Politics US admits: We've got no evidence on Julian Assange

[strategy]

Hopefully the USA will now back away from Assange and let the world see whats really going on behind closed doors


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...reach-of-us-grip/story-e6frev00-1225995211919

 

[Father Jack]

and just you wait for this 'evidence' to magically appear once Assange gets extradited to Sweden, which no one can oppose now due to the fact that there is no chance of extradition to the US coz they don't have any evidence.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

 

[Spermbird]

and just you wait for this 'evidence' to magically appear once Assange gets extradited to Sweden, which no one can oppose now due to the fact that there is no chance of extradition to the US coz they don't have any evidence.

The extradition to Sweden won't happen as there is no legal grounds to do so.

 

[Ruck Machine]

I'm over the whole Assange issue.

Mainly I'm sick of tired of the anti-American left wing loonies championing him as some sort of freedom fighter.

 

[Father Jack]

The extradition to Sweden won't happen as there is no legal grounds to do so.

Either way they've made it appear less risky. sort of.

I'm over the whole Assange issue.

Mainly I'm sick of tired of the anti-American left wing loonies championing him as some sort of freedom fighter.

Freedom of information fighter?

 

[Caesar]

Freedom of information fighter?

I wouldn't describe him as such.

Assange's role in promoting freedom of information is almost more of a byproduct of his actual goal than anything else. The guy is essentially an anarchist who sees FOI as the most effective means of achieving his ends.

Whilst I think Wikileaks is a valuable resource in the information age, and I think a lot of important stuff has been leaked, my interest in FOI is about promoting responsible, open and and effective government. Assange's interest in FOI is all about crippling and bringing them down.

 

[rayven]

, my interest in FOI is about promoting responsible, open and and effective government. Assange's interest in FOI is all about crippling and bringing them down.

Assange is in no way trying to bring down responsible,effective and open goverment................... because we would need responsible,effective and open goverment first!

 

[Caesar]

Assange is in no way trying to bring down responsible,effective and open goverment................... because we would need responsible,effective and open goverment first!

That's a non sequitur. I wasn't saying government is currently all (or even any) of those things.

My point is that Assange isn't interested in improving government through increasing transparency (which is the reason most people want improved FOI). He just wants to bring governments down, and his chosen method is getting his hands on and releasing as much information as possible.

 

[Father Jack]

The perception likely lies in the government/organisations reaction. The more they complain, the more fuel gets put on the fire. Wikileaks may, just may make governments think twice if they think they have to defend certain actions that they can't guarantee will remain hidden.

 

[rayven]

My point is that Assange isn't interested in improving government through increasing transparency (which is the reason most people want improved FOI). He just wants to bring governments down, and his chosen method is getting his hands on and releasing as much information as possible.

If goverments behave in an effictive open and responsible manner Assange would be a non issue.

 

[Caesar]

That's not true at all. WikiLeaks releases confidential information indiscriminately. It does not differentiate between where governments are acting responsibly and where they are not.

One could say that it isn't their role to delineate between the two, but to say that a government can avoid damage by not doing the wrong thing is incorrect.

 

[rayven]

One could say that it isn't their role to delineate between the two, but to say that a government can avoid damage by not doing the wrong thing is incorrect.

I would agree that at times censorship is required, I would agree that there are bigger pictures that most citizens just do not get and if those most citizens were privy to some in house culture it would be detrimental to the decisions they make being a part of democracy.
However I feel (as do millions) that the balance has gone way to far (News corp is a classic example) Our goverments have agendas that best serve the needs of others and that is kept from us, amongst many issues.

I'm a firm believer that in for every action there is an oppisite and equal reaction, Assange is required commodity in this day an age with how the media operate. We are subjected to the decisions of 2 or 3 editors, who tell us things in 60-90 second bursts.That is and has been so easily manipulated.

Stop the boats........
Stop the taxes.
Stop the waste.....
But no one questioned this...........................

 

[Caesar]

I would agree that at times censorship is required, I would agree that there are bigger pictures that most citizens just do not get and if those most citizens were privy to some in house culture it would be detrimental to the decisions they make being a part of democracy.
However I feel (as do millions) that the balance has gone way to far (News corp is a classic example) Our goverments have agendas that best serve the needs of others and that is kept from us, amongst many issues.

Agree with all that. The problem is that striking a balance unavoidably involves someone at some point deciding what is in the public interest to be released. As soon as someone is handed that responsibility (government, Wikileaks, whoever) you end up with the perennial problem - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The way Assange/Wikileaks have combated that problem is basically release everything indiscriminately, and theoretically take judgement out of the equation altogether. Which is fine up to a point, but if Assange gets to the point he's indicated in his essays he aspires to - where this strategy is so effective and so pervasive that it's able to effectively cripple governments - the pendulum will have swung a long way too far in the opposite direction.

I really don't have a solution, but I don't think a war between information anarchists and Big Brother is going to produce the best outcome for your average citizen in the long run.

Which is why I have qualified support for Wikileaks. I think it is a vital and necessary facility in the information age, but also potentially a very dangerous one. And it's why I'm reluctant to jump on the bandwagon and treat Assange as a hero.

I don't know. It is a very interesting topic.

 

[Father Jack]

I don't believe that they do release everything indiscriminately. I think they do exercise judgment to some extent.

 

[Caesar]

That's why I said 'basically' and 'theoretically'. They do censor some limited personal information, and obviously due to volume they decide what will be released and when (which is a form of selectiveness in and of itself).

But they do try to release pretty much anything they're given, rather than make an assessment of public interest.

 

[OldBlueFan]

That's why I said 'basically' and 'theoretically'. They do censor some limited personal information, and obviously due to volume they decide what will be released and when (which is a form of selectiveness in and of itself).

But they do try to release pretty much anything they're given, rather than make an assessment of public interest.

You really want to check your facts before posting assertions like this.

The media's authoritarianism and WikiLeaks

That is false because WikiLeaks' release of cables had not been "indiscriminate" in any sense of the word. As this AP article documents -- and as a casual review of its site independently proves -- WikiLeaks has done very little other than publish the specific cables that have been first released by newspapers around the world, including with the redactions applied by those papers.

WikiLeaks: Selective revelations

Despite a reputation for indiscriminate leaking, the website has released only 2,658 of its 251,287 documents

It's so true that if people repeat a lie often and loud enough, it becomes accepted "wisdom".

 

[Caesar]

Of course they've barely released any of the cables, everyone knows that. If you're saying they don't intend to release them all, that's a different matter. I certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that, and they are still making daily releases, with the counter on their homepage that tracking how close they are to releasing the whole set.

As I said they do redact limited information from what they publish, and they do choose the order in which they release stuff (which is obviously dictated by how quickly they can physically process it). But I have never seen a statement saying that they selectively release anything. If they can verify, they publish.

 

[Jakko]

Mainly I'm sick of tired of the anti-American left wing loonies championing him as some sort of freedom fighter.

Spot on.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Of course they've barely released any of the cables, everyone knows that. If you're saying they don't intend to release them all, that's a different matter. I certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that, and they are still making daily releases, with the counter on their homepage that tracking how close they are to releasing the whole set.

As I said they do redact limited information from what they publish, and they do choose the order in which they release stuff (which is obviously dictated by how quickly they can physically process it). But I have never seen a statement saying that they selectively release anything. If they can verify, they publish.

Why is there any onus on them to "release a statement" of their intentions? What, so that government spin doctors can prepare their reactions? Or so that the effort to demonise Assange and destroy Wikileaks is ramped up a notch or two?

The fact is that Wikileaks has done far more good than harm and you would struggle to find any acknowledgement of that in the Murdoch and other mainstream press organisations. Therefore, you struggle to find too many folks who truly understand the importance of Wikileaks to the world. Especially given the level of secrecy of the US government and the fact that their press is basically a propagandistic mouthpiece for that government.

By the way, I quoted the wrong post of yours in my previous post. I meant to quote this one:

That's not true at all. WikiLeaks releases confidential information indiscriminately. It does not differentiate between where governments are acting responsibly and where they are not.

That comment is just all kinds of wrong and you should retract it.

 

[Caesar]

Why is there any onus on them to "release a statement" of their intentions?

There is no onus on them to do anything. There is an onus on you to support your claims. If you are saying that Wikileaks are selectively leaking the cables, then provide something of substance to back that up. Every indication thus far is that they ultimately intend to release everything, as with previous leaks.

That comment is just all kinds of wrong and you should retract it.

It's not wrong at all. When I say that their leaks are indiscriminate, I mean exactly that. They do not pick and choose what is released based on a subjective assessment of public interest, they release anything they receive that can be verified.

Yes, there are processing delays and minor redactions to protect third party privacy, but that is not the salient point.

 

[Clay Davis]

Caesar has the biggest boner for the status quo you could find.

 

[Sainteric]

Guess we are going to find out shortly what happens to Julian

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hopefully the USA will now back away from Assange and let the world see whats really going on behind closed doors


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...reach-of-us-grip/story-e6frev00-1225995211919

Since when did that stop them putting people in dungeons?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

I'm over the whole Assange issue.

Mainly I'm sick of tired of the anti-American left wing loonies championing him as some sort of freedom fighter.

Yet Assange stopped hillary in her tracks. What they call the left in America is out of control. They rigged the democratic primaries, bribed the media to get hillary elected. Killed whistle-blowers and all.

Assange brought it out in the open. The left blamed communists and Russia.

And trump won't prosecute Assange, he's doing what Assange wanted, the truth about the wars in the middle East

But one of the cia controlled mercanary armies will assassinate him at some point