59 replies to this topic

[Padge]

Not convinced with your idea that he is safe in jail. A lot of people commit suicide in jail, he may already have enough rope he may just need someone to help him with the knot.

you've got a point there!

get a good insight into the guy from the New Yorker article I mentioned earlier.

He wants to operate outside of the law so he shouldn't be suprised, along with those that help him, if governments decide he has to go even if that means they have to use methods that he would take delight in exposing.

There are ways of dealing with sensitive information that gets out, his way is not the way to do it.

[sam]

His releases of Afghan material had the names of local informants included in them. Quite a few are probably now dead as a result.

Whatever he has got coming to him he deserves for that alone but it is rough justice.

the whole point of being an informant is giving information that can lead to the prevention of crime or the capture/death of criminals/enemies. part of the job description is 'brief but very eventful last few minutes of life if rumbled'.

[sam]

forgetting the current charges he's facing for a minute.

good luck to the bloke. he's not daft, he knows releasing this sort of stuff will have consequences, which he's probably prepared for.

the beauty is in this day and age now the genie is out of the bottle it'll be bloody difficult to get it back in and there'll be plenty of others willing to take this chaps place should he have an unfortunate accident.

[sam]

He wants to operate outside of the law so he shouldn't be suprised, along with those that help him, if governments decide he has to go even if that means they have to use methods that he would take delight in exposing.

There are ways of dealing with sensitive information that gets out, his way is not the way to do it.

which laws is he operating outside of?

[Padge]

which laws is he operating outside of?

Before you get on to the complicated stuff he is in receipt of stolen goods.

[sam]

Before you get on to the complicated stuff he is in receipt of stolen goods.

like the guardian etc? can we expect their bank accounts frozen?

what are the complicated ones?

[goldcard]

Be interesting to see what they've held back as "insurance".

Allow b3ta to help...

[Padge]

like the guardian etc? can we expect their bank accounts frozen?

what are the complicated ones?

I don't see a problem with going for any newspaper that uses illegaly gained material, especially when its publication can be a threat to the countries interest during a time of war. When we say free press, we do not mean free to break or ignore laws.

Hacking is illegal, I would imagine, in most countries in the world and certainly is in the western democracies. The complications come in because you can hack across international boundries.

Sam you know dammed well that America, the UK and every country in the world has laws covering espionage, which is effectively what is going on.

People seem to think because they don't see bombers flying overhead in this country that we are not at war. We are at war.

This democratic free thinker is so confident that he isn't breaking the law that he chooses to keep well away from the USA I notice.

Demcoracies are not strong because we have freedom of the press or a right to information, they are strong because the vast majority of people know how to behave responsibly.

This man's idiotic campaign will result in the opposite to what he is trying to acheive, governments will become even more secretive and information laws will be tightened.

[JohnM]

Wikileaks has been going for 3 1/2 years and has in many ways been a sort of whistleblower's mouthpiece. he started as a result of trying to find out what happened when two Reuters staff were killed by US troops in Afghanistan. That event makes harrowing reading (as do all war stories) if anyone can be bothered to read about it.

Wikileaks also uncovered stuff about Guantanamo Bay and lots of other stuff.

Yes, it could be argued that he was in receipt of stolen goods, but so could many of the (legitimate) whistleblowers.

The best way not to put lives at risk in the war in Afghanistan might be not to be there in the first place.

If the guy is legitimately charged with rape, and if the law here and in Sweden is being enforced correctly and he is found guilty, then he must face the music.

If however, this is a put up job deigned to let the US get hold of the guy, then that is wrong. Just because he has (I'm sure there will be many lawyers arguing this ) broken the law does not give the US the right to kill him.

[JohnM]

What?

Don't be a cretin....

I think you should withdraw your comment, or take a short break.

[sam]

I don't see a problem with going for any newspaper that uses illegaly gained material, especially when its publication can be a threat to the countries interest during a time of war. When we say free press, we do not mean free to break or ignore laws.

just because something published could be a threat to the countries interest doesn't make them illegal, it just means those in power would rather they stayed secret.

Hacking is illegal, I would imagine, in most countries in the world and certainly is in the western democracies. The complications come in because you can hack across international boundries.

who's hacked anything? from what i've read it's one bloke out of god knows how many in the states with access to this stuff who's passed on the info.

Sam you know dammed well that America, the UK and every country in the world has laws covering espionage, which is effectively what is going on.

then they should have charged him with espionage when the first lot of stuff came out.

People seem to think because they don't see bombers flying overhead in this country that we are not at war. We are at war.

it's not the bombers overhead, but those on buses and tubes.

This democratic free thinker is so confident that he isn't breaking the law that he chooses to keep well away from the USA I notice.

quite a sensible stance to take judging by gitmo bay's history.

Demcoracies are not strong because we have freedom of the press or a right to information, they are strong because the vast majority of people know how to behave responsibly.

you mean conform? a strong democracy is judged on how much you can tell those in charge to get bent.

This man's idiotic campaign will result in the opposite to what he is trying to acheive, governments will become even more secretive and information laws will be tightened.

what's he trying to achieve? it seems to me he's trying to ###### off major governments, expecially the yanks, and it's working a treat so far but in 5 years it'll be ancient history. and if the upshot is governments try even harder not to tell us stuff that they really didn't want us to know in the first place then i for one really couldn't give a toss.

[Padge]

Wikileaks has been going for 3 1/2 years and has in many ways been a sort of whistleblower's mouthpiece. he started as a result of trying to find out what happened when two Reuters staff were killed by US troops in Afghanistan. That event makes harrowing reading (as do all war stories) if anyone can be bothered to read about it.

Wikileaks also uncovered stuff about Guantanamo Bay and lots of other stuff.

Yes, it could be argued that he was in receipt of stolen goods, but so could many of the (legitimate) whistleblowers.

The best way not to put lives at risk in the war in Afghanistan might be not to be there in the first place.

If the guy is legitimately charged with rape, and if the law here and in Sweden is being enforced correctly and he is found guilty, then he must face the music.

If however, this is a put up job deigned to let the US get hold of the guy, then that is wrong. Just because he has (I'm sure there will be many lawyers arguing this ) broken the law does not give the US the right to kill him.

I have watched the videos and read the reports about Reuters guys, journalist goes to war zone and gets killed isn't unusual. Military shoot the wrong people, isn't unusual. Civilians get killed in a war, it happens. What you caqnnot afford to happen with these events is for them to be used to undermine your overall objective.

You may say if we were not in Afghanastin these things wouldn't have happened, but Al Qeada has to be dealt with, have you forgot how many innocent people were killed in the attacks on the twin towers and on the London Underground. Modern philosophy is that you fight your wars on your enemies territory. The war argument though is a different one and we are fighting a war in Afghanistan whether you like it or not. Do you honestly believe if we had not gone for Al Qeada on their home turf they would have stoppped trying to kill people in this country and others, they are still trying but on the whole they are pre-occupied with saving their own skins at the moment.

There are too many short memories in this world.

[sam]

just found this, no idea on the standing of this legalweek site, but if it's a bunch of numpties then i apologise.

has he acted illegally

[JohnM]

There are too many short memories in this world.

Aren't there just. Remember Vietnam?

From here

Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon Papers shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives.

[Padge]

just because something published could be a threat to the countries interest doesn't make them illegal, it just means those in power would rather they stayed secret.

Realising information that is of benefit to a terrorist would be considered illegal. For example civilain companies who supply material to the miltary AND if production was disrupted could have an impact on operations.

He has released details of what the military considers soft targets.

who's hacked anything? from what i've read it's one bloke out of god knows how many in the states with access to this stuff who's passed on the info.

You are confusing the current sagaa with lots of other stuff he has been involved in, a lot of it gqined by hacking.

then they should have charged him with espionage when the first lot of stuff came out.

Maybe they should.

it's not the bombers overhead, but those on buses and tubes.

That is we are fighting in Afghanistan and this idiot is trying his best to get our soldiers killed out there.

quite a sensible stance to take judging by gitmo bay's history.

Why has he anything to fear if he has broken no laws.

you mean conform? a strong democracy is judged on how much you can tell those in charge to get bent.

Having the right to protest does not give you the right to offer information freely that is of use to an enemy that you are at war with.

what's he trying to achieve? it seems to me he's trying to ###### off major governments, expecially the yanks, and it's working a treat so far but in 5 years it'll be ancient history. and if the upshot is governments try even harder not to tell us stuff that they really didn't want us to know in the first place then i for one really couldn't give a toss.

My brother, who is in the armed forces will be really pleased that you couldn't give a toss about his safety, I'll pass on your good wishes.

[Padge]

Aren't there just. Remember Vietnam?

Maybe Churchill should have told the British people the truth about what was going on in WWII to shorten the war.

[sam]

Realising information that is of benefit to a terrorist would be considered illegal. For example civilain companies who supply material to the miltary AND if production was disrupted could have an impact on operations.

He has released details of what the military considers soft targets.

yes, the 9/11 terrorists were having trouble locating the twin towers until some kind soul with the right clearance level pointed them out.

You are confusing the current sagaa with lots of other stuff he has been involved in, a lot of it gqined by hacking.

so this latest stuff wasn't hacked? you seemed to be suggesting earlier it was.

Hacking is illegal, I would imagine, in most countries in the world and certainly is in the western democracies. The complications come in because you can hack across international boundries.

That is we are fighting in Afghanistan and this idiot is trying his best to get our soldiers killed out
there

is that what we're going with now, no-one can know anything as someone may die.

Why has he anything to fear if he has broken no laws.

ah, that old chestnut. 'if you've done nowt wrong, why hide stuff'.

Having the right to protest does not give you the right to offer information freely that is of use to an enemy that you are at war with.

what info has the person who actually leaked the stuff given that they didn't already know? because to my idiotic eye, most of the stuff has been about embarassing a few heads of state, royals and politicians. the last time i looked tube maps are freely available as are bus timetables.

My brother, who is in the armed forces will be really pleased that you couldn't give a toss about his safety, I'll pass on your good wishes.

i'd be interested to know how you jumped to that spectacular conclusion from what i actually wrote.

[shrek]

Do you honestly believe if we had not gone for Al Qeada on their home turf they would have stoppped trying to kill people in this country and others, they are still trying but on the whole they are pre-occupied with saving their own skins at the moment.

There are too many short memories in this world.

Quite.

Maybe our "home turf" would have been a lot safer had we not alligned foreign policy with a right wing fruitcase from America and had we not been so happy to rush into war, one of which was illegal and the other unwinnable.

If there's blood on anyone's hands regarding this its Blairs for putting troops were they had no right to be in the first place.

Edited by shrek, 09 December 2010 - 07:57 AM.

[JohnM]

Maybe Churchill should have told the British people the truth about what was going on in WWII to shorten the war.

Maybe he should, maybe he should.

I understand your sensitivity on this topic given your brother's situation.

However, I can't help thinking that had Sam and I and others condemned Wikileaks and Assange from the outset, you'd have taken a different position.

Also I ma surprised at your statement, "Why has he anything to fear if he has broken no laws" when you yourself expect his demise, "if he gets 'taken out' he'll have brought it upon himself."

In addition, the bete noire of the left, the US Government, appears to be going beyond the law itself, Guantanamo style, in forcing MasterCard, Paypal, etc to cut Wikileaks off.

Edited by JohnM, 09 December 2010 - 09:12 AM.

[ckn]

just found this, no idea on the standing of this legalweek site, but if it's a bunch of numpties then i apologise.

has he acted illegally

Two decent magazines for lawyers in the UK, The Lawyer and Legal Week. Legal Week is the "lower brow" of the two but it has a decent standing with genuine credibility.