

Originally Posted by SuperEpicMan

So there is no situation where you would take a word of what she says seriously?

After she called the "yo Wendy's how many retweets do I need to get free nuggets for a year lol" guy a Russian plant?

No, there is literally zero chance I would ever take her seriously.

p.s. That is just one example of how unhinged and insane Louise Mensch is, don't interpret that as my breaking point it's just a really good example of her ridiculous derangement.
Rktk
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:28 PM)
Rktk's Avatar

Originally Posted by KernelPanic

Snowden's boss said he didn't have access to (nor understand of) domestic surveillance programs and he failed an open book exam in order to get access. Which indicates someone else got him the data. He was just the courier.

And yet nothing of the sort was claimed prior to 2016 by the US government. If the intelligence services felt strongly enough that Snowden was aided they would have said so around, I don't know, December 2012. They didn't then and they aren't now, all we have are aspersions.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(04-21-2017, 01:28 PM)
boiled goose's Avatar
As much as assange is a sleazebag, something about the charges makes me uncomfortable.

Let's say a journalist gets access to classified material that exposes war crimes or constitutional violations. Can they be charged for publishing it?

Is this different from the situation above? How?
jim-jam bongs
most certainly will not be getting forcibly fucked by a gigantic canoe
(04-21-2017, 01:30 PM)
jim-jam bongs's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

it's honestly disturbing how many liberals here and elsewhere have basically become infowars-level conspiracy theorists since the election

Honestly, liberals are trash. The real left has the luxury of not having many people to cheerlead for, so we're still crazy cynical; that's a gift in our current climate where 99% of the shit going around is total partisan lunacy, because we don't have a horse in these races.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(04-21-2017, 01:34 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose

As much as assange is a sleazebag, something about the charges makes me uncomfortable.

Let's say a journalist gets access to classified material that exposes war crimes or constitutional violations. Can they be charged for publishing it?

Is this different from the situation above? How?

either they found a difference in this case or we have something to be worried about I guess
Xe4
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:46 PM)
Xe4's Avatar

Originally Posted by Green Yoshi

What does this mean for Chelsea Manning?

Nothing. She's already been commuted by Obama. Served her time and is now a free person (or will be soon).
Dopus
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:49 PM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by KernelPanic

Snowden's boss said he didn't have access to (nor understand of) domestic surveillance programs and he failed an open book exam in order to get access. Which indicates someone else got him the data. He was just the courier.

As for the DNC emails I was more referring to people and media jumping all over a story about leaks without wondering who leaked it and why.

As for reputable journalists, Greenwald seems like a nut to me.

Yes, because the NSA and the House Intelligence Committee have no agenda here.

I mean, the article you linked stated that either Snowden or his former boss was lying. You're jumping to all sorts of conclusions here.

And Greenwald did a fantastic job covering the leak. He's a great journalist.
Chumly
Power Girl's bosom
gives me strength
(04-21-2017, 01:51 PM)

Originally Posted by Nivash

Not sure if that's really all that true. I remember US liberals in general being very pro-Snowden and Wikileaks in the beginning. Hell, even Anon had close to folk hero status for a brief while after the news broke just by the whole digital vigilante thing they had going. It didn't really start going downhill until Assange acted suspicious around the rape charges, because of how closely Snowden, Assange and Wikileaks had become tied in people's minds, but even then many people - including on GAF - still supported him and Wikileaks.

The real turnover, in my opinion, was the election. That's when a lot of liberals started viewing Assange as an outright enemy because of the Hilary leaks. It's made even worse by how a very large subset of people blame the leaks and Russia for the election going the way it did; the general attitude towards leaks seem to have been altered altogether. GAF's collective attitude towards Assange is basically a polar opposite today compared to four years ago and Snowden's reputation has suffered both by proxy, and by the renewed hostility towards Russia among liberals combining with the way Snowden is considered tied to the Russian government.

Tldr, it's a bit more complicated than just patriotism.

The turnover started far before the election. Wikileaks has been peddling conspiracy theories, outright bullshit for years now which really turned people against them. That coupled with the fact that they refuse to release leaks on Russia makes people think they are just a propaganda arm of the Russia government which is exactly what they are.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:52 PM)

Originally Posted by aeolist

it's honestly disturbing how many liberals here and elsewhere have basically become infowars-level conspiracy theorists since the election

It's worse, because they actually want to use state power. Alex Jones just wants to sell snake oil products.

It seems the US is prepared to drop the pretense about the Swedish rape allegations and go straight for Assange's journalism activities. I don't see how you can be a liberal while cheering that.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:54 PM)

Originally Posted by boiled goose

As much as assange is a sleazebag, something about the charges makes me uncomfortable.

Let's say a journalist gets access to classified material that exposes war crimes or constitutional violations. Can they be charged for publishing it?

Is this different from the situation above? How?

If the rape allegations are true (Swedish prosecutors interviewed Assange in November and still no charges filed after 7 years), I agree he's a "sleaze". If not, what are you basing this slander on?
Chumly
Power Girl's bosom
gives me strength
(04-21-2017, 01:59 PM)
LOL calling assange a sleaze is fucking slander now? You guys are too much sometimes.
FreedomFighter
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:02 PM)
FreedomFighter's Avatar
We don't want anymore of our dirty laundry out in the open! Lock him up!
boiled goose
good with gravy
(04-21-2017, 02:07 PM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

If the rape allegations are true (Swedish prosecutors interviewed Assange in November and still no charges filed after 7 years), I agree he's a "sleaze". If not, what are you basing this slander on?

He seems to have had a clear agenda that skewed from desire for truth.

Ultimately, sleaze or not, I care about whether he should be charged or not.

Originally Posted by FreedomFighter

We don't want anymore of our dirty laundry out in the open! Lock him up!

See. This is dangerous. If my government is violation our constitutional liberties our committing war crimes, I want to know.

Both of these were exposed by leaks.
MisterFalcon
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:08 PM)
MisterFalcon's Avatar
The lack of dirty laundry on Russia just proves how clean they are ! If we would get any dirt we'd publish it but there is simply nothing shady to report on !
boiled goose
good with gravy
(04-21-2017, 02:09 PM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterFalcon

The lack of dirty laundry on Russia just proves how clean they are ! If we would get any dirt we'd publish it but there is simply nothing shady to report on !

I agree That assange seems to have an agenda. Does that mean be should be charged because he makes one side look bad?
aeolist
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:11 PM)
aeolist's Avatar
i think there's a pretty clear dividing line between the documents that wikileaks releases and the statements that they've made as an organization (i.e. tweets from @wikileaks).

the twitter feed has definitely had an agenda and has fed into deranged conspiracy theories like pizzagate, but as far as i know everything they've released on the site has been genuine. also accusing them of withholding leaks damaging to putin and russia seems questionable since we'd have no way of knowing whether they have access to any info along those lines in the first place. again, they do not obtain these leaked documents themselves but simply release what is given to them.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 02:14 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

If the rape allegations are true (Swedish prosecutors interviewed Assange in November and still no charges filed after 7 years), I agree he's a "sleaze". If not, what are you basing this slander on?

The interview (conducted primarily by Ecuadorian officials) produced a report written in Spanish that needed to be translated. It's hundreds of pages and being a legal document takes a very long time to translate.

He, according to multiple courts, is at a stage in the Swedish legal process equivalent to being charged in most western justice systems. The European arrest warrant would never have been issued if he wasn't.
FreedomFighter
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:16 PM)
FreedomFighter's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose

See. This is dangerous. If my government is violation our constitutional liberties our committing war crimes, I want to know.

Both of these were exposed by leaks.

Bruh... I'm being 100% sarcastic here - and basically mocking the people who think this is good news.

I'm assuming said folks are just still salty over Hillary loss... or hate Assange the person that it doesn't matter that the organization is batting .1000 with content made public... or, worse yet, they think US should be able to do heinous shit and the public be in the dark about it.

It's prob a combination of all three.

Originally Posted by boiled goose

I agree That assange seems to have an agenda. Does that mean be should be charged because he makes one side look bad?

Absolutely Wikileaks leaks are being politicized (no doubt in my mind they are holding some things back that make some people look bad). And I've been very vocal about the extent to which they no longer take the time to redact and basically now just dox people.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that they release authentic documents and I appreciate the service nonetheless. Keep the leaks coming.
Last edited by FreedomFighter; 04-21-2017 at 02:18 PM.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:16 PM)

Originally Posted by MisterFalcon

The lack of dirty laundry on Russia just proves how clean they are ! If we would get any dirt we'd publish it but there is simply nothing shady to report on !

Wikileaks hasn't published any documents which expose the Saudi government either. Must be nothing shady going on there.
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 02:16 PM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

If the rape allegations are true (Swedish prosecutors interviewed Assange in November and still no charges filed after 7 years), I agree he's a "sleaze". If not, what are you basing this slander on?

Because of a technicality of the Swedish legal system, Assange can't be charged until after his formal interviews - something he's managed to dodge these seven years by hiding out in the embassy. The Swedish prosecutor did eventually relent and held the interview at the embassy in November (which is highly unorthodox in itself) but Assange managed to make it so it was held by an Equadorian official, in Spanish. The transcript has been stuck in translation since then.

For what it's worth, the British High Court that signed off on the extradition request in 2013 determined that he was "effectively charged" even back then, from a U.K. perspective. The claim that he hasn't been charged is pure smoke and mirrors designed to make the extradition seem suspicious.
FreedomFighter
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:22 PM)
FreedomFighter's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nivash

Because of a technicality of the Swedish legal system, Assange can't be charged until after his formal interviews - something he's managed to dodge these seven years by hiding out in the embassy.

How is he dodging them when he can't leave the embassy? They've had every chance to interview him there and they refused. Last I heard of this, they finally agreed to interview him at the embassy but no word on what's next as far as I've heard.

EDIT: So he's "charged" by the British High Court? For what? An alleged rape in Sweden?
sugarhigh4242
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:22 PM)

Originally Posted by Nivash

The claim that he hasn't been charged is pure smoke and mirrors designed to make the extradition seem suspicious.

A UN investigation found that Assange is in a state of "arbitrary detention" brought on by a "lack of diligence" on the part of the Swedish prosecution. They even say Assange is owed compensation for this.

“The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation,” Mr. Hong added.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/P...x?NewsID=17013

I guess the UN are just Putin apologists though.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 02:26 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by FreedomFighter

How is he dodging them when he can't leave the embassy? They've had every chance to interview him there and they refused. Last I heard of this, they finally agreed to interview him at the embassy but no word on what's next as far as I've heard.

Have you ever seen a show or movie where the police said "oh no sir, you don't have to come down to the station, we'll conduct the official police interview at the food court in the mall. No problem!"

He wanted and eventually got extremely special treatment. Not only was the interview somewhere else but it wasn't even led by Swedish prosecutors. The whole reason he fled to the embassy was to run away from these rape charges. He's a fugitive from justice.

Regarding your edit: the high court needed to determine whether or not he was being charged in order to issue a European arrest warrant. They determined he is being charged by Sweden for rape.
Iksenpets
this avi makes no sense
(04-21-2017, 02:27 PM)
Iksenpets's Avatar
Assange is a scumbag, but unless there's clear evidence of his actual collusion with hackers or giving actual instructions to Chelsea Manning to steal docs rather than just receiving them from her, this is kind of scary. If the charges are just "publishing leaked classified docs = espionage" then that would erode the 1st amendment in a way that would open the door to a much larger crackdown on media, in exactly the sort of way Trump has been saying he wants to do. All while targeting an enemy that Trump's enemies with (understandably) cheer being taken down.
FreedomFighter
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:30 PM)
FreedomFighter's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Have you ever seen a show or movie where the police said "oh no sir, you don't have to come down to the station, we'll conduct the official police interview at the food court in the mall. No problem!"

He wanted and eventually got extremely special treatment. Not only was the interview somewhere else but it wasn't even led by Swedish prosecutors. The whole reason he fled to the embassy was to run away from these rape charges. He's a fugitive from justice.

Regarding your edit: the high court needed to determine whether or not he was being charged in order to issue a European arrest warrant. They determined he is being charged by Sweden for rape.

Got it.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:32 PM)

Originally Posted by Iksenpets

Assange is a scumbag, but unless there's clear evidence of his actual collusion with hackers or giving actual instructions to Chelsea Manning to steal docs rather than just receiving them from her, this is kind of scary. If the charges are just "publishing leaked classified docs = espionage" then that would erode the 1st amendment in a way that would open the door to a much larger crackdown on media, in exactly the sort of way Trump has been saying he wants to do. All while targeting an enemy that Trump's enemies with (understandably) cheer being taken down.

No matter what specific pretext they claim, this is exactly what it is going to be (and already has been for 7 years). We already have the statement from CIA chief Pompeo. He called wikileaks a "Hostile Intelligence Service". Nothing about standing up for victims of rape. Simply that publishing leaked documents is tantamount to espionage.
Last edited by sugarhigh4242; 04-21-2017 at 02:37 PM.
hydrophilic attack
(04-21-2017, 02:34 PM)
hydrophilic attack's Avatar

Originally Posted by Iksenpets

Assange is a scumbag, but unless there's clear evidence of his actual collusion with hackers or giving actual instructions to Chelsea Manning to steal docs rather than just receiving them from her, this is kind of scary. If the charges are just "publishing leaked classified docs = espionage" then that would erode the 1st amendment in a way that would open the door to a much larger crackdown on media, in exactly the sort of way Trump has been saying he wants to do. All while targeting an enemy that Trump's enemies with (understandably) cheer being taken down.

Yup.

People are enthusiastic about Assange being charged because he helped Trump win the election, might be throwing in with Putin and is a bit of a wanker. But people should really think one step further and be careful what they wish for
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 02:51 PM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by FreedomFighter

How is he dodging them when he can't leave the embassy? They've had every chance to interview him there and they refused. Last I heard of this, they finally agreed to interview him at the embassy but no word on what's next as far as I've heard.

EDIT: So he's "charged" by the British High Court? For what? An alleged rape in Sweden?

Assange is considered a suspect of a serious crime on reasonable grounds according to the Swedish justice system. Under normal circumstances, Swedish police would take him into custody and bring him to a police station where the interview would be held. The prosecutor would then decide whether or not to formally charge him with a crime - they need his official side of the story before doing so. That's the part he has quite expertly managed to avoid so far.

They refused to interview him at the embassy mostly out of principle. It sets a bad precedent if fugitives are allowed to dictate the forms of their own investigations. Especially high-profile people like Assange. Everyone is equal before the law.

And yes, the High Court looked at the evidence and determined that, had he been investigated for the same crime in the U.K., he would already be at the stage where he would have already been charged. That's why they signed off on the extradition request. For what it's worth he's also wanted for skipping bail in the U.K. now in addition to the charges from Sweden.

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

A UN investigation found that Assange is in a state of "arbitrary detention" brought on by a "lack of diligence" on the part of the Swedish prosecution. They even say Assange is owed compensation for this.



http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/P...x?NewsID=17013

I guess the UN are just Putin apologists though.

The conclusion by the UN workgroup is absurd. He's detaining himself. All he has to do to end it is step out of that damned embassy.
Stop It
Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
(04-21-2017, 02:55 PM)
Stop It's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

It's because of "go my country", and being brought up in a country where kids recite a pledge to a flag every morning in school. Leadership says Snowden is an enemy, so now he is an enemy

I am not American not do I ever pledge allegiance to a flag.

I think Assange should have been sent to Sweden long ago, and if he has charges to answer in the USA, there too. For someone who believes in holding governments to account he is good at evading it himself and this deserves criricism as an arch hypocrite.

Well done on characterizing dissenting opinion to yours in a way that is easy to compartmentalize, wrongly.

Thread Tools