Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

first previous 3 4 5 6 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:03PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

One of Julian's accusers fled to occupied Palestine several weeks ago, so won't be available to testify.

Steve Conner

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:28PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Ash Small wrote ...

History tells us that appeasment doesn't work.

Or maybe history simply doesn't record the occasions when appeasement worked, because they're really boring compared to resistance and wars.

I must admit that I'm on the Wikileaks side in this one. It is an interesting debate though. We could see it in the context of the First Amendment: free speech is to be prohibited if it creates a clear and present danger.

But to whom? I'm sure the US Government thinks that Wikileaks presents a clear and present danger to them. Obviously we know that the First Amendment is not to be interpreted in this way: it specifies the rights of citizens, not government bodies, politicians and "Men In Black". But does it? Where in the US constitution does it actually spell out the exact extent of skulduggery that the government is allowed to indulge in, in the interest of preserving itself?

Ash Small

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:45PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

The other side of the coin is 'Can "THEY" actually enforce the laws they make?'

They can't close down the internet completely. Sure, they can lock up a few individuals, execute a few 'martyrs', but can they actually stop it?

GluD

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:46PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

Surely we have a right to know but we dont have a right to break the law to get to know it.
You call it protetesting, if that protest is in a orderly manner, which in my experince is rarely the case, its fine. But if the so called protest is breaking the law I dont think it does anybody any good.

Im all in for resistance to abusive powers of various goverments IF that resitance have a purpose and not just be foolish "pushing back" just for the fun of it. Which is what is going on at this moment, people just resisting, simply just to do "something" so later in life they might say to themselves " we did not quit". Simply being stubborn isnt gonna help anybody in matters like these. Finding new, legal, ways that hold up in court, (like the friends to those guys that got wrongfully prisoned for rape did, by filming the girl saying it was lies, they proved their innocence and regained their freedom) unless people come to their senses and stop this useless violence and come up with new ways to actually prove things its only gonna head down for the worse. These documents proves nothing as they could be edited by wikileaks, and they are stolen so I dont think they'd hold up as evidence for anything else than the wikileaks organisation stealing them.

Ash Small

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:54PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

GluD wrote ...

. These documents proves nothing as they could be edited by wikileaks, and they are stolen so I dont think they'd hold up as evidence for anything else than the wikileaks organisation stealing them.

I think the US Government has already admitted that they are genuine. If they turn out to, for example, expose war crimes that have been covered up, which is the greater crime?

GluD

Fri Dec 10 2010, 03:58PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

Obivously the war crimes, only a brainwashed redneck would claim otherwise, but it doesnt change the fact that people shouldnt break the law to "prove" others breaking it. As I mentioned I dont think the documents would hold up to prove for example war crimes in court, because they are stolen. So what is the point? You got some info but you cant use it for anything else than "now I know that too". Is it worth our freedom just to know that? And not be able to do anything about it because the info was obtained in an ilegal manner? I think not.

Ash Small

Fri Dec 10 2010, 04:11PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

GluD wrote ...

. Is it worth our freedom just to know that? .

We only have 'freedom' in the first place because people fought for it. If journalists like Assange are to be locked up for reporting the truth how much freedom do any of us really have?

He wasn't inciting others to break the law, he wasn't making false accusations, or even stating his opinions, he was simply reporting the truth.

This issue is really about 'freedom of the press'. It is political censorship in it's worst form

GluD

Fri Dec 10 2010, 04:36PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

Ash Small,
One of the really big mistakes by the wikileaks is that because they was foolish enough to steal these papers the goverments now have a perfectly legit reason to lock them up. They dont have to lock him up for saying the truth, they can just lock him and his folks up for stealing and publishing classified documents. If they had obtained them in some clever, although more demanding legal way, instead of just the quick ilegal way, it would've been just as easy for the goverment to lock him up, but it would make for a much worse case against the goverment, because it would be obivous for everyone that it was a wrongfull arrest.
That is what freedom is made of, not just some quick and dirty, lets steal this and that paper and publish it.

In my opnion, beacuse of this quick&dirty approach by the wikileaks organisation, it has all been in vain and probaly is going to reduce our degrees of freedom instead of improving it, that is what makes me so angry about all this. And you lot just seem to think theyre heros for what they did ?

Mattski

Fri Dec 10 2010, 04:58PM

Registered Member #1792 Joined: Fri Oct 31 2008, 08:12PM
Location: University of California
Posts: 527

wrote ...
Obivously the war crimes, only a brainwashed redneck would claim otherwise, but it doesnt change the fact that people shouldnt break the law to "prove" others breaking it. As I mentioned I dont think the documents would hold up to prove for example war crimes in court, because they are stolen. So what is the point?
(snip)

That depends heavily on jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer, but I think there are jurisdictions which accept improperly gathered evidence. Not all US jurisdictions operate exactly the same way, and this is also an international affair, so there's no one set of rules. And if a prosecutor knows the document exists, can't he just subpoena it in a proper matter? Oh, but the government would claim national security privilege if the document was legally subpoenaed...

Or worst case scenario, if it being "stolen" does make it inadmissible as evidence, there are bound to be similar documents and witness accounts to corroborate a crime taking place, once the existence of the crime is no longer covered up.

wrote ...
One of the really big mistakes by the wikileaks is that because they was foolish enough to steal these papers the goverments now have a perfectly legit reason to lock them up.

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. To my knowledeg, Wikileaks is a distributor of documents which other parties have leaked. Although not entirely the same, it's similar to a news outlet publishing leaked classified information.

For the record I think that Wikileaks has done good with some of the documents they've released. I've not followed the releases closely in the news, but that the Yemen government was covering up US military operations on their soil seems like something the Yemenis would really want to know about. Some leaked documents are exposing secret information for little purpose, like the list of facilities vital to US security. I don't see any scandal, cover-up, or corruption here, so why release that document?

Nicko

Fri Dec 10 2010, 04:59PM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

GluD wrote ...

Ash Small,
One of the really big mistakes by the wikileaks is that because they was foolish enough to steal these papers...

They didn't steal them - it appears they were stolen by a US military official (not proven yet). You could accuse them of handling stolen goods, but journalists on the NYT etc. do that with documents probably every day. The only thing that makes this different is the sheer scale of it.

Cheers

first previous 3 4 5 6 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob