Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

theaustralian.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#111

Post by TheBurningOr »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
ErrantX wrote: post #22

I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling. It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for. This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is hi…

Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly. Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over this, or so much as distancing themselves f…

I wonder too about the leaks we haven't seen yet either, but at the same time, wouldn't WikiLeaks want to release the most scandalous and head-line grabbing info first? That would go a long way towards vindicating their position in the public eye.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#112

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

nhangen wrote: post #99
jacquesm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm referring to enemies of the West. Oh my! > If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I guess I will have to take your word for it. > I've met them. In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ? > They don't like us. Did they specify any reasons ?

When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.

Please enlighten us. I have a friend who served a tour in Afghanistan around the same time period and he reported that most people there were friendly and just wanted to be able to live in peace...

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#113

Post by davidmathers »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #4

Ah, so he's a Queenslander. That adds context - we're a special breed north of the Tweed. To add some other context to non-Australian readers: * Gallipoli, remembered as Australia's 'coming of age', was a disasterous battle in the First World War. While hardly more pointless than most of that War's assaults, it was more or less the first time we had fought as a sovereign nation and Murdoch's efforts helped shock our…

Apropos Gallipoli: And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda. The best anti-war song ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_Waltzing_Ma...

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#114

Post by 0x44 »

nhangen wrote: post #108
nhangen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.

I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too. I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the potential to do good, but the way he's releas…

  Can't we push for an open government without extremes?
I'm not sure that we can. On the one side, we have well intentioned individuals who forthrightly believe that secrecy is the only way to protect our freedoms and way of life, and whom will stop at nothing keep anything detrimental to that goal from being revealed to the public and our "enemies". On the other, you have equally well-intentioned people who, for the most part, acknowledge that there are things that are completely reasonable to keep secret but that most things probably oughtn't. To have an open government balanced correctly, we need transparency extremists. Otherwise, the balance of power is wholly on the side of people who want to keep secrets, leaving us with a less open, less transparent government.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#115

Post by kabuks »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
necolas wrote: post #24

2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation". Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...

Visa has since followed suit. : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7... The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what the…

And twitter. They haven't shut down the wikileaks account, and my wild guess is that it's not because nobody is pressuring them too.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#116

Post by OpieCunningham »

nhangen wrote: post #108
nhangen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.

I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too. I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the potential to do good, but the way he's releas…

I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.

Despise is perhaps too strong a word, particularly in regards to "our own people". But regardless, what if there are very good reasons to despise the West? Everything the West does is not ok simply because you and I live in it. A good portion of the enemies you're referring to have very valid grievances with the West. That their tactics for dealing with those grievances are not my tactics (or Wikileaks tactics) does not in any way deter from the validity of their grievances (or mine).

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#117

Post by Semiapies »

jacquesm wrote: post #98
moxiemk1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.

The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island. Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable. I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under…

An island with boats, international airports, and a Chunnel.

I wouldn't be willing to bet much money that he couldn't get out of the country if he were free and of a mind to flee.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#118

Post by jacquesm »

Semiapies wrote: post #117
jacquesm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island. Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable. I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under…

An island with boats, international airports, and a Chunnel. I wouldn't be willing to bet much money that he couldn't get out of the country if he were free and of a mind to flee.

As European countries come England is the hardest to get in and out of and it's not like Julian Assange is not going to be recognized on sight by half a million people at least by now.

The boats all leave from ports where there are customs inspections, crew and captains who would all not be too happy giving shelter to a fugitive, international airports need a pass by immigration and the chunnel does too.

Lots of illegals make it in and out of Britain but they don't start off as high profile fugitives.

I think you're giving him too much credit. The best he could probably do is go to ground inside England but even that is not that simple.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#119

Post by rhizome »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #95
jacquesm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That must be why he turned himself in.

Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.

Wouldn't his skipping bail ruin everything he's worked for and towards with Wikileaks? It just doesn't make sense to me that he's considered a flight risk.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#120

Post by julian37 »

jacquesm wrote: post #98
moxiemk1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.

The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island. Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable. I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under…

To be pedantic, England is not an island, nor is the UK, strictly speaking (it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland). Great Britain is an island.
Post reply on HN