• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Julian Assange arrested

Swedish courts are not circuses.. certainly not under American control either..

(The Swedes kept strictly neutral during the Cold War, they don't owe the US any favors)

So why is he fighting his extradition if he's done nothing wrong?...

Or perhaps he HAS done something wrong...and like most criminals he's trying to delay the process as long as possible?



We don't know for sure and with any source of information in this case..it's tainted by bias...


I'm willing to actually let the courts decide...
 
Just as a clarification, the United States wasn't the only nation upset by the leak.
 
One of Assange's Wikileaks associates left the group and has written a book about it all.

The book's details about Assange are not pretty. Excerpts, (leaked to Cryptome...ah the irony), claim that Assange transitioned from being "imaginative, energetic (and) brilliant to a paranoid, power-hungry, megalomaniac." Although the exact nature of Domscheit-Berg's role in WikiLeaks is not defined, he was high up in the ranks, and had been photographed next to Assange right before he left to form OpenLeaks.
.
.
.
He concludes that the WikiLeaks submission system needed a total overhaul because "the owner and developer of that system has decided to no longer allow WikiLeaks to use it, due to the lack of trust in Julian and the way he is 'leading' this organization, and Julian behaving irresponsibly with source material."

As the book's contents are picked apart by the media world, details of Assange's gory personal life keep revealing themselves. Apparently he's fathered at least four children, ranging from 6 months to 20 years old (the latter, Daniel Assange, we knew about already). He also loved boasting about little versions of himself toddling around various continents. If this book doesn't convince psychologists to keep narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-5, nothing will.
Link


Pfffft, as I said, they will o to any lengths to make someone look bad if that person is considered a threat to themselves or their so-called 'national security', or as I like to call it, "Status quo"

What does that have to do with a former WikiLeaks staffer writing a book and criticizing Assange? (Further, this former staffer has started his own organization called OpenLeaks, which is a more decentralized version of WikiLeaks, and only acts as a conduit, not an editor or anything).

There really are some things the public shouldn't know. Total openness is anarchy, and counterproductive.
 
There really are some things the public shouldn't know. Total openness is anarchy, and counterproductive.

Really, and who gets to decide what is safe for us to know? I'm damn sure there are people who get their rocks off having that sort of power.

And that's why we have elections. If you don't trust the people in power, don't vote for them again and vote for people you do trust.
 
As the book's contents are picked apart by the media world, details of Assange's gory personal life keep revealing themselves. Apparently he's fathered at least four children, ranging from 6 months to 20 years old (the latter, Daniel Assange, we knew about already). He also loved boasting about little versions of himself toddling around various continents. If this book doesn't convince psychologists to keep narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-5, nothing will.
Link[/QUOTE]

He's a compelling personality and good looking to boot, I'm not surprised women want to have his babies.

Here's his son Daniel's webpage:

http://www.lemma.org/
 
There really are some things the public shouldn't know. Total openness is anarchy, and counterproductive.

Really, and who gets to decide what is safe for us to know? I'm damn sure there are people who get their rocks off having that sort of power.

And that's why we have elections. If you don't trust the people in power, don't vote for them again and vote for people you do trust.

Trouble is that almost none of the people that you can vote for are trustworthy, and you need stuff loads of money (either your own or from dubious sources that want your soul) to gain power yourself. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely as the old saying has it. I don't have a magic solution and neither does anyone else. That's why I like whistle blowers and people who are willing to risk all leaking stuff like this. They turn over the log and exposing all the vermin that crawl underneath.
 
Re: Secrecy.....

Different institutions have different imperatives. Obviously, governments (like any institution, really) are going to want to be able to have internal discussions kept private, and not reveal every personal conversation between diplomats.

But news organizations should be indifferent to that. If secret info is leaked to a news organization (whether Wikileaks counts as a news organization is, I suppose, a separate question), then I don't think it's wrong for them to print it. (Though, yes, certain very specific life-and-death exceptions should be made here, like the details of troop movements. And names should be redacted in cases where printing them would put the person's life in danger.) In that sense, I don't begrudge Wikileaks for releasing the cables.

Where Assange goes astray though, is when he starts asserting that government secrecy is always bad, by which he means that revealing secrets will inevitably lead to policy outcomes that he likes. I don't think that passes the smell test. If we were, for example, very close to a peace deal in the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the leaking of the concessions on the table by both sides might well cause the deal to blow up, and lead to many more years of conflict. So in that sense, Assange is wrong.

So if Wikileaks is meant to be an activist group, advancing a particular worldview, then I think Assange's view is a bit misguided. But if we're going to judge it as a news organization, then I don't have a problem with releasing the cables. News organizations should have a certain callousness regarding the question of whether releasing a particular piece of news will have a "good" or "bad" impact on the world. They should just report what they have, and leave it up to the rest of us to sort it out.
 
As the book's contents are picked apart by the media world, details of Assange's gory personal life keep revealing themselves. Apparently he's fathered at least four children, ranging from 6 months to 20 years old (the latter, Daniel Assange, we knew about already). He also loved boasting about little versions of himself toddling around various continents. If this book doesn't convince psychologists to keep narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-5, nothing will.
Link

He's a compelling personality and good looking to boot, I'm not surprised women want to have his babies.

Here's his son Daniel's webpage:

http://www.lemma.org/

Since when is fathering children considered to be 'gory'?
 
Really, and who gets to decide what is safe for us to know? I'm damn sure there are people who get their rocks off having that sort of power.

And that's why we have elections. If you don't trust the people in power, don't vote for them again and vote for people you do trust.

Trouble is that almost none of the people that you can vote for are trustworthy, and you need stuff loads of money (either your own or from dubious sources that want your soul) to gain power yourself. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely as the old saying has it. I don't have a magic solution and neither does anyone else. That's why I like whistle blowers and people who are willing to risk all leaking stuff like this. They turn over the log and exposing all the vermin that crawl underneath.

Exactly. Plus, to me, I feel elections, least presidential elections, are rigged. Look at the 2004 election, I felt the it was handed over to the incumbent. And, like you said, anyone that has tons of cash are only able to run....and I've never seen a person run for office and keep the promises they said they were going to do. Also, many people in politics are on a 'need to know' basis...including the ~sarcastic gasp~ president.

It amazes me that so many people out there say they can't stand their government and would love to see it change, but won't bother doing anything about it. These whistle blowers are doing just that, showing exactly what the all mighty Oz is behind the curtain.

There really are some things the public shouldn't know. Total openness is anarchy, and counterproductive.
What makes THEM privy to knowledge and not us normal people?
You remind me of Lester from Primeval, who thinks the government is right and that we lowly peons have no right whatsoever to know what's actually happening, and that we should just stick to working our asses off, making money, paying taxes and reproduce in order to make new future tax payers.

Knowledge is power. And since why should us...the people who supposedly elect these guys, be kept in the dark? Since when should only the military and the government have a monopoly of truth? We can't simply just little, well behaved monkeys working hard, make money, and pay taxes to be lied to and all that.

According to what you just said, the Chinese and former Egyptian governments are in the right restricting knowledge and keeping the public there all dumb and in the dark, then. I pray you never run for government positions.


Also, think of this:
What if the following occur, which I myself feel are happening:

1: Several of the wars we had the past were artificially created for the reasons of making money, gaining power, and taking away personal rights, and that so many people died for the mere sake of suits in congress and big business wanting some extra profit or power
2: Products, like say a prescription drug or food additive, can and will harm/kill someone that takes/uses it, and the makers knew that the entire time
3: That alien life, both hostile and friendly, are out there and visiting us on a regular basis, and it's been kept from us all this time. And that we could have begun a new era of learning, new technology, and meeting actual aliens have been prevented for so many decades? It's even been said the president is on a need to know basis regarding this topic.
4: The Kennedy actually was killed by several people and not some mere hick because the president wanted to tell us, the public, about something that was going on.
5: That internet uses could be cut off over here in the states in 'times of crisis', it happened in Egypt...and, ironically, the Egyptian government proved how ignorant and illiterate is was about its people.
6: That an illness or social problem that was supposedly a 'pandemic of epic proportions' was, in fact, just a lie to make money off it, or to merely scare people to keep them busy from thinking about something else.
7: That there are in fact much better sources of energy out there and that those in big oil are going out of their way to make sure we can't get it. Or that there's a cure for these big diseases out there, and it's something as simple like an herb or a mineral (something that you can't patent), and that big pharma has kept it secret and just making pills and chemicals that just don't work or make us sicker

And before anyone shouts tin foil hat wearing crackpot, think about it. You really feel that those guys running the government and military really are honorable men and women who want to serve us....I highly doubt it. Like the first person I quoted, as well as Dr. McCoy, "Some people can not resist the urge to play god". We need people to stand up and shout, "The Emperor's got no clothes on!" or to show the almighty Oz is just a sniveling little old man using smoke and mirrors to make us fear him.

If mankind is the survive this next millennium, we can not have these.....'truth embargoes' that run rampant. As I said, Truman was more regretful of making this whole national security thing he did more than bombing Japan (and that's saying something), and Eisenhower, after leaving office, warned us about the danger of the military industrial complex that was beginning to grow after the WW2 and post WW2 era.

Knowledge is power, we can not afford to the so-called 'gift' of ignorant bliss. There's a whole universe out there, and I want to know what's going on...does the government and military have the right to whack me upside the head with a rifle butt or zap me with a taser for wanting to know what's out there? I think not, and if you do, then you are a liar if you call yourself a patriot.....patriotism is not simply shouting "USA! USA!" and waving little flags about, you know. It's about keeping your government and military in line and demanding to know what's going on.
 
"Too long, didn't read."

What it actually means is "I read it and thought it was such rambling unfocused nonsense it wasn't worthy of a serious reply". Probably.
 
"Too long, didn't read."

What it actually means is "I read it and thought it was such rambling unfocused nonsense it wasn't worthy of a serious reply". Probably.
This was my thought upon reading it.
Re: Secrecy.....

Different institutions have different imperatives. Obviously, governments (like any institution, really) are going to want to be able to have internal discussions kept private, and not reveal every personal conversation between diplomats.

But news organizations should be indifferent to that. If secret info is leaked to a news organization (whether Wikileaks counts as a news organization is, I suppose, a separate question), then I don't think it's wrong for them to print it. (Though, yes, certain very specific life-and-death exceptions should be made here, like the details of troop movements. And names should be redacted in cases where printing them would put the person's life in danger.) In that sense, I don't begrudge Wikileaks for releasing the cables.

Where Assange goes astray though, is when he starts asserting that government secrecy is always bad, by which he means that revealing secrets will inevitably lead to policy outcomes that he likes. I don't think that passes the smell test. If we were, for example, very close to a peace deal in the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the leaking of the concessions on the table by both sides might well cause the deal to blow up, and lead to many more years of conflict. So in that sense, Assange is wrong.

So if Wikileaks is meant to be an activist group, advancing a particular worldview, then I think Assange's view is a bit misguided. But if we're going to judge it as a news organization, then I don't have a problem with releasing the cables. News organizations should have a certain callousness regarding the question of whether releasing a particular piece of news will have a "good" or "bad" impact on the world. They should just report what they have, and leave it up to the rest of us to sort it out.
I agree with your thoughts on secrecy. However, since Assange has the intent to do harm by publishing secret documents of national security [he has publicly stated his hatred of the United States of America] I do not consider WikiLeaks to be a news agency.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top