youtook: sycraft: Theaetetus: Yes, yes, I know it's different, Assange is an individual and not a government... But still, lulz.

Not that different actually because this is government information. So if your position is "Governments shouldn't have secrets," which generally seems to be the Wikileaks position, then perhaps you need to consider what secrets they have. Some of it is things like this.

I'm not calling it right or wrong, just saying that it really is right along the lines of what he does, what he espouses. This is just another government secret. That it relates to an individual is no different than something like embassy cables that reveal the private thoughts of diplomats.

There are two sides to it. People in positions of power is the key here. If you have someone who is in a position of power, living a secret life that is in contradiction to the ideas they enforce in their position of power there is an issue. I firmly beleive thT-Boy: I get it now. Leaks are good if they harm millions of people by screwing up the strategic positions of their entire nation, but leaks are bad if they potentially disrupt one person's effort to beat a rape charge. Got it.

While I believe this to be a troll, here is goes anyhow. As much as the guy might be a public figure, he still has his right to privacy. Especially in the case of his right to a fair trial.

He release of classified documents, were not in their nature attacks against individuals, so much as they were attacks on a corrupt system. While the methods of wikileaks may not be the best, its the only thing going right now. Our government is not policing itself, and right now Wikileaks is needed.

If in fact Julian is guilty, he deserves to be prosecuted, but in a courtroom not in the media. Any one of you should hope for the same if you ever find yourself convicted of a crime. Yours or my opinions of he role in Wikileaks aside, a fair trial and the right to privacy should be protected. That has to go for everyone, independent of your personal opinion of the person.

While I see where you're coming from on this - I have to say, there was plenty of information on the private lives of public figures (like Assange) released via Wikileaks. So the release of Swedish government documents that included private information about a public figure (Assange)is a fair irony as far as I'm concerned.

Govt shouldn't have secrets, unless it is about him.

Got it.

youtook: If in fact Julian is guilty, he deserves to be prosecuted, but in a courtroom not in the media. Any one of you should hope for the same if you ever find yourself convicted of a crime. Yours or my opinions of he role in Wikileaks aside, a fair trial and the right to privacy should be protected. That has to go for everyone, independent of your personal opinion of the person.

Rofl, tell it to O.J., Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Dahmer, Lindsey Lohan, or any other number of high profile asshats crucified by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, etc... for months if not years before their trial date.

Sorry, dude spotlighted himself and invited the anal probing. He's no different or even a special case.

Christ, countries can't even keep their diplomatic cables secret and it's expected they can secure some trial information? If this was going on in the US, Smoking Gun and TMZ would have bribed their way to the dirt weeks ago. They couldn't even keep Rush Limbaugh's medical records suppressed when the media went digging. I laughed about it with everyone else, sure, but I sure as hell didn't see you self proclaimed privacy freaks biatching about that either.

No, no, no... you all want the farking microscope for the douchebags but not your saints.

The only farking difference here is that it's happened to someone you support now.

Sexy Republican Girl: halfof33: Lumbar Puncture: Now that might be ironic.

SRG can't even keep his freaking position straight.

SRG, I told you last thread to step up your farking weak game. you did not take my advice.

sup pussy

/ignorance is not sexy
/Sexy republican girl, isn't.

Why, in my view, Assange gets a pass:

Cablegate - even the insignificant, non-secret personal judgements - represent a picture of what the United States and its allies have planned vis a vis other countries. If it is, for example, the unofficial position of the federal government that Putin's best described as an alpha dog, then we can guess that they will attempt to remove him if it becomes inconvenient for them to have a Russia united under a strong leader. If they didn't think that, then they wouldn't remove him. And so on. Even the insignificant personal judgments in the Cablegate files potentially represent major political game-changers which will affect thousands or millions of people.

Leaking Assange's own files, on the other hand, is an underhanded political tactic which affects nobody but Assange. It is deliberately designed to discredit him, and it is an instance of transparency used as a weapon against transparency in order to discourage further potential leakers and ensure that world governments cannot be held accountable in future. To be blunt, it is not the same.

Respectfully, I believe those who insist Assange should be prepared for this thing are applying their principles in a fashion which is, perhaps, slightly too heavy-handed.

NorCalLos: johndalek: hey--i just looked

i think someone needs to register a new domain name--and it shows that it is available

dont know why someone didnt think of this before

www.assangeleaks.com

Speaking of dumb website ideas, has Drew taken a side in this?

Go through which articles usually get the greenlight about wikileaks and I think you'll get a pretty good idea.

F@ck 'im. If the lady was bullied into sex, regardless of the actual sex act, the f@cker should at least lose his penis. Don't bring Wikileaks in to this. All his defenders say he is just the figurehead and what's happening to him is bullshiat. So then let's just look at this little development as an issue in his rape trial. I'm not shooting the messenger because I haven't heard the message (don't really care about Wikileaks); I'm saying he should be de-penised because I personally know rape victims and I really despise this man right now.

There was a story in the Daily Fail yesterday--not today's story, this was yesterday--about his past and his ex, and a picture of his son. Of course, it is the Daily Fail--it could have been a picture of a random guy walking down the street. But they don't need to be doing that. His wife (or were they even married, I don't remember), left him many years ago, when the kid was just a baby, and she's in hiding now.

Leave them the fark alone.

Also,



"I am not the leaker you're looking for."

BuckMelanoma: F@ck 'im. If the lady was bullied into sex, regardless of the actual sex act, the f@cker should at least lose his penis. Don't bring Wikileaks in to this. All his defenders say he is just the figurehead and what's happening to him is bullshiat. So then let's just look at this little development as an issue in his rape trial. I'm not shooting the messenger because I haven't heard the message (don't really care about Wikileaks); I'm saying he should be de-penised because I personally know rape victims and I really despise this man right now.

I don't believe that that is a proportionate response to the situation.

Leeks?

What is surprising to me is how he did not seem to expect this type of response. Did he really think these governments he is poking a stick with would just lie down and take it? Any overture a government makes towards transparency is just lip service. Governments, even Western ones, are secretive, paranoid, and will go to great lengths to squash anybody and anything they see as a threat to that secrecy. If he didn't know it before, he knows it now.

The only reason Assange is even still alive is because he has become such a public figure that even if he died accidentally now, the rest of the world would think the U.S. was behind it. A CIA agent planted that pretzel he choked on and arranged it so no one in the room knew the Heimlich.

I have never tasted ironic tears.

epoc_tnac:

I get it now. Leaks are good if they throw a court case against an alledged rapist into potential disarray, but leaks are bad if they confirm a lot of our worst suspicions about how international governments go about their business.

I really have to wonder what cables you read, cuz it doesn't sound like the same ones I read. hillary Clinton asked some people to collect tissues/etc to determine DNA of some diplomats -that's just about the worst thing that was in there.

In the end, wikileaks published cables caused huge losses in strategic positioning of western forces, and revealed essentially nothing scandalous enough to justify such action.

It seems like you really want to believe so badly that the US gov't is evil and imperial, etc. ...seriously, why?

Antimatter: to my knowledge, wikileaks never leaked any private person's information like this.

Hey there. You know what? A person doesn't cease being a person once having entered government service, nor does private information about one's activities performed directly in the said service cease to be personally damaging, once released beyond right bounds. If one simply wants to be an egotistical ass, though, obviously the floor is always open for that.

twfeline: Assange is just a bully and an egotist.
He really is an egotist. I support Wikileaks but holy balls is Assange just a giant douche when you see interviews with him.

His stance is not the noble "We must release this information because it is morally right". No, his stance is "I like having the power and seeing things more powerful then me get hurt"

As for this leak, I find it amusing. Many of the leaks from Wikileaks didn't affect counties but rather specific ambassadors and diplomats. The American diplomat to Italy that told his boss in DC what he personally though about the Italian PM? That wasn't the view of the US Government, that was the personal views of a SINGLE guy in the embassy, and he probably got fired due to the leak since now everyone knows what he was thinking.

That's a leak of a document held by the government, and the cost of the leak was damage to a person. How the hell is it different in Assange's case? The above sentence fits him as well.

Hahahaha!!!!

So the Douche is all butthurt some of his secrets were leaked. Cry me a farking river. For someone who makes a living leaking secrets, he's rather secretive.

Serves the asshat right.

Regarding irony: words do not mean what some rule-book claims they mean. They mean what people saying them intend, if the people listening understand. Language does not freeze in place when a rule-book is written.

...14:54 14:55 14:56 14:57...

thedoorhinge: Regarding irony: words do not mean what some rule-book claims they mean. They mean what people saying them intend, if the people listening understand. Language does not freeze in place when a rule-book is written.


Now that's ironic.

/or is it?

The whole "papers were leaked to the Guardian" story is a bit strange.

IANAL, but Swedish.

I think those papers they are talking about is the "Förundersökning", at least they seem to contain only what should be in it (förundersökning is translated to "preinvestigation" and is done by the police to provide info for the prosecutor). I Sweden these papers are _supposed_ to be public by default.

Is it a dirty tactic? Yes.
Is it any different to what some leaks are showing? No.

PrettyImportant2: Ironic, yeah. Because Government transparancy is exactly the same thing as the privacy of some civilian, according to FAILMITTER

So the Afghani and Iraqi civilian sources who were giving information about the terrorists who were murdering civilians in their towns are completely different, right?

Headso: halfof33: Releasing the names of the two women who were allegedly raped? Against it! Fully against it!

ok, it seemed like you were for the leaking of this information initially.

Are you going to answer the question or not?