191–200 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you have to be special kind of reckless to be in US friendly jurisdictions when pissing off the State Department ... Assange wanted to play with the big boys. He got his wish granted.
If I understand well, you are essentially saying "well done". Let us agree to disagree.
The judgement was made long before Assange even set foot in the US. This is just a show to try and deter other people from exposing their dirty secrets. If they could get Snowden, he'd be treated in the same manner for exposing their misdeeds. It's a rigged game.
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of journalists, say, in France for example, hurl shit in the face of US every day, with lots of investigations, and they still are more or less protected and the country where they live abide by the law... So, that's what personally I would have expected and hoped about Assange too. The reality is different from what you present: it is not common that journalists opposing to US are (internationally) repressed at…
It depends on what line is crossed. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize and still assassinated a US citizen on foreign soil without due process and justified it with a loop hole in the law. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... the take away is this, when you're on the US Gov. shit list you're safe until you're not.
So he was totally not helping people know the truth, as a journalist would be, and instead he was totally trying to kill or help killing people and destroy civilizations.
Also, this was the context of war, on a war field (and with a terrorist organization).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on what line is crossed. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize and still assassinated a US citizen on foreign soil without due process and justified it with a loop hole in the law. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... the take away is this, when you're on the US Gov. shit list you're safe until you're not.
Yeah but, 1/ not a journalist, 2/ member of a huge killers club, 3/ propagandist of religious numbness contrary to the diffusing of facts and contrary to the useful understanding of the world's mechanics. So he was totally not helping people know the truth, as a journalist would be, and instead he was totally trying to kill or help killing people and destroy civilizations. Also, this was the context of war, on a war…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.
Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I think Assange (and others like him) are naive to assume that bringing leaks to the general public really has that much of an effect in today's world - people just don't care enough. You won't find many people actually reading the documents... maybe they notice those going viral, but that's probably it. People don't associate WikiLeaks with the idea of transparency, they a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the info false, or do you just object to the sourcing?
Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that…
Are you going to change your stance or are you going to stand by your incorrect, if not slanderous, claim?