Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
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 Your inside knowledge?
(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
).Murph7355 said:
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 Your inside knowledge?
scherzkeks said:
I base my opinion of him and Wikileaks as a whole on the invaluable data leaked to date and its effects on national discourse and our lives; not an opinion piece from some propaganda arm of the institutes affected.
Righto.Pray tell the material changes to all our lives thanks to Julian Assange's actions.
Can you also guarantee that nobody has been put in harm's way as a result of his actions?
I would say most people have similar feelings and beliefs to him at some point in their lives. Fortunately the vast majority of us grow out of them in our late teens.
And before you ask me to prove the converse, he's the one positing the theory that absolute disclosure is "a good thing". He needs to prove that. Or at least demonstrate the strict vetting procedures he has around what actually gets disclosed.
Murph7355 said:
Righto.
Pray tell the material changes to all our lives thanks to Julian Assange's actions.
Can you also guarantee that nobody has been put in harm's way as a result of his actions?
I would say most people have similar feelings and beliefs to him at some point in their lives. Fortunately the vast majority of us grow out of them in our late teens.
And before you ask me to prove the converse, he's the one positing the theory that absolute disclosure is "a good thing". He needs to prove that. Or at least demonstrate the strict vetting procedures he has around what actually gets disclosed.
Well said, who the fPray tell the material changes to all our lives thanks to Julian Assange's actions.
Can you also guarantee that nobody has been put in harm's way as a result of his actions?
I would say most people have similar feelings and beliefs to him at some point in their lives. Fortunately the vast majority of us grow out of them in our late teens.
And before you ask me to prove the converse, he's the one positing the theory that absolute disclosure is "a good thing". He needs to prove that. Or at least demonstrate the strict vetting procedures he has around what actually gets disclosed.
k is Assange to decide what should & shouldn't be in the public domain. Ridiculous that anyone can support the creepy attention seeker. He plays straight into our enemy-state's hands and produces little other effect.Murph7355 said:
scherzkeks said:
I base my opinion of him and Wikileaks as a whole on the invaluable data leaked to date and its effects on national discourse and our lives; not an opinion piece from some propaganda arm of the institutes affected.
Can you also guarantee that nobody has been put in harm's way as a result of his actions?.
The probability of you doing so is about as high as you admitting you have no insight whatsoever on Wiki's redacting process.
At 4 posts in and no content, I think it is safe to say we know the answer.
scherzkeks said:
The onus is on you to prove leaks have harmed people, or "national security" (suitably vague again, of course).
The probability of you doing so is about as high as you admitting you have no insight whatsoever on Wiki's redacting process.
At 4 posts in and no content, I think it is safe to say we know the answer.
The onus is not on me to do anything of the sort. Assange is the one breaking the law to release papers that he cannot give any surety have been vetted.The probability of you doing so is about as high as you admitting you have no insight whatsoever on Wiki's redacting process.
At 4 posts in and no content, I think it is safe to say we know the answer.
The onus is therefore on him and his supporters to demonstrate this.
As for lack of content, you seem to be competing with me on that front. Your posts are equally "tacit proof free", they just come from the flipside of the debate.
In itself that does not make that stance more valid.
We elect people to look after details like this. They will inevitably get some things wrong, but they are elected to cover the base. Assange is not. I would suggest that strengthens the argument that he needs to prove he us being responsible.
Murph7355 said:
I agree with you, to a point btw. But equally I understand there are things the public has no right to know
what would these things be ? from my perspective (i appreciate my views on these things are a bit way out there) everyone that is paid by the tax payer is basically owned by the taxpayer in their working time. they are public servants ,with the emphasis being on the word servant. they should exist solely to benefit the lives of the people that pay their wages , no matter how high the office is they hold.far too many of the
s (for that is what the majority of senior public servants are) think they are running personal domains and feel they should be "shaping the world" when the vast majority that put them into power think they should be doing no more than running the country cost effectively and efficiently.i also think assange is a tosser based on the report that he deliberately either never used or removed a condom when his partners at the time explicitly asked him to use one. that sort of deceit leads me to be very wary of anything that comes out of his mouth.
Seems simple to me. If you release a million documents (or whatever the number) and amongst them are details of people who have helped our forces and/or security services in places such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and you do fk all to redact those details, you haven't acted responsibly.
How you disclose the information is entirely separate to whether or not you should disclose the information.
k all to redact those details, you haven't acted responsibly.How you disclose the information is entirely separate to whether or not you should disclose the information.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Seems simple to me. If you release a million documents (or whatever the number) and amongst them are details of people who have helped our forces and/or security services in places such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and you do fk all to redact those details, you haven't acted responsibly.
How you disclose the information is entirely separate to whether or not you should disclose the information.
i can definitely agree on that point. something else that marks him out as a bell end of the highest order.k all to redact those details, you haven't acted responsibly.How you disclose the information is entirely separate to whether or not you should disclose the information.
Transmitter Man said:
Murph,
What are your thoughts of for example an NHS whistle blower who after blowing may be hounded out of their job despite employment rights?
Phil
Totally different situation. What are your thoughts of for example an NHS whistle blower who after blowing may be hounded out of their job despite employment rights?
Phil
One assumes the whistle-blower is using only the information needed to focus on a specific issue. And has first hand experience of the wrong doing.
In that case, they should be protected.
If, on the other hand, the whistle-blower simply suspected wrong doing and dumped out every piece of info they could lay their hands on to let others work it out... then they should do a runner to the spare bedroom of the Ecuadorian embassy
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff