WikiLeaks

The Russians are going to kill him.  Fact.

With 2 million people being able to access that data how big is the chance that other countries wouldn't have that data already in secret anyway?

Quote from: Horatio on December 06, 2010, 01:58:21 PM

I'm sure Assange would have thought it proper and right for the masses to know all about Allied war plans.

Assange has repeatedly stated that WikiLeaks would never be stupid enough to put lives in danger--contrary to the hysterical (and thus far demonstrably false) cries of blubbering Republicans.

He would say that regardless of whether or not it was true.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 06, 2010, 02:04:52 PM

Quote from: Horatio on December 06, 2010, 01:58:21 PM

I'm sure Assange would have thought it proper and right for the masses to know all about Allied war plans.

Assange has repeatedly stated that WikiLeaks would never be stupid enough to put lives in danger--contrary to the hysterical (and thus far demonstrably false) cries of blubbering Republicans.

He would say that regardless of whether or not it was true.

You can say exactly the same thing about the government, only with better cause.

The Russians are going to kill him.  Fact.

Until he actually starts releasing truly damaging secrets, rather than things that anyone that took the time to follow world events already knew or could figure out, I doubt the Russians will give a damn, especially when he is picking on the Americans.

Why kill him? Better to actually "leak" to wikileaks a document that will get people be killed when it is released and let the fallout ruin the group. It would be a small price to pay in order to stop wikileaks. That's why I don't buy the conspiracy theory claims created by the ignorant masses with regards to the Swedish allegations against him. Why go after him? He is only one man. Get rid of him and wikileaks will continue to exist, regardless.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 06, 2010, 02:04:52 PM

Quote from: Horatio on December 06, 2010, 01:58:21 PM

I'm sure Assange would have thought it proper and right for the masses to know all about Allied war plans.

Assange has repeatedly stated that WikiLeaks would never be stupid enough to put lives in danger--contrary to the hysterical (and thus far demonstrably false) cries of blubbering Republicans.

He would say that regardless of whether or not it was true.

It's not just a question of ethical responsibility, it's a question of common sense. Why would he leak information which would immediately get him arrested?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on December 06, 2010, 03:52:54 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 06, 2010, 02:04:52 PM

Quote from: Horatio on December 06, 2010, 01:58:21 PM

I'm sure Assange would have thought it proper and right for the masses to know all about Allied war plans.

Assange has repeatedly stated that WikiLeaks would never be stupid enough to put lives in danger--contrary to the hysterical (and thus far demonstrably false) cries of blubbering Republicans.

He would say that regardless of whether or not it was true.

You can say exactly the same thing about the government, only with better cause.

What does that have to do with it?  I'm not claiming anything about the honesty of the government.  Fluffycornsnake replied to Horatio by making a point that is essentially worthless.  That's all I'm saying.

It's not just a question of ethical responsibility, it's a question of common sense. Why would he leak information which would immediately get him arrested?

Arrested on what charge?

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on December 06, 2010, 04:36:47 PM

It's not just a question of ethical responsibility, it's a question of common sense. Why would he leak information which would immediately get him arrested?

Arrested on what charge?

If Assange were to leak something which truly put lives at risk then you can be certain they'd find a charge. One way or another he'd be removed.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on December 06, 2010, 02:43:21 PM

The Russians are going to kill him.  Fact.

Until he actually starts releasing truly damaging secrets, rather than things that anyone that took the time to follow world events already knew or could figure out, I doubt the Russians will give a damn, especially when he is picking on the Americans.

Why kill him? Better to actually "leak" to wikileaks a document that will get people be killed when it is released and let the fallout ruin the group. It would be a small price to pay in order to stop wikileaks. That's why I don't buy the conspiracy theory claims created by the ignorant masses with regards to the Swedish allegations against him. Why go after him? He is only one man. Get rid of him and wikileaks will continue to exist, regardless.

If WikiLeaks isn't releasing anything "truly damaging", why would the deaths of several or many people be "a small price to pay" to stop WikiLeaks?

What does that have to do with it?  I'm not claiming anything about the honesty of the government.  Fluffycornsnake replied to Horatio by making a point that is essentially worthless.  That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure you're right. After all, if people die as a consequence of the information WikiLeaks releases, it wuld be hugely damaging to the organisation, and would probably land them in serious, serious trouble. It is not in his/their interest to release such information.

The Russians are going to kill him.  Fact.

I don't see why. The Americans have much more incentive.

Why doesn't WikiLeaks just go to Tor? It'll have the dual advantage of anonymising their physical location and (hopefully) popularising the hidden web.

Looks like Anon is joining the fray:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/anonymous_launches_pro_wikileaks_campaign/

https://uloadr.com/u/4.png

Why doesn't WikiLeaks just go to Tor? It'll have the dual advantage of anonymising their physical location and (hopefully) popularising the hidden web.

Set up a mirror then Steve.  Or are you too afraid that your precious TOR isn't enough to stop the governments of the world?


Although how does one setup a TOR encrypted network to work with a public domain name?

Time have removed Mr Assange from their public poll, and AnonOps is currently the subject of a DoS attack. At this point, I for one feel obliged to do my bit. What is happening now should bring it home to everyone here that governments and states can and do operate beyond standard legal channels, and will use every means at their disposal to acheive their aims.

Time have removed Mr Assange from their public poll

No they haven't?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2028733,00.html

I'm surprised no one has noted this yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 07, 2010, 07:16:01 AM

Time have removed Mr Assange from their public poll

No they haven't?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2028733,00.html

I was looking at the list earlier, and his name had been removed from the top of the list. It's now back up, but it was definitely gone, and I was not the only one who saw that it was gone.

I'm surprised no one has noted this yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Can you hold someone if they haven't been charged?

Quote from: Lorddave on December 07, 2010, 08:16:30 AM

I'm surprised no one has noted this yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Can you hold someone if they haven't been charged?

Governments usually can do what they damn well please if the say its in "public interest"

Berny
Sometimes it is in the public's interest.

Quote from: Lorddave on December 07, 2010, 08:16:30 AM

I'm surprised no one has noted this yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Can you hold someone if they haven't been charged?

He actually has a warrant for his arrest in Sweden.

That's why I don't think we can just assume that Assange would draw the line at releasing something that would put lives in danger because of legal concern about himself.  He is already in serious trouble, even without any evidence of his leaks killing someone.  If the U.S. government wants to charge him with espionage, they do not have to prove that someone died from his leaks.

That's why I don't think we can just assume that Assange would draw the line at releasing something that would put lives in danger because of legal concern about himself.  He is already in serious trouble, even without any evidence of his leaks killing someone.  If the U.S. government wants to charge him with espionage, they do not have to prove that someone died from his leaks.

What about the fact that he clearly hasn't released anything that would put lives in danger? Lacking a specific motive not to do something hardly constitutes a motive to do something, and his previous record is pretty clean (on that front, although given the huge conspiracies to destroy him and his site I'm beginning to wonder if those allegations are just more of the same).

If the US government wants to charge him with espionage they'll have to prove he engaged in espionage, which they sort of can't.

Espionage, commonly known as spying, is the practice of secretly gathering information about a foreign government or a competing industry, with the purpose of placing one's own government or corporation at some strategic or financial advantage.

For a start, he never gathered any information, it was volunteered to him and he released it. If any espionage occurred, he's clean of it. And if that counts, they'll have to prove that releasing this information specifically benefits the state of Australia, which isn't engaged in any hostilities with the US or any other affected state that I'm aware of.

How, pray tell, can he be done for espionage?

I apologize for being misleading.  I was referring to the Espionage Act, which actually has very little to do with espionage.  Kind of like the way the Patriot Act has little to do with patriotism.

You've got a fair point with that. Just let me look it over...

Okay, that's pretty retarded and...

Wow, the USA was always evil. I thought that was a recent thing. Well, Nixon onwards.

It made it a crime:

- To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

- To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

Nobody's called it false so it can't be any of the second, and he never released any information that put the occupation of the Middle East at risk, so it'd take a level of bullshit beyond anything we've seen even from the US government to attempt that one.

Also, your country is astoundingly evil and I think you should kill the president.

You may want to redact that last phrase.

That's why I don't think we can just assume that Assange would draw the line at releasing something that would put lives in danger because of legal concern about himself.  He is already in serious trouble, even without any evidence of his leaks killing someone.

Yes, but he is still in a position to defend his cause and ideals, and none of the criticisms hurled at him have any basis in fact. What's more Assange has regularly offered to co-operate with the U.S. administration, but has always been rebuffed. If there's blood on his hands, it must be on theirs too.

he never released any information that put the occupation of the Middle East at risk

Who says?  You?

Also, your suggestion about the president is silly.  He does not have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

Yes, but he is still in a position to defend his cause and ideals, and none of the criticisms hurled at him have any basis in fact. What's more Assange has regularly offered to co-operate with the U.S. administration, but has always been rebuffed. If there's blood on his hands, it must be on theirs too.

Cooperate with the government?  On what?

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 07, 2010, 10:54:08 AM

he never released any information that put the occupation of the Middle East at risk

Who says?  You?

Also, your suggestion about the president is silly.  He does not have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

I do say, yes. Which leaks related to the activities of troops in the Middle East?

What does his relevance to this particular issue have to do with his need to get dropped?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on December 07, 2010, 11:09:33 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 07, 2010, 10:54:08 AM

he never released any information that put the occupation of the Middle East at risk

Who says?  You?

Also, your suggestion about the president is silly.  He does not have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.

I do say, yes. Which leaks related to the activities of troops in the Middle East?

What does his relevance to this particular issue have to do with his need to get dropped?

Well, technically it does.
By revealing the diplomatic dialog, the leaders of those middle east nations will be less likely to talk to us diplomatically.  Kind of like if you and your friend talk about her "problems" and you then tell everyone at school about her "problems".

Once they stop sharing information and advice, we become more and more isolated and less likely to get away with things like bombing Pakistan's border with drones.  We also get a bigger push to leave than we are now to show that the leaders of those nations aren't bowing to the US even though they actually are privately.

It's a very fine line, but I'm betting the US lawyers could get it argued successfully.

If they argue that, it's a precedent for arresting anyone who takes a photo of a government employee eating pork or drinking alcohol. Surely no sane jury/judge would permit it.