• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Zubz
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:29 AM)
Zubz's Avatar

Originally Posted by collige

I hate both Assange and Wikileaks, but this

Really doesn't sound all that good.

No it doesn't. I can only hope he does something to damage the GOP's credibility just like he did Clinton's before this happens. I mean, he's terrible, but Wiki Leaks isn't inherently bad. After this past election, it just seems fair, anyway.
grumble
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:30 AM)
Charging a foreign national not on US soil with sedition is a joke. For example, this would mean that if someone in the U.K. said 'fuck the US' then the US government should make you go to the US and go to jail for inciting inserruction against the established order?

Seems like an extremely dark path if true.
aeolist
Banned
(04-21-2017, 12:32 AM)
aeolist's Avatar
obama's DoJ spox:

Unless they have found something new, there is no way to do this without prosecuting reporters. There's a reason we didn't go there.

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...95785323057152

if they do this reporters will be next

assange is a shitty person but this isn't good
chromatic9
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:33 AM)
chromatic9's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hellwarden

I mean, unless they can actually get him out the Ecuadorian embassy, then this is all pointless.

They could bring in wasp nests then wait for him to run out or jump from the balcony.
pigeon
Banned
(04-21-2017, 12:38 AM)
I don't like authoritarianism but I also don't like Russian espionage or rape so I'm gonna put myself down as mixed.
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 12:39 AM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

obama's DoJ spox:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...95785323057152

if they do this reporters will be next

assange is a shitty person but this isn't good

My thought exactly. Just distributing the information is doing nothing that the news agencies didn't also do. Unless they genuinely did discover that Assange directly helped Snowden with the original breach (and I don't see how they could have) this is going to be some twisted reasoning,
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:40 AM)
DreadPirateRoberts's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.

It doesn't matter where he was, if the US arrests him he will be under our jurisdiction and the Constitution will apply.
pigeon
Banned
(04-21-2017, 12:42 AM)

Originally Posted by Timeaisis

But how will they get him out of the Ecuador Embassy? He's just gonna sit there forever at this point.

I assume we'll sanction them.
Autoignition
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
Autoignition's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

obama's DoJ spox:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...95785323057152

if they do this reporters will be next

assange is a shitty person but this isn't good

... Okay, that actually legitimately worries me. I was wondering when/how Trump was going to take down journalists, and for a while it started to seem like maybe he'd given up on doing so. This could be the opening of pandora's box.
Flo_Evans
One crazy mofo
Saved by a Harley dude
(04-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
Flo_Evans's Avatar
Not a fan. Opens the door to prosecute anyone for critizing the government.
Taker666
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:43 AM)
Taker666's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheChewyWaffles

I thought sharing the information he shared was a good thing. Plus, isn't he being protected by the Ecuadorian embassy?

People always want to shoot the messenger.

You'd think people in the US would be more concerned about the mass corruption in US politics and the behaviour of the CIA...than the person who shone a light on them. Whether Russia was behind the hacks/leaks or not...it doesn't change the facts that were in them.

Don't be corrupt and don't do corrupt things in the future...and hacks/leaks from Russia or whoever won't show corruption or cause harm to your reputations or election campaigns.

It seems people would rather their politicians and agencies stay corrupt ...and that they would rather be kept in the dark about it.
Last edited by Taker666; 04-21-2017 at 12:46 AM.
Tallshortman
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:44 AM)
Tallshortman's Avatar

Originally Posted by grumble

Charging a foreign national not on US soil with sedition is a joke. For example, this would mean that if someone in the U.K. said 'fuck the US' then the US government should make you go to the US and go to jail for inciting inserruction against the established order?

Seems like an extremely dark path if true.

What? Saying "fuck the US" in the US is not a crime. The US has probably the most liberal free speech laws among western states.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:44 AM)
Bruce Springsteen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mighty Chin

Anybody else sense a change of wind direction here?

Flynn
Nunes
O'Reilly
Chaffetz

O'Reilly connected to them? Lol
pigeon
Banned
(04-21-2017, 12:45 AM)

Originally Posted by Taker666

People always want to shoot the messenger.

You'd think people in the US would be more concerned about the mass corruption in US politics and the behaviour of the CIA...than the person who shone a light on them. Whether Russia was behind the hacks/leaks or not...it doesn't change the facts that were in them.

Don't be corrupt and hacks/leaks from Russia or whoever won't show corruption or cause harm.

It seems people would rather their politicians and agencies stay corrupt ...and they would rather be kept in the dark about it.

Can you be specific about the corruption or the CIA behaviors that we should actually be concerned about?
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(04-21-2017, 12:45 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by Taker666

People always want to shoot the messenger.

You'd think people in the US would be more concerned about the mass corruption in US politics and the behaviour of the CIA...than the person who shone a light on them. Whether Russia was behind the hacks/leaks or not...it doesn't change the facts that were in them.

Don't be corrupt and hacks/leaks from Russia or whoever won't show corruption or cause harm.

It seems people would rather their politicians and agencies stay corrupt ...and they would rather be kept in the dark about it.

Russian leaks and US corruption are now inextricably linked. As you will see in the coming months. And are you suggesting we should just pretend a hostile nation isn't attacking our institutions because the USA has bad people in it?

Ridiculously reductionist.
DerangedHermit
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:46 AM)
DerangedHermit's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

obama's DoJ spox:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...95785323057152

if they do this reporters will be next

assange is a shitty person but this isn't good

Yep, this is their endgame.
SoulUnison
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:47 AM)
SoulUnison's Avatar

Originally Posted by collige

I hate both Assange and Wikileaks, but this

Really doesn't sound all that good.

Yeah, I hate that phrasing.

"The Constitution was getting in the way, but we've found a way to sidestep it."
Whompa02
Banned
(04-21-2017, 12:49 AM)
I'm completely fine with this.

Originally Posted by Flo_Evans

Not a fan. Opens the door to prosecute anyone for critizing the government.

It prevents foreigners from releasing classified documents from our government...
Justin Bailey
------ ------
(04-21-2017, 12:50 AM)
Justin Bailey's Avatar
I wonder if this is related to the Russia investigation.
nitekrawlwer
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:51 AM)
If we have found new information that these actions are predicated upon, I will be happy about this. If the circumstances are the exact same as they were 6 months ago, I'm deeply worried.
Last edited by nitekrawlwer; 04-21-2017 at 01:03 AM.
Taker666
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:53 AM)
Taker666's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

Can you be specific about the corruption or the CIA behaviors that we should actually be concerned about?

It's up to you what concerns you.

If nothing in the leaked DNC emails or CIA information concerned you...then why does it matter if they were leaked anyway? If there's nothing bad there then nobody should be up in arms about it. I mean we know everyone hacks everyone anyway..and the US can't be that concerned otherwise they wouldn't be spending 90% of their cyber budget on attacks vs only 10% on defence.
Last edited by Taker666; 04-21-2017 at 01:07 AM.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
(04-21-2017, 01:03 AM)
Stumpokapow's Avatar

Originally Posted by Taker666

If nothing in the leaked DNC emails or CIA information concerned you...then why does it matter if they were leaked anyway? If there's nothing bad there then nobody should be up in arms about it.

Suppose there's nothing bad but because there's a high information cost of figuring out whether things are bad or not, people rely on elite interpreters (media outlets, twitter experts) to interpret the information for them, and those interpreters are cranks, and then a guy tries to shoot up a pizza store because ???? reddit ???? satanism ????
The Llama
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:05 AM)

Originally Posted by DreadPirateRoberts

Nope, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, there are rights that are specific to citizens, but the basic rights apply to everyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

This isn't really relevant to the question at hand but it's an open question whether they apply to illegal immigrants (most people think the SC would say yes, they do... but it's technically still undecided).
pigeon
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:07 AM)

Originally Posted by Taker666

It's up to you what concerns you.

You're literally posting in this thread to say that it's terrible that I'm not more concerned about these things, so this rings a bit hollow.

All I'm asking you is what, exactly, you're talking about. I assume that if you think these things are bad you'd have actual examples of what's bad about them. But it seems like you don't.

Originally Posted by Taker666

If nothing in the leaked DNC emails or CIA information concerned you...then why does it matter if they were leaked anyway? If there's nothing bad there then nobody should be up in arms about it.

Uh...so just to be clear, your argument is:

* If there's nothing bad in the leaked stuff then Assange shouldn't be in trouble because nobody should care.
* If there's something bad in the leaked stuff then Assange shouldn't be in trouble because he was revealing important truths.

So basically your position is nobody should ever get in trouble for stealing files from the American government and publishing them regardless of the situation.

I think this position is pretty dumb.
Just_myles
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:08 AM)
Just_myles's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stumpokapow

Suppose there's nothing bad but because there's a high information cost of figuring out whether things are bad or not, people rely on elite interpreters (media outlets, twitter experts) to interpret the information for them, and those interpreters are cranks, and then a guy tries to shoot up a pizza store because ???? reddit ???? satanism ????

That's a real thing. A lot of bloggers and journos rely on it.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:08 AM)
SlickShoesRUCrazy's Avatar
probably knows about the trump/putin collusion.

Dude is a goner.
Taker666
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:15 AM)
Taker666's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

You're literally posting in this thread to say that it's terrible that I'm not more concerned about these things, so this rings a bit hollow.

All I'm asking you is what, exactly, you're talking about. I assume that if you think these things are bad you'd have actual examples of what's bad about them. But it seems like you don't.



Uh...so just to be clear, your argument is:

* If there's nothing bad in the leaked stuff then Assange shouldn't be in trouble because nobody should care.
* If there's something bad in the leaked stuff then Assange shouldn't be in trouble because he was revealing important truths.

So basically your position is nobody should ever get in trouble for stealing files from the American government and publishing them regardless of the situation.

I think this position is pretty dumb.

I can certainly see why those hacking them/stealing them should get in trouble if caught....I don't think those reporting them should be. Of course the CIA leaks came from an internal source anyway (or so it seems) and whistleblowing to the press is hardly new...nor is the press keeping their sources secret.

If Assange himself had hacked the CIA/DNC then he should be arrested and charged....but he didn't. He/Wikileaks simply printed what was leaked to him/them.

As far as what concerns me personally...well I suppose the biggest concern is the ability of the CIA to hack and leave fingerprints that suggest it was Russia/China etc who did it. You could start wars between nations that way ...if you were so inclined...or use it to set up a reason for your own country to go to war.
Last edited by Taker666; 04-21-2017 at 01:33 AM.
BoogieWoogie
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:17 AM)
BoogieWoogie's Avatar
So Wikileaks must surely point their sights at Trump now right?
Effect
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:19 AM)
Effect's Avatar
About damn time they found a way to get him.

On the free speech thing. Likely already said but even free speech in the US isn't 100% free. You can't just say anything you want and think you'll be free of consequences.There are a number of conditions on that. For example you can't say anything that would directly lead to the harm of others and expect you'll be allowed to walk free. You can't yell fire or cause a panic in a room and think you can walk away after people are hurt or killed for example. No people have gone to jail for saying things that have gotten people directly killed. Assange has done far worse than that.
Staccat0
Fail out bailed
(04-21-2017, 01:22 AM)
Staccat0's Avatar
I'm afraid this ends with good journalists arrested and pressured to give up the "leakers" while Assange drinks tea in an embassy. All under the flimsy cover of finishing what Obama started or something stupid.
aeolist
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:29 AM)
aeolist's Avatar

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogie

So Wikileaks must surely point their sights at Trump now right?

wikileaks is an outlet for publishing leaked documents, they don't obtain anything themselves
Dopus
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:33 AM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Effect

About damn time they found a way to get him.

On the free speech thing. Likely already said but even free speech in the US isn't 100% free. You can't just say anything you want and think you'll be free of consequences.There are a number of conditions on that. For example you can't say anything that would directly lead to the harm of others and expect you'll be allowed to walk free. You can't yell fire or cause a panic in a room and think you can walk away after people are hurt or killed for example. No people have gone to jail for saying things that have gotten people directly killed. Assange has done far worse than that.

Assange has simply published material given to the organisation. If you're going down the path of prosecuting journalists and whistleblowers, it's a dangerous one. What precedent does it set? Especially when they're bringing to light unethical and immoral practices from a state actor or the state itself.

You can claim out of ignorance that Assange has done worse, but the reality is that the US government is the real issue here and has been ever since it decided to attack journalists and whistleblowers. A grand jury for Julian Assange? What a complete joke.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 01:41 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar
The article states they have new information that suggests Assange actively aided it collaborated with Snowden. The former Obama admin member qualified the statement with "...unless they found something new..." and it appears they have. Journalists don't normally help leakers obtain more info so assuming they are pursuing it this way I don't think this is going to impact free speech at all.
BoogieWoogie
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:41 AM)
BoogieWoogie's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

wikileaks is an outlet for publishing leaked documents, they don't obtain anything themselves

Oh and I'm sure they haven't found anything on Trump at all.......
R10Neymarfan
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
R10Neymarfan's Avatar
I hope not or I'll never heard the end of it from my friend. Assange is a hero and champion of transparency/privacy. So if something happens to him, my friend will go nuts.

Don't get me wrong Assange is a criminal and definite Russian shill but I just don't want these worshippers to go nuts.
Bam Bam Baklava
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
(04-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
Bam Bam Baklava's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

wikileaks is an outlet for publishing leaked documents, they don't obtain anything themselves

Have you taken a look at their "fair and balanced" twitter account in the last year or two?
antonz
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:45 AM)
antonz's Avatar
Collusion with the Russian Government will probably play a significant factor in it. For months now there has been rumblings of documents showing Assange with Russia were working with Snowden prior to the leak on getting him somewhere safe
Last edited by antonz; 04-21-2017 at 01:48 AM.
Fisty
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:48 AM)
Fisty's Avatar
Trump can't have people undercutting him when he sells our shit to Putin
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:51 AM)
DreadPirateRoberts's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Llama

This isn't really relevant to the question at hand but it's an open question whether they apply to illegal immigrants (most people think the SC would say yes, they do... but it's technically still undecided).

As far as the current legal precedent goes yes, they have the rights granted to persons but not citizens. the best example of that is the fifth and fourteenth amendments, they have rights under the fifth amendment, which is directed at persons. But less so under the fourteenth which is directed at citizens. Deportation is considered a civil matter not a criminal matter, which is why it can happen without much of a legal battle, the civil protections are in the fourteenth

But the supreme court can still always set new legal precedent.
aeolist
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:53 AM)
aeolist's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bam Bam Baklava

Have you taken a look at their "fair and balanced" twitter account in the last year or two?

i get that they have an agenda. what i'm saying is that they don't have staff that hacks various organizations to get documents. they're a leaker repository.

if they were themselves stealing the documents and then publishing them they could be prosecuted for the theft. they're not, so they're going to be prosecuted for publishing, which is extremely dangerous to first amendment freedoms.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 01:54 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

i get that they have an agenda. what i'm saying is that they don't have staff that hacks various organizations to get documents. they're a leaker repository.

if they were themselves stealing the documents and then publishing them they could be prosecuted for the theft. they're not, so they're going to be prosecuted for publishing, which is extremely dangerous to first amendment freedoms.

Did you read the article? They have information regarding collaboration. This isn't for publishing.
aeolist
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:56 AM)
aeolist's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Did you read the article? They have information regarding collaboration. This isn't for publishing.

how is it a violation of US law for a non-american entity staffed by people who aren't citizens of the US to collude with another foreign government?
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 01:57 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

how is it a violation of US law for a non-american entity staffed by people who aren't citizens of the US to collude with another foreign government?

Colluding with Snowden to commit crimes in the US.
antonz
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:57 AM)
antonz's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

how is it a violation of US law for a non-american entity staffed by people who aren't citizens of the US to collude with another foreign government?

If the rumored documents are real it indicates that Assange and Russia were co-conspirators in the theft of the NSA Data. They were seeking protection for Snowden before he even stole the documents.
aeolist
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:59 AM)
aeolist's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Colluding with Snowden to commit crimes in the US.

Originally Posted by antonz

If the rumored documents are real it indicates that Assange and Russia were co-conspirators in the theft of the NSA Data. They were seeking protection for Snowden before he even stole the documents.

evidence that the obama DoJ desperately and unsuccessfully worked to uncover for 6 years has been found by a new administration populated by conspiratorial nutjobs in 3 months

i remain skeptical
Cookie18
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:00 AM)
Cookie18's Avatar
This doesn't mean shit so long as he remains in the Ecuadorean embassy.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 02:01 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

evidence that the obama DoJ desperately and unsuccessfully worked to uncover for 6 years has been found by a new administration populated by conspiratorial nutjobs in 3 months

i remain skeptical

It would make sense if the Russia investigations led to it being shared between different agencies who may not have done so previously.
antonz
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:01 AM)
antonz's Avatar

Originally Posted by aeolist

evidence that the obama DoJ desperately and unsuccessfully worked to uncover for 6 years has been found by a new administration populated by conspiratorial nutjobs in 3 months

i remain skeptical

This stuff has been floating around for awhile now. If anything its why Obama continued to ignore requests for Snowden to be pardoned. Because it significantly changes the situation from Whistle Blower to potential Russian Agent.
slit
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:01 AM)
slit's Avatar
Will this change anything about the situation though? Correct me if I'm wrong but last I knew the Ecuadorian embassy still wasn't planning on giving him up, right?
Cookie18
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:02 AM)
Cookie18's Avatar

Originally Posted by slit

Will this change anything about the situation though? Correct me if I'm wrong but last I knew the Ecuadorian embassy still wasn't planning on giving him up, right?

It won't change a thing.

Thread Tools