Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Jonesy23]

Nope. Still no sympathy here for a narcissistic tt who screwed over a load of people who supported him and whose every recent action is more about feeding his ego than any real problems he might have.

If he really was at risk of ending up in the US that could have happened while he was in the UK. A Swedish rape investigation was exactly that, not part of some complex conspiracy.

With luck he'll be spending years more locked up in a small room of his own volition dodging the fallout from jumping bail. All while loudly proclaiming that he's a victim and soaking up misguided adoration.

He was, is and always will be a narcissist. Sharing information was never his goal, if it was he wouldn't spend his life holding it back for personal advantage and gain, unlike certain others who actually sacrificed their personal freedom for that principle.

[anonymous-user]

Jonesy23 said:

Nope. Still no sympathy here for a narcissistic tt who screwed over a load of people who supported him and whose every recent action is more about feeding his ego than any real problems he might have.

If he really was at risk of ending up in the US that could have happened while he was in the UK. A Swedish rape investigation was exactly that, not part of some complex conspiracy.

With luck he'll be spending years more locked up in a small room of his own volition dodging the fallout from jumping bail. All while loudly proclaiming that he's a victim and soaking up misguided adoration.

He was, is and always will be a narcissist. Sharing information was never his goal, if it was he wouldn't spend his life holding it back for personal advantage and gain, unlike certain others who actually sacrificed their personal freedom for that principle.

I completely agree.

The fact that he has spent years living in a tiny room is completely and utterly of his own making, yet he spends his days whining about it and lashing out at the world like it's the biggest injustice ever.

Tosser.

[Ayahuasca]

I may be missing something here, but instead of surrounding the embassy with expensive and high visibility police and announcing that he will be arrested if he steps out, why cannot the UK remove the police presence, and announce, when asked, that 'We have no views on Assange - he can do as he pleases.'

Then, when he does step out, plain clothes police nab him and submit him to justice.

[scherzkeks]

Yipper said:

Assange is going to be imprisoned in the Ecuador Embassy or a US jail for the rest of his days. He cannot seriously expect to betray the most powerful nation on Earth and get a free pass to South America. If he does get smuggled somewhere, unless he goes to Russia, the US will hunt him down and pop him off in a car crash or something.

Yet he lies he exposed will remain exposed. And other brave souls will continue where he left off.

[Murph7355]

scherzkeks said:

Yet he lies he exposed will remain exposed. And other brave souls will continue where he left off.

I thought he tends to assert that he didn't expose anything?

Responsible disclosure is what we should want, and what he has been involved with is not that. Some "lies" are necessary. The conundrum comes with who decides. Assange is not fit to make that decision IMO as he does not think about his actions carefully enough.

[Halb]

scherzkeks said:

Yet he lies he exposed will remain exposed. And other brave souls will continue where he left off.

Indeed.

[scherzkeks]

Murph7355 said:

scherzkeks said:

Yet he lies he exposed will remain exposed. And other brave souls will continue where he left off.

I thought he tends to assert that he didn't expose anything?

Responsible disclosure is what we should want, and what he has been involved with is not that. Some "lies" are necessary. The conundrum comes with who decides. Assange is not fit to make that decision IMO as he does not think about his actions carefully enough.

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

[Murph7355]

scherzkeks said:

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

So do they sanitise it ahead of publication? All of it?

[bitchstewie]

scherzkeks said:

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

Pretty sure there were quite a few unredacted details of people who were informants in places like Afghanistan/Libya/Syria and so on.

i.e. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wiki...

[jshell]

bhstewie said:

scherzkeks said:

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

Pretty sure there were quite a few unredacted details of people who were informants in places like Afghanistan/Libya/Syria and so on.

i.e. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wiki...

There was a good documentary on this subject where Assange refuse, point blank to redact personal details of interpreters working for the Western forces. That was the turning point for me on thinking he was some sort of crusader. He's not, he's a . However, I still think the Swedish investigation was a ploy to get him to the US.

[Murph7355]

jshell said:

There was a good documentary on this subject where Assange refuse, point blank to redact personal details of interpreters working for the Western forces. That was the turning point for me on thinking he was some sort of crusader. He's not, he's a . However, I still think the Swedish investigation was a ploy to get him to the US.

The documentary must all have been part of the MSM conspiracy against him

As for the ploy...it would have been far easier just to have away with him when he was in this country. Of all the countries to try skullduggery through, I'm far from convinced Sweden would be the one to choose.

The history linked to by frankenstein earlier suggests to me that the Swedes would be far more reticent now than they ever were a decade or so ago. But then I am somewhat biased thinking he's a spineless weasel.

[jshell]

Murph7355 said:

jshell said:

There was a good documentary on this subject where Assange refuse, point blank to redact personal details of interpreters working for the Western forces. That was the turning point for me on thinking he was some sort of crusader. He's not, he's a . However, I still think the Swedish investigation was a ploy to get him to the US.

The documentary must all have been part of the MSM conspiracy against him

As for the ploy...it would have been far easier just to have away with him when he was in this country. Of all the countries to try skullduggery through, I'm far from convinced Sweden would be the one to choose.

The history linked to by frankenstein earlier suggests to me that the Swedes would be far more reticent now than they ever were a decade or so ago. But then I am somewhat biased thinking he's a spineless weasel.

I think he's spineless, but I've lived in Scandinavia. I wouldn't trust the Swedish authorities one little bit and would have done the same as Assange for this fake-case.

[Finlandia]

jshell said:

I think he's spineless, but I've lived in Scandinavia. I wouldn't trust the Swedish authorities one little bit and would have done the same as Assange for this fake-case.

I live in Sweden, and I fully agree.

[bitchstewie]

jshell said:

bhstewie said:

scherzkeks said:

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

Pretty sure there were quite a few unredacted details of people who were informants in places like Afghanistan/Libya/Syria and so on.

i.e. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wiki...

There was a good documentary on this subject where Assange refuse, point blank to redact personal details of interpreters working for the Western forces. That was the turning point for me on thinking he was some sort of crusader. He's not, he's a . However, I still think the Swedish investigation was a ploy to get him to the US.

Tbh I don't have a view on the sexual assault and rape charges as I've just not read enough about it.

I see it quite simply, if the USA wants him they'll get him, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but if the Met Police said there's no interest in him at all and they withdrew the Police detail tomorrow I would be amazed if he set foot outside as he knows he's going to end up in a courtroom somewhere, some day.

Let his supporters book him a flight to Ecuador, see how South America works out for him.

[scherzkeks]

Murph7355 said:

scherzkeks said:

The DNC leaks and Snowden leaks on mass surveillance exposed quite bit of information that should have been in the public realm.

Your statements on responsibility are vague, and you are in no position to know what is or is not done with the information prior to publication. Wiki has made several public statements about their desire and willingness to work with affected organizations to sanitize when necessary.

So do they sanitise it ahead of publication? All of it?

You claimed to have insight. I just support the public's right to know certain things.

[Murph7355]

scherzkeks said:

You claimed to have insight. I just support the public's right to know certain things.

Not really.

I claimed that what he did was not responsible. Others have linked to articles that would back this up. I would also suggest that the sheer volume of what has been released could not have been responsibly checked by anyone.

It's not "insight". Just logical deduction.

In terms of being "vague", what "certain things" do you think the public have a right to know? And in what contexts?

I agree with you, to a point btw. But equally I understand there are things the public has no right to know

I do not think Assange has good enough judgement to be the one deciding based on his actions over the last 5yrs or so.

[scherzkeks]

Murph7355 said:

scherzkeks said:

You claimed to have insight. I just support the public's right to know certain things.

I do not think Assange has good enough judgement to be the one deciding based on his actions over the last 5yrs or so.

Based on what?

Your inside knowledge?

[frankenstein12]

Murph7355 said:

scherzkeks said:

You claimed to have insight. I just support the public's right to know certain things.

Not really.

I claimed that what he did was not responsible. Others have linked to articles that would back this up. I would also suggest that the sheer volume of what has been released could not have been responsibly checked by anyone.

It's not "insight". Just logical deduction.

In terms of being "vague", what "certain things" do you think the public have a right to know? And in what contexts?

I agree with you, to a point btw. But equally I understand there are things the public has no right to know

I do not think Assange has good enough judgement to be the one deciding based on his actions over the last 5yrs or so.

Who does? The Governments who have been exposed for acting against the interests of their people and who were supposed to be self regulating?

Wikileaks and Snowden have exposed the US and others dirty secrets that the public had a right to know.

I accept there are things the public should not know but in my line of work I have seen and heard things I believe the public have a right to know as they are in the public's interest as it shows the government not acting in the best interest of its citizens.

Unfortunately I have no intention of doing what Snowden, Assange and other leakers have done. My mouth is sealed as I know how far government will go to punish or silence whistleblowers or leakers.


Funnily enough it gets reported quite often how whistleblowers are treated within government organisations such as the NHS where they end up losing their careers and they get massively smeared for speaking up. People rather blithely tend to forget about that and the fact it keeps happening even though the government keeps saying they will "protect" whistleblowers.

They have zero intention of doing so because when they start protecting them it starts exposing the government. None so selfish as those in power.

[Zod]

frankenstein12 said:

Murph7355 said:

scherzkeks said:

You claimed to have insight. I just support the public's right to know certain things.

Not really.

I claimed that what he did was not responsible. Others have linked to articles that would back this up. I would also suggest that the sheer volume of what has been released could not have been responsibly checked by anyone.

It's not "insight". Just logical deduction.

In terms of being "vague", what "certain things" do you think the public have a right to know? And in what contexts?

I agree with you, to a point btw. But equally I understand there are things the public has no right to know

I do not think Assange has good enough judgement to be the one deciding based on his actions over the last 5yrs or so.

Who does? The Governments who have been exposed for acting against the interests of their people and who were supposed to be self regulating?

Wikileaks and Snowden have exposed the US and others dirty secrets that the public had a right to know.

I accept there are things the public should not know but in my line of work I have seen and heard things I believe the public have a right to know as they are in the public's interest as it shows the government not acting in the best interest of its citizens.

Unfortunately I have no intention of doing what Snowden, Assange and other leakers have done. My mouth is sealed as I know how far government will go to punish or silence whistleblowers or leakers.


Funnily enough it gets reported quite often how whistleblowers are treated within government organisations such as the NHS where they end up losing their careers and they get massively smeared for speaking up. People rather blithely tend to forget about that and the fact it keeps happening even though the government keeps saying they will "protect" whistleblowers.

They have zero intention of doing so because when they start protecting them it starts exposing the government. None so selfish as those in power.

What you meant to say is that you can't leak anything, because you don't have access to anything of any importance.

[Murph7355]

scherzkeks said:

Based on what?

Your inside knowledge?

Based on the articles written about him, listening to him speak etc. You know, exactly the same sort of sources you use to have a contrary opinion

(Unless you are him. Or a relative/close friend. In which case, persuade us. Persuade us how he has personally vetted millions of documents to ensure no harm can come from them ).