Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
No, Wikileaks was reckless in publishing information that harmed people like that. It was wrong. Do they deserve death or imprisonment for it? Does it discount the weight of what those leaks revealed? I don’t think so.
Sorry, and thanks. - Obviously my point was just that how one feels about any person or state helped or hurt by WL is totally independent of the legality of the charges against him.
I appreciate the kind words but I wholeheartedly disagree. Again if all Assange did was disseminate the information I'd be storming the Bastille with you. But he committed an actual crime. Or I guess attempted to. That's the difference for me. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
If we find it acceptable to justify all means solely by the ends, the world descends into tribalism and factions warring to determine which ends should be found justifiable.
Do you think the armed forces and intelligence agencies broke some rules they shouldn’t have? I do.
I'm sure they did. But the rules don't matter if they only apply to people that expose criminals.
I can’t watch the whole thing right now - was that the interview where he denied ever having any direct contact with Manning?
Because he isn't a good man. For many many reasons. He is a criminal and should be in prison regardless of other "real criminals" walking free.
There were probably more honest ways to run cover for his source, but no, he wasn’t telling the truth.
Does it strike you as odd that you’re providing an interview he gave specifically to lie to you as an example of what a good man he is and an example of how you can’t understand how anyone could listen to him and think otherwise?
No, I don’t believe that was the point of the interview at all. I think he did what he could to protect a source on the noblest of their releases. I never believed anyone but Manning was the source once he was implicated. What was he supposed to say? ‘Yeah Bradley was the source’?
To put the information out? Because that’s what he does when he accepts a submission and its target. In fact he has a list of what he wants submitted and this stuff was on it.
Maybe you didn’t watch ren’s video of Assange lying. Apparently it really makes it clear what a great guy he is.
I shudder for the billion and a hal of people on this earth that are living in absolute hell - without access to the internet. Hopefully someone will address that issue so they can be spared this purgatory
Repulsive and indefensible.
Agree it's impossible to have a discussion about Assange without the Seth Rich issue. He discussed his claiming to know the Russians weren't behind the hack and also supporting the Rich claims shows a man of bad moral character and who tried to use the death of an innocent person and smearing his name for the sake of alibi. That is low, low character.
They did it for the same reason he said he’d never been in contact with Manning and for the same reason he said he hadn’t been in contact with any Russians on the DNC hack, ren. Because Assange isn’t an upstanding, transparent, truthful person. He’s a liar and a criminal.
If I ws wearing a
I might be thinking that they knew the killer would never be found...
If you had to sue Wikileaks for your reward money, where would you do it? Not Ecuador, these days, certainly
Your attitude towards Leopold is odd. He actually obtains public information on official acts by public officials legally. I could see being extreme and supporting Leopold and Assange but not Assange and against Leopold.
Well gosh here’s his chance, eh? The DOJ is ready and willing to talk to him and see his evidence.
I think you and I have a couple interests in common politically. One is cybersecurity and another is transparency in government. I wish you'd take a moment to look at the report's findings on these topics because really nationally and here on this board the hacking aspect has especially been glossed over. It's really amazing that the US government has charged foreign intelligence officers, an oligarch, and private citizens abroad, including some with past security apparatus backgrounds, in the US. This is really rare. The US didn't use to do this with the USSR because the US and Soviets used to play by a set of unspoken rules. Putin does not feel bound by these rules and the US almost entirely unpacked its defense apparatus after the end of the Cold War. We just stopped doing defensive maneuvers vs active measures and the old guard that knew how to do them is dying off, the Obama administration was reluctant to engage in them until literally the final months and the current administration is hostile to the very concept.
- I don't know how often that G2.0 counter-"report" is referenced by those attacking the attribution of the hacks to Russia, but I bet it's a lot.
Not sure. In general though, stuff from behind a paywall is not something to post here where it can accessed for free. It happens some but some site (justifiably) get pretty upset with it.
That statute includes willful attempts to obtain the information through an intermediary as a coconspirator. 18 USC 793(c) through (e) I believe.
I agree that is interesting. I’ll also note that the letter is dated March of last year. I think it’s also interesting Berg quit WL September of 2010.
FWIW, I just reviewed the last five pages of this thread, and there were no posts by you that were hidden by a moderator.
Thanks for checking on this. I didn't think anything nefarious was up, was just curious.
>>Sentencing him, Judge Deborah Taylor told Assange it was difficult to envisage a more serious example of the offence.
so that's 7 years of holing up in an embassy and a year in the clink, to avoid a five year max sentence (so far).
